[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 226 (Friday, November 22, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70104-70162]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27391]



[[Page 70103]]

Vol. 78

Friday,

No. 226

November 22, 2013

Part II





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species 
That are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual 
Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of 
Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 226 / Friday, November 22, 2013 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 70104]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0094; FF09E21000 FXES11190900000 134]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native 
Species That are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; 
Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description 
of Progress on Listing Actions

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of review.

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

SUMMARY: In this Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service (Service), present an updated list of plant and 
animal species native to the United States that we regard as candidates 
for or have proposed for addition to the Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended. Identification of candidate species can assist 
environmental planning efforts by providing advance notice of potential 
listings, allowing landowners and resource managers to alleviate 
threats and thereby possibly remove the need to list species as 
endangered or threatened. Even if we subsequently list a candidate 
species, the early notice provided here could result in more options 
for species management and recovery by prompting candidate conservation 
measures to alleviate threats to the species.
    The CNOR summarizes the status and threats that we evaluated in 
order to determine that species qualify as candidates and to assign a 
listing priority number (LPN) to each species or to determine that 
species should be removed from candidate status. Additional material 
that we relied on is available in the Species Assessment and Listing 
Priority Assignment Forms (species assessment forms) for each candidate 
species.
    Overall, this CNOR recognizes no new candidates, changes the LPN 
for three candidates, and removes three species from candidate status. 
Combined with other decisions for individual species that were 
published separately from this CNOR in the past year, the current 
number of species that are candidates for listing is 146.
    This document also includes our findings on resubmitted petitions 
and describes our progress in revising the Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) during the period October 1, 
2012, through September 30, 2013.
    We request additional status information that may be available for 
the 146 candidate species identified in this CNOR.

DATES: We will accept information on any of the species in this 
Candidate Notice of Review at any time.

ADDRESSES: This notice of review is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/cnor.html. Species assessment forms with information and references on 
a particular candidate species' range, status, habitat needs, and 
listing priority assignment are available for review at the appropriate 
Regional Office listed below in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION or at the 
Branch of Communications and Candidate Conservation, Arlington, VA (see 
address under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or on our Web site 
(http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/candidateSpecies.jsp). Please 
submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions of a 
general nature on this notice of review to the Arlington, VA, address 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any new 
information, materials, comments, or questions pertaining to a 
particular species to the address of the Endangered Species Coordinator 
in the appropriate Regional Office listed in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 
Species-specific information and materials we receive will be available 
for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at 
the appropriate Regional Office listed below under Request for 
Information in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. General information we 
receive will be available at the Branch of Communications and Candidate 
Conservation, Arlington, VA (see address under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief, Branch of Communications and 
Candidate Conservation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203 (telephone 703-358-2171). Persons 
who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 
Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We request additional status information 
that may be available for any of the candidate species identified in 
this CNOR. We will consider this information to monitor changes in the 
status or LPN of candidate species and to manage candidates as we 
prepare listing documents and future revisions to the notice of review. 
We also request information on additional species to consider including 
as candidates as we prepare future updates of this notice of review.

Candidate Notice of Review

Background

    The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.) (ESA), requires that we identify species of wildlife and plants 
that are endangered or threatened, based on the best available 
scientific and commercial information. As defined in section 3 of the 
ESA, an endangered species is any species that is in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a 
threatened species is any species that is likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. Through the Federal rulemaking 
process, we add species that meet these definitions to the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11 or the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Plants at 50 CFR 17.12. As part of this 
program, we maintain a list of species that we regard as candidates for 
listing. A candidate species is one for which we have on file 
sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to 
support a proposal for listing as endangered or threatened, but for 
which preparation and publication of a proposal is precluded by higher 
priority listing actions. We may identify a species as a candidate for 
listing after we have conducted an evaluation of its status on our own 
initiative, or resulting from a petition we have received. If we have 
made a positive finding on a petition to list a species, but we have 
found that listing is warranted but precluded by other higher priority 
listing actions we will add the species to our list of candidates.
    We maintain this list of candidates for a variety of reasons: (1) 
To notify the public that these species are facing threats to their 
survival; (2) to provide advance knowledge of potential listings that 
could affect decisions of environmental planners and developers; (3) to 
provide information that may stimulate and guide conservation efforts 
that will remove or reduce threats to these species and possibly make 
listing unnecessary; to request input from interested parties to help 
us identify those candidate species that may not require protection 
under the ESA as well as additional species that may require the ESA's 
protections; and (4) to request necessary information for setting 
priorities for preparing listing proposals.

[[Page 70105]]

We strongly encourage collaborative conservation efforts for candidate 
species, and offer technical and financial assistance to facilitate 
such efforts. For additional information regarding such assistance, 
please contact the appropriate Regional Office listed under Request for 
Information or visit our Web site, http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/cca.html.

Previous Notices of Review

    We have been publishing candidate notices of review (CNOR) since 
1975. The most recent CNOR (prior to this CNOR) was published on 
November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994). CNORs published since 1994 are 
available on our Web site, http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/cnor.html. For copies of CNORs published prior to 1994, please contact 
the Branch of Communications and Candidate Conservation (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above).
    On September 21, 1983, we published guidance for assigning an LPN 
for each candidate species (48 FR 43098). Using this guidance, we 
assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of 
threats, immediacy of threats, and taxonomic status; the lower the LPN, 
the higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 
would have the highest listing priority). Section 4(h)(3) of the ESA 
(16 U.S.C. 1533(h)(3)) requires the Secretary to establish guidelines 
for such a priority-ranking guidance system. As explained below, in 
using this system, we first categorize based on the magnitude of the 
threat(s), then by the immediacy of the threat(s), and finally by 
taxonomic status.
    Under this priority-ranking system, magnitude of threat can be 
either ``high'' or ``moderate to low.'' This criterion helps ensure 
that the species facing the greatest threats to their continued 
existence receive the highest listing priority. It is important to 
recognize that all candidate species face threats to their continued 
existence, so the magnitude of threats is in relative terms. For all 
candidate species, the threats are of sufficiently high magnitude to 
put them in danger of extinction, or make them likely to become in 
danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. But for species with 
higher magnitude threats, the threats have a greater likelihood of 
bringing about extinction or are expected to bring about extinction on 
a shorter timescale (once the threats are imminent) than for species 
with lower magnitude threats. Because we do not routinely quantify how 
likely or how soon extinction would be expected to occur absent 
listing, we must evaluate factors that contribute to the likelihood and 
time scale for extinction. We therefore consider information such as: 
(1) The number of populations or extent of range of the species 
affected by the threat(s), or both; (2) the biological significance of 
the affected population(s), taking into consideration the life-history 
characteristics of the species and its current abundance and 
distribution; (3) whether the threats affect the species in only a 
portion of its range, and if so, the likelihood of persistence of the 
species in the unaffected portions; (4) the severity of the effects and 
the rapidity with which they have caused or are likely to cause 
mortality to individuals and accompanying declines in population 
levels; (5) whether the effects are likely to be permanent; and (6) the 
extent to which any ongoing conservation efforts reduce the severity of 
the threat.
    As used in our priority-ranking system, immediacy of threat is 
categorized as either ``imminent'' or ``nonimminent,'' and is based on 
when the threats will begin. If a threat is currently occurring or 
likely to occur in the very near future, we classify the threat as 
imminent. Determining the immediacy of threats helps ensure that 
species facing actual, identifiable threats are given priority for 
listing proposals over those for which threats are only potential or 
species that are intrinsically vulnerable to certain types of threats 
but are not known to be presently facing such threats.
    Our priority ranking system has three categories for taxonomic 
status: Species that are the sole members of a genus; full species (in 
genera that have more than one species); and subspecies and distinct 
population segments of vertebrate species (DPS).
    The result of the ranking system is that we assign each candidate a 
listing priority number of 1 to 12. For example, if the threats are of 
high magnitude, with immediacy classified as imminent, the listable 
entity is assigned an LPN of 1, 2, or 3 based on its taxonomic status 
(i.e., a species that is the only member of its genus would be assigned 
to the LPN 1 category, a full species to LPN 2, and a subspecies or DPS 
would be assigned to LPN 3). In summary, the LPN ranking system 
provides a basis for making decisions about the relative priority for 
preparing a proposed rule to list a given species. No matter which LPN 
we assign to a species, each species included in this notice of review 
as a candidate is one for which we have sufficient information to 
prepare a proposed rule for listing because it is in danger of 
extinction or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
    For more information on the process and standards used in assigning 
LPNs, a copy of the 1983 guidance is available on our Web site at: 
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/48fr43098-43105.pdf. For 
more information on the LPN assigned to a particular species, the 
species assessment for each candidate contains the LPN chart and a 
rationale for the determination of the magnitude and immediacy of 
threat(s) and assignment of the LPN; that information is summarized in 
this CNOR.
    This revised notice of review supersedes all previous animal, 
plant, and combined candidate notices of review for native species.

Summary of This CNOR

    Since publication of the previous CNOR on November 21, 2012 (77 FR 
69994), we reviewed the available information on candidate species to 
ensure that a proposed listing is justified for each species, and 
reevaluated the relative LPN assigned to each species. We also 
evaluated the need to emergency-list any of these species, particularly 
species with higher priorities (i.e., species with LPNs of 1, 2, or 3). 
This review and reevaluation ensures that we focus conservation efforts 
on those species at greatest risk first. We also evaluated whether the 
fish, plains topminnow (Fundulus sciadicus), warranted candidate 
status; we are announcing our decision that this species does not meet 
the definition of a candidate species at this time (See Other 
Evaluations for Candidate Status).
    In addition to reviewing candidate species since publication of the 
last CNOR, we have worked on findings in response to petitions to list 
species, and on proposed and final determinations for rules to list 
species under the ESA. Some of these findings and determinations have 
been completed and published in the Federal Register, while work on 
others is still under way (see Preclusion and Expeditious Progress, 
below, for details).
    Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information, with this CNOR, we are identifying no new candidates, we 
change the LPN for three candidates (see Listing Priority Changes in 
Candidates, below), and determine that a listing proposal is not 
warranted for three species and thus remove them from candidate status 
(see Candidate Removals, below). Combined with the other decisions 
published separately from this CNOR, a total of 146 species (including 
52 plant and 94 animal species) are now candidates awaiting

[[Page 70106]]

preparation of rules proposing their listing. These 146 species, along 
with the 45 species currently proposed for listing (including 1 species 
proposed for listing due to similarity in appearance), are included in 
Table 1.
    Table 2 lists the changes from the previous CNOR, and includes 93 
species identified in the previous CNOR as either proposed for listing 
or classified as candidates that are no longer in those categories. 
This includes 81 species for which we published a final listing rule, 8 
candidate species for which we published a separate not-warranted 
finding and removed from candidate status, 1 species for which we 
published a withdrawal of a proposed listing rule, and the 3 species in 
this notice of review that we have determined do not meet the 
definition of an endangered or threatened species and therefore do not 
warrant listing. We have removed these species from candidate status in 
this CNOR.

New Candidates

    We have not identified any new candidate species through this 
notice of review, but we note that the rattlesnake-master borer moth 
was identified as candidate on August 14, 2013 (78 FR 49422) as a 
result of a separate petition finding published in the Federal Register 
in which we described the reasons and data for elevating the species to 
candidate status.

Listing Priority Changes in Candidates

    We reviewed the LPN for all candidate species and are changing the 
number for the following species discussed below.

Mammals

    Southern Idaho ground squirrel (Urocitellus endemicus)--The 
following summary is based on information contained in our files. No 
new information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 
2004. The southern Idaho ground squirrel is endemic to four counties in 
southwest Idaho; its total known range is approximately 292,000 
hectares (722,000 acres).
    Threats to southern Idaho ground squirrels include: Habitat 
degradation; direct killing from shooting, trapping, or poisoning; 
predation; and competition with other ground squirrel species. Habitat 
degradation appears to be the primary threat. Nonnative annuals such as 
Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass) and Taeniatherum caput-medusae 
(medusahead) now dominate much of this species' range and have altered 
the fire regime by increasing the frequency of wildfire. Furthermore, 
nonnative annuals provide inconsistent forage quality for southern 
Idaho ground squirrels compared to native vegetation. A programmatic 
Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) has been 
completed for this species and contains conservation measures that 
minimize ground-disturbing activities, allow for the investigation of 
methods to restore currently degraded habitat, provide for additional 
protection to southern Idaho ground squirrels from recreational 
shooting and other direct killing on enrolled lands, and allow for the 
translocation of squirrels to or from enrolled lands, if necessary. The 
acreage enrolled through the CCAA encompasses approximately 9 percent 
of the known range of the species. While the ongoing conservation 
efforts have helped to reduce the magnitude of threats, habitat 
degradation remains the primary threat to the species throughout most 
of its range. This threat is imminent due to the ongoing and increasing 
prevalence of nonnative vegetation.
    The southern Idaho ground squirrel (formerly Spermophilus brunneus 
endemicus) was considered to be one of two subspecies (northern and 
southern) of the Idaho ground squirrel. However, based on differences 
in their geographic distribution, morphology, habitat, and genetic 
characteristics, the two subspecies are now considered distinct 
species. Therefore, we changed the LPN for the southern Idaho ground 
squirrel from a 9 to an 8 to reflect the change in taxonomy from 
subspecies to species.

Fishes

    Cumberland arrow darter (Etheostoma sagitta)--The following summary 
is based on information in our files. The Cumberland arrow darter is a 
brightly colored darter with a total length of approximately 116 
millimeters (4.6 inches). It is restricted to the upper Cumberland 
River basin in southeastern Kentucky and northeastern Tennessee. The 
Cumberland arrow darter typically inhabits small headwater streams 
(first to third order) but is sometimes observed in larger streams or 
small rivers. Its preferred habitat consists of pools or transitional 
areas between riffles and pools (runs and glides) in moderate- to-high-
gradient streams with bedrock, boulder, and cobble substrates. 
Cumberland arrow darters feed on a variety of aquatic invertebrates, 
but adults feed predominantly on larval mayflies (order Ephemeroptera), 
specifically the families Heptageniidae and Baetidae. Rangewide surveys 
from 2010 to 2012 revealed that the Cumberland arrow darter has been 
extirpated from portions of its range. During these efforts, the 
species was observed at 60 of 101 historical streams and 72 of 123 
historical sites.
    The species' habitat and range have been degraded and limited by 
water pollution from surface coal mining and gas-exploration 
activities; removal of riparian vegetation; stream channelization; 
increased siltation associated with poor mining, logging, and 
agricultural practices; and deforestation of watersheds. The magnitude 
of these threats is most severe in the eastern half of the range, where 
resource extraction activities are more common and public ownership is 
sparse. The threat magnitude is lower in the western half of the range 
where resource extraction activities are less severe and a larger 
proportion of the range is in public ownership. Since the species and 
its life cycle and habitat requirements are fairly evenly distributed 
across its range, overall, the magnitude of the threats is moderate. We 
also consider these threats to be imminent, because the threats are 
ongoing and will continue for the foreseeable future. Based on new 
morphological and genetic analyses and published species accounts and 
lists, the Cumberland arrow darter is now recognized as E. sagitta, a 
full species. The elevation to species rank increases the LPN from a 9 
(subspecies) to an 8 (species).
    Kentucky arrow darter (Etheostoma spilotum)--The following summary 
is based on information in our files. The Kentucky arrow darter is a 
rather large (total length of approximately 4.6 inches (116 
millimeters)), brightly colored darter that is restricted to the upper 
Kentucky River basin in eastern Kentucky. The species' preferred 
habitat consists of pools or transitional areas between riffles and 
pools (runs and glides) in moderate-to-high-gradient streams with 
bedrock, boulder, and cobble substrates. In most recent surveys, the 
Kentucky arrow darter has been observed in streams ranging in size from 
first to third order, with most individuals occurring in second order 
streams in watersheds encompassing 7.7 square miles (20 square 
kilometers) or less. Kentucky arrow darters feed on a variety of 
aquatic invertebrates, but adults feed predominantly on larval mayflies 
(order Ephemeroptera), specifically the families Heptageniidae and 
Baetidae. Rangewide surveys from 2007 to 2009 revealed that the 
Kentucky arrow darter has disappeared from portions of its range. 
During these surveys, the species was observed at only 33 of 68 
historical streams and 45 of 100 historical sites.

[[Page 70107]]

    The subspecies' habitat and range have been severely degraded and 
limited by water pollution from surface coal mining and gas-exploration 
activities; removal of riparian vegetation; stream channelization; 
increased siltation associated with poor mining, logging, and 
agricultural practices; and deforestation of watersheds. The threats 
are high in magnitude, because they are widespread across the 
subspecies' range and because these activities, especially mining and 
gas-exploration, have the potential to alter stream water quality 
permanently throughout the range by contributing sediment, dissolved 
metals, and other solids to streams supporting Kentucky arrow darters, 
resulting in direct mortality or reduced reproductive capacity. The 
threats are imminent because the effects are manifested immediately and 
will continue for the foreseeable future.
    Based on new morphological and genetic analyses and published 
species accounts and lists, the Kentucky arrow darter is now recognized 
as E. spilotum Gilbert, a full species. The elevation to species rank 
increases the LPN from a 3 (subspecies) to a 2 (species).

Candidate Removals

    As summarized below, we have evaluated the threats to the following 
species and considered factors that, individually and in combination, 
currently or potentially could pose a risk to these species and their 
habitats. After a review of the best available scientific and 
commercial data, we conclude that listing these species under the 
Endangered Species Act is not warranted, because these species are not 
likely to become endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges. Therefore, we 
no longer consider them to be candidate species for listing. We will 
continue to monitor the status of these species and to accept 
additional information and comments concerning this finding. We will 
reconsider our determination in the event that new information 
indicates that the threats to the species are of a considerably greater 
magnitude or imminence than identified through assessments of 
information contained in our files, as summarized here.

Flowering Plants

    Hazardia orcuttii (Orcutt's hazardia or Orcutt's goldenbush)--The 
following summary is based on information contained in our files, 
including a detailed species report. Hazardia orcuttii, a flowering 
evergreen shrub in the Asteraceae (sunflower) family, is associated 
with coastal sage scrub communities, and transitional areas between 
coastal sage scrub and chaparral. The species is found along the 
Pacific coastal area at elevations ranging from under 100 meters (m) 
(330 feet (ft)) to 200 m (660 ft), but generally under 100 m (328 ft). 
The known historical distribution spans 270 km (170 mi) from northern 
coastal San Diego County, California, United States, south to Colonet 
Mesa, Baja California, Mexico. In the United States, a single native 
population of H. orcuttii occurs on a southwestern mesa above Lux 
Canyon, in the city of Encinitas. In Mexico, 15 occurrences are known 
from 30 herbarium records, some of which indicate that the plant is 
locally common or abundant. Hazardia orcuttii is currently listed as 
threatened under the California Endangered Species Act and as 
endangered in Mexico.
    We made Hazardia orcuttii a candidate in 2004. At that time, the 
primary threat affecting the species was urban development, which 
primarily affected a portion of the historical U.S. population between 
1981 and 1997. Additional disruptions to the remaining native 
population occurred after that time, including loss of some of the 
remaining plants due to development, seed collection, and mowing. The 
extant portion of the single native population in the United States 
currently occupies approximately 0.63 hectare (ha) (1.5 acres (ac)) of 
the Manchester Habitat Conservation Area. Both the single native 
population and four experimental outplantings are found within managed 
conservation areas. In Mexico, urban development has also affected 
historical occurrences and still has the potential to affect H. 
orcuttii and its habitat. However, in 2010, H. orcuttii was listed as 
endangered under NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010, which provides protections to 
the species from development activities in Mexico.
    We identified a number of other potential threats since 2004, such 
as climate change, predation, and impacts from small population size; 
however, further investigation of these stressors indicates they are 
not substantial threats. Climate change models predict increased 
temperatures and decreased precipitation for the southern California 
region; however, temperatures are predicted to be within the range used 
for seed germination, and precipitation forecasts are too uncertain for 
areas occupied by H. orcuttii to determine how this might affect the 
species. One study suggested that high predation rates for the seedbank 
had affected the reproductive output of H. orcuttii; however, the 
limited period covered by the study and the unusual weather conditions 
that occurred during that period likely made the findings with respect 
to seed production and predation rates unrepresentative. In our 2012 
CNOR, we also identified small population size as a potential concern, 
due to the occurrence of a single population in the United States (77 
FR 70041; November 21, 2012); however, we now have a better 
understanding of the range and geographic distribution of the 15 
occurrences in Mexico, such that any loss of populations due to random 
catastrophic events and potential reduction in fitness due to low 
genetic variability is not a concern for this species.
    The conservation provided for Hazardia orcuttii and its habitat in 
the United States has removed the threat of habitat loss known at the 
time we made this species a candidate. Furthermore, given the existing 
protections and the low level of stressors currently affecting the 
species, we conclude that H. orcuttii no longer meets the definition of 
an endangered or threatened species under section 3 of the Endangered 
Species Act. We do not have any information to indicate that these 
stressors are likely to increase in the future; thus, the species is 
not likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future. 
Therefore, we find that listing of H. orcuttii is not warranted, and we 
have removed it from candidate status.
    Phacelia stellaris (Brand's Phacelia)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files, including a detailed 
species report. Phacelia stellaris, an annual herb in the Boraginaceae 
(borage) family, is associated with sparsely vegetated habitats on 
loamy sand in coastal dunes, coastal strand, coastal scrub, or alluvial 
floodplains. Based on herbarium records, we conclude that the 
historical range of P. stellaris was from southern California (San 
Bernardino, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties) 
southward along the Pacific coast to near Socorro in northern Baja 
California, Mexico, at elevations ranging from 0 to 1100 ft (366 m). 
The current geographic range of P. stellaris encompasses 12 occurrences 
known or presumed to be extant (7 in the United States and 5 in 
Mexico). Nine occurrences in the United States (in Los Angeles and 
Orange Counties) and one in Mexico (in the City of Ensenada) have been 
extirpated by development.
    We made Phacelia stellaris a candidate in 2004. At that time, one 
of the primary threats affecting the species was habitat degradation 
due to trampling from foot and vehicle traffic. Today, four of the 
seven U.S.

[[Page 70108]]

occurrences experience some level of habitat degradation from 
trampling. However, on August 1, 2013, the U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine 
Corps, Department of Homeland Security, and California Department of 
Parks and Recreation entered into a Candidate Conservation Agreement 
(CCA). This CCA identifies actions that are or will be taken to further 
minimize effects to the plant and its habitat at the four remaining 
U.S. occurrences that still experience effects from trampling. 
Therefore, the amount of P. stellaris habitat degradation due to 
trampling has been reduced since the time the species became a 
candidate, or will soon be reduced, as all seven U.S. occurrences are 
either protected from trampling through fencing and other conservation 
measures, or will soon receive management for habitat effects due to 
trampling. We do not have information regarding the issue of trampling 
for occurrences in Mexico; however, based on information from botanists 
familiar with areas where the plant occurs, it is likely that four of 
the five occurrences experience some degree of trampling.
    The other primary threat affecting U.S. occurrences of Phacelia 
stellaris at the time of listing was nonnative plant invasion. 
Nonnative plants are known to affect all seven U.S. occurrences of P. 
stellaris to some degree, but this threat is actively managed at four 
occurrences, including the three most abundant populations. With the 
signing of the CCA, management to control nonnative plants will 
continue at the four occurrences and will be initiated at one 
additional occurrence. Thus, five of the seven extant occurrences in 
the U.S. are or will be managed for the benefit of P. stellaris by 
removing invasive, nonnative plants. Successful removal of nonnative 
plants has already resulted in an increased presence of P. stellaris at 
the four currently managed sites. With the active management that is 
currently occurring at those four sites and the initiation of weed 
control at a fifth site, the threat to P. stellaris in the U.S. from 
invasive, nonnative plants has been addressed. We have no information 
as to the degree nonnative plants are encroaching on P. stellaris 
occurrences in Mexico. However, the management of P. stellaris in the 
U.S. will provide for the long-term conservation of the species.
    We identified other potential threats since 2004 including flood-
control activities and impacts related to small population size; 
however, further investigation indicates they are not substantial 
threats. We also analyzed the potential for sea-level rise to affect P. 
stellaris, as four of seven U.S. occurrences are close to tidally 
influenced areas. Although all coastal occurrences could potentially be 
affected by sea-level rise, the effects of sea-level rise on P. 
stellaris occurrences cannot be assessed with confidence beyond 2050, 
as modeling and variables affecting this species are increasingly 
uncertain after this date. Based on our review of available predictive 
models and habitat characteristics of P. stellaris, we do not 
anticipate that sea-level rise will affect the occurrences in the 
United States before 2050. All of the presumably extant occurrences in 
Mexico are thought to be located along the immediate coastline, 
although their exact locations relative to the tideline is unknown; 
therefore, we lack sufficient data to make reliable projections of the 
impact of sea-level rise on this species in Mexico.
    The conservation provided for Phacelia stellaris and its habitat 
has significantly reduced the threat of nonnative plant invasion in the 
United States. Although it is possible that nonnative plant invasion 
threatens the occurrences in Mexico, we have no information suggesting 
that this is in fact the case, and we must make listing determinations 
based on the best data available, not speculation. Thus, we conclude 
that nonnative plants no longer pose a significant threat to the 
species. In addition, although trampling still happens at some 
occurrences, the effects have been reduced through implementation of 
conservation measures. The remaining impacts are localized and do not 
rise to the level of significantly affecting the species and its 
habitat. We anticipate ongoing protection and management provided by 
Federal, State, and local landowners at six of the seven U.S. 
occurrences through implementation of Habitat Conservation Plans, 
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans, and the CCA, all of which 
will continue into the foreseeable future. In addition, we do not have 
any information to indicate that stressors will increase in the 
foreseeable future. Given the existing protections and the low level of 
stressors affecting the species now and in the foreseeable future, we 
conclude that P. stellaris no longer meets the definition of an 
endangered or threatened species under section 3 of the Endangered 
Species Act. Therefore, we find that listing of P. stellaris is not 
warranted, and we have removed it from candidate status.
    Solidago plumosa (Yadkin River goldenrod)--No new information was 
provided in the petition we received on April 20, 2010. The global 
distribution of the plant Solidago plumosa consists of a single 
population that occurs in two discrete locations along a 3.2 mile (5.0 
kilometer) stretch of the Yadkin River in North Carolina. It is 
associated with mafic rock outcrops along the river.
    We made Solidago plumosa a candidate in 2005. At that time, the 
primary threat affecting the species was encroachment by invasive 
nonnative vegetation. Historical loss of habitat by construction and 
operation of hydroelectric projects likely reduced the extent of the 
species, which exacerbated the effect nonnative vegetation was having 
on the species. The historical loss of habitat occurred over 75 years 
ago when the Yadkin and Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydroelectric Projects were 
constructed. Although the flow regime of the Yadkin River was altered 
by these projects, the bedrock outcrop habitat is stable and flow 
regimes are now regulated and predictable and reduce high-velocity 
flood events that are capable of reaching areas of occupied habitat; 
thus, any foreseeable adverse impacts to the species have been 
addressed through the regular operation of the projects. Additionally, 
the species has adjusted to the available habitat and flow regimes and 
has been present in the same areas since the projects were constructed 
and the flow regimes stabilized. Reduction of high-velocity flood 
events, however, exacerbated the threat from invasive nonnative 
vegetation by allowing that vegetation to grow and compete with 
Solidago plumosa.
    Thus, the availability of suitable habitat and the fate of the 
single known population of this species are primarily determined by the 
manner in which nonnative vegetation is managed in the occupied 
locations. Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (APGI), the operator of one of 
the hydroelectric projects, owns these locations. At the time the 
species was made a candidate, APGI was not managing these locations in 
a manner consistent with the conservation of Solidago plumosa--in 
particular, it was not addressing the main threat from invasive 
nonnative vegetation. However, in 2013, APGI and the Service signed a 
Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA). This agreement addresses 
threats to the species in its entire range: It identifies specific 
measures to control invasive-exotic-vegetation encroachment, implements 
propagation and population expansion, and includes a regular monitoring 
and reporting protocol. Although the agreement was signed only this 
year, APGI has been implementing the conservation measures described in 
the agreement for several years; in particular, APGI has been managing 
the habitat for Solidago

[[Page 70109]]

plumosa as part of its Shoreline Management Plan, which addresses a 
variety of issues around its reservoirs. The CCA contains a special 
subset of actions, some of which are contained in the Shoreline 
Management Plan, but are specific to Solidago plumosa and its habitat. 
The Shoreline Management Plan also includes a regular monitoring and 
reporting protocol, and under the plan APGI annually controls invasive-
nonnative-vegetation encroachment. Based on the results of APGI's 
control program over the last three years, we conclude that the program 
has been highly effective at reducing encroachment of invasive exotic 
vegetation into the habitat of Solidago plumosa, and has significantly 
reduced this threat.
    APGI has also abated some potential threats from recreational use 
of the river corridor since anglers and boaters can no longer enter the 
immediate tailrace area because of changed water-discharge conditions 
and safety signage at the dam powerhouse.
    The construction of the Yadkin and Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydroelectric 
Projects from 1917 to 1928 may have extirpated occurrences of Solidago 
plumosa. Any detrimental effects of the construction and subsequent 
reservoir inundation took place almost 100 years ago and are no longer 
directly affecting the species. Those projects may, however, have 
reduced the range and genetic variability of the species. Therefore, we 
considered the degree to which the size of the population is so small 
and geographically concentrated that it is vulnerable to stochastic 
events or potential reduction in fitness due to low genetic 
variability. We have no information to indicate that low genetic 
variability is an issue for this species, and, as discussed above, the 
primary stochastic event of concern, flooding, is now regulated 
consistent with the conservation of Solidago plumosa. Nonetheless, we 
note that the Service, the North Carolina Plant Conservation Program, 
the North Carolina Zoological Park, and APGI plan to augment the 
population of this species at additional mafic rock outcrops near the 
base of the dams that are part of the hydroelectric projects. We are 
not relying on any potential success of this effort in our threats 
analysis.
    Threats to Solidago plumosa from the continued operation of these 
reservoirs and the encroachment of nonnative invasive species have been 
addressed. Though impacts from trampling are still possible at the 
sites of some occurrences, the effects have been reduced through 
implementation of conservation measures in a large part of the extant 
habitat; any remaining impacts are localized and temporary, and do not 
rise to the level of significantly affecting the taxon and its habitat. 
We expect the conservation measures to be implemented and effective 
into the foreseeable future. Given the existing protections and the low 
level of stressors affecting the species now and in the foreseeable 
future, we conclude that Solidago plumosa no longer meets the 
definition of an endangered or threatened species under section 3 of 
the Endangered Species Act. Therefore, we find that listing of Solidago 
plumosa is no longer warranted, and we have removed it from candidate 
status.

Other Evaluations for Candidate Status

    As summarized below, we have evaluated the threats to the plains 
topminnow (Fundulus sciadicus) and considered factors that, 
individually and in combination, currently or potentially could pose a 
risk to this species and its habitats. After a review of the best 
available scientific and commercial data, we conclude that listing this 
species under the Endangered Species Act is not warranted, because this 
species is not likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, 
we find that proposing a rule to list it is not warranted, and we do 
not consider it to be a candidate species for listing. We will continue 
to monitor the status of this species and to accept additional 
information and comments concerning this finding.
    Plains topminnow (Fundulus sciadicus)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. This endemic fish species 
of the Great Plains occurs in Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, Kansas, 
Missouri, Wyoming, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Oklahoma. The species 
most often inhabits clear water streams, isolated pools, backwater 
areas, sloughs, and overflow pools of larger streams. The species is 
still present in most of its historical range, and its current 
distribution includes eight of the nine States where it was 
historically recorded.
    We conducted a status assessment of the plains topminnow to 
evaluate whether it warrants listing under the Act and should be made a 
candidate species. As part of this process, we analyzed several 
potential stressors that may affect the species. Surface and 
groundwater use for irrigation, habitat changes, predation, drought, 
and climate change are some of the factors potentially influencing the 
species in its current range. We also analyzed the effects of 
mosquitofish introduction, stocking of game fish, and drought. We 
determined the stressors facing this species are relatively minor, and 
do not rise to the level of threats to the species, given the number of 
different locations where the species occurs, and the fact that the 
species has shown it can recolonize areas successfully. In addition, 
groundwater and surface water use is regulated in some portions of its 
range, and development, predation, and diseases are not currently 
affecting the species. Population data from across the species' range 
show that the species is stable in most of its range. In addition, new 
surveys have identified new populations, and conservation efforts are 
increasing populations in suitable habitat. Therefore, we find that the 
plains topminnow does not meet the definition of an endangered species 
now, and we have no information to indicate that it will become so in 
the future. Thus, this species does not warrant candidate status at 
this time. A copy of the full candidate assessment form for the plains 
topminnow may be accessed at: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E07X.

Petition Findings

    The ESA provides two mechanisms for considering species for 
listing. One method allows the Secretary, on the Secretary's own 
initiative, to identify species for listing under the standards of 
section 4(a)(1). We implement this authority through the candidate 
program, discussed above. The second method for listing a species 
provides a mechanism for the public to petition us to add a species to 
the Lists. The CNOR serves several purposes as part of the petition 
process: (1) In some instances (in particular, for petitions to list 
species that the Service has already identified as candidates on its 
own initiative), it serves as the petition finding; (2) for candidate 
species for which the Service has made a warranted-but-precluded 
petition finding, it serves as a ``resubmitted'' petition finding that 
the ESA requires the Service to make each year; and (3) it documents 
the Service's compliance with the statutory requirement to monitor the 
status of species for which listing is warranted but precluded to 
ascertain if they need emergency listing.
    First, the CNOR serves as a petition finding in some instances. 
Under section 4(b)(3)(A), when we receive a listing petition, we must 
determine within 90 days, to the maximum extent practicable, whether 
the petition presents substantial information

[[Page 70110]]

indicating that listing may be warranted (a ``90-day finding''). If we 
make a positive 90-day finding, we must promptly commence a status 
review of the species under section 4(b)(3)(A); we must then make and 
publish one of three possible findings within 12 months of the receipt 
of the petition (a ``12-month finding''):
    (1) The petitioned action is not warranted; (2) The petitioned 
action is warranted (in which case we are required to promptly publish 
a proposed regulation to implement the petitioned action; once we 
publish a proposed rule for a species, sections 4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) of 
the ESA govern further procedures, regardless of whether we issued the 
proposal in response to a petition); or (3) The petitioned action is 
warranted, but (a) the immediate proposal of a regulation and final 
promulgation of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is 
precluded by pending proposals to determine whether any species is 
endangered or threatened, and (b) expeditious progress is being made to 
add qualified species to the Lists. We refer to this third option as a 
``warranted-but-precluded finding.''
    We define ``candidate species'' to mean those species for which the 
Service has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability 
and threat(s) to support issuance of a proposed rule to list, but for 
which issuance of the proposed rule is precluded (61 FR 64481; December 
5, 1996). The standard for making a species a candidate through our own 
initiative is identical to the standard for making a warranted-but-
precluded 12-month petition finding on a petition to list, and we add 
all petitioned species for which we have made a warranted-but-precluded 
12-month finding to the candidate list.
    Therefore, all candidate species identified through our own 
initiative already have received the equivalent of substantial 90-day 
and warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings. Nevertheless, we review 
the status of the newly petitioned candidate species and through this 
CNOR publish specific section 4(b)(3) findings (i.e., substantial 90-
day and warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings) in response to the 
petitions to list these candidate species. We publish these findings as 
part of the first CNOR following receipt of the petition. We have 
identified the candidate species for which we received petitions by the 
code ``C*'' in the category column on the left side of Table 1 below.
    Second, the CNOR serves as a ``resubmitted'' petition finding. 
Section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the ESA requires that when we make a 
warranted-but-precluded finding on a petition, we are to treat such a 
petition as one that is resubmitted on the date of such a finding. 
Thus, we must make a 12-month petition finding in compliance with 
section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA at least once a year, until we publish a 
proposal to list the species or make a final not-warranted finding. We 
make these annual findings for petitioned candidate species through the 
CNOR.
    Third, through undertaking the analysis required to complete the 
CNOR, the Service determines if any candidate species needs emergency 
listing. Section 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the ESA requires us to ``implement 
a system to monitor effectively the status of all species'' for which 
we have made a warranted-but-precluded 12-month finding, and to ``make 
prompt use of the [emergency listing] authority [under section 4(b)(7)] 
to prevent a significant risk to the well being of any such species.'' 
The CNOR plays a crucial role in the monitoring system that we have 
implemented for all candidate species by providing notice that we are 
actively seeking information regarding the status of those species. We 
review all new information on candidate species as it becomes 
available, prepare an annual species assessment form that reflects 
monitoring results and other new information, and identify any species 
for which emergency listing may be appropriate. If we determine that 
emergency listing is appropriate for any candidate, we will make prompt 
use of the emergency listing authority under section 4(b)(7). For 
example, on August 10, 2011, we emergency listed the Miami blue 
butterfly (76 FR 49542). We have been reviewing and will continue to 
review, at least annually, the status of every candidate, whether or 
not we have received a petition to list it. Thus, the CNOR and 
accompanying species assessment forms constitute the Service's system 
for monitoring and making annual findings on the status of petitioned 
species under sections 4(b)(3)(C)(i) and 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the ESA.
    A number of court decisions have elaborated on the nature and 
specificity of information that we must consider in making and 
describing the petition findings in the CNOR. The CNOR published on 
November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), describes these court decisions in 
further detail. As with previous CNORs, we continue to incorporate 
information of the nature and specificity required by the courts. For 
example, we include a description of the reasons why the listing of 
every petitioned candidate species is both warranted and precluded at 
this time. 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 (see below). Regional priorities can also be discerned 
from Table 1, below, which includes the lead region and the LPN for 
each species. Our preclusion determinations are further based upon our 
budget for listing activities for unlisted species only, and we explain 
the priority system and why the work we have accomplished does preclude 
action on listing candidate species.
    In preparing this CNOR, we reviewed the current status of, and 
threats to, the 130 candidates for which we have received a petition to 
list and the 5 listed species and for which we have received a petition 
to reclassify from threatened to endangered, where we found the 
petitioned action to be warranted but precluded. We find that the 
immediate issuance of a proposed rule and timely promulgation of a 
final rule for each of these species has been, for the preceding 
months, and continues to be, precluded by higher priority listing 
actions. Additional information that is the basis for this finding is 
found in the species assessments and our administrative record for each 
species.
    Our review included updating the status of, and threats to, 
petitioned candidate or listed species for which we published findings, 
under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA, in the previous CNOR. We have 
incorporated new information we gathered since the prior finding and, 
as a result of this review, we are making continued warranted-but-
precluded 12-month findings on the petitions for these species.
    The immediate publication of proposed rules to list these species 
was precluded by our work on higher priority listing actions, listed 
below, during the period from October 1, 2012, through September 30, 
2013. Below we describe the actions that continue to preclude the 
immediate proposal and final promulgation of a regulation implementing 
each of the petitioned actions for which we have made a warranted-but-
precluded finding, and we describe the expeditious progress we are 
making to add qualified species to, and remove species from, the Lists. 
We will continue to monitor the status of all candidate species, 
including petitioned species, as new information becomes available to 
determine if a change in status is warranted, including the need to 
emergency-list a species under section 4(b)(7) of the ESA.

[[Page 70111]]

    In addition to identifying petitioned candidate species in Table 1 
below, we also present brief summaries of why each of these candidates 
warrants listing. More complete information, including references, is 
found in the species assessment forms. You may obtain a copy of these 
forms from the Regional Office having the lead for the species, or from 
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Internet Web site: http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/candidateSpecies.jsp. As described above, under 
section 4 of the ESA, we identify and propose species for listing based 
on the factors identified in section 4(a)(1), and section 4 also 
provides a mechanism for the public to petition us to add species to 
the Lists of Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the 
ESA.

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress

    To make a finding that a particular action is warranted but 
precluded, the Service must make two determinations: (1) That the 
immediate proposal and timely promulgation of a final regulation is 
precluded by pending listing proposals and (2) that expeditious 
progress is being made to add qualified species to either of the lists 
and to remove species from the lists. 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)(iii).
Preclusion
    A listing proposal is precluded if the Service does not have 
sufficient resources available to complete the proposal, because there 
are competing demands for those resources, and the relative priority of 
those competing demands is higher. 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--(1) The 
amount of resources available for completing the listing function, (2) 
the estimated cost of completing the proposed listing, and (3) the 
Service's workload and prioritization of the proposed listing in 
relation to other actions.

Available Resources

    The resources available for listing actions are determined through 
the annual Congressional appropriations process. 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. This spending cap 
was designed to prevent the listing function from depleting funds 
needed for other functions under the ESA (for example, recovery 
functions, such as removing species from the Lists), or for other 
Service programs (see House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st 
Session, July 1, 1997). The funds within the spending cap are 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 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 ESA; 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).
    We cannot spend more for the Listing Program than the amount of 
funds within the spending cap without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act 
(see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, since FY 2002, the 
Service's budget has included a critical habitat subcap to ensure that 
some funds are available for completing Listing Program actions other 
than critical habitat designations (``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 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 were 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. In FY 2013, based on the Service's 
workload, we were able to use some of the critical habitat subcap funds 
to fund proposed listing determinations.
    For FY 2012 Congress also put in place two additional subcaps 
within the listing cap: One for listing actions for foreign species and 
one for petition findings. As with the critical habitat subcap, if the 
Service does not need to use all of the funds within the subcap, we are 
able to use the remaining funds for completing proposed or final 
listing determinations. In FY 2013, based on the Service's workload, we 
were able to use some of the funds within the foreign species subcap 
and the petitions subcap 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 three subcaps, and the amount of funds 
needed to complete court-mandated actions within those subcaps, 
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 within the subcaps needed to 
comply with court orders or court-approved settlement agreements 
requiring critical habitat actions for already-listed species, listing 
actions for foreign species, and petition findings--set the framework 
within which we make our determinations of preclusion and expeditious 
progress.
    For FY 2013, on March 26, 2013, Congress passed a Full Year 
Continuing Appropriations Act (Pub. L. No. 113-6), which provided 
funding through the end of the FY 2013; this included a spending cap 
for the listing program. With the spending cap combined with a five 
percent reduction due to sequestration, the Service had a total of 
$20,997,000 for the listing program. In addition, no more than 
$1,498,000 could be used for listing actions for foreign species, and 
no more than $1,498,000 could be used to make 90-day or 12-month 
findings on petitions. The Service thus had $13,453,000 available to 
work on proposed and final listing determinations for domestic species. 
In addition, if the Service had funding available within the critical 
habitat, foreign species, or petition subcaps after those workloads had 
been completed, it could use those funds to work on listing actions 
other than critical habitat designations or foreign species.
    Costs of Listing Actions. 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

[[Page 70112]]

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.
    Prioritizing Listing Actions. The Service's Listing Program 
workload is broadly composed of four types of actions, which the 
Service prioritizes as follows: (1) Compliance with court orders and 
court-approved settlement agreements requiring that petition findings 
or listing or critical habitat determinations be completed by a 
specific date; (2) essential litigation-related, administrative, and 
listing program-management functions; (3) section 4 (of the Act) 
listing and critical habitat actions with absolute statutory deadlines; 
and (4) section 4 listing actions that do not have absolute statutory 
deadlines. In FY 2010, the Service received many new petitions and a 
single petition to list 404 species, significantly increasing the 
number of actions within the second category of our workload--actions 
that have absolute statutory deadlines. As a result of the petitions to 
list hundreds of species, we currently have over 450 12-month petition 
findings yet to be initiated and completed.
    An additional way in which we prioritize work in the section 4 
program is application of the listing priority guidelines (48 FR 43098; 
September 21, 1983). Under those 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 or distinct population segment)). 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). A 
species with a higher LPN would generally be precluded from listing by 
species with lower LPNs, unless work on a proposed rule for the species 
with the higher LPN can be combined with work on a proposed rule for 
other high-priority species. In addition to prioritizing species with 
our 1983 guidance, because of the large number of high-priority species 
we have had in the recent past, we had 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 had the highest priority to receive funding to work 
on a proposed listing determination and we used this to formulate our 
work plan for FYs 2010 and 2011 that was included in the MDL Settlement 
Agreement (see below), as well as for work on proposed and final 
listing rules for the remaining candidate species with LPNs of 2 and 3.
    Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened species 
to endangered species are lower priority, because as listed species, 
they are already afforded the protections 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 ordered or court-approved 
deadline.
    Since before Congress first established the spending cap for the 
Listing Program in 1998, the Listing Program workload has required 
considerably more resources than the amount of funds Congress has 
allowed for the Listing Program. It is therefore important that we be 
as efficient as possible in our listing process. Therefore, as we 
implement our listing work plan and 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 one of the highest priority species. 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.
    Listing Program Workload. Each FY we determine, based on the amount 
of funding Congress has made available within the Listing Program 
spending cap, specifically which actions we will have the resources to 
work on in that FY. We then prepare Allocation Tables that identify the 
actions that we are funding for that FY, and how much we estimate it 
will cost to complete each action; these Allocation Tables are part of 
our record for this notice of review and the listing program. Our 
Allocation Table for FY 2012, which incorporated the Service's approach 
to prioritizing its workload, was adopted as part of a settlement 
agreement in a case before the U.S. District Court for the District of 
Columbia (Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 10-
377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (``MDL Litigation''), Document 31-1 
(D.D.C. May 10, 2011) (``MDL Settlement Agreement'')). The requirements 
of paragraphs 1 through 7 of that settlement agreement, combined with 
the work plan attached to the agreement as Exhibit B, reflected the 
Service's Allocation Tables for FY 2011 and FY 2012. In addition, 
paragraphs 2 through 7 of the agreement require the Service to take 
numerous other actions through FY 2017--in particular, complete either 
a proposed listing rule or a not-warranted finding for all 251 species 
designated as ``candidates'' in the 2010 candidate notice of review 
(``CNOR'') before the end of FY 2016, and complete final listing 
determinations for those species proposed for listing within the 
statutory deadline (usually one year from the proposal). Paragraph 10 
of that settlement agreement sets forth the Service's conclusion that 
``fulfilling the commitments set forth in this Agreement, along with 
other commitments required by court orders or court-approved settlement 
agreements already in existence at the signing of this Settlement 
Agreement (listed in Exhibit A), will require substantially all of the 
resources in the Listing Program.'' As part of the same lawsuit, the 
court also approved a separate settlement agreement with the other 
plaintiff in the case; that settlement agreement requires the Service 
to complete additional actions in specific fiscal years--including 12-
month petition findings for 11 species, 90-day petition findings for 
477 species, and proposed listing determinations or not-warranted 
findings for 39 species.
    These settlement agreements have led to a number of results that 
affect our preclusion analysis. First, the Service has been, and will 
continue to be, limited in the extent to which it can undertake 
additional actions within the Listing Program through FY 2017, beyond 
what is required by the MDL Settlement Agreements. Second,

[[Page 70113]]

because the settlement is court approved, two broad categories of 
actions now fall within the Service's highest priority (compliance with 
a court order): (1) The actions required to be completed in FY 2013 by 
the MDL Settlement Agreements; and (2) completion, before the end of FY 
2016, of proposed listings or not-warranted findings for most of the 
candidate species identified in this CNOR (in particular, for those 
candidate species that were included in the 2010 CNOR). Therefore, each 
year, one of the Service's highest priorities is to make steady 
progress towards completing by the end of 2017 proposed and final 
listing determinations for the 2010 candidate species--based on its LPN 
prioritization system, preparing multi-species actions when 
appropriate, and taking into consideration the availability of staff 
resources.
    Based on these prioritization factors, we continue to find that 
proposals to list the petitioned candidate species included in Table 1 
are all precluded by higher priority listing actions including those 
with court-ordered and court-approved settlement agreements and listing 
actions with absolute statutory deadlines.
Expeditious Progress
    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. 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 resources available for delisting, 
which is funded by a separate line item in the budget of the Endangered 
Species Program. During FY 2013, we completed delisting rules for two 
species.) As discussed below, given the limited resources available for 
listing, we find that we made expeditious progress in FY 2013 in the 
Listing Program.
    We provide below tables cataloguing the work of the Service's 
Listing Program in FY 2013. This work includes all three of the steps 
necessary for adding species to the Lists: (1) Identifying species that 
warrant listing; (2) undertaking the evaluation of the best available 
scientific data about those species and the threats they face, and 
preparing proposed and final listing rules; and (3) adding species to 
the Lists by publishing proposed and final listing rules that include a 
summary of the data on which the rule is based and show the 
relationship of that data to the rule. After taking into consideration 
the limited resources available for listing, the competing demands for 
those funds, and the completed work catalogued in the tables below, we 
find that we made expeditious progress to add qualified species to the 
Lists in FY 2013.
    First, we made expeditious progress in the third and final step: 
Listing qualified species. In FY 2013, we resolved the status of 93 
species that we determined, or had previously determined, qualified for 
listing. Moreover, for 81 of those 93 species, the resolution was to 
add them to the Lists, most with concurrent designations of critical 
habitat. We also proposed to list an additional 67 qualified species, 
most with concurrent critical habitat proposals.
    Second, we are making expeditious progress in the second step: 
Working towards adding qualified species to the Lists. In FY 2013, we 
worked on developing proposed listing rules for four species (most of 
them with concurrent critical habitat proposals). Although we have not 
yet completed those actions, we are making expeditious progress towards 
doing so.
    Third, we are making expeditious progress in the first step towards 
adding qualified species to the Lists: Identifying additional species 
that qualify for listing. In FY 2013, we completed 90-day petition 
findings for 7 species and 12-month petition findings for 14 species. 
In FY 2013, we also worked on evaluating the best available scientific 
information towards preparing 90-day findings for one additional.
    Our accomplishments this year should also be considered in the 
broader context of our commitment to reduce the candidate list. On May 
10, 2011, the Service filed in the MDL Litigation a settlement 
agreement that put in place an ambitious schedule for completing 
proposed and final listing determinations at least through FY 2016; the 
court approved that settlement agreement on September 9, 2011. That 
agreement required, among other things, that the Service complete 
proposed listing determinations or not-warranted findings for all 251 
species that were on the 2010 candidate list by the end of FY 2016, and 
final listing determinations any proposed listing rules within the 
statutory time frame. Paragraph 6 of the agreement provided indicators 
that the Service is making adequate progress towards meeting that 
requirement: Completing proposed listing rules or not-warranted 
findings for at least 130 of the species by the end of FY 2013, at 
least 160 species by the end of FY 2014, and at least 200 species by 
the end of FY 2015. The Service has completed proposed listing rules or 
not-warranted findings for 140 of the 2010 candidate species, as well 
as final listing rules for 69 of those proposed rules, and is therefore 
is making adequate progress towards meeting all of the requirements of 
the MDL settlement agreement. Both by entering into the settlement 
agreement and by making adequate progress towards making final listing 
determinations for the 251 species on the 2010 candidate, the Service 
is making expeditious progress to add qualified species to the lists.
    The Service's progress in FY 2013 included completing and 
publishing the following determinations:

                                        FY 2013 Completed Listing Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Publication date                 Title                     Actions                      FR pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/2/2012...............  Proposed Threatened Status   Proposed Listing        77 FR 60207-60235.
                           for Coral Pink Sand Dunes    Threatened.
                           Tiger Beetle and
                           Designation of Critical
                           Habitat.
10/2/2012...............  12-Month Petition Finding,   Notice of 12-month      77 FR 60179-60206.
                           Listing of the Spring        petition finding,
                           Pygmy Sunfish as             Warranted Proposed
                           Threatened, and              Listing Threatened.
                           Designation of Critical
                           Habitat.
10/3/2012...............  12-month Finding for the     Notice of 12-month      77 FR 60509-60579.
                           Lemmon Fleabane;             petition finding, Not
                           Endangered Status for the    warranted Proposed
                           Acu[ntilde]a Cactus and      Listing Endangered.
                           the Fickeisen Plains
                           Cactus and Designation of
                           Critical Habitat.
10/4/2012...............  Proposed Endangered Species  Proposed Listing        77 FR 60749-60776.
                           Status for the Florida       Endangered.
                           Bonneted Bat.

[[Page 70114]]

 
10/4/2012...............  Determination of Endangered  Final Listing           77 FR 60777-60802.
                           Species Status for           Endangered.
                           Coqu[iacute] Llanero
                           Throughout Its Range and
                           Designation of Critical
                           Habitat.
10/4/2012...............  Endangered Species Status    Proposed Listing        77 FR 60803-60882.
                           for the Fluted Kidneyshell   Endangered.
                           and Slabside Pearlymussel
                           and Designation of
                           Critical Habitat.
10/9/2012...............  12-Month Finding on          Notice of 12-month      77 FR 61375-61377.
                           Petitions to List the        petition finding, Not
                           Mexican Gray Wolf as an      warranted.
                           Endangered Subspecies or
                           Distinct Population
                           Segment with Critical
                           Habitat.
10/10/2012..............  Determination of Endangered  Final Listing           77 FR 61663-61719.
                           Species Status for the       Endangered and
                           Alabama Pearlshell, Round    Threatened.
                           Ebonyshell, Southern
                           Kidneyshell, and Choctaw
                           Bean, and Threatened
                           Species Status for the
                           Tapered Pigtoe, Narrow
                           Pigtoe, Southern
                           Sandshell, and Fuzzy
                           Pigtoe, and Designation of
                           Critical Habitat.
10/11/2012..............  Endangered Species Status    Proposed Listing        77 FR 61835-61894.
                           for Cape Sable               Endangered.
                           Thoroughwort, Florida
                           Semaphore Cactus, and
                           Aboriginal Prickly-apple,
                           and Designation of
                           Critical Habitat for Cape
                           Sable Thoroughwort.
10/11/2012..............  Listing Taylor's             Proposed Listing        77 FR 61937-62058.
                           Checkerspot Butterfly and    Endangered and
                           Streaked Horned Lark and     Threatened.
                           Designation of Critical
                           Habitat.
10/16/2012..............  Proposed Endangered Status   Proposed Listing        77 FR 63439-63536.
                           for the Neosho Mucket,       Endangered and
                           Threatened Status for the    Threatened.
                           Rabbitsfoot, and
                           Designation of Critical
                           Habitat for Both Species.
10/17/2012..............  Listing 15 Species on        Proposed Listing        77 FR 63927-64018.
                           Hawaii Island as             Endangered.
                           Endangered and Designating
                           Critical Habitat for 3
                           Species.
11/14/2012..............  90-Day Finding on a          Notice of 90-day        77 FR 67784-67789.
                           Petition to List the         Petition Finding,
                           Heller Cave Springtail as    Substantial.
                           Endangered or Threatened.
11/28/2012..............  Status Review for a          Notice Status Review..  77 FR 70987-70988.
                           Petition to List the Ashy
                           Storm-petrel as Endangered
                           or Threatened.
12/04/2012..............  90-Day Finding on a          Notice of 90-day        77 FR 71757-71758.
                           Petition To List Phoenix     Petition Finding, Not
                           dactylifera `Sphinx'         substantial.
                           (Sphinx Date Palm).
12/04/2012..............  90-Day Finding on a          Notice of 90-day        77 FR 71759-71771.
                           Petition to List the         Petition Finding, Not
                           Prairie Gray Fox, the        substantial
                           Plains Spotted Skunk, and    Substantial.
                           a Distinct Population
                           Segment of the Mearn's
                           Eastern Cottontail in East-
                           central Illinois and
                           Western Indiana as
                           Endangered or Threatened
                           Species.
12/11/2012..............  Listing the Lesser Prairie-  Proposed Listing        77 FR 73827-73888.
                           Chicken as a Threatened      Threatened.
                           Species.
12/11/2012..............  Listing Four Subspecies of   Proposed Listing        77 FR 73769-73825.
                           Mazama Pocket Gopher and     Threatened.
                           Designation of Critical
                           Habitat.
1/11/2013...............  Endangered Status for        Proposed Listing        78 FR 2486-2538.
                           Gunnison Sage-grouse.        Endangered.
1/25/2013...............  Endangered Status for the    Proposed Listing        78 FR 5369-5385.
                           Zuni Bluehead Sucker.        Endangered.
2/4/2013................  Threatened Status for the    Proposed Listing        78 FR 7863-7890.
                           Distinct Population          Threatened.
                           Segment of the North
                           American Wolverine
                           Occurring in the
                           Contiguous United States.
3/19/2013...............  Status Review of the West    Notice of Status        78 FR 16828-16829.
                           Coast Distinct Population    Review.
                           Segment of the Fisher as
                           Endangered or Threatened.
3/28/2013...............  12-Month Finding on a        Notice of 12-month      78 FR 18936-18938.
                           Petition to List the         petition finding, Not
                           Rosemont Talussnail as       warranted.
                           Endangered or Threatened.
4/9/2013................  90-Day Finding on a          Notice of 90-day        78 FR 21086-21097.
                           Petition to List Two         Petition Finding,
                           Populations of Black-        Substantial.
                           Backed Woodpecker as
                           Endangered or Threatened.
4/23/2013...............  Threatened Status for        Final Listing           78 FR 23983-24005.
                           Eriogonum codium (Umtanum    Threatened.
                           Desert Buckwheat) and
                           Physaria douglasii subsp.
                           tuplashensis (White Bluffs
                           Bladderpod).
4/25/2013...............  Endangered Status for the    Proposed Listing        78 FR 24471-24514.
                           Sierra Nevada Yellow-        Endangered and
                           legged Frog and the          Threatened.
                           Northern Distinct
                           Population Segment of the
                           Mountain Yellow-legged
                           Frog, and Threatened
                           Status for the Yosemite
                           Toad.
5/24/2013...............  Proposed Threatened Status   Proposed Listing        78 FR 31498-31511.
                           for Leavenworthia exigua     Threatened.
                           var. laciniata (Kentucky
                           Glade Cress).
5/28/2013...............  Determination of Endangered  Final Listing           78 FR 32013-32065.
                           Status for 38 Species on     Endangered.
                           Molokai, Lanai, and Maui.
6/20/2013...............  Listing Determination for    Proposed Listing        78 FR 37363-37369.
                           the New Mexico Meadow        Endangered.
                           Jumping Mouse.
7/9/2013................  Determination of Endangered  Final Listing           78 FR 41227-41258.
                           Species Status for Six       Endangered.
                           West Texas Aquatic
                           Invertebrates.
7/10/2013...............  Threatened Status for the    Proposed Listing        78 FR 41499-41547.
                           Northern Mexican             Threatened.
                           Gartersnake and Narrow-
                           headed Gartersnake.
7/26/2013...............  Endangered Species Status    Final Listing           78 FR 45074-45095.
                           for Diamond Darter.          Endangered.
8/2/2013................  12-Month Finding and         Notice of 12-month      78 FR 46889-46897.
                           Candidate Removal for        petition finding, Not
                           Potentilla basaltica;        warranted and
                           Proposed Threatened          Candidate Removal;
                           Species Status for Ivesia    Proposed listing,
                           webberi.                     Threatened.
8/2/2013................  Endangered Status for        Proposed listing        78 FR 47109-47134.
                           Physaria globosa (Short's    Endangered.
                           bladderpod), Helianthus
                           verticillatus (whorled
                           sunflower), and
                           Leavenworthia crassa
                           (fleshy-fruit gladecress).
8/6/2013................  Endangered Species Status    Proposed Listing        78 FR 47582-47590.
                           for the Sharpnose Shiner     Endangered.
                           and Smalleye Shiner.

[[Page 70115]]

 
8/6/2013................  Threatened Species Status    Proposed Listing        78 FR 47590-47611.
                           for Graham's Beardtongue     Threatened.
                           (Penstemon grahamii) and
                           White River Beardtongue
                           (Penstemon scariosus var.
                           albifluvis).
8/13/2013...............  Determination of Endangered  Final Listing           78 FR 49149-49165.
                           Status for Sphaeralcea       Endangered.
                           gierischii (Gierisch
                           Mallow) Throughout Its
                           Range.
8/14/2013...............  12-Month Finding on a        Notice of 12-month      78 FR 49422-49440.
                           Petition To List the         petition finding
                           Rattlesnake-Master Borer     Warranted but
                           Moth (Papaipema eryngii)     Precluded.
                           as an Endangered or
                           Threatened Species.
8/15/2013...............  Endangered Status for the    Proposed Listing        78 FR 49878-49901.
                           Florida Leafwing and         Endangered.
                           Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak
                           Butterflies.
8/20/2013...............  Determination of Endangered  Final Listing           78 FR 51277-51326.
                           Species Status for the       Endangered Threatened.
                           Austin Blind Salamander
                           and Threatened Species
                           Status for the Jollyville
                           Plateau Salamander
                           Throughout Their Ranges.
8/29/2013...............  Threatened Status for        Proposed Listing        78 FR 53581-53623.
                           Oregon Spotted Frog.         Threatened.
9/3/2013................  Removing Five Subspecies of  Notice of 12-month      78 FR 54214-54218.
                           Mazama Pocket Gopher From    petition finding Not
                           the Candidate List for       warranted; removal
                           Endangered and Threatened    from candidate list.
                           Species.
9/10/2013...............  Determination of Endangered  Final Listing           78 FR 55599-55627.
                           Species Status for Jemez     Endangered.
                           Mountains Salamander
                           (Plethodon neomexicanus)
                           Throughout Its Range.
9/11/2013...............  Determination of Endangered  Final Listing           78 FR 56025-56069.
                           Status for Texas Golden      Endangered and
                           Gladecress and Threatened    Threatened.
                           Status for Neches River
                           Rose-mallow.
9/12/2013...............  Threatened Status for        Proposed Listing        78 FR 56192-56201.
                           Arabis georgiana (Georgia    Threatened.
                           rockcress).
9/17/2013...............  Endangered Status for the    Final Listing           78 FR 57076-57097.
                           Neosho Mucket and            Endangered and
                           Threatened Status for the    Threatened.
                           Rabbitsfoot.
9/19/2013...............  Determination of Endangered  Final Listing           78 FR 57749-57775.
                           Species Status for Mount     Endangered.
                           Charleston Blue Butterfly.
9/25/2013...............  Determination of Endangered  Final Listing           78 FR 58938-58955.
                           Species Status for the       Endangered.
                           Grotto Sculpin (Cottus
                           specus) Throughout Its
                           Range.
9/26/2013...............  Revised Designation of       Proposed Revision of    78 FR 59430-59474.
                           Critical Habitat for the     DPS Boundary
                           Contiguous U.S. Distinct     (Proposed Listing in
                           Population Segment of the    New Mexico).
                           Canada Lynx and Revised
                           Distinct Population
                           Segment Boundary.
9/26/2013...............  Endangered Species Status    Final Listing           78 FR 59269-59287.
                           for the Fluted Kidneyshell   Endangered.
                           and Slabside Pearlymussel.
9/30/2013...............  Proposed Threatened Status   Proposed Listing        78 FR.
                           for the Rufa Red Knot        Threatened.
                           (Calidris canutus rufa).
10/1/2013...............  Endangered Species Status    Final Listing           78 FR 60607-60652.
                           for Echinomastus             Endangered.
                           erectocentrus var.
                           acunensis (Acu[ntilde]a
                           Cactus) and Pediocactus
                           peeblesianus var.
                           fickeiseniae (Fickeisen
                           Plains Cactus) Throughout
                           Their Ranges.
10/2/2013...............  Threatened Species Status    Final Listing           78 FR 60766-60783.
                           for Spring Pygmy Sunfish.    Threatened.
10/2/2013...............  Endangered Species Status    Final Listing           78 FR 61003-61043.
                           for the Florida Bonneted     Endangered.
                           Bat.
10/2/2013...............  12-Month Finding on a        Notice of 12-month      78 FR 61045-61080.
                           Petition to List the         petition finding, Not
                           Eastern Small-Footed Bat     warranted Proposed
                           and the Northern Long-       listing, Endangered.
                           Eared Bat as Endangered or
                           Threatened Species;
                           Listing the Northern Long-
                           Eared Bat as an Endangered
                           Species.
10/2/2013...............  Withdrawal of the Proposed   Proposed Listing        78 FR 61081-61112.
                           Rule To List Coral Pink      Withdrawal.
                           Sand Dunes Tiger Beetle
                           and Designate Critical
                           Habitat.
10/3/2013...............  Determination of Endangered  Final Listing           78 FR 61451-61503.
                           Status for the Taylor's      Endangered and
                           Checkerspot Butterfly and    Threatened.
                           Threatened Status for the
                           Streaked Horned Lark.
10/3/2013...............  Proposed Threatened Status   Proposed Listing        78 FR 61621-61666.
                           for the Western Distinct     Threatened.
                           Population Segment of the
                           Yellow-billed Cuckoo
                           (Coccyzus americanus).
10/3/2013...............  Proposed Endangered Status   Proposed Listing        78 FR 61273-61293.
                           for Brickellia mosieri       Endangered.
                           (Florida Brickell-bush)
                           and Linum carteri var.
                           carteri (Carter's Small-
                           flowered Flax).
10/3/2013...............  12-Month Finding on a        Notice of 12-month      78 FR 61763-61801.
                           Petition to List             petition finding, Not
                           Kittlitz's Murrelet as an    warranted Removal
                           Endangered or Threatened     from candidate list.
                           Species.
10/22/2013..............  12-Month Finding on a        Notice of 12-month      78 FR 62523-62529.
                           Petition To List Ashy        petition finding, Not
                           Storm-Petrel as an           warranted.
                           Endangered or Threatened
                           Species.
10/22/2013..............  Endangered Status for Agave  Proposed Listing        78 FR 62560-62579.
                           eggersiana and Gonocalyx     Endangered and
                           concolor, and Threatened     Threatened.
                           Status for Varronia
                           rupicola.
10/24/2013..............  Threatened Status for        Proposed Listing        78 FR 63573-63625.
                           Dakota Skipper and           Endangered and
                           Endangered Status for        Threatened.
                           Poweshiek Skipperling.
10/24/2013..............  Determination of Endangered  Final Listing           78 FR 63795-63821.
                           Status for Chromolaena       Endangered.
                           frustrata (Cape Sable
                           Thoroughwort), Consolea
                           corallicola (Florida
                           Semaphore Cactus), and
                           Harrisia aboriginum
                           (Aboriginal Prickly-Apple).
10/28/2013..............  Threatened Status for the    Proposed Listing        78 FR 64357-64384.
                           Bi-State Distinct            Threatened.
                           Population Segment of
                           Greater Sage-Grouse With
                           Special Rule.
10/29/2013..............  Determination of Endangered  Final Listing           78 FR 64637-64690.
                           Species Status for 15        Endangered.
                           Species on Hawaii Island.
10/29/2013..............  Endangered Status for        Proposed Listing        78 FR 64839-64871.
                           Vandenberg Monkeyflower.     Endangered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 70116]]

    Our expeditious progress also included work on listing actions that 
we funded in previous fiscal years and in FY 2013 but have not yet been 
completed to date. For these species, we have completed the first step, 
and have been working on the second step, necessary for adding species 
to the Lists. These actions are listed below. Actions in the top 
section of the table are being conducted under a deadline set by a 
court through a court order or settlement agreement. The action in the 
lower section of the table is being conducted to meet statutory 
timelines, that is, timelines required under the Act.

    Actions Funded in Previous FYs and FY 2013 but Not Yet Completed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Species                              Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Texas salamanders (salado and             Final listing.
 Georgetown).
4 Puget trough species (4 subspecies of     Final listing.
 pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama ssp.).
3 Sierra amphibians (Yosemite toad,         Final listing.
 mountain yellow-legged frog--Sierra
 Nevada DPSs).
Lesser prairie chicken....................  Final listing.
Gunnison sage-grouse......................  Final listing.
Washington ground squirrel................  Proposed listing.
Xantus's murrelet.........................  Proposed listing.
Yellow-billed loon........................  Proposed listing.
Florida bristle fern......................  Proposed listing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions With Statutory Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Archipelago wolf................  90-day petition finding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also funded work on resubmitted petitions findings for 130 
candidate species (species petitioned prior to the last CNOR). In our 
resubmitted petition finding for the Columbia Basin population of the 
greater sage-grouse in this notice of review, although we completed a 
new analysis of the threats facing the species, we did not include new 
information, as the significance of the Columbia Basin DPS of the 
greater sage-grouse will require further review and we will update our 
finding when we resolve the status of the greater sage-grouse at a 
later date (see 75 FR 13910; March 23, 2010). We also did not include 
an updated assessment form as part of our resubmitted petition findings 
for the five candidate species for which we are preparing proposed 
listing determinations. However, for both the Columbia Basin DPS of the 
greater sage-grouse and for the other resubmitted petition findings, in 
the course of preparing proposed listing determinations, we continue to 
monitor new information about their status so that we can make prompt 
use of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in the case of an emergency 
posing a significant risk to the well-being of any of these candidate 
species; see summaries below regarding publication of these 
determinations (these species will remain on the candidate list until a 
proposed listing rule is published). We also funded revised 12-month 
petition findings for the candidate species that we are removing from 
candidate status, which are being published as part of this CNOR (see 
Candidate Removals). Because the majority of these petitioned species 
were already candidate species prior to our receipt of a petition to 
list them, we had already assessed their status using funds from our 
Candidate Conservation Program, so we continue to monitor the status of 
these species through our Candidate Conservation Program. The cost of 
updating the species assessment forms and publishing the joint 
publication of the CNOR and resubmitted petition findings is shared 
between the Listing Program and the Candidate Conservation Program.
    During FY 2013, we also funded work on resubmitted petition 
findings for uplisting five listed species (three grizzly bear 
populations, Delta smelt, and Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette 
cactus)), for which we had previously received a petition and made a 
warranted-but-precluded finding.
    Another way that we have been expeditious in making progress to add 
qualified species to the Lists is that 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 together. Given our limited budget for 
implementing section 4 of the ESA, these efforts also contribute 
towards finding that we are making expeditious progress to add 
qualified species to the Lists.
    Although we have not been able to resolve the listing status of 
many of the candidates, we continue to contribute to the conservation 
of these species through several programs in the Service. In 
particular, the Candidate Conservation Program, which is separately 
budgeted, focuses on providing technical expertise for developing 
conservation strategies and agreements to guide voluntary on-the-ground 
conservation work for candidate and other at-risk species. The main 
goal of this program is to address the threats facing candidate 
species. Through this program, we work with our partners (other Federal 
agencies, State agencies, Tribes, local governments, private 
landowners, and private conservation organizations) to address the 
threats to candidate species and other species at-risk. We are 
currently working with our partners to implement voluntary conservation 
agreements for more than 110 species covering 3.2 million ac of 
habitat. In some instances, the sustained implementation of 
strategically designed conservation efforts culminates in making 
listing unnecessary for species that are candidates for listing or for 
which listing has been proposed.

Findings for Petitioned Candidate Species

    Below are updated summaries for petitioned candidates for which we 
published findings under section 4(b)(3)(B). We are making continued 
warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings on the petitions for these 
species (for our revised 12-month petition findings for species that we 
are removing from candidate status, see summaries above under Candidate 
Removals).
Mammals
    Pacific sheath-tailed bat, American Samoa DPS (Emballonura 
semicaudata semicaudata)--The following summary is based on information 
contained in our files. No new information was provided in the petition 
we received on May 11, 2004. This small insectivorous bat is a member 
of the Emballonuridae family, an Old World bat family that has an 
extensive distribution, primarily in the tropics. Emballonura 
semicaudata semicaudata was once common and widespread in Polynesia and 
Micronesia. The species as a whole (E. semicaudata) occurred on several 
of the Caroline Islands (Palau, Chuuk, and Pohnpei), Samoa (Independent 
and American), the Mariana Islands (Guam and the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)), Tonga, Fiji, and Vanuatu. While 
populations appear to be healthy in some locations, mainly in the 
Caroline Islands, they have declined substantially in other areas, 
including Independent and American Samoa, the Mariana Islands, Fiji, 
and

[[Page 70117]]

possibly Tonga. Scientists recognize four subspecies: E. s. rotensis, 
endemic to the Mariana Islands (Guam and the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)); E. s. sulcata, occurring in Chuuk and 
Pohnpei; E. s. palauensis, found in Palau; and E. s. semicaudata, 
occurring in American and Independent Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, and Vanuatu. 
The candidate assessment form addresses the DPS of E. s. semicaudata 
that occurs in American Samoa.
    Emballonura semicaudata semicaudata historically occurred in 
American and Independent Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, and Vanuatu. It is extant 
in Fiji and Tonga, but may be extirpated from Vanuatu and Independent 
Samoa. There is some concern that it is also extirpated from American 
Samoa, the location of this DPS, where surveys are currently ongoing to 
ascertain its status. The factors that led to the decline of this 
subspecies and the DPS are poorly understood; however, current threats 
to this subspecies and the DPS include habitat loss, predation by 
introduced species, and its small population size and distribution, 
which make the taxon extremely vulnerable to extinction due to typhoons 
and similar natural catastrophes. Thus, the threats are high in 
magnitude. The subspecies may also be susceptible to disturbance in its 
roosting caves. The LPN for E. s. semicaudata is 3, because the 
magnitude of the threats is high, the threats are ongoing and therefore 
imminent, and the taxon is a DPS.
    Pacific sheath-tailed bat (Emballonura semicaudata rotensis), Guam 
and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)--The 
following summary is based on information contained in our files. No 
new information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 
2004. This small insectivorous bat, Emballonura semicaudata rotensis, 
is a member of the Emballonuridae family, an Old World bat family that 
has an extensive distribution, primarily in the tropics. The Pacific 
sheath-tailed bat was once common and widespread in Polynesia and 
Micronesia. Emballonura s. rotensis is historically known from the 
Mariana Islands and formerly occurred on Guam and in the CNMI on the 
islands of Rota, Aguiguan, Tinian (known from prehistoric records 
only), Saipan, and possibly Anatahan and Maug. Currently, E. 
semicaudata rotensis appears to be extirpated from all but one island 
in the Mariana archipelago. The single remaining population of this 
subspecies occurs on Aguiguan, CNMI.
    Threats to this subspecies have not changed over the past year. The 
primary threats to Emballonura s. rotensis are ongoing habitat loss and 
degradation as a result of feral goat (Capra hircus) activity on the 
island of Aguiguan and the taxon's small population size and limited 
distribution. Predation by nonnative species and human disturbance are 
also potential threats to the subspecies. The subspecies is believed to 
be near the point where stochastic events, such as typhoons, are 
increasingly likely to affect its continued survival. The disappearance 
of the remaining population on Aguiguan would result in the extinction 
of the subspecies. Thus, the threats are high in magnitude. The LPN for 
E. s. rotensis remains at 3 because the magnitude of the threats is 
high, the threats are ongoing and therefore imminent, and the taxon is 
a subspecies.
    New England cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis)--The following 
summary is based on information contained in our files and information 
received in response to our document published on June 30, 2004, when 
we announced our 90-day petition finding and initiation of a status 
review (69 FR 39395). We received the petition on August 30, 2000.
    The New England cottontail (NEC) is a medium-to-large-sized 
cottontail rabbit that may reach 1,000 grams in weight, and is one of 
two species within the genus Sylvilagus occurring in New England. The 
NEC is considered a habitat specialist, as it is dependent upon early 
successional habitats typically described as thickets. The species is 
the only endemic cottontail in New England. Historically, the NEC 
occurred in seven States and ranged from southeastern New York (east of 
the Hudson River) north through the Champlain Valley, southern Vermont, 
the southern half of New Hampshire, and southern Maine, and south 
throughout Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. The range of 
the NEC has declined substantially, and occurrences have become 
increasingly separated. The species' distribution is fragmented into 
five apparently isolated metapopulations. The area occupied by the 
cottontail has contracted from approximately 90,000 square kilometers 
(km\2\) (34,750 square miles (mi\2\)) to 12,180 km\2\ (4,700 mi\2\). 
Surveys indicate that the long-term decline in NEC continues. For 
example, surveys for the species in 2009 documented the presence of NEC 
in 7 of the 23 New Hampshire locations that were known to be occupied 
in 2002 and 2003. Similarly, surveys in Maine did not detect the 
species in 9 of the 19 towns where the species was present, in an 
extensive survey that spanned the years 2000 to 2004. Similar surveys 
were conducted during the winter of 2010 to 2011 in Rhode Island. 
Rangewide, it is estimated that less than one-third of the occupied 
sites occur on lands in conservation status, and fewer than 10 percent 
are being managed for early successional forest species.
    The primary threat to the NEC is loss of habitat through succession 
and alteration. Isolation of occupied patches by areas of unsuitable 
habitat and high predation rates is resulting in local extirpation of 
NECs from small patches. The range of the NEC has contracted by 75 
percent or more since 1960, and current land use trends in the region 
indicate that the rate of change, about 2-percent range loss per year, 
will continue. Additional threats include competition for food and 
habitat with introduced eastern cottontails and large numbers of native 
white-tailed deer; and mortality from predation. The magnitude of the 
threats continues to be high because they occur rangewide and have an 
effect on the survival of the species across its range. The threats are 
imminent because they are ongoing. Thus, we retained a listing priority 
number of 2 for this species. Conservation measures that address the 
threats to the species are being developed.
    Fisher, West Coast DPS (Martes pennanti)--We continue to find that 
listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of 
publication of this notice of review. However, we are working on a 
proposed listing rule that we expect to publish prior to making the 
next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the course of 
preparing the proposed listing rule, we are continuing to monitor new 
information about this species' status so that we can make prompt use 
of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in the case of an emergency 
posing a significant risk to the species.
    Gunnison's prairie dog (Cynomys gunnisoni)--We continue to find 
that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of 
publication of this notice of review. However, we are working on a 
revised 12-month finding and proposed listing determination that we 
expect to publish prior to making the next annual resubmitted petition 
12-month finding. In the course of preparing the revised finding and 
proposed listing determination, we are continuing to monitor new 
information about this species' status so that we can make prompt use 
of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in the case of an emergency 
posing a significant risk to the species.

[[Page 70118]]

    Southern Idaho ground squirrel (Urocitellus endemicus)--See above 
in ``Listing Priority Changes in Candidates.'' The above summary is 
based on information contained in our files.
    Washington ground squirrel (Urocitellus washingtoni)--We continue 
to find that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the 
date of publication of this notice of review. However, we are working 
on a proposed listing rule that we expect to publish prior to making 
the next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the course of 
preparing the proposed listing rule, we are continuing to monitor new 
information about this species' status so that we can make prompt use 
of our authority under Section 4(b)(7) in the case of an emergency 
posing a significant risk to the species.
    Red tree vole, north Oregon coast DPS (Arborimus longicaudus)--The 
following summary is based on information contained in our files and in 
our initial warranted-but-precluded finding, published in the Federal 
Register on October 13, 2011 (76 FR 63720). Red tree voles are small, 
mouse-sized rodents that live in conifer forests and spend almost all 
of their time in the tree canopy. They are one of the few animals that 
can persist on a diet of conifer needles, which is their principal 
food. Red tree voles are endemic to the humid, coniferous forests of 
western Oregon (generally west of the crest of the Cascade Range) and 
northwestern California (north of the Klamath River). The north Oregon 
coast DPS of the red tree vole comprises that portion of the Oregon 
Coast Range from the Columbia River south to the Siuslaw River. Red 
tree voles demonstrate strong selection for nesting in older conifer 
forests, which are now relatively rare across the DPS; they avoid 
nesting in younger forests.
    Although data are not available to rigorously assess population 
trends, information from retrospective surveys indicates red tree voles 
have declined in the DPS and no longer occur, or are now scarce, in 
areas where they were once relatively abundant. Older forests that 
provide habitat for red tree voles are limited and highly fragmented, 
while ongoing forest practices in much of the DPS maintain the 
remaining patches of older forest in a highly fragmented and isolated 
condition. Modeling indicates only 11 percent of the DPS currently 
contains tree vole habitat, largely restricted to the 22 percent of the 
DPS that is under Federal ownership.
    Existing regulatory mechanisms on State and private lands are 
inadequate to prevent continued harvest of forest stands at a scale and 
extent that would be meaningful for conserving red tree voles. 
Biological characteristics of red tree voles, such as small home 
ranges, limited dispersal distances, and low reproductive potential, 
limit their ability to respond to and persist in areas of extensive 
habitat loss and alteration. These biological characteristics also make 
it difficult for the tree voles to recolonize isolated habitat patches. 
Due to its reduced distribution, the red tree vole is now vulnerable to 
random environmental disturbances that may remove or further isolate 
large blocks of already limited habitat, and to extirpation within the 
DPS from such factors as lack of genetic variability, inbreeding 
depression, and demographic stochasticity. Although the entire 
population is experiencing threats, the impact is less pronounced on 
Federal lands, where much of the red tree vole habitat remains. Hence, 
the magnitude of threats is moderate to low. The threats are imminent 
because they are currently occurring within the DPS. Therefore, we have 
retained an LPN of 9 for this species.
    Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens)--The following 
information is based on information in our files and our warranted-but-
precluded 12-month petition finding published on February 10, 2011 (76 
FR 7634). The Pacific walrus is an ice-dependent species found across 
the continental shelf waters of the northern Bering and Chukchi Seas. 
Unlike seals, which can remain in the water for extended periods, 
walrus must haul out onto ice or land periodically. Pacific walrus is a 
traditional and important source of food and products to native 
Alaskans, especially those living on Saint Lawrence Island, and to 
native Russians.
    Annually, walrus migrate up to 1,500 km (932 mi) between winter 
breeding areas in the sub-Arctic (northern Bering Sea) and summer 
foraging areas in the Arctic. Historically, the females and calves 
remained on pack ice over the continental shelf of the Chukchi Sea 
throughout the summer, using it as a platform for resting after making 
shallow foraging dives for invertebrates on the sea floor. Sea ice also 
provides isolation from disturbance and terrestrial predators such as 
polar bears. Since 1979, the extent of summer Arctic sea ice has 
declined. The five lowest records of minimum sea ice extent occurred 
from 2007 to 2012. Based on the best scientific information available, 
we anticipate that sea ice will retreat northward off the Chukchi 
continental shelf for 1 to 5 months every year in the foreseeable 
future.
    When the ice melts beyond the limits of the continental shelf (and 
the ability of the walrus to obtain food), thousands of walrus 
congregate at coastal haulouts. Although coastal haulouts have 
historically provided a place to rest, the aggregation of so many 
animals, in particular females and calves, at this time of year has 
increased in the last 5 years. Not only are the number of animals more 
concentrated at coastal haulouts than on widely dispersed sea ice, but 
also the probability of disturbance from humans and terrestrial animals 
is much higher. Disturbances at coastal haulouts can cause stampedes, 
leading to mortalities and injuries. In addition, there is also concern 
that the concentration of animals will cause local prey depletion, 
leading to longer foraging trips, increased energy costs, and potential 
effects on female condition and calf survival. We expect these effects 
to lead to a population decline.
    We recognize that Pacific walrus face additional stressors from 
ocean warming, ocean acidification, disease, oil and gas exploration 
and development, increased shipping, commercial fishing, and 
subsistence harvest, but none rise to the level of a threat except 
subsistence harvest. We found that subsistence harvest will rise to the 
level of a threat if the population declines but harvest levels remain 
the same. Because the threat of sea ice loss is not having significant 
population-level effects currently, but is projected to, we determined 
that the magnitude of this threat is moderate, not high. Because both 
the loss of sea ice habitat and the ongoing practice of subsistence 
harvest are presently occurring, these threats are imminent. Thus, we 
assigned an LPN of 9 to this subspecies.
Birds
    Spotless crake, American Samoa DPS (Porzana tabuensis)--The 
following summary is based on information contained in our files. No 
new information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 
2004. The spotless crake is a small, dark, cryptic bird found in 
wetlands and rank scrublands or forests in the Philippines, Australia, 
Fiji, Tonga, Society Islands, Marquesas, Independent Samoa, and 
American Samoa (Ofu, Tau). The genus Porzana is widespread in the 
Pacific, where it is represented by numerous island-endemic and 
flightless species (many of which are extinct as a result of 
anthropogenic disturbances), as well as several more cosmopolitan 
species,

[[Page 70119]]

including P. tabuensis. No subspecies of P. tabuensis are recognized.
    The American Samoa population is the only population of spotless 
crakes under U.S. jurisdiction. The available information indicates 
that distinct populations of the spotless crake, a species not noted 
for long-distance dispersal, are definable. The population of spotless 
crakes in American Samoa is discrete in relation to the remainder of 
the species as a whole, which is distributed in widely separated 
locations. Although the spotless crake (and other rails) have dispersed 
widely in the Pacific, flight in island rails has atrophied or been 
completely lost over evolutionary time, causing populations to become 
isolated (and vulnerable to terrestrial predators such as rats). The 
population of this species in American Samoa is therefore distinct 
based on geographic and distributional isolation from spotless crake 
populations on other islands in the oceanic Pacific, the Philippines, 
and Australia. The American Samoa population of the spotless crake 
links the Central and Eastern Pacific portions of the species' range. 
The loss of this population would result in an increase of roughly 500 
miles (805 kilometers) in the distance between the central and eastern 
Polynesian portions of the spotless crake's range, and could result in 
the isolation of the Marquesas and Society Islands populations by 
further limiting the potential for even rare genetic exchange. Based on 
the discreteness and significance of the American Samoa population of 
the spotless crake, we consider this population to be a distinct 
vertebrate population segment.
    Threats to this population have not changed over the past year. The 
population in American Samoa is threatened by small population size, 
limited distribution, predation by nonnative and native animals, 
continued development of wetland habitat, and natural catastrophes such 
as hurricanes. The co-occurrence of a known predator of ground-nesting 
birds, the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), and native predators, the 
Pacific boa (Candoia bibroni) and the Purple Swamphen (Porphyrio 
porphyrio), along with the extremely restricted observed distribution 
and low numbers, indicates that the magnitude of the threats to the 
American Samoa DPS of the spotless crake continues to be high because 
the threats significantly affect the species' likelihood of survival. 
The threats are ongoing and therefore imminent. Based on this 
assessment of existing information about the imminence and high 
magnitude of these threats, we have retained an LPN of 3 for this DPS.
    Friendly ground-dove, American Samoa DPS (Gallicolumba stairi)--The 
following summary is based on information contained in our files. No 
new information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 
2004. The genus Gallicolumba is distributed throughout the Pacific and 
Southeast Asia. The genus is represented in the oceanic Pacific by six 
species: Three are endemic to Micronesian islands or archipelagos, two 
are endemic to island groups in French Polynesia, and G. stairi is 
endemic to Samoa, Tonga, and Fiji. Some authors recognize two 
subspecies of the friendly ground-dove, one, slightly smaller, in the 
Samoan archipelago (G. s. stairi), and one in Tonga and Fiji (G. s. 
vitiensis), but because morphological differences between the two are 
minimal, we are not recognizing separate subspecies at this time.
    In American Samoa, the friendly ground-dove has been found on the 
islands of Ofu and Olosega (Manua Group). Threats to this subspecies 
have not changed over the past year. Predation by nonnative species and 
natural catastrophes such as hurricanes are the primary threats to the 
subspecies. Of these, predation by nonnative species is thought to be 
occurring now and likely has been occurring for several decades. This 
predation may be an important impediment to population growth. 
Predation by introduced species has played a significant role in 
reducing, limiting, and extirpating populations of island birds, 
especially ground-nesters like the friendly ground-dove, in the Pacific 
and other locations worldwide. Nonnative predators known or thought to 
occur in the range of the friendly ground-dove in American Samoa 
include feral cats (Felis catus), Polynesian rats (Rattus exulans), 
black rats (R. rattus), and Norway rats (R. norvegicus).
    In January 2004 and February of 2005, hurricanes virtually 
destroyed the habitat of G Gallicolumba stairi in the area on Olosega 
Island where the species had been most frequently recorded. Although 
this species has evolved on islands subject to severe storms, this 
example illustrates the potential for natural disturbance to exacerbate 
the effect of anthropogenic disturbance on small populations. 
Consistent monitoring using a variety of methods over the last 5 years 
yielded few observations and no change in the relative abundance of 
this taxon in American Samoa. The total population size remains poorly 
known, but is unlikely to number more than a few hundred pairs. The 
distribution of the friendly ground-dove is limited to steep, forested 
slopes with an open understory and a substrate of fine scree or exposed 
earth; this habitat is not common in American Samoa. The threats are 
ongoing and therefore imminent, and the magnitude is moderate because 
relative abundance has remained unchanged for several years. Thus, we 
have retained an LPN of 9 for this DPS.
    Yellow-billed loon (Gavia adamsii)--We continue to find that 
listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of 
publication of this notice of review. However, we are working on a 
proposed listing rule that we expect to publish prior to making the 
next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the course of 
preparing the proposed listing rule, we are continuing to monitor new 
information about this species' status so that we can make prompt use 
of our authority under Section 4(b)(7) in the case of an emergency 
posing a significant risk to the species.
    Xantus's murrelet (Synthliboramphus hypoleucus)--We continue to 
find that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the 
date of publication of this notice of review. However, we are working 
on a proposed listing rule that we expect to publish prior to making 
the next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the course of 
preparing the proposed listing rule, we are continuing to monitor new 
information about this species' status so that we can make prompt use 
of our authority under Section 4(b)(7) in the case of an emergency 
posing a significant risk to the species.
    Red-crowned parrot (Amazona viridigenalis)--The following summary 
is based in part on information contained in the Notice of 12-month 
finding (FR 76 62016), but largely on communication with the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service (Service), Gulf Coast Prairie Landscape 
Conservation Cooperative, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, The 
Nature Conservancy, Rio Grande Joint Venture, World Birding Center, and 
Rio Grande Birding Festival biologists.
    Currently, there are no changes to the range and/or distribution of 
the red-crowned parrot. The red-crowned parrot is non-migratory, and 
occurs in fragmented isolated habitat in the Mexican states of 
Veracruz, San Luis Potosi, Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas, and northeast 
Queretaro and in Texas, in Mission, McAllen, Pharr, and Edinburg 
(Hidalgo County) and in Brownsville, Los Fresnos, San Benito, and 
Harlingen (Cameron County). Feral populations may also exist in 
southern California, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Florida and

[[Page 70120]]

escaped birds have been reported in central Texas. The species is 
nomadic during the winter (non-breeding) season when large flocks range 
widely to forage, moving tens of kilometers during a single flight in 
Mexico. As of 2004, half of the native population is believed to be 
found in the United States. The species within Texas is thought to move 
between urban areas in search for food and other available resources.
    Two projects, one in Weslaco and one in Harlingen, Texas, were 
initiated in 2011 to provide nest boxes in palms for the red-crowned 
parrot. As of March 2013, these nest sites had not been used although 
red-crowned parrots had been actively traveling within the area 
throughout the prior spring, summer, and fall months. Annual monitoring 
of red-crowned parrot populations in the Lower Rio Grande Valley 
(LRGV), Texas, has not been undertaken except to record anecdotal 
observations of the bird and its' behavior, abundance, nesting, or 
threats. Monitoring efforts for the red-crowned parrot in Mexico are 
unknown.
    The primary threats to red-crowned parrots within Mexico and Texas 
remain habitat destruction and modification from logging, 
deforestation, conversion of suitable habitat, and urbanization. The 
species is also collected for the pet trade; multiple laws and 
regulations have been passed to control illegal trade, but they are not 
adequately enforced. In addition, existing regulations do not 
adequately address the habitat threats to the species. Thus, the 
inadequacy of existing regulations and their enforcement continue to 
threaten the red-crowned parrot. However, at least two city ordinances 
have been put in place in South Texas prohibiting malicious acts 
(injury, mortality) to birds and their habitat. Disease and predation 
still do not threaten the species. Pesticide exposure is not known to 
affect the red-crowned parrot. Conservation efforts include a project 
that was initiated by the Service and the Rio Grande Joint Venture in 
the LRGV to understand and compare how birds are using revegetated 
tracts of land that were previously affected by flooding. The project 
is in its infancy, and research sites are only currently being 
identified. Threats to the red-crowned parrot are extensive and 
currently affecting populations and are expected to continue to occur 
in the future. Therefore, threats to the red-crowned parrot are high 
magnitude and imminent. As a result, we assigned an LPN of 2 for the 
red-crowned parrot.
    Sprague's pipit (Anthus spragueii)--The following summary is based 
on information contained in our files and in the petition we received 
on October 15, 2008. The Sprague's pipit is a small grassland bird 
characterized by its high flight display and otherwise very secretive 
behavior. Sprague's pipits are strongly tied to native prairie (land 
that has never been plowed) throughout their life cycle. Its current 
breeding range includes portions of Montana, North Dakota, South 
Dakota, and Canada. The Sprague's pipit's wintering range includes 
south-central and southeast Arizona, southern New Mexico, Texas, 
southern Oklahoma, southern Arkansas, northwest Mississippi, southern 
Louisiana, and northern Mexico; the vast majority of the U.S. winter 
sightings have been in Texas. During migration, the species has been 
sighted outside of the areas linking its breeding and wintering sites, 
including Michigan, western Ontario, Ohio, Massachusetts, and Gulf and 
Atlantic States from Mississippi east and north to South Carolina. 
Sprague's pipits also have been sighted in California during fall 
migration.
    Threats to this species include: Habitat loss and conversion, 
habitat fragmentation on the breeding grounds, energy development, 
roads, and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Due to prairie 
habitat loss and fragmentation, only 15 to 18 percent of the historical 
breeding habitat in the United States remains in patches of sufficient 
size for males to establish territories. The Breeding Bird Survey and 
Christmas Bird Count both show a 40-year decline of 73 to 79 percent 
(3.23 to 4.1 percent annually), although the population seems to have 
stabilized in recent years. We anticipate that prairie habitat will 
continue to be converted and fragmented. Most of the breeding range, 
including those areas where grassland habitat still remains, has been 
identified as a prime area for wind energy development, and an oil and 
gas boom is occurring in the central part of the breeding range in the 
United States and Canada. On the wintering range, conversion of 
grassland to agriculture and other uses appears to be accelerating. 
While habitat loss has occurred and will likely to continue to occur, 
as noted above, approximately 15 to18 percent of the breeding range 
remains in suitable habitat cover and in large enough patch sizes to 
support nesting, and population decline seems to have slowed in recent 
years. Thus, the threats are moderate in magnitude. The threats are 
imminent because the species is currently facing them in many 
locations. Therefore, we have assigned the Sprague's pipit an LPN of 8.
    Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)--The following 
summary is based on information in our files and in the petition we 
received on January 30, 2002. Currently, greater sage-grouse occur in 
11 States (Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, 
Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, South Dakota, and North Dakota), and 2 
Canadian provinces (Alberta and Saskatchewan), occupying approximately 
56 percent of their historical range. Greater sage-grouse depend on a 
variety of shrub-steppe habitats throughout their life cycle, and are 
obligate users of several species of sagebrush.
    The primary threat to greater sage-grouse is ongoing fragmentation 
and loss of shrub-steppe habitats through a variety of mechanisms. Most 
importantly, increasing fire cycles and invasive plants (and the 
interaction between them) in more westerly parts of the range, along 
with energy development and related infrastructure in more easterly 
areas, are negatively affecting species. In addition, direct loss of 
habitat and fragmentation is occurring due to agriculture, 
urbanization, and infrastructure such as roads and power lines built in 
support of several activities. We also have determined that currently 
existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect the species 
from these ongoing threats. However, many of these habitat impacts are 
being actively addressed through conservation actions taken by local 
working groups, and State and Federal agencies. Notably, the National 
Resource Conservation Service has committed significant financial and 
technical resources to address threats to this species on private lands 
through their Sage-grouse Initiative. These efforts, when fully 
implemented, will potentially provide important conservation benefits 
to the greater sage-grouse and its habitats. We consider the threats to 
the greater sage-grouse to be of moderate magnitude, because the 
threats are not occurring with uniform intensity or distribution across 
the wide range of the species at this time, and substantial habitat 
still remains to support the species in many areas. The threats are 
imminent because the species is currently facing them in many portions 
of its range. Therefore, we assigned the greater sage-grouse an LPN of 
8.
    Greater sage-grouse, Columbia Basin DPS (Centrocercus 
urophasianus)--The following summary is based on information in our 
files and a petition, dated May 14, 1999, requesting the listing of the 
Washington population of the western sage-grouse (C. u. phaios). On May 
7, 2001, we concluded that listing the Columbia Basin DPS of the

[[Page 70121]]

western sage-grouse was warranted, but precluded by higher priority 
listing actions (66 FR 22984); this population was historically found 
in northern Oregon and central Washington. Following our May 7, 2001, 
finding, the Service received additional petitions requesting listing 
actions for various other greater sage-grouse populations, including 
one for the nominal western subspecies, dated January 24, 2002, and 
three for the entire species, dated June 18, 2002, and March 19 and 
December 22, 2003. The Service subsequently found that the petition for 
the western subspecies did not present substantial information (68 FR 
6500; February 7, 2003), and that listing the greater sage-grouse was 
not warranted (70 FR 2244; January 12, 2005). These latter findings 
were remanded to the Service for further consideration. In response, we 
initiated a new rangewide status review for the entire species (73 FR 
10218; February 26, 2008). On March 5, 2010, we found that listing of 
the greater sage-grouse was warranted but precluded by higher priority 
listing actions (75 FR 13909; March 23, 2010), and it was added to the 
list of candidates. We also found that the western subspecies of the 
greater sage-grouse, the taxonomic entity we relied on in our DPS 
analysis for the Columbia Basin population, was no longer considered a 
valid subspecies. In light of our conclusions regarding the taxonomic 
invalidity of the western sage-grouse subspecies, the significance of 
the Columbia Basin DPS to the greater sage-grouse will require further 
review. The Service intends to complete an analysis to determine if 
this population continues to warrant recognition as a DPS in accordance 
with our Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate 
Population Segments (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996) at the time we make 
a listing decision on the status of the greater sage-grouse. Until that 
time, the Columbia Basin DPS will remain a candidate for listing.
    Band-rumped storm-petrel, Hawaii DPS (Oceanodroma castro)--The 
following summary is based on information contained in our files and 
the petition we received on May 8, 1989. No new information was 
provided in the second petition received on May 11, 2004. The band-
rumped storm-petrel is a small seabird that is found in several areas 
of the subtropical Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. In the Pacific, there 
are three widely separated breeding populations--one in Japan, one in 
Hawaii, and one in the Galapagos. Populations in Japan and the 
Galapagos are comparatively large and number in the thousands, while 
the Hawaiian birds represent a small, remnant population of possibly 
only a few hundred pairs. Band-rumped storm-petrels are most commonly 
found in close proximity to breeding islands. The three populations in 
the Pacific are separated by long distances across the ocean where 
birds are not found. Extensive at-sea surveys of the Pacific have 
revealed a broad gap in distribution of the band-rumped storm-petrel to 
the east and west of the Hawaiian Islands, indicating that the 
distribution of birds in the central Pacific around Hawaii is disjunct 
from other nesting areas. The available information indicates that 
distinct populations of band-rumped storm-petrels are definable and 
that the Hawaiian population is distinct based on geographic and 
distributional isolation from other band-rumped storm-petrel 
populations in Japan, the Galapagos, and the Atlantic Ocean. Loss of 
the Hawaiian population would cause a significant gap in the 
distribution of the band-rumped storm-petrel in the Pacific, and could 
result in the complete isolation of the Galapagos and Japan populations 
without even occasional genetic exchange. Therefore, the population is 
both discrete and significant, and constitutes a DPS.
    The band-rumped storm-petrel probably was common on all of the main 
Hawaiian Islands when Polynesians arrived about 1,500 years ago, based 
on storm-petrel bones found in middens on the island of Hawaii and in 
excavation sites on Oahu and Molokai, Hawaii. Nesting colonies of this 
species in the Hawaiian Islands currently are restricted to remote 
cliffs on Kauai and Lehua Island and high-elevation lava fields on 
Hawaii. Vocalizations of the species were heard in Haleakala Crater on 
Maui as recently as 2006; however, no nesting sites have been located 
on the island to date. The significant reduction in numbers and range 
of the band-rumped storm-petrel is due primarily to predation by 
nonnative species introduced by humans, including the domestic cat 
(Felis catus), small Indian mongoose (Herpestes auropunctatus), common 
barn owl (Tyto alba), black rat (Rattus rattus), Polynesian rat (R. 
exulans), and Norway rat (R. norvegicus). These nonnative predators 
occur throughout the main Hawaiian Islands, with the exception of the 
mongoose, which is not established on Kauai. Attraction of fledglings 
to artificial lights, which disrupt their night-time navigation, 
resulting in collisions with buildings and other objects, and 
collisions with artificial structures such as communication towers and 
utility lines, are also threats. Erosion of nest sites caused by the 
actions of nonnative ungulates is a potential threat in some locations. 
Efforts are under way in some areas to reduce light pollution and 
mitigate the threat of collisions, as well as to control some of the 
nonnative predators in the Hawaiian Islands; however, the threats are 
ongoing and are therefore imminent. They are of a high magnitude 
because they can severely affect the survival of this DPS leading to a 
relatively high likelihood of extinction. Therefore, we have retained 
an LPN of 3 for this DPS.
    Elfin-woods warbler (Dendroica angelae)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. No new information was 
provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Dendroica 
angelae, or elfin-woods warbler, is a small songbird endemic to Puerto 
Rico . The elfin-woods warbler was at first thought to occur only in 
high elevations at dwarf or elfin forests, but it has since been found 
at lower elevations including shade coffee plantations and secondary 
forests, indicating that it migrates between elevations. The species 
has been documented from four locations: the Luquillo Mountains (El 
Yunque National Forest), the Sierra de Cayey, and the Commonwealth 
forests of Maricao and Toro Negro. However, it has not been recorded 
again in Toro Negro and Cayey, following the passing of Hurricane Hugo 
in 1989. In 2003 and 2004, surveys were conducted for the elfin-woods 
warbler in forests where the species was not previously recorded (the 
Carite Commonwealth Forest, Guilarte Forest, and Bosque del Pueblo) as 
well as in forests where it had been recorded (Toro Negro Forest, 
Maricao Forest, and the El Yunque National Forest). These surveys only 
reported sightings at Maricao Commonwealth Forest (778 individuals) and 
El Yunque National Forest (196 individuals).
    The elfin-woods warbler is currently threatened by habitat 
modification. Elfin-woods warblers have been historically common in the 
elfin woodland of El Yunque National Forest and the Podocarpus forest 
type of Maricao Commonwealth Forest. Removal and replacement of this 
forest vegetation with infrastructure (e.g., telecommunication towers 
and recreational facilities) may have affected the species. Although 
this loss of habitat has been permanent and restoration would take a 
few decades, the present regulatory process, at both the Commonwealth 
and Federal levels, have curtailed this threat. Unrestricted 
development within the El Yunque

[[Page 70122]]

buffer zone needs to be addressed to determine the impact on the 
migratory behavior of the species. Conversion of elfin-woods warbler 
habitat (e.g., mature secondary forests, young secondary forests, and 
shade-coffee plantations) along the periphery of the Maricao 
Commonwealth Forest to marginal habitat (e.g., pastures, dry slope 
forests, residential rural forests, gallery forests, and sun coffee 
plantations,) has affected potential dispersal corridors for the elfin-
woods warbler, reduceding the dispersal and expansion capability of the 
species. These threats are not imminent because most of the range of 
the species is within protected lands. The magnitude of threat to the 
elfin-woods warbler is low to moderate because there is no indication 
that the two populations of the elfin-woods warbler are declining in 
numbers. The species can thrive in disturbed and plantation habitats, 
although abundance of the species on these habitats is lower than in 
primary habitats. Moreover, elfin-woods warblers appear to recover 
well, and in a relatively short time, from damaging effects of 
hurricanes to the forest structure. Therefore, we assign a listing 
priority number of 11 to the elfin-woods warbler.
Reptiles
    Eastern massasauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus)--The following 
summary is based on information contained in our files. The Service 
received a petition containing no new information on May 11, 2004. The 
species has been a candidate since May 11, 2005. Until 2011, the 
eastern massasauga was considered one of three recognized subspecies of 
massasauga. Based on recent information, we recognized the eastern 
massasauga rattlesnake as a distinct species beginning in 2011. It is a 
small, thick-bodied rattlesnake that occupies shallow wetlands and 
adjacent upland habitat in portions of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, 
Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and 
Ontario.
    Although the current range of eastern massasauga rattlesnake 
resembles the species' historical range, the geographic distribution 
has been restricted by the loss of the species from much of the area 
within the boundaries of that range. Approximately 40 percent of the 
counties that were historically occupied by eastern massasauga 
rattlesnake no longer support the species. The eastern massasauga 
rattlesnake is currently listed as endangered in every State and 
province in which it occurs, except for Michigan, where it is 
designated as a species of special concern. Each State and Canadian 
province across the range of the eastern massasauga rattlesnake has 
lost more than 30 percent, and for the majority more than 50 percent, 
of its historical populations. Furthermore, less than 35 percent of the 
remaining populations are considered secure. Approximately 59 percent 
of the remaining eastern massasauga rattlesnake populations occur 
wholly or in part on public land, and Statewide or site-specific 
Candidate Conservation Agreements (CCAs) or Candidate Conservation 
Agreements with Assurances (CCAAs) have been developed for many of 
these areas: (1) A CCA with the Lake County Forest Preserve District in 
Illinois (2004); (2) CCA with the Forest Preserve District of Cook 
County in Illinois (2005); (3) CCAA with the Ohio Department of Natural 
Resources Division of Natural Areas and Preserves for Rome State Nature 
Preserve in Ashtabula County (2006); and (4) CCAA with the Wisconsin 
Department of Natural Resources for the Lower Chippewa River Bottoms 
(2011).
    Due to these conservation agreements, the magnitude of threats is 
moderate at this time. Thus, we do not believe emergency listing is 
warranted. However, a recently completed extinction-risk model, along 
with information provided by species experts indicates that some 
populations are likely to suffer additional losses in abundance and 
genetic diversity and others will likely be extirpated unless threats 
are removed in the near future. Declines have continued or may be 
accelerating in several states. Thus we are monitoring the status of 
this species to determine if a change in listing priority is warranted. 
Threats of habitat modification, habitat succession, incompatible land 
management practices, illegal collection for the pet trade, and human 
persecution are ongoing and imminent threats to many remaining 
populations, particularly those inhabiting private lands. Based on 
imminent threats of moderate magnitude, we assigned this species an LPN 
of 8.
    Black pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi)--The following 
summary is based on information contained in our files. No new 
information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. 
There are historical records for the black pine snake from one parish 
in Louisiana, 14 counties in Mississippi, and 3 counties in Alabama 
west of the Mobile River Delta. Black pine snake surveys and trapping 
indicate that this species has been extirpated from Louisiana and from 
3 counties in Mississippi. Moreover, the distribution of remaining 
populations has become highly restricted due to the destruction and 
fragmentation of the remaining longleaf pine habitat within the range 
of the subspecies. Most of the known Mississippi populations are 
concentrated on the DeSoto National Forest. In Alabama, populations 
occurring on properties managed by State and other governmental 
agencies as gopher tortoise mitigation banks or wildlife sanctuaries 
represent the best opportunities for long-term survival of the 
subspecies there. Other factors affecting the black pine snake include 
vehicular mortality and low reproductive rates, which magnify the 
threats from destruction and fragmentation of longleaf pine habitat and 
increase the likelihood of local extinctions. Due to the imminent 
threats of high magnitude caused by the past destruction of most of the 
longleaf pine habitat of the black pine snake, and the continuing 
persistent degradation of what remains, we assigned an LPN of 3 to this 
subspecies.
    Louisiana pine snake (Pituophis ruthveni)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files and the petition we 
received on July 20, 2000, and updated through April 30, 2011. The 
Louisiana pine snake historically occurred in the fire-maintained 
longleaf pine ecosystem within west-central Louisiana and extreme east-
central Texas. Most of the historical longleaf pine habitat of the 
Louisiana pine snake has been destroyed or degraded due to logging, 
fire suppression, roadways, short rotation silviculture, and grazing. 
The loss, degradation, and fragmentation of the longleaf pine ecosystem 
have resulted in extant Louisiana pine snake populations that are 
isolated and small.
    The Louisiana pine snake is currently restricted to seven disjunct 
populations; five of the populations occur on Federal lands, and two 
occur mainly on private industrial timberlands. Currently occupied 
habitat in Louisiana and Texas is estimated to be approximately 163,000 
ac. All remnant Louisiana pine snake habitats require active management 
to remain suitable. A Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA) was 
completed in 2003 to maintain and enhance occupied and potential 
habitat on public lands, and to protect known Louisiana pine snake 
populations. This proactive habitat management has likely slowed or 
reversed the rate of Louisiana pine snake habitat degradation on many 
portions of federal lands. The 2003 CCA is being updated and should be 
completed in 2013. The 2013 Updated

[[Page 70123]]

CCA will directly link the specific conservation actions performed by 
the Cooperators to the specific threats affecting the species. Because 
all extant populations are currently isolated and fragmented by habitat 
loss in the matrix between populations, there is little potential for 
dispersal among remnant populations or for the natural re-colonization 
of vacant habitat patches.
    While the extent of Louisiana pine snake habitat loss has been 
great in the past and much of the remaining habitat has been degraded, 
habitat loss does not represent an imminent threat, primarily because 
the rate of habitat loss has declined on public lands. However, all 
populations require active habitat management, and the lack of adequate 
habitat remains a threat for several populations. The potential threats 
to a large percentage of extant Louisiana pine snake populations, 
coupled with the likely permanence of these effects and the species' 
low fecundity and low population sizes (based on capture rates and 
occurrence data), lead us to conclude that the threats have significant 
effect on the survival of the species and therefore remain high in 
magnitude. The threats are not imminent, because the rate of habitat 
loss appears to be declining due to proactive habitat management and 
susceptibility to stochastic environmental factors from small 
populations is not imminently threatening this species. Thus, based on 
nonimminent, high-magnitude threats, we assign a listing priority 
number of 5 to this species.
    Tucson shovel-nosed snake (Chionactis occipitalis klauberi)--The 
Tucson shovel-nosed snake is a small, burrowing snake in the Colubridae 
family that occupied a roughly 35-mile-wide swath running along the 
Phoenix-Tucson corridor in northeastern Pima, southwestern Pinal, and 
eastern Maricopa Counties, Arizona. No systematic surveys have been 
conducted to assess the status of the subspecies throughout its range, 
but it has apparently disappeared from some areas.
    Threats to the Tucson shovel-nosed snake include urban and rural 
development; road construction, use, and maintenance; construction of 
solar-power facilities and transmission corridors; agriculture; 
wildfires; and lack of adequate management and regulation. 
Comprehensive plans encompassing the entire range of the snake 
encourage large growth areas in the next 20 years and beyond. These 
plans also call for an increase in roads and transportation corridors, 
which have been documented to affect the snake through direct 
mortality. Additionally, demand for and development of solar-energy 
facilities and transmission corridors throughout the State will likely 
increase. Wildfires due to infestations of nonnative grasses in the 
snake's habitat, dominated by native plants not adapted to survive 
wildfires, are likely to increase in frequency and magnitude in the 
future as these invasive grasses continue to spread rapidly. 
Regulations are not in place to minimize or mitigate these threats to 
the Tucson shovel-nosed snake and its habitat, and, therefore, they are 
likely to put the snake at risk of local extirpation or extinction. 
These threats, particularly those that lead to a loss of habitat, are 
likely to reduce the population of the Tucson shovel-nosed snake across 
its entire range. Given the limited geographic distribution of this 
snake and the fact that its entire range lies within the path of 
development in the foreseeable future, these threats are of high 
magnitude. Because development, wildfires, and spread of nonnative 
grasses are ongoing, and are likely to increase in the future, the 
threats are imminent. Accordingly, we have retained an LPN of 3 for the 
Tucson shovel-nosed snake.
    Desert tortoise, Sonoran (Gopherus morafkai)--The following summary 
is based on information in our files. Sonoran desert tortoises are most 
closely associated with Sonoran and Mojave Desert scrub vegetation 
types, but may also be found in other habitat types within their 
distribution and elevation range. They occur most commonly on rocky, 
steep slopes and bajadas in paloverde-mixed cacti associations. Washes 
and valley bottoms may be used in dispersal and, in some areas, as all 
or part of home ranges. Most Sonoran desert tortoises in Arizona occur 
between 904 and 4,198 feet (275 and 1280 meters) in elevation. The 
Sonoran desert tortoise is distributed south and east of the Colorado 
River in Arizona in all counties except for Navajo, Apache, Coconino, 
and Greenlee Counties, south to the Rio Yaqui in southern Sonora, 
Mexico.
    The major threats to the Sonoran desert tortoise include nonnative 
plant species invasions and altered fire regimes, urban and 
agricultural development, and factors associated with human population 
growth which collectively and cumulatively affect core tortoise 
population areas and create barriers to dispersal and genetic exchange. 
Threats to the Sonoran desert tortoise differ geographically in type 
and scope, and are highly synergistic in their effects. However, in 
their totality, these threats are high in magnitude because of the 
large amount of habitat that is likely to be affected and the 
irreversible nature of the effect of these threats in sensitive 
habitats that are slow to rebound. While some threats are ongoing, the 
more significant ones are not. Thus, overall, the threats are 
nonimminent. Recent phylogenetic research confirmed what has been 
suspected for decades within the scientific community that the Sonoran 
desert tortoise is a distinct species. In 2012 we changed the LPN from 
a 6 to a 5, reflecting that this entity is now a full species and no 
longer a DPS. We maintain the LPN of 5 for the Sonoran desert tortoise.
    Gopher tortoise, eastern population (Gopherus polyphemus)--The 
following summary is based on information in our files. The gopher 
tortoise is a large, terrestrial, herbivorous turtle that reaches a 
total length up to 15 in (38 cm), and typically inhabits the sandhills, 
pine/scrub oak uplands, and pine flatwoods associated with the longleaf 
pine (Pinus palustris) ecosystem. A fossorial animal, the gopher 
tortoise is usually found in areas with well-drained, deep, sandy 
soils; an open tree canopy; and a diverse, abundant, herbaceous 
groundcover. The gopher tortoise ranges from extreme southern South 
Carolina south through peninsular Florida, and west through southern 
Georgia, Florida, southern Alabama, and Mississippi, into extreme 
southeastern Louisiana. The eastern population of the gopher tortoise 
in South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and Alabama (east of the Mobile 
and Tombigbee Rivers) is a candidate species; the gopher tortoise is 
federally listed as threatened in the western portion of its range, 
which includes Alabama (west of the Mobile and Tombigbee Rivers), 
Mississippi, and Louisiana.
    The primary threat to the gopher tortoise is habitat fragmentation, 
destruction, and modification (either deliberately or from 
inattention), including conversion of longleaf pine forests to other 
silvicultural or agricultural habitats, urbanization, shrub/hardwood 
encroachment (mainly from fire exclusion or insufficient fire 
management), and establishment and spread of invasive species. Other 
threats include disease, predation (mainly on nests and young 
tortoises), and inadequate regulatory mechanisms, specifically those 
needed to protect and enhance relocated tortoise populations in 
perpetuity. The magnitude of threats to the eastern range of the gopher 
tortoise is moderate to low, as populations extend over a broad 
geographic area and conservation

[[Page 70124]]

measures are in place in some areas. However, because the species is 
currently being affected by a number of threats, including destruction 
and modification of its habitat, disease, predation, exotics, and 
inadequate regulatory mechanisms, the threat is imminent. Thus, we have 
assigned a listing priority number of 8 for this species.
    Sonoyta mud turtle (Kinosternon sonoriense longifemorale)--The 
following summary is based on information contained in our files. No 
new information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 
2004. The Sonoyta mud turtle occurs in a spring and pond at 
Quitobaquito Springs on Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in Arizona, 
and in the Rio Sonoyta and Quitovac Spring of Sonora, Mexico. Loss and 
degradation of stream habitat from water diversion and groundwater 
pumping, along with its very limited distribution, are the primary 
threats to the Sonoyta mud turtle. Sonoyta mud turtles are highly 
aquatic and depend on permanent water for survival. The area of 
southwest Arizona and northern Sonora where the Sonoyta mud turtle 
occurs is one of the driest regions in the Southwest. While currently 
there is sufficient water for the turtles, due to continued drought and 
irrigated agriculture in the region, we expect surface water in the Rio 
Sonoyta and Quitobaquito Springs to further dwindle in the foreseeable 
future and negatively affect this species. National Park Service staff 
continue to implement actions to stabilize the water levels in the pond 
at Quitobaquito Springs. However, surface water use in the Rio Sonoyta, 
in Sonora Mexico, will have a significant impact on the survival of 
this subspecies. We retained an LPN of 6 for Sonoyta mud turtle due to 
high-magnitude, nonimminent threats.
Amphibians
    Columbia spotted frog, Great Basin DPS (Rana luteiventris)--The 
following summary is based on information contained in our files and 
the petition received on May 1, 1989. Extensive surveys and monitoring 
since 1993 have revealed that Columbia spotted frog populations within 
the Great Basin DPS are more widespread and common than previously 
known. While some sites and watersheds are no longer occupied, Columbia 
spotted frogs are widely distributed throughout southwestern Idaho and 
northeastern Nevada, with isolated and disjunct populations in 
southeastern Oregon and central Nevada. Most populations, however, are 
small and fragmented, which makes them susceptible to extinction 
processes.
    Historical and to some extent current management of Columbia 
spotted frog habitat, including water development, improper grazing, 
mining activities, beaver management, and nonnative species have 
degraded and fragmented habitat and continue to do so. Emerging viral 
and fungal diseases such as Ranavirus and chytridiomycosis, as well as 
parasites, are not currently known to be a threat to Columbia spotted 
frog populations within the Great Basin DPS. Effects of climate change 
and stochastic events such as drought and wildfire can have detrimental 
effects to small isolated populations and exacerbate existing threats. 
A 10-year Conservation Agreement and Strategy for populations of 
Columbia spotted frogs in Nevada was signed in September 2003. The 
goals of this conservation agreement are to reduce threats to Columbia 
spotted frogs and their habitat to the extent necessary to prevent 
populations from becoming extirpated throughout all or a portion of 
their historical range and to maintain, enhance, and restore a 
sufficient number of populations of Columbia spotted frogs and their 
habitat to ensure their continued existence throughout their historical 
range in Nevada. This Conservation Agreement and Strategy is currently 
being revised. Additionally, a Candidate Conservation Agreement with 
Assurances was completed in 2006 for the Owyhee subpopulation at Sam 
Noble Springs, Idaho. Several habitat enhancement projects that have 
benefitted populations of Columbia spotted frogs have been conducted 
throughout the DPS's range.
    Because the DPS is widely distributed and there are management 
actions in place working to reduce the scope of threats to the DPS, we 
conclude that the threats are moderate. The threats are imminent, 
because development and poor management of its habitat are already 
present. Based on imminent threats of moderate magnitude, we assigned 
an LPN of 9 to this DPS of the Columbia spotted frog.
    Relict leopard frog (Lithobates onca)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. Natural relict leopard 
frog populations occur in two general areas in Nevada: Near the Overton 
Arm area of Lake Mead and Black Canyon below Lake Mead. These two areas 
include a small fraction of the historical distribution of the species. 
Its historical range included springs, streams, and wetlands within the 
Virgin River drainage downstream from the vicinity of Hurricane, Utah; 
along the Muddy River in Nevada; and along the Colorado River in Nevada 
and Arizona, from its confluence with the Virgin River downstream to 
Black Canyon below Lake Mead.
    Factors contributing to the decline of the species include 
alteration, loss, and degradation of aquatic habitat due to water 
developments and impoundments, and scouring and erosion; changes in 
plant communities that result in dense growth and the prevalence of 
vegetation; introduced predators; climate change; and stochastic 
events. The presence of chytrid fungus in relict leopard frogs at Lower 
Blue Point Spring is a concern and warrants further evaluation of the 
threat of disease to the relict leopard frog. The size of natural and 
translocated populations is small and, therefore, these populations are 
vulnerable to stochastic events, such as floods and wildfire. Climate 
change that results in reduced spring flow, habitat loss, and increased 
prevalence of wildfire would adversely affect relict leopard frog 
populations.
    In 2005, the National Park Service, in cooperation with the Fish 
and Wildlife Service and other Federal, State, and local partners, 
developed a conservation agreement and strategy, which is intended to 
improve the status of the species through prescribed management actions 
and protection. Conservation actions identified in the agreement and 
strategy include captive rearing of tadpoles for translocation and 
refugium populations, habitat and natural history studies, habitat 
enhancement, population and habitat monitoring, and translocation. New 
sites within the historical range of the species have been successfully 
established with captive-reared frogs. Conservation is proceeding under 
the agreement and strategy; however, additional time is needed to 
determine whether or not the agreement and strategy will be effective 
in eliminating or reducing the threats to the point that the relict 
leopard frog can be removed from candidate status. In consideration of 
these conservation efforts and the overall threat level to the species, 
we determined the magnitude of existing threats is moderate to low. 
Potential water development and other habitat effects, presence of 
introduced predators, chytrid fungus, limited distribution, small 
population size, and climate change are ongoing, and thus, imminent 
threats. Therefore, we continue to assign a listing priority number 
(LPN) of 8 to this species.
    Striped newt (Notophthalmus perstriatus)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. The striped newt 
(Notophthalmus perstriatus) is a small salamander that

[[Page 70125]]

inhabits ephemeral ponds surrounded by upland habitats of high pine, 
scrubby flatwoods, and scrub. Longleaf pine-turkey oak stands with 
intact ground cover containing wiregrass are the preferred upland 
habitat for striped newts, followed by scrub, then flatwoods. Life-
history stages of the striped newt are complex, and include the use of 
both aquatic and terrestrial habitats throughout its life cycle. 
Striped newts are opportunistic feeders that prey on a variety of items 
such as frog eggs, worms, snails, fairy shrimp, spiders, and insects 
(adult and larvae) that are of appropriate size. They occur in 
appropriate habitats from the Atlantic Coastal Plain of southeastern 
Georgia to the north-central peninsula of Florida, and through the 
Florida panhandle into portions of southwest Georgia. There is a 125-km 
(78-mi) separation between the western and eastern portions of the 
striped newt's range.
    The historical range of the striped newt was likely similar to the 
current range. However, loss of native longleaf habitat, fire 
suppression, and the natural patchy distribution of upland habitats 
used by striped newts have resulted in fragmentation of existing 
populations. Other threats to the species include disease, drought, and 
inadequate regulatory mechanisms. Overall, we conclude that the 
magnitude of the threats to be moderate and the threats are ongoing, 
and therefore imminent. Therefore, we assigned a listing priority 
number of 8 to the newt.
    Berry Cave salamander (Gyrinophilus gulolineatus)--The following 
summary is based on information in our files. The Berry Cave salamander 
is recorded from Berry Cave in Roane County; from Mud Flats, Aycock 
Spring, Christian, Meades Quarry, Meades River, and Fifth Caves in Knox 
County; from Blythe Ferry Cave in Meigs County; and from an unknown 
cave in Athens, McMinn County, Tennessee. In May of 2012, the species 
was also discovered in an additional cave, The Lost Puddle Cave, in 
Knox County. These cave systems are all located within the Upper 
Tennessee River and Clinch River drainages. 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. These surveys concluded that Berry Cave salamander 
populations are robust at Berry and Mudflats Caves where population 
declines had been previously reported and documented two new 
populations of Berry Cave salamanders at Aycock Spring and Christian 
Caves. Three Berry Cave salamanders were spotted during the May, 2012, 
survey in The Lost Puddle and local cavers also reported sighting one 
individual in August 2012. Surveys for new populations are planned 
along the Valley and Ridge Province between Knoxville and Chattanooga.
    Ongoing threats to this species 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 affect 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. These threats, coupled with confined distribution 
of the species and apparent low population densities, are all factors 
that leave the Berry Cave salamander vulnerable to extirpation. We have 
determined that the Berry Cave salamander faces imminent threats of 
moderate magnitude. Based on moderate-magnitude, imminent threats, we 
continue to assign this species a listing priority number of 8.
    Black Warrior waterdog (Necturus alabamensis)--The following 
summary is based on information contained in our files. No new 
information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. 
The Black Warrior waterdog is a salamander that inhabits streams above 
the Fall Line within the Black Warrior River Basin in Alabama. There is 
very little specific locality information available on the historical 
distribution of the Black Warrior waterdog, since little attention was 
given to this species between its description in 1937 and the 1980s. At 
that time, there were a total of only 11 known historical records from 
4 Alabama counties. Two of these sites have now been inundated by 
impoundments. Extensive survey work was conducted in the 1990s to look 
for additional populations. As a result of that work, the species was 
documented at 14 sites in 5 counties.
    Water-quality degradation is the biggest threat to the continued 
existence of the Black Warrior waterdog. Most streams that have been 
surveyed for the waterdog showed evidence of pollution, and many lacked 
biological diversity. Sources of point and nonpoint pollution in the 
Black Warrior River Basin have been numerous and widespread. Pollution 
is generated from inadequately treated effluent from industrial plants, 
sanitary landfills, sewage treatment plants, poultry operations, and 
cattle feedlots. Surface mining represents another threat to the 
biological integrity of waterdog habitat. Runoff from old, abandoned 
coal mines generates pollution through acidification, increased 
mineralization, and sediment loading. The North River, Locust Fork, and 
Mulberry Fork, all streams that this species inhabits, are on the 
Environmental Protection Agency's list of impaired waters. An 
additional threat to the Black Warrior waterdog is the creation of 
large impoundments that have flooded thousands of square hectares of 
its habitat. These impoundments are likely marginal or unsuitable 
habitat for the salamander. Suitable habitat for the Black Warrior 
waterdog is limited and available data indicate extant populations are 
small and their viability is questionable. This situation is pervasive 
and problematic; water quality issues are persistent and regulatory 
mechanisms are not ameliorating these threats. The most current survey 
information indicates that all populations except one may have 
decreased below detectable limits. Therefore, the overall magnitude of 
the threat is high. Water quality degradation in the Black Warrior 
basin is ongoing; therefore, the threats are imminent and the LPN of 
this species remains 2.
Fishes
    Headwater chub (Gila nigra)--The following summary is based on 
information contained in our files since 2006 and in the 12-month 
finding published in the Federal Register on May 3, 2006 (71 FR 26007). 
The headwater chub is a moderate-sized cyprinid fish. The range of the 
headwater chub has been reduced by approximately 60 percent. Twenty-two 
streams (125 mi (200 km) of stream) are thought to be occupied out of 
25 streams (312 mi (500 km) of stream) formerly occupied in the Gila 
River Basin in Arizona and New Mexico. We have removed Dinner Creek, a 
tributary to Spring Creek, from the list of occupied streams. Based on 
new survey data, Dinner Creek is ephemeral and only usable by headwater 
chub from Spring Creek when water is present. All remaining populations 
are rare, fragmented and isolated, and face threats from a combination 
of factors.
    Headwater chubs face threats from introduced, nonnative fish that 
prey on them and compete with them for food. Habitat destruction and 
modification have occurred and continue to occur as a result of 
dewatering, impoundment, channelization, and channel changes caused by 
alteration of riparian vegetation and watershed degradation from 
mining, grazing, roads, water pollution, urban and suburban 
development, groundwater pumping, and other human actions. Existing 
regulatory mechanisms do not appear to

[[Page 70126]]

be adequate for addressing the impact of nonnative fish and also have 
not removed or eliminated the threats that continue to be posed through 
habitat degradation. The fragmented nature and rarity of existing 
populations makes them vulnerable to other natural or manmade factors, 
such as drought and wildfire. Climate change is predicted to worsen 
these threats through increased aridity of the region, thus reducing 
stream flows and warming aquatic habitats, which makes the habitat more 
suitable to nonnative species.
    The Arizona Game and Fish Department's Arizona Statewide 
Conservation Agreement for Roundtail chub (G. robusta), Headwater chub, 
Flannelmouth sucker (Catostomus latipinnis), Little Colorado River 
sucker (Catostomus spp.), Bluehead sucker (C. discobolus), and Zuni 
Bluehead sucker (C. discobolus yarrowi) was finalized in 2006. The New 
Mexico Department of Game and Fish has listed the headwater chub as 
endangered and in 2006 finalized a recovery plan for the species: 
Colorado River Basin Chubs (Roundtail chub, Gila chub (G. intermedia), 
and Headwater chub) Recovery Plan. Arizona's agreement and New Mexico's 
recovery plan both recommend preservation and enhancement of extant 
populations and restoration of historical headwater-chub populations. 
The recovery and conservation actions prescribed by Arizona's and New 
Mexico's plans, which we predict will reduce and remove threats to this 
species, will require further discussions and authorizations as they 
are being implemented. The recently completed Arizona Game and Fish 
Department Sportfish Stocking Program's Conservation and Mitigation 
Program contains significant conservation actions for the headwater 
chub that will be implemented over the next 10 years. Several surveys 
of existing populations have been completed under this program, 
increasing our information on the status of the species in those areas.
    Existing information indicates that existing populations are stable 
and persisting in the long term; 10 of the 22 extant stream populations 
are currently considered stable based on abundance and evidence of 
recruitment. Therefore, although threats are ongoing, the threats are 
moderate in magnitude. We retain an LPN of 8 for the headwater chub.
    Least chub (Iotichthys phlegethontis)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files and in the petition 
received on June 25, 2007. The least chub is a small, colorful fish 
species in Utah that prefers warm water habitats. Least chub use 
flooded, warmer, vegetated marsh areas to spawn in the spring, and 
retreat to spring heads to overwinter as the water recedes in the late 
summer and fall. Historically, many least chub occurrences were 
reported across the State of Utah, but the current distribution of the 
species is highly reduced from its historical range. Currently, only 
six known wild populations remain, with one considered functionally 
extirpated. In addition to the wild populations, least chub occur in 
eight introduced genetic refuge populations.
    The species faces threats from the effects of livestock grazing, as 
impacts are still observed at most least chub sites, despite efforts to 
protect least chub habitat with grazing management plans and grazing 
exclosures at several locations. Least chub habitat also is affected by 
current and future groundwater withdrawals, especially when combined 
with the threat of drought. The cumulative effects of drought, current 
and future groundwater withdrawal, and climate change put the remaining 
least chub populations at further risk. Existing regulatory mechanisms 
are currently inadequate to regulate groundwater withdrawals and 
ameliorate their effects on least chub habitat. Nonnative species, 
particularly mosquitofish, also are a continuing threat to least chub. 
Several significant efforts to remove mosquitofish from least chub 
habitats have proven unsuccessful. One least chub population is 
functionally extirpated due to mosquitofish, and nonnative fish are 
present at two of the five remaining viable, extant population sites.
    In 1998, several State and Federal agencies, including the Service 
and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, developed a Least Chub 
Conservation Agreement and Strategy and formed the Least Chub 
Conservation Team. Its objectives are to eliminate or significantly 
reduce threats to the least chub and its habitat, and to ensure the 
continued existence of the species by restoring and maintaining a 
minimum number of least chub populations throughout its historical 
range. Recent State-led least chub conservation actions have included 
restoration of habitat affected by grazing, reintroduction and range 
expansion, nonnative removal, population monitoring, and working 
cooperatively with landowners to conserve water and aquatic habitat. 
This group also has recently begun a structured-decision-making 
modeling process that will provide additional guidance for conservation 
activities.
    Overall, grazing, groundwater withdrawal, and predation by 
nonnative species are moderate magnitude threats, as the number and 
degree of the threats vary among populations; for some populations the 
threats are of high magnitude, while in others they are of low 
magnitude or nonexistent, such that when considering the overall 
species' range, the threats are of moderate magnitude on average. The 
threats are imminent because the species is currently facing a 
combination of the threats throughout many portions of its range. 
Therefore, we have assigned the least chub an LPN of 7.
    Roundtail chub (Gila robusta), Lower Colorado River DPS--The 
following summary is based on information contained in our files and 
the 12-month finding published in the Federal Register on July 7, 2009 
(74 FR 32352). The roundtail chub is a moderate-to-large cyprinid fish. 
The range of the roundtail chub has been reduced by approximately 68 to 
82 percent. Forty-seven streams or sections of larger rivers are 
currently occupied, representing approximately 18 to 32 percent of the 
species' former range, or 800 km (500 mi) to 1,350 km (840 mi) of 3,050 
km (1,895 mi) of formerly occupied streams in the Gila River Basin in 
Arizona and New Mexico. Most of the remaining populations are rare, 
fragmented and isolated, and all face threats from a combination of 
factors.
    Roundtail chub face threats from introduced nonnative fish that 
prey on them and compete with them for food. Habitat destruction and 
modification have occurred and continue to occur as a result of 
dewatering, impoundment, channelization, and channel changes caused by 
alteration of riparian vegetation and watershed degradation from 
mining, grazing, roads, water pollution, urban and suburban 
development, groundwater pumping, and other human actions. Existing 
regulatory mechanisms do not appear to be adequate for addressing the 
impact of nonnative fish, and also have not removed or eliminated the 
threats that continue to be posed through habitat destruction or 
modification. The fragmented nature and rarity of existing populations 
make roundtail chub vulnerable to other natural or manmade factors, 
such as drought and wildfire. Climate change is predicted to worsen 
these threats through increased aridity of the region, thus reducing 
stream flows and warming aquatic habitats, which makes the habitat more 
suitable to nonnative species.
    The Arizona Game and Fish Department's Arizona Statewide 
Conservation Agreement for Roundtail chub, Headwater chub (G. nigra), 
Flannelmouth sucker (Catostomus

[[Page 70127]]

latipinnis), Little Colorado River sucker (Catostomus spp.), Bluehead 
sucker (C. discobolus), and Zuni Bluehead sucker (C. discobolus 
yarrowi) was finalized in 2006. The New Mexico Department of Game and 
Fish lists the roundtail chub as endangered and in 2006 finalized a 
recovery plan for the species: Colorado River Basin Chubs (Roundtail 
chub, Gila chub (G. intermedia), and Headwater chub) Recovery Plan. 
Both the Arizona Agreement and the New Mexico Recovery Plan recommend 
preservation and enhancement of extant populations and restoration of 
historical roundtail chub populations. The recovery and conservation 
actions prescribed by the Arizona and New Mexico plans, which we 
predict will reduce and remove threats to this species, will require 
further discussions and authorizations as they are being implemented. 
The recently completed Arizona Game and Fish Department Sportfish 
Stocking Program's Conservation and Mitigation Program contains 
significant conservation actions for the roundtail chub that will be 
implemented over the next 10 years.
    Although threats are ongoing, existing information indicates long-
term persistence and stability of most existing populations. To better 
reflect status in the Salt and Verde Rivers, for this assessment we 
divided these rivers into five separate reaches that better reflected 
the status of roundtail chub in those systems. Currently, 13 of the 38 
extant populations are considered stable, based on abundance and 
evidence of recruitment. Two new conservation populations (Gap Creek 
and Blue River) were initially stocked in 2012, raising the number of 
introduced stream populations to four. Based on our assessment, threats 
(primarily nonnative species and habitat loss from land uses) remain 
imminent, because they are ongoing, and are of moderate magnitude 
because there is evidence of long-term persistence and stability of the 
existing populations. Thus, we have retained an LPN of 9 for this 
distinct population segment of the roundtail chub.
    Arkansas darter (Etheostoma cragini)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. No new information was 
provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. This fish species 
occurs in Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. The 
species is found most often in sand- or pebble-bottomed pools of small, 
spring-fed streams and marshes, with cool water and broadleaved aquatic 
vegetation. Its current distribution is indicative of a species that 
once was widely dispersed throughout its range, but has been relegated 
to isolated areas separated by unsuitable habitat that prevents 
dispersal.
    Factors influencing the current distribution include: Surface and 
groundwater irrigation resulting in decreased flows or stream 
dewatering; the dewatering of long reaches of riverine habitat 
necessary for species movement when surface flows do occur; conversion 
of prairie to cropland, which influences groundwater recharge and 
spring flows; water quality degradation from a variety of sources; and 
the construction of dams, which act as barriers preventing emigration 
upstream and downstream through the reservoir pool. A currently 
occurring drought in the western portions of the species' range is also 
a threat. If these conditions become protracted, this threat is likely 
to affect many of these isolated populations. However, at present, the 
magnitude of threats facing this species is still moderate to low, 
given the number of different locations where the species occurs and 
the fact that no single threat or combination of threats affects more 
than a portion of the widespread population occurrences. The immediacy 
of threats varies across the species range; groundwater pumping is an 
ongoing concern in the western portion of the species range, although 
it has declined in some portions. In the eastern portion of the range 
it is not an imminent threat but could become more pervasive in the 
future. Development, spills, and runoff are not currently affecting the 
species rangewide. Overall, the threats are nonimment. Thus, we are 
retaining an LPN of 11 for the Arkansas darter.
    Pearl darter (Percina aurora)--The following summary is based on 
information contained in our files. Little is known about the specific 
habitat requirements or natural history of the Pearl darter. Pearl 
darters have been collected from a variety of river/or tream 
attributes, mainly over gravel substrate. This species is historically 
known only from localized sites within the Pascagoula and Pearl River 
drainages in Mississippi and Louisiana. Currently, the Pearl darter is 
considered extirpated from the Pearl River drainage and rare in the 
Pascagoula River drainage. Since 1983, the range of the Pearl darter 
has decreased by 55 percent.
    The Pearl darter is vulnerable to nonpoint source pollution caused 
by urbanization and other land use activities; gravel mining and 
resultant changes in river geomorphology, especially head cutting; and 
the possibility of water quantity decline from the proposed Department 
of Energy Strategic Petroleum Reserve project and a proposed dam on the 
Bouie River. Additional threats are posed by the apparent lack of 
adequate State and Federal water quality regulations due to the 
continuing degradation of water quality within the species' habitat. 
The Pearl darter's localized distribution and apparent low population 
numbers may indicate a species with lower genetic diversity which would 
also make this species more vulnerable to catastrophic events. Threats 
affecting the Pearl darter are localized in nature, affecting portions 
of the population within the drainage, thus, we conclude that the 
threats to this species are moderate to low in magnitude. In addition, 
the threats are imminent since the identified threats are currently 
impacting this species in some portions of its range. Therefore, we 
have assigned a listing priority number of 8 for this species.
    Arctic grayling, Upper Missouri River DPS (Thymallus arcticus)--The 
following summary is based on information contained in our files. This 
fish species has a broad, nearly circumpolar distribution, occurring in 
a variety of cold-water habitats, including small streams, large 
rivers, lakes, and even bogs. We determined in our September 8, 2010, 
status review (75 FR 54708) that the upper Missouri River population of 
arctic grayling in Montana and Wyoming represents a DPS, because it is 
discrete due to geographic separation and genetic differences, and it 
is significant to the taxon as a whole. The historical range of Arctic 
grayling in the upper Missouri River basin has declined dramatically in 
the past century. The five remaining indigenous populations are 
isolated from one another by dams or other factors.
    All populations face potential threats from competition with and 
predation by nonnative trout, and most populations face threats 
resulting from the alteration of their habitats, such as habitat 
fragmentation from dams or irrigation diversion structures, stream 
dewatering, high summer water temperatures, loss of riparian habitats, 
and entrainment in irrigation ditches. Severe drought likely also 
affects all populations by reducing water availability and reducing the 
extent of thermally suitable habitat. Projected climate changes will 
likely influence the severity and scope of these threats in the future. 
As applied, existing regulatory mechanisms do not appear to be adequate 
to address the primary threats to arctic grayling. In addition, four of 
five populations are at risk from random environmental fluctuations and 
genetic drift due to their low abundance and isolation. The

[[Page 70128]]

magnitude of these threats is high because one or more of these threats 
occurs in each known population in the Missouri River basin. The 
threats are imminent because they are currently occurring and are 
expected to continue in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we have 
assigned the upper Missouri River DPS of arctic grayling an LPN of 3.
    Sicklefin redhorse (Moxostoma sp.)--We continue to find that 
listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of 
publication of this notice of review. However, we are working on a 
proposed listing rule that we expect to publish prior to making the 
next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the course of 
preparing the proposed listing rule, we are continuing to monitor new 
information about this species' status so that we can make prompt use 
of our authority under Section 4(b)(7) in the case of an emergency 
posing a significant risk to the species.
    Rio Grande cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis)--We 
continue to find that listing this species is warranted but precluded 
as of the date of publication of this notice of review. However, we are 
working on a proposed listing rule that we expect to publish prior to 
making the next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the 
course of preparing the proposed listing rule, we are continuing to 
monitor new information about this species' status so that we can make 
prompt use of our authority under Section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 
emergency posing a significant risk to the species.
Clams
    Texas fatmucket (Lampsilis bracteata)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. The Texas fatmucket is a 
large, elongated freshwater mussel that is endemic to central Texas. 
This species historically occurred throughout the Colorado and 
Guadalupe-San Antonio River basins but is now known to occur only in 
nine streams within these basins in very limited numbers. All existing 
populations are represented by only one or two individuals and are not 
likely to be stable or recruiting.
    The Texas fatmucket is primarily threatened by habitat destruction 
and modification from impoundments, which scour river beds, thereby 
removing mussel habitat; decrease water quality; modify stream flows; 
and prevent fish host migration and distribution of freshwater mussels. 
This species is also threatened by sedimentation, dewatering, sand and 
gravel mining, and chemical contaminants. Additionally, these threats 
may be exacerbated by the current and projected effects of climate 
change, population fragmentation and isolation, and the anticipated 
threat of nonnative species. Threats to the Texas fatmucket and its 
habitat are not being adequately addressed through existing regulatory 
mechanisms. Because of the limited distribution of this endemic species 
and its lack of mobility, these threats are likely to result in the 
extinction of the Texas fatmucket in the foreseeable future.
    The threats are such that the Texas fatmucket warrants listing; the 
threats are high in magnitude because habitat loss and degradation from 
impoundments, sedimentation, sand and gravel mining, and chemical 
contaminants are widespread throughout the range of the Texas fatmucket 
and profoundly affect its survival and recruitment. These threats are 
exacerbated by climate change, which will increase the frequency and 
magnitude of droughts. Remaining populations are small, isolated, and 
highly vulnerable to stochastic events, which could lead to extirpation 
or extinction. These threats are imminent because they are ongoing and 
will continue in the foreseeable future. Habitat loss and degradation 
have already occurred and will continue as the human population 
continues to grow in central Texas. Texas fatmucket populations may 
already be below the minimum viable population requirement, which 
causes a reduction in the number of populations and an increase in the 
species' vulnerability to extinction. Based on imminent, high-magnitude 
threats, we retain an LPN of 2 for the Texas fatmucket.
    Texas fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. The Texas fawnsfoot is a 
small, relatively thin-shelled freshwater mussel that is endemic to 
central Texas. This species historically occurred throughout the 
Colorado and Brazos River Basins and is now known from only five 
locations. The Texas fawnsfoot has been extirpated from nearly all of 
the Colorado River Basin and from much of the Brazos River Basin. Of 
the populations that remain, only three are likely to be stable and 
recruiting; the remaining populations are disjunct and restricted to 
short stream reaches.
    The Texas fawnsfoot is primarily threatened by habitat destruction 
and modification from impoundments, which scour riverbeds, thereby 
removing mussel habitat, decreasing water quality, modifying stream 
flows, and preventing fish host migration and distribution of 
freshwater mussels. In addition, the Texas fawnsfoot is threatened by 
sedimentation, dewatering, sand and gravel mining, and chemical 
contaminants. These threats may be exacerbated by the current and 
projected effects of climate change, population fragmentation and 
isolation, and the anticipated threat of nonnative species. Threats to 
the Texas fawnsfoot and its habitat are not being adequately addressed 
through existing regulatory mechanisms. Because of the limited 
distribution of this endemic species and its lack of mobility, these 
threats are likely to result in the extinction of the Texas fawnsfoot 
in the foreseeable future.
    The threats are such that the Texas fawnsfoot warrants listing; the 
threats are high in magnitude. Habitat loss and degradation from 
impoundments, sedimentation, sand and gravel mining, and chemical 
contaminants are widespread throughout the range of the Texas fawnsfoot 
and profoundly affect its habitat. These threats are exacerbated by 
climate change, which will increase the frequency and magnitude of 
droughts. Remaining populations are small, isolated, and highly 
vulnerable to stochastic events. These threats are imminent because 
they are ongoing and will continue in the foreseeable future. Habitat 
loss and degradation has already occurred and will continue as the 
human population continues to grow in central Texas. The Texas 
fawnsfoot populations may already be below the minimum viable 
population requirement, which causes a reduction in the number of 
populations and an increase in the species' vulnerability to 
extinction. Based on imminent, high-magnitude threats, we retain an LPN 
of 2 for the Texas fawnsfoot.
    Texas hornshell (Popenaias popei)--The following summary is based 
on information contained in our files and information provided by the 
New Mexico Department of Game and Fish and Texas Parks and Wildlife 
Department. The Texas hornshell is a freshwater mussel found in the 
Black River in New Mexico and in the Rio Grande and the Devils River in 
Texas. Until March 2008, the only known extant populations were in New 
Mexico's Black River and one locality in the Rio Grande near Laredo, 
Texas. In March 2008, two new localities were confirmed in Texas: One 
in the Devils River, and one in the mainstem Rio Grande in the Rio 
Grande Wild and Scenic River segment downstream of Big Bend National 
Park. In 2011, the Rio Grande population near Laredo was resurveyed and 
found to be large and robust.

[[Page 70129]]

    The primary threats to the Texas hornshell are habitat alterations 
such as streambank channelization, impoundments, and diversions for 
agriculture and flood control (including a proposed low-water diversion 
dam just downstream of the Rio Grande population near Laredo); 
contamination of water by oil and gas activity; alterations in the 
natural riverine hydrology; and increased sedimentation and flood 
pulses from prolonged overgrazing and loss of native vegetation. 
Although riverine habitats throughout the species' known occupied range 
are under constant threat from these ongoing or potential activities, 
numerous conservation actions to benefit the species are under way in 
New Mexico, including the reintroduction of the species to the Delaware 
River in New Mexico, and are beginning in Texas on the Big Bend reach 
of the Rio Grande. Due to these ongoing conservation efforts, and 
because at least one of the populations appears to be robust, the 
magnitude of the threats is moderate. However, the threats to the 
species are ongoing and remain imminent. Thus, we retain a LPN of 8 for 
the Texas hornshell.
    Golden orb (Quadrula aurea)--The following summary is based on 
information contained in our files. The golden orb is a small, round-
shaped freshwater mussel that is endemic to central Texas. This species 
historically occurred throughout the Nueces-Frio and Guadalupe-San 
Antonio River Basins and is now known from only nine locations in four 
rivers. The golden orb has been eliminated from nearly the entire 
Nueces-Frio River Basin. Four of these nine populations appear to be 
stable and reproducing, and the remaining five populations are small 
and isolated and show no evidence of recruitment. The populations in 
the middle Guadalupe and lower San Marcos Rivers are likely connected. 
The remaining extant populations are highly fragmented and restricted 
to short reaches.
    The golden orb is primarily threatened by habitat destruction and 
modification from impoundments, which scour river beds, thereby 
removing mussel habitat, decreasing water quality, modifying stream 
flows, and preventing fish host migration and distribution of 
freshwater mussels. The species is also threatened by sedimentation, 
dewatering, sand and gravel mining, and chemical contaminants. 
Additionally, these threats may be exacerbated by the current and 
projected effects of climate change, population fragmentation and 
isolation, and the anticipated threat of nonnative species. Threats to 
the golden orb and its habitat are not being adequately addressed 
through existing regulatory mechanisms. Because of the limited 
distribution of this endemic species and its lack of mobility, these 
threats may result in the extinction of the golden orb in the 
foreseeable future.
    The threats are such that the golden orb warrants listing; the 
threats are moderate in magnitude. Habitat loss and degradation from 
impoundments, sedimentation, sand and gravel mining, and chemical 
contaminants are widespread throughout the range of the golden orb, but 
several large populations remain, including one that was recently 
discovered, suggesting that the threats are not high in magnitude. 
These threats are exacerbated by climate change, which will increase 
the frequency and magnitude of droughts. These threats are imminent 
because they are ongoing and will continue in the foreseeable future. 
Habitat loss and degradation have already occurred and will continue as 
the human population continues to grow in central Texas. Several golden 
orb populations may already be below the minimum viable population 
requirement, which causes a reduction in the number of populations and 
an increase in the species' vulnerability to extinction. Based on 
imminent, moderate threats, we retain a LPN of 8 for the golden orb.
    Smooth pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. The smooth pimpleback is a 
small, round-shaped freshwater mussel that is endemic to central Texas. 
Based on historical and current data, the smooth pimpleback has 
declined rangewide and is now known from only nine counties throughout 
the Colorado River basin and it occurs in 14 counties throughout the 
Brazos River basin. The species has been eliminated from nearly the 
entire Colorado River and all but one of its tributaries, and has been 
eliminated from the upper Brazos River and several tributaries as well. 
The lower Colorado River, San Saba River, lower Brazos River, Navasota 
River, Leon River, and Yegua Creek populations appear to be stable and 
reproducing, but the remaining populations are small, isolated, and 
represented by only a few individuals.
    The smooth pimpleback is primarily threatened by habitat 
destruction and modification from impoundments, which scour river beds, 
thereby removing mussel habitat, decreasing water quality, modifying 
stream flows, and preventing fish host migration and distribution of 
freshwater mussels. The species is also threatened by sedimentation, 
dewatering, sand and gravel mining, and chemical contaminants. 
Additionally, these threats may be exacerbated by the current and 
projected effects of climate change, population fragmentation and 
isolation, and the anticipated threat of nonnative species. Threats to 
the smooth pimpleback and its habitat are not being adequately 
addressed through existing regulatory mechanisms. Because of the 
limited distribution of this endemic species and its lack of mobility, 
these threats may result in the extinction of the smooth pimpleback in 
the foreseeable future.
    The threats are such that the smooth pimpleback warrants listing; 
the threats are moderate in magnitude. Habitat loss and degradation 
from impoundments, sedimentation, sand and gravel mining, and chemical 
contaminants are widespread throughout the range of the smooth 
pimpleback, but several large populations remain, including one that 
was recently discovered, suggesting that the threats are not high in 
magnitude. These threats are exacerbated by climate change, which will 
increase the frequency and magnitude of droughts. These threats are 
imminent because they are ongoing and will continue in the foreseeable 
future. Habitat loss and degradation have already occurred and will 
continue as the human population continues to grow in central Texas. 
Several smooth pimpleback populations may already be below the minimum 
viable population requirement, which causes a reduction in the number 
of populations and an increase in the species' vulnerability to 
extinction. Based on imminent, moderate threats, we maintain an LPN of 
8 for the smooth pimpleback.
    Texas pimpleback (Quadrula petrina)--The following summary is based 
on information contained in our files. The Texas pimpleback is a large, 
freshwater mussel that is endemic to central Texas. This species 
historically occurred throughout the Colorado and Guadalupe-San Antonio 
River Basins, but is now known to only occur in four streams within 
these basins. Only two populations appear large enough to be stable, 
the Concho River population and in the San Saba River population, but 
evidence of recruitment is limited in even in these populations. The 
remaining two populations are represented by one or two individuals and 
are highly disjunct, with no evidence of recruitment.
    The Texas pimpleback is primarily threatened by habitat destruction 
and modification from impoundments, which scour riverbeds, thereby 
removing mussel habitat, decreasing

[[Page 70130]]

water quality, modifying stream flows, and preventing fish host 
migration and distribution of freshwater mussels. This species is also 
threatened by sedimentation, dewatering, sand and gravel mining, and 
chemical contaminants. Additionally, these threats may be exacerbated 
by the current and projected effects of climate change, population 
fragmentation and isolation, and the anticipated threat of nonnative 
species. Threats to the Texas pimpleback and its habitat are not being 
adequately addressed through existing regulatory mechanisms. Because of 
the limited distribution of this endemic species and its lack of 
mobility, these threats may result in the extinction of the Texas 
pimpleback in the foreseeable future.
    The threats are such that the Texas pimpleback warrants listing; 
the threats are high in magnitude because habitat loss and degradation 
from impoundments, sedimentation, sand and gravel mining, and chemical 
contaminants are widespread throughout the range of the Texas 
pimpleback and profoundly affect its survival and recruitment. 
Remaining populations are small, isolated, and highly vulnerable to 
stochastic events, which could lead to extirpation or extinction. These 
threats are exacerbated by climate change, which will increase the 
frequency and magnitude of droughts. These threats are imminent because 
they are ongoing and will continue in the foreseeable future. Habitat 
loss and degradation have already occurred and will continue as the 
human population continues to grow in central Texas. Texas pimpleback 
populations may already be below the minimum viable population 
requirement, which causes a reduction in the number of populations and 
an increase in the species' vulnerability to extinction. Based on 
imminent, high-magnitude threats, we retain a LPN of 2 for the Texas 
pimpleback.
Snails
    Black mudalia (Elimia melanoides)--The following summary is based 
on information contained in our files. No new information was provided 
in the petition we received on April 20, 2010. The black mudalia is a 
small snail that is found clinging to clean gravel, cobble, boulders, 
and/or logs in flowing water on shoals and riffles. The historical 
distribution of the black mudalia encompassed over 250 miles of stream 
channel in the upper Black Warrior River drainage in Alabama. The 
species has been extirpated from more than 80 percent of that range by 
the construction of two major dams on the main stem Black Warrior River 
and another dam on the lower Sipsey Fork. Other historical causes of 
range curtailment in the un-dammed river and stream channels of the 
upper Black Warrior River drainage include coal mine drainage, 
industrial and municipal pollution events, and agricultural runoff. 
After being rediscovered in a small portion of its historical range in 
the Black Warrior drainage, further survey work has recorded the 
mudalia from 10 shoal populations in 5 streams.
    Water quality and habitat degradation are the biggest threats to 
the continued existence of the black mudalia. Sources of point and 
nonpoint pollution in the Black Warrior River Basin have been numerous 
and widespread. Pollution is generated from inadequately treated 
effluent from industrial plants, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment 
plants, poultry operations, and cattle feedlots. Surface mining 
represents another threat to the biological integrity of stream 
habitats. Runoff from old, abandoned coal mines generates pollution 
through acidification, increased mineralization, and sediment loading. 
Most of the stream segments draining into black mudalia habitat 
currently support their water quality classification standards; 
however, the reach of the Locust Fork where the species is found is 
identified on the Alabama 303(d) List (a list of water bodies failing 
to meet their designated water-use classifications) as impaired by 
siltation, nutrients, and/or other habitat alterations. Additional 
surveys that are currently underway will clarify the extent and status 
of black mudalia populations. The threats are of moderate magnitude as 
they affect the 10 populations to varying degrees. The threats are 
ongoing and thus, are imminent. Therefore, we assigned an LPN of 8 to 
this species.
    Magnificent ramshorn (Planorbella magnifica)--Magnificent ramshorn, 
is the largest North American air-breathing freshwater snail in the 
family Planorbidae. The shell is brown colored (often with leopard like 
spots) and fragile, thus indicating it is adapted to still or slow 
flowing aquatic habitats. The magnificent ramshorn is believed to be a 
southeastern North Carolina endemic; it was known from only four sites 
in the lower Cape Fear River Basin in North Carolina. Although the 
complete historic range of the species is unknown, given the size of 
the species and the fact that it was not reported until 1903 is an 
indication that the species may have always been rare and localized. 
The only known surviving individuals of the species are presently being 
held and propagated at a private residence, and at a lab at NC State 
University's Veterinary School; another small population is in the 
process of being established at the NC Wildlife Resources Commission's 
Watha State Fish Hatchery.
    Salinity and pH apparently were major factors limiting the 
distribution of the magnificent ramshorn, as the snail prefers 
freshwater bodies with circumneutral pH (i.e., pH within the range of 
6.8-7.5). While members of the family Planorbidae are hermaphroditic, 
it is currently unknown whether magnificent ramshorns self-fertilize 
their eggs, mate with other individuals of the species, or both. Like 
other members of the Planorbidae family, the magnificent ramshorn is 
believed to be primarily a vegetarian, feeding on submerged aquatic 
plants, algae, and detritus. While several factors have likely 
contributed to the possible extirpation of the magnificent ramshorn in 
the wild, the primary factors include loss of habitat associated with 
the extirpation of beavers (and their impoundments) in the early 20th 
century, increased salinity and alteration of flow patterns, as well as 
increased input of nutrients and other pollutants. While efforts have 
been made to restore habitat for the magnificent ramshorn at one of the 
sites known to have previously supported the species, all of the sites 
continue to be affected and/or threatened by the same factors (i.e., 
salt water intrusion and other water quality degradation, nuisance 
aquatic plant control, storms, sea-level rise, etc.) believed to have 
resulted in extirpation of the species from the wild. Currently, only 
two captive populations exist; a single robust captive population of 
the species comprised of approximately 200+ adults, and a second small 
population of 50+ individuals. Although the robust captive population 
of the species has been maintained since 1993, a single catastrophic 
event, such as a severe storm, disease, or predator infestation 
affecting this captive population, could result in the near extinction 
of the species. Therefore, we assigned this species an LPN of 2.
    Sisi snail (Ostodes strigatus)--The following summary is based on 
information contained in our files. No new information was provided in 
the petition we received on May 11, 2004. The sisi snail is a ground-
dwelling species in the Potaridae family, and is endemic to American 
Samoa. The species is now known from a single population on the island 
of Tutuila, American Samoa.
    This species is currently threatened by habitat loss and 
modification and by

[[Page 70131]]

predation from nonnative predatory snails. The decline of the sisi 
snail in American Samoa has resulted, in part, from loss of habitat to 
logging and agriculture and loss of forest structure to hurricanes and 
nonnative weeds that become established after these storms. All live 
sisi snails have been found in the leaf litter beneath remaining intact 
forest canopy. No snails were found in areas bordering agricultural 
plots or in forested areas that were severely damaged by three 
hurricanes. Under natural historical conditions, loss of forest canopy 
to storms did not pose a great threat to the long-term survival of 
these snails; enough intact forest with healthy populations of snails 
would support dispersal back into newly regrown forest canopy. However, 
the presence of nonnative weeds such as mile-a-minute vine (Mikania 
micrantha) may reduce the likelihood that native forests will re-
establish in areas damaged by hurricanes. This loss of habitat to 
storms is greatly exacerbated by expanding agriculture. Agricultural 
plots on Tutuila have spread from low elevation up to middle and some 
high elevations, greatly reducing the forested area and thus reducing 
the resilience of native forests and populations of native snails. 
These reductions also increase the likelihood that future storms will 
lead to the extinction of populations or species that rely on the 
remaining forest canopy. In an effort to eradicate the nonnative giant 
African snail (Achatina fulica), the nonnative rosy carnivore snail 
(Euglandia rosea) was introduced in 1980. The rosy carnivore snail has 
spread throughout the main island of Tutuila. Numerous studies show 
that the rosy carnivore snail feeds on endemic island snails, including 
the sisi snail, and is a major agent in their declines and 
extirpations. At present, the major threat to long-term survival of the 
native snail fauna in American Samoa, including the sisi snail, is 
predation by nonnative predatory snails. These threats are ongoing and 
are therefore imminent. Since the threats occur throughout the entire 
range of the species, have a severe effect on the survival of the 
snails, and lead to a relatively high likelihood of extinction, they 
are of a high magnitude. Therefore we have retained an LPN of 2 for 
this species.
    Fragile tree snail (Samoana fragilis)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. No new information was 
provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. A tree-dwelling 
species, the fragile tree snail is a member of the Partulidae family of 
snails, and is endemic to the islands of Guam and Rota (Mariana 
Islands). Requiring cool and shaded native forest habitat, the species 
is now known from one population on Guam and from one population on 
Rota.
    The fragile tree snail is currently threatened by habitat loss and 
modification and by predation from nonnative predatory snails and 
flatworms. Large numbers of Philippine deer (Cervus mariannus) (Guam 
and Rota), pigs (Sus scrofa) (Guam), water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) 
(Guam), and cattle (Bos taurus) (Rota) directly alter the understory 
plant community and overall forest microclimate, making it unsuitable 
for tree snails. Predation by the nonnative rosy carnivore snail 
(Euglandina rosea) and the Manokwar flatworm (Platydemus manokwari) is 
a serious threat to the survival of the fragile tree snail. Field 
observations have established that the rosy carnivore snail and the 
Manokwar flatworm will readily feed on native Pacific Island tree 
snails, including the Partulidae. The rosy carnivore snail has caused 
the extirpation of many populations and species of native snails 
throughout the Pacific islands. The Manokwar flatworm has also 
contributed to the decline of native tree snails, in part due to its 
ability to ascend into trees and bushes that support native snails. 
Areas with populations of the flatworm usually lack partulid tree 
snails or have declining numbers of snails. Because all of the threats 
occur rangewide and have a significant effect on the survival of the 
fragile tree snail, they are high in magnitude, and the species has a 
relatively high likelihood of extinction. The threats are also ongoing 
and thus are imminent. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 for this 
species.
    Guam tree snail (Partula radiolata)--The following summary is based 
on information contained in our files. No new information was provided 
in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. A tree-dwelling species, 
the Guam tree snail is a member of the Partulidae family of snails and 
is endemic to the island of Guam. Requiring cool and shaded native 
forest habitat, the species is now known from 22 populations on Guam.
    This species is primarily threatened by predation from several 
species, as well as by habitat loss and degradation. Predation by the 
nonnative rosy carnivore snail (Euglandina rosea) and the nonnative 
Manokwar flatworm (Platydemus manokwari) is a serious threat to the 
survival of the Guam tree snail (see summary for the fragile tree 
snail, above). In addition, predation by rats (Rattus spp.) is a 
serious and ongoing threat to the Guam tree snail. On Guam, open 
agricultural fields and other areas prone to erosion were seeded with 
tangantangan (Leucaena leucocephala) by the U.S. Military. Leucaena 
leucocephala grows as a single species stand with no substantial 
understory. The microclimatic condition within these stands is dry with 
little accumulation of leaf litter humus and is unsuitable as Guam tree 
snail habitat. In addition, native forests cannot reestablish and grow 
where this nonnative weed has become established. Because all of the 
threats occur rangewide and have a significant effect on the survival 
of this snail species, they are high in magnitude, and the species has 
a relatively high likelihood of extinction. The threats are also 
ongoing and thus are imminent. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 
for this species.
    Humped tree snail (Partula gibba)--The following summary is based 
on information contained in our files. No new information was provided 
in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. A tree-dwelling species, 
the humped tree snail is a member of the Partulidae family of snails 
and was originally known from the island of Guam and the Commonwealth 
of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), including the islands of Rota, 
Aguiguan, Tinian, Saipan, Anatahan, Sarigan, Alamagan, and Pagan. Until 
recently, the species was known from a total of 14 populations on the 
islands of Guam, Rota, Aguiguan, Sarigan, Saipan, Alamagan, and Pagan. 
However, new (2011) information indicates that the humped tree snail 
may be found only on the islands of Guam, Saipan, Sarigan, and Pagan. 
This information also suggests that the individuals identified as 
humped tree snails on Rota may be a different species. Although still 
the most widely distributed tree snail endemic in the Mariana Islands, 
remaining population sizes are often small.
    This species is currently threatened by habitat loss and 
modification and by predation from several species. Throughout the 
Mariana Islands, feral ungulates (pigs (Sus scrofa), Philippine deer 
(Cervus mariannus), cattle (Bos taurus), water buffalo (Bubalus 
bubalis), and goats (Capra hircus)) have caused severe damage to native 
forest vegetation by browsing directly on plants, causing erosion, and 
retarding forest growth and regeneration. This in turn reduces the 
quantity and quality of forested habitat for the humped tree snail. 
Currently, populations of feral ungulates are found on the islands of 
Guam (deer, pigs, and water buffalo), Rota (deer and cattle), Aguiguan 
(goats), Saipan (deer, pigs, and cattle),

[[Page 70132]]

Alamagan (goats, pigs, and cattle), and Pagan (cattle, goats, and 
pigs). Goats were eradicated from Sarigan in 1998 and the humped tree 
snail subsequently increased in abundance on that island, likely in 
response to the goat removal. However, the population of humped tree 
snails on Anatahan is likely extirpated due to the massive volcanic 
explosions of the island beginning in 2003 and still continuing, and 
the resulting loss of up to 95 percent of the vegetation on the island. 
Predation by the nonnative rosy carnivore snail (Euglandina rosea) and 
the nonnative Manokwar flatworm (Platydemus manokwari) is a serious 
threat to the survival of the humped tree snail (see summary for the 
fragile tree snail, above). In addition, predation by rats (Rattus 
spp.) is a serious and ongoing threat to the humped tree snail. The 
magnitude of threats is high because these nonnative predators have 
caused significant population declines to the humped tree snail range-
wide. These threats are ongoing and thus are imminent. Therefore, we 
have retained an LPN of 2 for this species.
    Langford's tree snail (Partula langfordi)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. No new information was 
provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. A tree-dwelling 
species, Langford's tree snail is a member of the Partulidae family of 
snails and is known from one population on the island of Aguiguan. A 
survey of Aguiguan in November 2006 failed to find any live Langford's 
tree snails.
    This species is currently threatened by habitat loss and 
modification and by predation from nonnative predatory snails. In the 
1930s, the island of Aguiguan was mostly cleared of native forests to 
support sugar cane and pineapple production. The abandoned fields and 
airstrip are now overgrown with nonnative weeds. The remaining native 
forest understory has suffered greatly from large and uncontrolled 
populations of alien goats (Capra hircus) and the invasion of weeds. 
Goats have caused severe damage to native forest vegetation by browsing 
directly on plants, causing erosion, and retarding forest growth and 
regeneration. This, in turn, reduces the quantity and quality of 
forested habitat for Langford's tree snail. Predation by the nonnative 
rosy carnivore snail (Euglandina rosea) and by the Manokwar flatworm 
(Platydemus manokwari) (see summary for the fragile tree snail, above) 
is also a serious threat to the survival of Langford's tree snail. In 
addition, predation by rats (Rattus spp.) is a serious and ongoing 
threat to Langford's tree snail. All of the threats are occurring 
rangewide and efforts to control or eradicate the nonnative predatory 
species or to reduce habitat loss have not occurred. The magnitude of 
threats is high because they result in direct mortality or significant 
population declines to Langford's tree snail rangewide. These threats 
are also ongoing and thus are imminent. Therefore, we have retained an 
LPN of 2 for this species.
    Tutuila tree snail (Eua zebrina)--The following summary is based on 
information contained in our files. No new information was provided in 
the petition we received on May 11, 2004. A tree-dwelling species, the 
Tutuila tree snail is a member of the Partulidae family of snails and 
is endemic to American Samoa. The species is known from 32 populations 
on the islands of Tutuila, Manua, and Ofu.
    This species is currently threatened by habitat loss and 
modification and by predation from nonnative predatory snails and rats 
(Rattus spp.). All live Tutuila tree snails were found on understory 
vegetation beneath remaining intact forest canopy. No snails were found 
in areas bordering agricultural plots or in forested areas that were 
severely damaged by three hurricanes (1987, 1990, and 1991). (See 
summary for the sisi snail, above, regarding impacts of nonnative weeds 
and of the rosy carnivore snail.) Rats have also been shown to 
devastate snail populations, and rat-damaged snail shells have been 
found at sites where the Tutuila snail occurs. At present, the major 
threat to the long-term survival of the native snail fauna in American 
Samoa is predation by nonnative predatory snails and rats. The 
magnitude of threats is high because they result in direct mortality or 
significant population declines to the Tutuila tree snail rangewide. 
The threats are also ongoing and thus are imminent. Therefore, we have 
retained an LPN of 2 for this species.
    Huachuca springsnail (Pyrgulopsis thompsoni)--The following is 
based on information contained in our files. No new information was 
provided in the petition received on May 11, 2004. The Huachuca 
springsnail inhabits at least 21 spring sites in southeastern Arizona 
and northern Sonora, Mexico. The springsnail is typically found in 
shallow water habitats, often in rocky seeps at the spring source. 
Potential threats include habitat modification and destruction through 
catastrophic wildfire and unmanaged grazing at the landscape scale. 
Overall, the threats are low in magnitude, because threats are not 
occurring throughout the range of the species uniformly and not all 
populations would likely be affected simultaneously by the known 
threats. We have no site-specific information indicating that grazing 
is currently ongoing in or adjacent to occupied habitats, and 
catastrophic wildfire is not known to be an imminent threat. 
Accordingly, threats are nonimminent. Therefore, we retain an LPN of 11 
for this Huachuca springsnail.
    Page springsnail (Pyrgulopsis morrisoni)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. The Page springsnail is 
known from a complex of springs located within an approximately 0.93-mi 
(1.5-km) stretch along the west side of Oak Creek around the community 
of Page Springs, and within springs located along Spring Creek, 
tributary to Oak Creek, Yavapai County, Arizona.
    The primary threat to the Page springsnail has been modification of 
habitat by domestic use, agriculture, ranching, fish hatchery 
operations, recreation, and groundwater withdrawal. Many of the springs 
where the species occurs have been subjected to some level of 
modification. However, the immediacy of the threat of groundwater 
withdrawal is uncertain, due to conflicting information regarding 
immediacy. Based on recent survey data, it appears that the Page 
springsnail is abundant within natural habitats and persists in 
modified habitats, albeit at reduced densities. In 2009, the Arizona 
Game and Fish Department (AGFD) and the Service entered into a 5-year 
Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) to alleviate 
threats and improve the conservation status of the Page springsnail; 
the majority of Page springsnail sites are located on State fish 
hatchery system land and are managed by AGFD. Management plans for the 
Bubbling Ponds and Page Springs fish hatcheries include commitments to 
replace lost habitat and to monitor remaining populations of 
invertebrates such as the Page springsnail. The CCAA for the Page 
springsnail has resulted in the implementation of conservation measures 
such as restoration and creation of spring ecosystems, including 
springs on AGFD properties. The implementation of the CCAA has resulted 
in measurable benefits to the species and its habitats. Additionally, 
the National Park Service has expressed an interest in restoring 
natural springhead integrity to Shea Springs, a site historically 
occupied by Page springsnail.
    Accordingly, we find that ongoing implementation of the CCAA 
continues to substantially reduce the magnitude

[[Page 70133]]

and immediacy of threats to, and to appreciably improve the 
conservation status of, the species. Therefore, we retain a LPN of 11 
for Page springsnail.
Insects
    Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (Hylaeus anthracinus)--The following 
summary is based on information contained in our files and in the 
petition that we received for this species on March 23, 2009. Hylaeus 
anthracinus is a species of Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (family 
Colletidae) found in certain coastal areas and dry lowland forests 
containing native plant communities on the islands of Hawaii, 
Kahoolawe, Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu, Hawaii. H. anthracinus is 
currently known from 16 populations containing an unknown number of 
individuals. This species is threatened by ongoing habitat loss and 
modification due to the effects of feral ungulates, nonnative plants, 
wildfire, and climate change. H. anthracinus is directly threatened by 
predation from yellow jacket wasps (Vespula pensylvanica) and several 
species of nonnative ants. Additional indirect threats to the species 
include the limited number and small size of populations, competition 
from European honey bees (Apis mellifera), the possibility of habitat 
destruction from stochastic and catastrophic events, and a lack of 
regulatory mechanisms affording protection to the species.
    Some Hylaeus anthracinus populations occur in areas that are 
managed for one or more of the threats affecting habitat; however, no 
population is entirely protected from impacts to habitat, and predation 
on the species is not currently managed at any population site. The 
threats to H. anthracinus are high in magnitude because their severity 
endangers the species with a high likelihood of extinction throughout 
its entire range. The threats to H. anthracinus are imminent, since 
they are ongoing. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 for this 
species.
    Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (Hylaeus assimulans)--The following 
summary is based on information contained in our files and in the 
petition that we received for this species on March 23, 2009. Hylaeus 
assimulans is a species of Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (family 
Colletidae) found in certain coastal areas and dry lowland forests 
containing native plant communities on the islands of Hawaii, 
Kahoolawe, Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu, Hawaii. H. assimulans is 
currently known from five populations containing an unknown number of 
individuals. This species is threatened by ongoing habitat loss and 
modification due to the effects of feral ungulates, nonnative plants, 
wildfire, and climate change. H. assimulans is directly threatened by 
predation from yellow jacket wasps (Vespula pensylvanica) and several 
species of nonnative ants. Additional indirect threats to the species 
include the limited number and small size of populations, competition 
from European honey bees (Apis mellifera), the possibility of habitat 
destruction from stochastic and catastrophic events, and a lack of 
regulatory mechanisms affording protection to the species.
    Some Hylaeus assimulans populations occur in areas that are managed 
for one or more of the threats affecting habitat; however, no 
population is entirely protected from impacts to habitat, and predation 
on the species is not currently managed at any population site. The 
threats to H. assimulans are high in magnitude because their severity 
endangers the species with a high likelihood of extinction throughout 
its entire range. The threats to H. assimulans are imminent, since they 
are ongoing. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 for this species.
    Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (Hylaeus facilis)--The following summary 
is based on information contained in our files and in the petition that 
we received for this species on March 23, 2009. Hylaeus facilis is a 
species of Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (family Colletidae) with a wide 
historical range of native plant community habitat including coastal 
areas, lowland dry and wet forests, and montane mesic forests on the 
islands of Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu, Hawaii. Now extirpated from 
the islands of Lanai and Maui, H. facilis is currently known from two 
populations containing an unknown number of individuals. This species 
is threatened by ongoing habitat loss and modification due to the 
effects of feral ungulates, nonnative plants, wildfire, and climate 
change. H. facilis is directly threatened by predation from yellow 
jacket wasps (Vespula pensylvanica) and several species of nonnative 
ants. Additional indirect threats to the species include the limited 
number and small size of populations, competition from European honey 
bees (Apis mellifera), the possibility of habitat destruction from 
stochastic and catastrophic events, and a lack of regulatory mechanisms 
affording protection to the species.
    Both of the Hylaeus facilis populations occur in areas that are 
managed for one or more of the threats affecting habitat; however, 
neither population is entirely protected from impacts to habitat, and 
predation upon the species is not currently managed within either 
population site. The threats to H. facilis are high in magnitude 
because their severity endangers the species with a high likelihood of 
extinction throughout its entire range. The threats to H. facilis are 
imminent, since they are ongoing. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 
2 for this species.
    Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (Hylaeus hilaris)--The following summary 
is based on information contained in our files and in the petition that 
we received for this species on March 23, 2009. Hylaeus hilaris is a 
cleptoparasitic species of Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (family 
Colletidae) with a historical range in coastal habitat on the islands 
of Lanai, Maui, and Molokai, Hawaii. Now extirpated from the islands of 
Lanai and Maui, H. hilaris is currently known from a single population 
on Molokai containing an unknown number of individuals. This species is 
threatened by ongoing habitat loss and modification due to the effects 
of feral ungulates, nonnative plants, wildfire, and climate change. H. 
hilaris is directly threatened by predation from yellow jacket wasps 
(Vespula pensylvanica) and several species of nonnative ants. 
Additional indirect threats to the species include the small size of 
its remaining population, lack of additional populations, competition 
from European honey bees (Apis mellifera), possibility of habitat 
destruction from stochastic and catastrophic events, and a lack of 
regulatory mechanisms affording protection to the species.
    The Hylaeus hilaris population occurs within a private preserve 
that is managed for some of the threats affecting habitat; however, the 
population is not entirely protected from impacts to habitat, and 
predation upon the species is not currently managed at all. The threats 
to H. hilaris are high in magnitude because their severity endangers 
the species with a high likelihood of extinction throughout its entire 
range. The threats to H. hilaris are imminent, since they are ongoing. 
Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 for this species.
    Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (Hylaeus kuakea)--The following summary 
is based on information contained in our files and in the petition that 
we received for this species on March 23, 2009. Hylaeus kuakea is a 
species of Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (family Colletidae) found in 
lowland mesic forests on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. H. kuakea is 
currently known from two populations containing an unknown number of 
individuals. This species is threatened

[[Page 70134]]

by ongoing habitat loss and modification due to the effects of feral 
ungulates, nonnative plants, wildfire, and climate change. H. kuakea is 
directly threatened by predation from yellow jacket wasps (Vespula 
pensylvanica) and several species of nonnative ants. Additional 
indirect threats to the species include the limited number and small 
size of populations, competition from European honey bees (Apis 
mellifera), the possibility of habitat destruction from stochastic and 
catastrophic events, and a lack of regulatory mechanisms affording 
protection to the species.
    Both Hylaeus kuakea populations occur in areas that are managed for 
one or more of the threats affecting habitat; however, neither 
population is entirely protected from impacts to habitat, and predation 
on the species is not currently managed within either population site. 
The threats to H. kuakea are high in magnitude because their severity 
endangers the species with a high likelihood of extinction throughout 
its entire range. The threats to H. kuakea are imminent, since they are 
ongoing. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 for this species.
    Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (Hylaeus longiceps)--The following 
summary is based on information contained in our files and in the 
petition that we received for this species on March 23, 2009. Hylaeus 
longiceps is a species of Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (family Colletidae) 
found in certain coastal areas and dry lowland forest containing native 
plant communities on the islands of Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu, 
Hawaii. H. longiceps is currently known from six populations containing 
an unknown number of individuals. This species is threatened by ongoing 
habitat loss and modification due to the effects of feral ungulates, 
nonnative plants, wildfire, and climate change. H. longiceps is 
directly threatened by predation from yellow jacket wasps (Vespula 
pensylvanica) and several species of nonnative ants. Additional 
indirect threats to the species include the limited number and small 
size of populations, competition from European honey bees (Apis 
mellifera), the possibility of habitat destruction from stochastic and 
catastrophic events, and a lack of regulatory mechanisms affording 
protection to the species.
    Some Hylaeus longiceps populations occur in areas that are managed 
for one or more of the threats affecting habitat; however, no 
population is entirely protected from impacts to habitat, and predation 
on the species is not currently managed within any population site. The 
threats to H. longiceps high in magnitude because their severity 
endangers the species with a high likelihood of extinction throughout 
its entire range. The threats to H. longiceps are imminent, since they 
are ongoing. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 for this species.
    Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (Hylaeus mana)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files and in the petition that we 
received for this species on March 23, 2009. Hylaeus mana is a species 
of Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (family Colletidae) found in lowland mesic 
forests on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. H. mana is currently known from 
four populations containing an unknown number of individuals. This 
species is threatened by ongoing habitat loss and modification due to 
the effects of feral ungulates, nonnative plants, wildfire, and climate 
change. H. mana is directly threatened by predation from yellow jacket 
wasps (Vespula pensylvanica) and several species of nonnative ants. 
Additional indirect threats to the species include the limited number 
and small size of populations, competition from European honey bees 
(Apis mellifera), the possibility of habitat destruction from 
stochastic and catastrophic events, and a lack of regulatory mechanisms 
affording protection to the species.
    The Hylaeus mana populations occur in areas that are managed for 
one or more of the threats affecting habitat; however, the population 
is not entirely protected from impacts to habitat, and predation on the 
species is not currently managed at all. The threats to H. mana are 
high in magnitude because their severity endangers the species with a 
high likelihood of extinction throughout its entire range. The threats 
to H. mana are imminent, since they are ongoing. Therefore, we have 
retained an LPN of 2 for this species.
    Hermes copper butterfly (Hermelycaena [Lycaena] hermes) -- Hermes 
copper butterfly primarily occurs in San Diego County, California, and 
a few records of the species have been documented in Baja California, 
Mexico. The species inhabits coastal sage scrub and southern mixed 
chaparral and is dependent on its larval host plant, Rhamnus crocea 
(spiny redberry), to complete its lifecycle. Adult Hermes copper 
butterflies lay single eggs on spiny redberry stems where they hatch 
and feed until pupation occurs at the base of the plant. Hermes copper 
butterflies have one flight period occurring in mid-May to early-July, 
depending on weather conditions and elevation. We estimate there were 
at least 59 known separate historical populations throughout the 
species' range since the species was first described. Of the 59 known 
Hermes copper butterfly populations, 21 are extant, 27 are believed to 
have been extirpated, and 11 are of unknown status.
    Primary threats to Hermes copper butterfly are megafires (large 
wildfires), and small and isolated populations. Secondary threats 
include increased wildfire frequency that results in habitat loss, and 
combined impacts of existing development, possible future (limited) 
development, existing dispersal barriers, and fires that fragment 
habitat. Hermes copper butterfly occupies scattered areas of sage scrub 
and chaparral habitat in an arid region susceptible to wildfires of 
increasing frequency and size. The likelihood that individuals of the 
species will be burned as a result of catastrophic wildfires, combined 
with the isolation and small size of extant populations makes Hermes 
copper butterfly particularly vulnerable to population extirpation 
rangewide. Overall, the threats that Hermes copper butterfly faces are 
high in magnitude because the major threats (particularly mortality due 
to wildfire and increased wildfire frequency) occur throughout all of 
the species' range and are likely to result in significant adverse 
impacts to the status of the species. The threats are nonimminent 
overall because the impact of wildfire to Hermes copper butterfly and 
its habitat occurs on a sporadic basis and we do not have the ability 
to predict when wildfires will occur. This species faces high-magnitude 
nonimminent threats; therefore, we assigned this species a listing 
priority number of 5.
    Mariana eight spot butterfly (Hypolimnas octucula mariannensis)--
The following summary is based on information contained in our files. 
No new information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 
2004. The Mariana eight-spot butterfly is a nymphalid butterfly species 
that feeds upon two host plants, Procris pedunculata and Elatostema 
calcareum. Endemic to the islands of Guam and Saipan, the species is 
now known from only 10 populations on Guam. This species is currently 
threatened by predation and parasitism. The Mariana eight-spot 
butterfly has extremely high mortality of eggs and larvae due to 
predation by nonnative ants and wasps. Because the threats of 
parasitism and predation by nonnative insects occur rangewide and can 
cause significant population declines to this species, they are high in 
magnitude. The threats are imminent because they are ongoing.

[[Page 70135]]

Therefore, we retained an LPN of 3 for this subspecies.
    Mariana wandering butterfly (Vagrans egistina)--The following 
summary is based on information contained in our files. No new 
information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. 
The Mariana wandering butterfly is a nymphalid butterfly species that 
feeds upon a single host plant species, Maytenus thompsonii. 
Historically, the species was known from and endemic to the islands of 
Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands on the island 
of Rota. Apparently extirpated from Guam, the species is now restricted 
to Rota within a single population located in an officially conserved 
area, but threats to the species or its host plant are not managed. 
This species is currently threatened by nonnative predation and 
parasitism. The Mariana wandering butterfly is likely affected by 
predation from nonnative ants and by nonnative parasitoid wasps. 
Because the threats of parasitism and predation by nonnative insects 
occur rangewide and can cause significant population declines to this 
species leading to a relatively high likelihood of extinction, they are 
high in magnitude. These threats are imminent because they are ongoing. 
Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 for this species.
    Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly (Atlantea tulita)--The following 
summary is based on information in our files and in the petition we 
received on Feburary 29, 2009. The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is 
endemic to Puerto Rico, and one of the four species endemic to the 
Greater Antilles within the genus Atlantea. This species occurs within 
the subtropical moist forest in the northern karst region (i.e., 
municipality of Quebradillas) of Puerto Rico, and in the subtropical 
wet forest (i.e., Maricao Commonwealth Forest, municipality of 
Maricao). The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly has only been found 
utilizing Oplonia spinosa (prickly bush) as its host plant (i.e., plant 
used for laying the eggs, also serves as a food source for development 
of the larvae).
    The primary threats to the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly are 
development, habitat fragmentation, and other natural or manmade 
factors such as human induced fires, use of herbicides and pesticides, 
vegetation management, and climate change. These factors would 
substantially affect the distribution and abundance of the species, as 
well as its habitat. In addition, the lack of effective enforcement 
makes the existing policies and regulations inadequate for the 
protection of the species' habitat. We consider these threats to be 
high and imminent, because known populations occur in areas that are 
subject to development, increased traffic, and increased road 
maintenance and construction. Such threats directly affect populations 
during all life stages. These threats are expected to continue and 
potentially increase in the foreseeable future. Therefore, a listing 
priority number of 2 is assigned to the Puerto Rican harlequin 
butterfly.
    Sequatchie caddisfly (Glyphopsyche sequatchie)--The following 
summary is based on information in our files. No new information was 
provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. The Sequatchie 
caddisfly is known from two spring runs that emerge from caves in 
Marion County, Tennessee--Owen Spring Branch and Martin Spring run in 
the Battle Creek system. Based on an effort to census all Sequatchie 
caddisfly larvae between 2010 and 2013, Dr. Moulton and Dr. Floyd were 
unable to arrive at population estimates at Martin and Clear Springs 
due to low numbers observed. Dr. Moulton and Dr. Floyd estimated a 
population size of 1,500 to 3,000 individuals at Owen Spring.
    Threats to the Sequatchie caddisfly include siltation, predation by 
rainbow trout, point and nonpoint discharges from municipal and 
industrial activities, and introduction of toxicants during episodic 
events. These threats, coupled with the extremely limited distribution 
of the species, its apparent small population size, the limited amount 
of occupied habitat, ease of accessibility, and the annual life cycle 
of the species, are all factors that leave the Sequatchie caddisfly 
extremely vulnerable to extirpation. Therefore, the magnitude of the 
threat is high. These threats are gradual and the most important 
threats are not imminent. Based on high-magnitude and nonimminent 
threats, we assigned this species a listing priority number of 5.
    Clifton Cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus caecus)--The following 
summary is based upon information contained in our files. No new 
information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. 
Clifton Cave beetle is a small, eyeless, reddish-brown, predatory 
insect that feeds upon small cave invertebrates. It is cave dependent 
and is not found outside the cave environment. Clifton Cave beetle is 
only known from two privately owned caves in Woodford County, Kentucky. 
Soon after the species was first observed in 1963, the cave entrance 
was blocked due to road construction and placement of fill material. We 
do not know whether the species still occurs at the original location 
or if it has been extirpated from the site by the closure of the cave 
entrance. A 2008 attempt to re-open the cave was unsuccessful. Other 
caves in the vicinity were surveyed for the species during 1995 and 
1996, and only one additional site was found to support the Clifton 
Cave beetle.
    The limestone caves in which the Clifton Cave beetle is found 
provide a unique and fragile environment that supports a variety of 
species that have evolved to survive and reproduce under the demanding 
conditions found in cave ecosystems. The limited distribution of the 
species makes it vulnerable to isolated events that would only have a 
minimal effect on more wide-ranging insects. Events such as toxic 
chemical spills, discharges of large amounts of polluted water or 
indirect impacts from off-site construction activities, closure of 
entrances, alteration of entrances, or the creation of new entrances 
could have serious adverse impacts on this species. Therefore, the 
magnitude of threat is high for this species. The threats are 
nonimminent because there are no known projects that would affect the 
species in the near future. We therefore have assigned an LPN of 5 to 
this species.
    Coleman cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus colemanensis)--The following 
summary is based upon information contained in our files. No new 
information was provided in the petition we received on April 20, 2010. 
The Coleman cave beetle is a small, eyeless, reddish-brown predatory 
insect that feeds upon small cave invertebrates. It is cave dependent 
and is not found outside the cave environment. It is only known from 
three Tennessee caves.
    The limestone caves in which this species is found provide a unique 
and fragile environment that supports a variety of species that have 
evolved to survive and reproduce under the demanding conditions found 
in cave ecosystems. Caves and the species that are completely dependent 
upon them receive the energy that forms the basis of the cave food 
chain from outside the cave. This energy can be in the form of bat 
guano deposited by cave-dependent bats, large or small woody debris 
washed or blown into the cave, or tiny bits of organic matter that is 
carried into the cave by water through small cracks in the rocks 
overlaying the cave.
    The Coleman cave beetle was originally known only from privately 
owned Coleman Cave in Montgomery County. This cave formerly supported a 
colony of endangered gray bats. The bats have abandoned this cave 
because of air flow changes in the cave caused by

[[Page 70136]]

closure of an upper entrance to the cave. Although the cave is 
protected by a cooperative management agreement with the landowner, the 
upper entrance has not been restored and the bats have not returned to 
the cave. A new location for the species was discovered in during a 
biological inventory of Foster Cave (also known as Darnell Cave). One 
specimen of the species was found during that survey. Foster Cave is on 
a preserve owned and managed by the Tennessee Department of 
Conservation. In 2006, specimens of this species were discovered in 
Bellamy Cave and in Darnell Spring Cave (part of the same cave complex 
as Foster Cave). All of these sites are in close proximity to each 
other. Bellamy Cave is owned and managed by the Tennessee Wildlife 
Resources Agency (TWRA). Both Foster Cave and Bellamy Cave were first 
acquired and protected by The Nature Conservancy and later transferred 
to the State for long-term protection and management. The threats are 
nonimminent because there are no known projects planned that would 
affect the species in the next few years. Because it occurs at four 
locations and it receives some protection under a cooperative 
management agreement and protective ownership, the magnitude of threats 
is moderate to low. Thus, we have assigned a listing priority number of 
11 to this species.
    Icebox Cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus frigidus)--The following 
summary is based upon information contained in our files. No new 
information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. 
Icebox Cave beetle is a small, eyeless, reddish-brown, predatory insect 
that feeds upon small cave invertebrates. It is not found outside the 
cave environment and is only known from one privately owned cave in 
Bell County, Kentucky.
    The limestone cave in which this species is found provides a unique 
and fragile environment that supports a variety of species that have 
evolved to survive and reproduce under the demanding conditions found 
in cave ecosystems. The species has not been observed since it was 
originally collected, but species experts believe that it may still 
exist in the cave in low numbers. The limited distribution of the 
species makes it vulnerable to isolated events that would only have a 
minimal effect on more wide-ranging insects. Events such as toxic 
chemical spills or discharges of large amounts of polluted water, or 
indirect impacts from off-site construction activities, closure of 
entrances, alteration of entrances, or the creation of new entrances, 
could have serious adverse impacts on this species. Therefore, the 
magnitude of threat is high for this species, because it is limited in 
distribution and the threats would result in a high level of mortality 
or reduced reproductive capacity. The threats are nonimminent because 
there are no known projects that would affect the species in the near 
future. We therefore have assigned an LPN of 5 to this species.
    Inquirer Cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus inquisitor)--The following 
summary is based upon information contained in our files. No new 
information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. 
The inquirer cave beetle is a fairly small, eyeless, reddish-brown 
predatory insect that feeds upon small cave invertebrates. It is not 
found outside the cave environment, and is only known from one 
privately owned Tennessee cave. The limestone cave in which this 
species is found provides a unique and fragile environment that 
supports a variety of species that have evolved to survive and 
reproduce under the demanding conditions found in cave ecosystems. The 
species was last observed in 2006.
    The limited distribution of the species makes it vulnerable to 
isolated events that would only have a minimal effect on the more wide-
ranging insects. The area around the only known site for the species is 
in a rapidly expanding urban area. The entrance to the cave is 
protected by the landowner through a cooperative management agreement 
with the Service, The Nature Conservancy, and Tennessee Wildlife 
Resources Agency; however, a sinkhole that drains into the cave system 
is located away from the protected entrance and is near a highway. 
Events such as toxic chemical spills, discharges of large amounts of 
polluted water or indirect impacts from off-site construction 
activities could adversely affect the species and the cave habitat. The 
magnitude of threat is high for this species, because it is limited in 
distribution and the threats would have negative impacts on its 
continued existence. The threats are nonimminent because there are no 
known projects planned that would affect the species in the near future 
and it receives some protection under a cooperative management 
agreement. We therefore have assigned a listing priority number of 5 to 
this species.
    Louisville Cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus troglodytes)--The 
following summary is based upon information contained in our files. No 
new information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 
2004. The Louisville cave beetle is a small, eyeless, reddish-brown, 
predatory insect that feeds upon cave invertebrates. It is not found 
outside the cave environment and is only known from two privately owned 
caves in Jefferson County, Kentucky. The cave entrance at the species' 
original location was closed due to residential development and 
placement of fill. We do not know whether the species still occurs at 
the original location or if it has been extirpated from the site by the 
closure of the cave entrance. The second cave may still contain the 
species but access to the cave is restricted due to its location on 
private land. Several other caves in Jefferson County were surveyed for 
the species in 1994, but no individuals of the species were observed.
    The limestone caves in which this species is found provide a unique 
and fragile environment that supports a variety of species that have 
evolved to survive and reproduce under the demanding conditions found 
in cave ecosystems. The limited distribution of the species makes it 
vulnerable to isolated events that would only have a minimal effect on 
more wide-ranging insects. Events such as toxic chemical spills, 
discharges of large amounts of polluted water, or indirect impacts from 
off-site construction activities, closure of entrances, alteration of 
entrances, or the creation of new entrances could have serious adverse 
impacts on this species. The magnitude of threat is high for this 
species, because it is limited in distribution and the threats would 
have severe negative impacts on the species. The threats are 
nonimminent, because there are no known projects that would affect the 
species in the near future. We therefore have assigned an LPN of 5 to 
this species.
    Tatum Cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus parvus)--The following summary 
is based upon information contained in our files. No new information 
was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Tatum Cave 
beetle is a small, eyeless, reddish-brown, predatory insect that feeds 
upon cave invertebrates. It is not found outside the cave environment 
and is only known from one privately owned cave in Marion County, 
Kentucky. Despite searches in 1980, 1996, 2004, and 2005, the species 
has not been observed in Tatum Cave since 1965.
    The limestone cave in which this species is found provides a unique 
and fragile environment that supports a variety of species that have 
evolved to survive and reproduce under the demanding conditions found 
in cave

[[Page 70137]]

ecosystems. The species has not been observed since 1965, but species 
experts believe that it still exists in low numbers. The limited 
distribution of the species makes it vulnerable to isolated events that 
would only have a minimal effect on more wide-ranging insects. Events 
such as toxic chemical spills, discharges of large amounts of polluted 
water, or indirect impacts from off-site construction activities, 
closure of entrances, alteration of entrances, or the creation of new 
entrances could have serious adverse impacts on this species. The 
magnitude of threat is high for this species, because its limited 
numbers mean that any threats could severely affect its continued 
existence. The threats are nonimminent, because there are no known 
projects that would affect the species in the near future. We therefore 
have assigned an LPN of 5 to this species.
    Orangeblack Hawaiian damselfly (Megalagrion xanthomelas)--The 
following summary is based on information contained in our files. No 
new information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 
2004. The orangeblack Hawaiian damselfly is a stream and pool-dwelling 
species endemic to the Hawaiian Islands of Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Maui, 
Lanai, and Hawaii. The species no longer is found on Kauai, and is now 
restricted to 16 populations on the islands of Oahu, Maui, Molokai, 
Lanai, and Hawaii. This species is threatened by predation from 
nonnative aquatic species such as fish and predacious insects, and 
habitat loss through dewatering of streams and invasion by nonnative 
plants. Nonnative fish and insects prey on the larval-stage naiads of 
the damselfly, and loss of water reduces the amount of suitable habitat 
for the naiad life stage. Invasive plants (e.g., California grass 
(Brachiaria mutica)) also contribute to loss of habitat by forming 
dense, monotypic stands that completely eliminate open water. Nonnative 
fish and plants are found in all the streams where orangeblack Hawaiian 
damselflies occur, except at the single Oahu population, where there 
are no nonnative fish. We have retained an LPN of 8 for this species 
because, although the threats are ongoing and therefore imminent, they 
affect the survival of the species to varying degrees throughout the 
species' range and are of moderate magnitude.
    Stephan's riffle beetle (Heterelmis stephani)--The following 
summary is based on information contained in our files. No new 
information was provided in the petition received on May 11, 2004. The 
Stephan's riffle beetle is an endemic riffle beetle historically found 
in limited spring environments within the Santa Rita Mountains, Pima 
County, Arizona. In the most recent surveys conducted in 1993, the 
Stephan's riffle beetle was documented only in Sylvester Spring in 
Madera Canyon, Santa Cruz County, within the Coronado National Forest. 
Suspected potential threats to that spring are largely from habitat 
modification, and potential changes in water quality and quantity due 
to catastrophic natural events and climate change. The threats are of 
low to moderate magnitude based on our current knowledge that the 
effects of these threats are unlikely to be permanent as they stem from 
occasional natural events that do not result in permanent water quality 
degradation. Additionally, there is a higher likelihood that the 
species will persist in areas that are unaffected by the threats; it is 
unlikely that all areas of the spring would be simultaneously be 
affected. Threats from habitat modification have already occurred and 
are no longer ongoing, and the threats from climate change are expected 
to occur over many years. Therefore, the threats are not imminent. 
Thus, we retain an LPN of 11 for the Stephan's riffle beetle.
    Arapahoe snowfly (Capnia arapahoe)--The following summary is based 
on information contained in our files. This insect is a winter stonefly 
associated with clean, cool, running waters. Adult snowflies emerge in 
late winter from the space underneath stream ice. The Arapahoe snowfly 
is found only in a short section of Elkhorn Creek, a small tributary of 
the Cache la Poudre River in the Roosevelt National Forest, Larimer 
County, Colorado. The species previously occurred downriver at Young 
Gulch, but habitat likely became unsuitable or other unknown causes 
likely extirpated the species. Habitats at Young Gulch were further 
degraded by the High Park Fire in 2012. Climate change is a threat to 
the Arapahoe snowfly and modifies its habitats by reducing snowpacks, 
increasing temperatures, fostering mountain pine beetle outbreaks, and 
increasing the frequency of destructive wildfires. Limited dispersal 
capabilities, an extremely restricted range, dependence on pristine 
habitats, and a small population size make the Arapahoe snowfly 
vulnerable to demographic stochasticity, environmental stochasticity, 
and random catastrophes. Furthermore, regulatory mechanisms 
inadequately reduce these threats, which may act cumulatively to affect 
the species. The threats to the Arapahoe snowfly are high in magnitude 
because they occur throughout the species' limited range. However, the 
threats are nonimminent, because the species has been consistently 
collected at Elkhorn Creek since 1987 and increased temperatures will 
adversely affect the species in the future. Therefore, we have assigned 
the Arapaho snowfly an LPN of 5.
    Meltwater lednian stonefly (Lednia tumana)--The following summary 
is based on information contained in our files and in the petition we 
received on July 30, 2007. This species is an aquatic insect in the 
order Plecoptera (stoneflies). Stoneflies are primarily associated with 
clean, cool streams and rivers. Eggs and nymphs (juveniles) of the 
meltwater lednian stonefly are found in high-elevation, alpine, and 
subalpine streams, most typically in locations closely linked to 
glacial runoff. The species is generally restricted to streams with 
mean summer water temperature less than 10 [deg]C (50[emsp14][deg]F). 
The only known meltwater lednian stonefly occurrences are within 
Glacier National Park (NP), Montana.
    Climate change, and the associated effects of glacier loss (with 
glaciers predicted to be gone by 2030)--including reduced streamflows, 
and increased water temperatures--are expected to significantly reduce 
the occurrence of populations and extent of suitable habitat for the 
species in Glacier NP. In addition, the existing regulatory mechanisms 
are not adequate to address these environmental changes due to global 
climate change. We announced candidate status for the meltwater lednian 
stonefly in a warranted-but-precluded 12-month petition finding 
published on April 5, 2011 (76 FR 18684). We have assigned the species 
an LPN of 5 based on three criteria: (1) The high magnitude of threat, 
which is projected to substantially reduce the amount of suitable 
habitat relative to the species' current range; (2) the low imminence 
of the threat based on the lack of documented evidence that climate 
change is affecting stonefly habitat; and (3) the taxonomic status of 
the species, which is a full species.
    Highlands tiger beetle (Cicindela highlandensis)--The following 
summary is based on information contained in our files. No new 
information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. 
The Highlands tiger beetle is narrowly distributed and restricted to 
areas of bare sand within scrub and sandhill on ancient sand dunes of 
the Lake Wales Ridge in Polk and Highlands Counties, Florida. Adult 
tiger beetles have been most recently found at 40 sites at the

[[Page 70138]]

core of the Lake Wales Ridge. In 2004-2005 surveys, a total of 1,574 
adults were found at 40 sites, compared with 643 adults at 31 sites in 
1996, 928 adults at 31 sites in 1995, and 742 adults at 21 sites in 
1993. Of the 40 sites in the 2004-2005 surveys with one or more adults, 
results ranged from 3 sites with large populations of over 100 adults, 
to 13 sites with fewer than 10 adults. Results from a limited removal 
study at four sites and similar studies suggested that the actual 
population size at some survey sites can be as much as two times as 
high as indicated by the visual index counts. If assumptions are 
correct and unsurveyed habitat is included, then the total number of 
adults at all survey sites might be 3,000 to 4,000.
    Habitat loss and fragmentation and lack of fire and disturbances to 
create open habitat conditions are serious threats; remaining patches 
of suitable habitat are disjunct and isolated. Populations occupy 
relatively small patches of habitat and are small and isolated; 
individuals have difficulty dispersing between suitable habitats. These 
factors pose serious threats to the species. Although significant 
progress in implementing prescribed fire has occurred over the last 10 
years through collaborative partnerships and the Lake Wales Ridge 
Prescribed Fire Team, a backlog of long-unburned habitat within 
conservation areas remains. Overcollection and pesticide use are 
additional concerns. Because this species is narrowly distributed with 
specific habitat requirements and small populations, any of the threats 
could have a significant impact on the survival of the species, leading 
to a relatively high likelihood of extinction. Therefore, the magnitude 
of threats is high. Although the majority of its historical range has 
been lost, degraded, and fragmented, numerous sites are protected and 
land managers are implementing prescribed fire at some sites; these 
actions are expected to restore habitat and help reduce threats and 
have already helped stabilize and improve the populations. Overall, the 
threats are nonimminent. Therefore, we assigned the Highlands tiger 
beetle an LPN of 5.
Arachnids
    Warton's cave meshweaver (Cicurina wartoni)--The following summary 
is based on information contained in our files. Warton's Cave 
meshweaver is an eyeless, cave-dwelling, unpigmented, 0.23-inch-long 
spider known only from female specimens. This meshweaver is known to 
occur in only one cave (Pickle Pit) in Travis County, Texas. Primary 
threats to the species and its habitat are predation and competition 
from red-imported fire ants, surface and subsurface effects from 
polluted runoff from an adjacent subdivision, unauthorized entry into 
the area surrounding the cave (for example, the cave gate has been 
vandalized several times in the past), and trash dumping that may 
include toxic materials near the cave. The magnitude of threats is 
considered low to moderate based on observations made during field 
visits to Pickle Pit in November 2011 and March 2012. For example, 
Pickle Pit is receiving some protection because it is in a mitigation 
preserve for the golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia). While 
adequate fencing has not been completed, the field visitis did not 
document any trails or other signs of recent human use in the immediate 
vicinity of the cave. Also, despite the fact that this preserve is not 
being treated for red-imported fire ants, very few red-imported fire 
ants were documented in the immediate area. Because fire ants have been 
found and fencing to eliminate human use has not been completed, the 
threats are ongoing (imminent). Thus, we assigned this species a LPN of 
8.
Crustaceans
    Anchialine pool shrimp (Metabetaeus lohena)--The following summary 
is based on information contained in our files. No new information was 
provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Metabetaeus 
lohena is a species of shrimp belonging to the family Alpheidae that 
inhabits anchialine pools. This species is endemic to the Hawaiian 
Islands with populations on the islands of Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii, 
Hawaii. The primary threats to this species are predation by fish 
(i.e., fish species that do not naturally occur in the pools inhabited 
by this species) and habitat loss from degradation (primarily from 
illegal trash dumping). Populations of M. lohena on the islands of Maui 
and Hawaii are located within State Natural Area Reserves (NARs) and in 
a National Park. Both the State NARs and the National Park prohibit the 
collection of the species and the disturbance of the pools. However, 
enforcement of collection and disturbance prohibitions is difficult, 
and the negative effects from the introduction of fish can occur 
suddenly and quickly decimate the population. On Oahu, four pools 
containing this species are located in a National Wildlife Refuge and 
are protected from collection and disturbance to the pool; however, on 
State-owned land where the species occurs, there is no protection from 
collection or disturbance of the pools. Threats to this species could 
have a significant adverse effect on the survival of the species, 
leading to a relatively high likelihood of extinction, and are of a 
high magnitude. The primary threats of predation from fish and loss of 
habitat due to degradation are nonimminent, because on the islands of 
Maui and Hawaii no fish were observed in any of the pools where this 
species occurs, and there has been no documented trash dumping in these 
pools. We have retained an LPN of 5 for this species.
    Anchialine pool shrimp (Palaemonella burnsi)--The following summary 
is based on information contained in our files. No new information was 
provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Palaemonella 
burnsi is a species of shrimp belonging to the family Palaemonidae that 
inhabits anchialine pools. This species is endemic to the Hawaiian 
Islands with populations on the islands of Maui and Hawaii. The primary 
threats to this species are predation by nonnative fish (i.e., fish 
species that do not naturally occur in the pools inhabited by this 
species) and habitat loss due to degradation (primarily from illegal 
trash dumping). This species' populations on Maui are located within a 
State Natural Area Reserve (NAR). Hawaii's State statutes prohibit the 
collection of the species and the disturbance of the pools in State 
NARs. On the island of Hawaii, the species occurs within a State NAR 
and a National Park, where collection and disturbance are also 
prohibited. However, enforcement of these prohibitions is difficult, 
and the negative effects from the introduction of fish can occur 
suddenly and quickly decimate a population. Therefore, threats to this 
species could have a significant adverse effect on the survival of the 
species, leading to a relatively high likelihood of extinction, and are 
of a high magnitude. The threats are nonimminent, because surveys in 
2004 and 2007 did not find fish in the pools where these shrimp occur 
on Maui or the island of Hawaii. Also, there was no evidence of recent 
habitat degradation at those pools. We have retained an LPN of 5 for 
this species.
    Anchialine pool shrimp (Procaris hawaiana)--The following summary 
is based on information contained in our files. No new information was 
provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Procaris hawaiana 
is a species of shrimp belonging to the family Procarididae that 
inhabits anchialine pool. This species is endemic to the Hawaiian 
Islands, and is currently known from 2 pools on the island of

[[Page 70139]]

Maui and 12 pools on the island of Hawaii. The primary threats to this 
species are predation from nonnative fish (i.e., fish species that do 
not naturally occur in the pools inhabited by this species) and habitat 
loss due to degradation (primarily from illegal trash dumping). This 
species' populations on Maui are located within a State Natural Area 
Reserve (NAR). Twelve pools containing this species on the island of 
Hawaii are also located within a State NAR. Hawaii's State statutes 
prohibit the collection of the species and the disturbance of the pools 
in State NARs. However, enforcement of these prohibitions is difficult 
and the negative effects from the introduction of fish can occur 
suddenly and quickly decimate a population. In addition, there are no 
prohibitions for either removal of the species or disturbance to one 
pool containing this species located outside a NAR on the island of 
Hawaii. Therefore, threats to this species could have a significant 
adverse effect on the survival of the species, leading to a relatively 
high likelihood of extinction, and thus remain at a high magnitude. The 
threats to the species are nonimminent because during 2004 and 2007 
surveys, no nonnative fish were observed in the pools where these 
shrimp occur on Maui, nor were they observed in the one pool on the 
island of Hawaii that was surveyed in 2005. In addition, there were no 
signs of dumping or fill in any of the pools where the species occurs. 
Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 5 for this species.
Flowering Plants
    Abronia alpina (Ramshaw Meadows sand-verbena)--The following 
summary is based on information contained in our files. No new 
information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. 
Abronia alpina is a small perennial herb in the Nyctaginaceae (four-
o'clock) family, 2.5 to 15.2 centimeters (1 to 6 inches) across forming 
compact mats with lavender-pink, trumpet-shaped, and generally fragrant 
flowers. Abronia alpina is known from one main population center at 
Ramshaw Meadow and a smaller population at the adjacent Templeton 
Meadow. The meadows are located on the Kern River Plateau in the Sierra 
Nevada, on lands administered by the Inyo National Forest, in Tulare 
County, California. The total estimated area occupied is approximately 
6 hectares (15 acres). The population fluctuates from year to year 
without any clear trends. Population estimates for the years from 1985 
up to but not including 2012--range from a high of approximately 
130,000 plants in 1997 to a low of approximately 40,000 plants in 2003. 
In 2012, when the population was last monitored, the estimated total 
population increased to approximately 156,000 plants.
    The factors currently threatening Abronia alpina include natural 
and human habitat alteration, lowering of the water table due to 
erosion within the meadow system, and recreational use within meadow 
habitats. Lodgepole pines are encroaching upon meadow habitat with 
trees germinating within A. alpina habitat, occupying up to 20 percent 
of two A. alpina subpopulations. Lodgepole pine encroachment may alter 
soil characteristics by increasing organic matter levels, decreasing 
porosity, and moderating diurnal temperature fluctuations thus reducing 
the competitive ability of A. alpina to persist in an environment more 
hospitable to other plant species.
    The habitat occupied by Abronia alpina directly borders the meadow 
system, which is supported by the South Fork of the Kern River. The 
river flows through the meadow, at times coming within 15 m (50 ft) of 
Abronia alpina habitat, particularly in the vicinity of five 
subpopulations. Past livestock trampling and past removal of bank-
stabilizing vegetation by grazing livestock have contributed to 
downcutting of the river channel through the meadow, leaving the meadow 
subject to potential alteration by lowering of the water table. In 2001 
the Forest Service began resting the grazing allotment for 10 years, 
thereby eliminating cattle use. The allotment is still being rested 
while the Forest Service assesses the data collected on the rested 
allotment for eventual inclusion in an environmental analysis to 
consider resumption of grazing.
    Established hiker, packstock, and cattle trails pass through A. 
alpina subpopulations. Two main hiker trails pass through Ramshaw 
Meadow, but in 1988 and 1997, they were rerouted out of A. alpina 
subpopulations. Occasional incidental use by horses and hikers 
sometimes occurs on the remnants of cattle trails that pass through 
subpopulations in several places. The Service has funded studies to 
determine appropriate conservation measures for the species and is 
working with the U.S. Forest Service on developing a conservation 
strategy for the species.
    The remaining threat affects individuals in the population and has 
not appeared to have population-level effects. Therefore, the threats 
are low in magnitude. In addition, because the grazing activities have 
been eliminated for the time being and the hiking trails have been 
rerouted, the threats are nonimminent. The LPN for A. alpina remains an 
11 due to the presence of moderate to low threats, and the 
determination that the threats are nonimminent at this point in time.
    Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett's silverbush)--The following 
summary is based on information in our files. No new information was 
provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Blodgett's 
silverbush occurs in Florida and is found in open, sunny areas in pine 
rockland, edges of rockland hammock, edges of coastal berm, and 
sometimes in disturbed areas at the edges of natural areas. Plants can 
be found growing from crevices on limestone, or on sand. The pine-
rockland habitat where the species occurs in Miami-Dade County and the 
Florida Keys requires periodic fires to maintain habitat with a minimum 
amount of hardwoods. There are approximately 22 extant occurrences, 12 
in Monroe County and 10 in Miami-Dade County; many occurrences are on 
conservation lands. However, 4 to 5 sites of the 22 occurrences are 
thought to be recently extirpated. The estimated population size of 
Blodgett's silverbush in the Florida Keys, excluding Big Pine Key, is 
roughly 11,000; the estimated population in Miami-Dade County is 375 to 
13,650 plants.
    Blodgett's silverbush is threatened by habitat loss, which is 
exacerbated by habitat degradation due to fire suppression, the 
difficulty of applying prescribed fire to pine rocklands, and threats 
from exotic plants. Remaining habitats are fragmented. Threats such as 
road maintenance and enhancement, infrastructure, and illegal dumping 
threaten some occurrences. Blodgett's silverbush is vulnerable to 
natural disturbances, such as hurricanes, tropical storms, and storm 
surges. Climatic changes, including sea-level rise, are long-term 
threats that are expected to continue to affect pine rocklands and 
ultimately substantially reduce the extent of available habitat, 
especially in the Keys. Overall, the magnitude of threats is moderate 
because not all of the occurrences are affected by the threats. In 
addition, land managers are aware of the threats from exotic plants and 
lack of fire, and are, to some extent, working to reduce these threats 
where possible. While a number of threats are occurring in some areas, 
the threat from development is nonimminent since most occurrences are 
on public land, and sea-level rise is not currently affecting this 
species. Overall, the threats are nonimminent. Thus, we assigned an LPN 
of 11 to this species.

[[Page 70140]]

    Artemisia borealis var. wormskioldii (Northern wormwood) --The 
following summary is based on information contained in our files. No 
new information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 
2004. Historically known from eight sites, northern wormwood is 
currently known from two populations, one in Klickitat County and one 
in Grant County, Washington. This plant is restricted to exposed 
basalt, cobbly-sandy terraces, and sand habitat along the shore of, and 
on islands in, the Columbia River. The two populations are separated by 
186 river miles (300 kilometers) and three reservoirs (formed behind 
large hydroelectric dams). Annual monitoring indicates both populations 
are declining and both remain vulnerable to environmental variability. 
Surveys have not detected any additional plants.
    Threats to northern wormwood include direct loss of habitat through 
regulation of water levels in the Columbia River and placement of 
riprap along the river bank; human trampling of plants from recreation; 
competition with nonnative invasive species; burial by wind- and water-
borne sediments; small population sizes; susceptibility to genetic 
drift and inbreeding; and the potential for hybridization with two 
other species of Artemisia. Ongoing conservation actions have reduced 
trampling, but have not eliminated or reduced other threats at the 
Grant County site. Active conservation measures are not currently in 
place at the Miller Island site in Klickitat County. The magnitude of 
threat is high for this variety. Although the two remaining populations 
are demographically isolated, one or both populations could be 
eliminated by a single disturbance. The threats are imminent because 
recreational use is ongoing, invasive nonnative species occur at both 
sites, erosion of the substrate is ongoing at the Klickitat County 
site, and high water flows may occur unpredictably in any year. 
Therefore, we have retained a listing priority number (LPN) of 3 for 
this variety.
    Astragalus anserinus (Goose Creek milkvetch) --The following 
summary is based on information in our files and in the petition 
received on February 3, 2004. The majority (over 80 percent) of Goose 
Creek milkvetch sites in Idaho, Utah, and Nevada occur on Federal lands 
managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The rest of the sites occur 
as small populations on private and State lands in Utah and on private 
land in Idaho and Nevada. Goose Creek milkvetch occurs in a variety of 
habitats, but is typically associated with dry, tuffaceous soils (made 
up of rock consisting of smaller kinds of volcanic detritus) from the 
Salt Lake Formation. The species grows on steep or flat sites, with 
soil textures ranging from silty to sandy to somewhat gravelly. The 
species tolerates some level of disturbance, based on its occurrence on 
steep slopes where downhill movement of soil is common.
    The primary threat to Goose Creek milkvetch is habitat degradation 
and modification resulting from an altered wildfire regime, fire 
suppression activities, and rehabilitation efforts to recover lands 
that have burned. Other factors that also appear to threaten Goose 
Creek milkvetch include livestock use and invasive nonnative species. 
The existing regulatory mechanisms are not adequate to address these 
threats. Climate change effects to Goose Creek drainage habitats are 
possible, but we are unable to predict the specific impacts of this 
change to Goose Creek milkvetch at this time.
    The threats to the species are imminent, or currently occurring, 
largely as a result of land management actions taken since fires 
initially altered the habitat. The threats associated with livestock 
grazing and invasive species are imminent throughout a large portion of 
the species' range. The high magnitude and immediacy of threats leaves 
the species and its small populations more vulnerable to stochastic 
events. Therefore, we have assigned the Goose Creek milkvetch an LPN of 
2.
    Astragalus microcymbus (Skiff milkvetch)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files and in the petition we 
received on July 30, 2007. Skiff milkvetch is a perennial forb that 
dies back to the ground every year. It has a very limited range and a 
spotty distribution within Gunnison and Saguache Counties in Colorado, 
where it is found in open, park-like landscapes in the sagebrush-steppe 
ecosystem on rocky or cobbly, moderate to steep slopes of hills and 
draws.
    The most significant threats to skiff milkvetch are recreation, 
roads, trails, and habitat fragmentation and degradation. Existing 
regulatory mechanisms are not adequate to protect the species from 
these threats. Recreational impacts are likely to increase, given the 
close proximity of skiff milkvetch to the town of Gunnison and the 
increasing popularity of mountain biking, motorcycling, and all- 
terrain vehicles. Furthermore, the Hartman Rocks Recreation Area draws 
users and contains over 40 percent of the skiff milkvetch units. Other 
threats to the species include residential and urban development; 
livestock, deer, and elk use; climate change; increasing periodic 
drought; nonnative invasive cheatgrass; and wildfire. The threats to 
skiff milkvetch are moderate in magnitude because while serious and 
occurring rangewide, they do not collectively result in population 
declines on a short time scale. The threats are imminent because the 
species is currently facing them in many portions of its range. 
Therefore, we have assigned skiff milkvetch an LPN of 8.
    Astragalus schmolliae (Schmoll milkvetch)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files and in the petition we 
received on July 30, 2007. Schmoll milkvetch is a narrow endemic 
perennial plant that grows in the mature pinyon-juniper woodland of 
mesa tops in the Mesa Verde National Park area and in the Ute Mountain 
Ute Tribal Park in Colorado.
    The most significant threats to the species are degradation of 
habitat by fire, followed by invasion by nonnative cheatgrass and 
subsequent increase in fire frequency. These threats currently affect 
about 40 percent of the species' entire known range, and cheatgrass is 
likely to increase given (1) its rapid spread and persistence in 
habitat disturbed by wildfires, fire and fuels management and 
development of infrastructure, and (2) the inability of land managers 
to control it on a landscape scale. Other threats to Schmoll milkvetch 
include fire break clearings, drought, and feral livestock grazing; 
existing regulatory mechanisms are not adequate to address these 
threats. The threats to the species overall are imminent and moderate 
in magnitude, because the species is currently facing them in many 
portions of its range, but the threats do not collectively result in 
population declines on a short time scale. Therefore, we have assigned 
Schmoll milkvetch an LPN of 8.
    Astragalus tortipes (Sleeping Ute milkvetch)--The following summary 
is based on information contained in our files. No new information was 
provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Sleeping Ute 
milkvetch is a perennial plant that grows only on the Smokey Hills 
layer of the Mancos Shale Formation on the Ute Mountain Ute Indian 
Reservation in Montezuma County, Colorado.
    In 2000, 3,744 plants were recorded at 24 locations covering 500 
acres within an overall range of 6,400 acres. Available information 
from 2000 and 2009 indicated that the species' status was stable at 
that time. However, previous and ongoing threats from

[[Page 70141]]

borrow pit excavation, off-highway vehicles, irrigation canal 
construction, and a prairie dog colony have had minor impacts that 
reduced the range and number of plants by small amounts. Off-road-
vehicle use of the habitat has reportedly been controlled by fencing. 
Oil and gas development is active in the general area, but the Service 
has received no information to indicate that there is development 
within plant habitat. In 2011, the tribal Environmental Programs 
Department reported habitat disturbance by vehicles and activity at the 
shooting range located within the plant habitat. The Tribe reported 
that the status of the species remained unchanged. The Tribe has been 
working on a management plan that will include a monitoring program for 
this species, among others. We had expected the final plan to be 
released in 2010, but it still has not been completed. We have no 
documentation concerning the current status of the plants, condition of 
habitat, and terms of the species management plan being drafted by the 
Tribe. Thus, at this time, we cannot accurately assess whether 
populations are being adequately protected from previously existing 
threats. The threats are moderate in magnitude, since they have had 
minor impacts. Until the management plan is completed there are no 
regulatory mechanisms in place to protect the species from the threats 
described above. Overall, we conclude that threats are moderate to low 
and nonimminent. Therefore, we assigned an LPN of 11 to this species.
    Boechera pusilla (Fremont County rockcress)--The following summary 
is based on information in our files and in the petition received on 
July 24, 2007. Boechera pusilla is a perennial herb that occupies 
sparsely vegetated, coarse granite soil pockets in exposed granite-
pegmatite outcrops, with slopes generally less than 10 degrees, at an 
elevation between 2,438 to 2,469 m (8,000 to 8,100 ft). The only known 
population of B. pusilla is located in Wyoming on lands administered by 
the Bureau of Land Management in the southern foothills of the Wind 
River Range. B. pusilla is likely restricted in distribution by the 
limited occurrence of pegmatite (a very coarse-grained rock formed from 
magma or lava) in the area. The specialized habitat requirements of B. 
pusilla have allowed the plant to persist without competition from 
other herbaceous plants or sagebrush-grassland species that are present 
in the surrounding landscape.
    Boechera pusilla has a threat that is not identified, but that is 
indicated by the small and overall declining population size. Although 
the threat is not fully understood, we know it exists as indicated by 
the declining population. The population size may be declining from a 
variety of unknown causes, with drought or disease possibly 
contributing to the trend. The downward trend may have been leveled off 
somewhat recently, but without improved population numbers, the species 
may reach a population level at which other stressors become threats. 
We are unable to determine how climate change may affect the species in 
the future. To the extent that we understand the species, other 
potential habitat-related threats have been removed through the 
implementation of Federal regulatory mechanisms and associated actions. 
Overutilization, predation, and the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms 
are threats to the species. The threats that B. pusilla faces are 
moderate in magnitude, primarily because the population decline has 
leveled off recently. The threat to B. pusilla is imminent because we 
have evidence that the species is currently facing a threat indicated 
by reduced population size. The threat appears to be ongoing, although 
we are unsure of the extent and timing of its effects on the species. 
Thus, we have assigned B. pusilla an LPN of 8.
    Calamagrostis expansa (Maui reedgrass)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. No new information was 
provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Calamagrostis 
expansa is a perennial grass found in wet forests and bogs, and in bog 
margins, on the islands of Maui and Hawaii, Hawaii. This species is 
known from 13 populations totaling fewer than 750 individuals. C. 
expansa is threatened by habitat degradation and loss by feral pigs 
(Sus scrofa), and by competition with nonnative plants. Herbivory by 
feral pigs is also a potential threat to this species. All of the known 
populations of C. expansa on Maui occur in managed areas. Some pig 
exclusion fences have been constructed, and control of nonnative plants 
is ongoing within the exclosures on Maui. On the island of Hawaii, the 
small population in the Upper Waiakea Forest Reserve has been fenced 
entirely, but none of the approximately 350 individuals in the Kohala 
Mountains are protected from pigs. This species is not represented in 
an ex situ collection. Threats to this species from feral pigs and 
nonnative plants are ongoing, or imminent, and of high magnitude 
because they significantly affect the species throughout its range, 
leading to a relatively high likelihood of extinction. Therefore, we 
have retained an LPN of 2 for this species.
    Calochortus persistens (Siskiyou mariposa lily)--The following 
summary is based on information contained in our files and the petition 
we received on September 10, 2001. The Siskiyou mariposa lily is a 
narrow endemic that is restricted to three disjunct ridge tops in the 
Klamath-Siskiyou Range near the California-Oregon border. The 
southernmost occurrence of this species is composed of nine separate 
sites on approximately 17.6 hectares (ha) (43.4 acres (ac)) of Klamath 
National Forest and privately owned lands that stretch for 10 
kilometers (km) (6 miles (mi)) along the Gunsight-Humbug Ridge, 
Siskiyou County, California. In 2007, a new occurrence was confirmed in 
the locality of Cottonwood Peak and Little Cottonwood Peak, Siskiyou 
County, where several populations are distributed over 164 ha (405 ac) 
on three individual mountain peaks in the Klamath National Forest and 
on private lands. The northernmost occurrence consists of not more than 
five Siskiyou mariposa lily plants that were discovered in 1998, on 
Bald Mountain, west of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon.
    Threats include competition and shading by native and nonnative 
species fostered by suppression of wildfire; increased fuel loading and 
subsequent risk of wildfire; fragmentation by roads, firebreaks, tree 
plantations, and radio-tower facilities; maintenance and construction 
around radio towers and telephone relay stations located on Gunsight 
Peak and Mahogany Point; and soil disturbance, direct damage, and 
nonnative weed and grass species introduction as a result of heavy 
recreational use and construction of firebreaks. Dyer's woad (Isatis 
tinctoria), an invasive, nonnative plant that may prevent germination 
of Siskiyou mariposa lily seedlings, poses the most significant threat 
and has invaded 75 percent of the known lily habitat on Gunsight-Humbug 
Ridge, the southernmost California occurrence. Forest Service staff and 
the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center cite competition with dyer's woad 
as a significant and chronic threat to the survival of Siskiyou 
mariposa lily.
    The combination of restricted range, extremely low numbers (five 
plants) in one of three disjunct populations, poor competitive ability, 
short seed dispersal distance, slow growth rates, low seed production, 
apparently poor survival rates in some years, herbivory, habitat 
disturbance, and competition from nonnative invasive plants threaten 
the

[[Page 70142]]

continued existence of this species. However, because efforts are 
underway to reduce the threat of dyer's woad where it is found and 
there is no evidence of a decline in C. persistens populations where 
this weed has become most widely distributed, the magnitude of existing 
threats is moderate. Since the threats of competition from nonnative 
invasive plants are not anticipated to overwhelm a large portion of the 
species' range in the immediate future, the threats are nonimminent. 
Therefore, we retained an LPN of 11 for this species.
    Chamaecrista lineata var. keyensis (Big Pine partridge pea)--The 
following summary is based on information contained in our files. No 
new information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 
2004. This pea is endemic to the lower Florida Keys, and restricted to 
pine rocklands, hardwood hammock edges, and roadsides and firebreaks 
within these ecosystems. Historically, it was known from Big Pine, 
Cudjoe, No Name, Ramrod, and Little Pine Keys (Monroe County, Florida). 
In 2005, a small population was detected on lower Sugarloaf Key, but 
this population was not located after Hurricane Wilma; plants were 
likely killed by the tidal surge from this storm. It presently occurs 
on Big Pine Key, with a very small population on Cudjoe Key. It is 
fairly well distributed in Big Pine Key pine rocklands, which encompass 
approximately 580 hectares (1,433 acres), approximately 360 hectares 
(890 acres) of which are within the Service's National Key Deer Refuge 
(NKDR). Over 80 percent of the population probably exists on NKDR, with 
the remainder distributed among State, County, and private properties. 
Hurricane Wilma (October 2005) resulted in a storm surge that covered 
most of Big Pine Key with sea water. The surge reduced the population 
by as much as 95 percent in some areas.
    Pine rockland communities are maintained by relatively frequent 
fires. In the absence of fire, shrubs and trees encroach on pine 
rockland and this subspecies is eventually shaded out. NKDR has a 
prescribed fire program, although with many constraints on 
implementation. Habitat loss due to development was historically the 
greatest threat to the pea. Much of the remaining habitat is now 
protected on public lands. Absence of fire now appears to be the 
greatest of the deterministic threats. Given the recent increase in 
hurricane activity, storm surges are the greatest of the stochastic 
threats. The small range and patchy distribution of the subspecies 
increase risk from stochastic events. Climatic changes, including sea-
level rise, are serious long-term threats. Models indicate that even 
under the best of circumstances, a significant proportion of upland 
habitat will be lost on Big Pine Key by 2100. Additional threats 
include restricted range, invasive exotic plants, roadside dumping, 
loss of pollinators, seed predators, and development.
    We maintain the previous assessment that hurricanes, storm surges, 
lack of fire, and limited distribution result in a moderate magnitude 
of threat because a large part of the range is on conservation lands 
wherein threats are being addressed, although fire management is at 
much slower rate than is required. The immediacy of stochastic events 
like hurricane is generally difficult to characterize, but we conclude 
with respect to this species that the threat posed by hurricanes is 
imminent given that hurricanes (and storm surges) of various magnitudes 
are frequent and recurrent events in the area. Sea-level rise remains 
uncontrolled, but is nonimminent. Overall, the threats from limited 
distribution and inadequate fire management are imminent since they are 
ongoing. In addition, the most consequential threats (hurricanes, storm 
surges) are frequent, recurrent, and imminent. Therefore, we retained 
an LPN of 9 for Big Pine partridge pea.
    Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum (Pineland sandmat)--The 
following summary is based on information contained in our files. No 
new information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 
2004. The pineland sandmat in only known from Miami-Dade County, 
Florida. The largest occurrence, estimated at more than 10,000 plants, 
is located on Long Pine Key within Everglades National Park. All other 
occurrences are smaller and are in isolated pine rockland fragments in 
heavily urbanized Miami-Dade County.
    Occurrences on private (non-conservation) lands and on one County-
owned parcel are at risk from development and habitat degradation and 
fragmentation. Conditions related to climate change, particularly sea-
level rise, will be a factor over the long term. All occurrences of the 
species are threatened by habitat loss and degradation due to fire 
suppression, the difficulty of applying prescribed fire, and exotic 
plants. These threats are severe within small and unmanaged fragments 
in urban areas. However, the threats of fire suppression and exotics 
are reduced on lands managed by the National Park Service. Hydrologic 
changes are another threat. Hydrology has been altered within Long Pine 
Key due to artificial drainage, which lowered ground water, and by the 
construction of roads, which either impounded or diverted water. 
Regional water management intended to restore the Everglades could 
negatively affect the pinelands of Long Pine Key in the future. At this 
time, we do not know whether the proposed restoration and associated 
hydrological modifications will have a positive or negative effect on 
pineland sandmat. This narrow endemic may be vulnerable to catastrophic 
events and natural disturbances, such as hurricanes. Overall, the 
magnitude of threats to this species is moderate; by applying regular 
prescribed fire, the National Park Service has kept Long Pine Key's 
pineland vegetation intact and relatively free of exotic plants, and 
partnerships are in place to help address the continuing threat of 
exotics on other pine rockland fragments. Overall, the threats are 
nonimminent because fire management is regularly conducted at the 
largest occurrence and sea-level rise and hurricanes are longer-term 
threats. Therefore, we assigned a LPN of 12 to this subspecies.
    Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. serpyllum (Wedge spurge)--The following 
summary is based on information contained in our files. No new 
information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. 
Systematic surveys of publicly owned pine rockland throughout this 
plant's range were conducted during 2005-2006 and 2007-2008 to 
determine population size and distribution. Wedge spurge is a small 
prostrate herb. It was historically, and remains, restricted to pine 
rocklands on Big Pine Key in Monroe County, Florida. Pine rocklands 
encompass approximately 580 hectares (1,433 acres) on Big Pine Key, 
approximately 360 hectares (890 acres) of which are within the 
Service's National Key Deer Refuge (NKDR). Most of the species' range 
falls within the NKDR, with the remainder on State, County, and private 
properties. It is not widely dispersed within the limited range. 
Occurrences are sparser in the southern portion of Big Pine Key, which 
contains smaller areas of NKDR lands than does the northern portion. 
Wedge spurge inhabits sites with low woody cover (e.g., low palm and 
hardwood densities) and usually exposed rock or gravel.
    Pine rockland communities are maintained by relatively frequent 
fires. In the absence of fire, shrubs and trees encroach on pine 
rockland and the subspecies is eventually shaded out. NKDR has a 
prescribed fire program, although with many constraints on

[[Page 70143]]

implementation. Habitat loss due to development was historically the 
greatest threat to the wedge spurge. Much of the remaining habitat is 
now protected on public lands. Absence of fire now appears to be the 
greatest of the deterministic threats. Given the recent increase in 
hurricane activity, storm surges are the greatest of the stochastic 
threats. The small range and patchy distribution of the subspecies 
increases risk from stochastic events. Climatic changes, including sea-
level rise, are serious long-term threats. Models indicate that even 
under the best of circumstances, a significant proportion of upland 
habitat will be lost on Big Pine Key by 2100. Additional threats 
include restricted range, invasive exotic plants, roadside dumping, 
loss of pollinators, seed predators, and development.
    We maintain the previous assessment that low fire-return intervals 
plus hurricane-related storm surges, in combination with a limited, 
fragmented distribution and threats from sea-level rise, result in a 
moderate magnitude of threat, in part, because a large part of the 
range is on conservation lands, where some threats can be substantially 
controlled. The immediacy of stochastic events like hurricane is 
generally difficult to characterize, but we conclude with respect to 
this species that the threat posed by hurricanes is imminent given that 
hurricanes (and storm surges) of various magnitudes are frequent and 
recurrent events in the area. Sea-level rise remains uncontrolled, but 
over much of the range is nonimminent compared to other prominent 
threats. Threats resulting from limited fire occurrences are imminent. 
Since major threats are ongoing, overall, the threats are imminent. 
Therefore, we retained an LPN of 9 for this subspecies.
    Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina (San Fernando Valley 
spineflower)--The following summary is based on information contained 
in our files and the petition received on December 14, 1999. 
Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina is a low-growing herbaceous annual 
plant in the buckwheat family. Germination occurs following the onset 
of late-fall and winter rains and typically represents different 
cohorts from the seed bank. Flowering occurs in the spring, generally 
between April and June. The plant currently is known from two disjunct 
localities: the first is in the southeastern portion of Ventura County 
on a site within the Upper Las Virgenes Canyon Open Space Preserve, 
formerly known as Ahmanson Ranch, and the second is in an area of 
southwestern Los Angeles County known as Newhall Ranch. Investigations 
of historical locations and seemingly suitable habitat within the range 
of the species have not revealed any other occurrences.
    The threats currently facing Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina 
include threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its 
habitat or range (Factor A), inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms (Factor D), and other natural or manmade factors (Factor E). 
The threats to Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina from habitat 
destruction or modification are slightly less than they were 8 years 
ago when the species was added to the candidate list. One of the two 
populations (Upper Las Virgenes Canyon Open Space Preserve) is in 
permanent, public ownership and is being managed by an agency that is 
working to conserve the plant; however, the use of adjacent habitat for 
Hollywood film productions was brought to our attention in 2007, and 
the potential impacts to Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina are not yet 
clear. During a site visit to the Preserve in April 2012, we noted an 
abundance of nonnative species that, if not managed, could degrade the 
quality of the habitat for C. parryi var. fernandina over time. We will 
be working with the landowners to manage the site for the benefit of 
Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina.
    The other population (Newhall Ranch) is under the threat of 
development; however, a Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA) is being 
developed with the landowner, and it is possible that the remaining 
plants can also be conserved. Until such an agreement is finalized, the 
threat of development and the potential damage to the Newhall Ranch 
population still exists, as shown by the destruction of some plants 
during installation of an agave farm. Furthermore, cattle grazing on 
Newhall Ranch may be a current threat. Cattle grazing may harm 
Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina by trampling and soil compaction. 
Grazing activity could also alter the nutrient (e.g., elevated organic 
material levels) content of the soils for Chorizanthe parryi var. 
fernandina habitat through fecal inputs, which in turn may favor the 
growth of other plant species that would otherwise not grow so readily 
on the mineral-based soils. Over time, changes in species composition 
may render the sites less favorable for the persistence of Chorizanthe 
parryi var. fernandina. Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina may be 
threatened by invasive nonnative plants, including grasses, which could 
potentially displace it from available habitat; compete for light, 
water, and nutrients; and reduce survival and establishment.
    Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina is particularly vulnerable to 
extinction due to its concentration in two isolated areas. The 
existence of only two areas of occurrence, and a relatively small 
range, makes the variety highly susceptible to extinction or 
extirpation from a significant portion of its range due to random 
events such as fire, drought, and erosion. We retained an LPN of 6 for 
Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina due to high-magnitude, nonimminent 
threats.
    Cirsium wrightii (Wright's marsh thistle)--The following summary is 
based on information from the 12-month warranted-but-precluded finding 
published November 4, 2010 (75 FR 67925) as well as any new information 
gathered since then. There are eight general confirmed locations of 
Wright's marsh thistle in New Mexico: Santa Rosa, Guadalupe County; 
Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Chaves County; Blue Spring, Eddy 
County; La Luz Canyon, Karr Canyon, Silver Springs, and Tularosa Creek, 
Otero County; and Alamosa Creek, Socorro County. Wright's marsh thistle 
has been extirpated from all previously known locations in Arizona, and 
was misidentified and likely not ever present in Texas. The status of 
the species in Mexico is uncertain, with few verified collections.
    Wright's marsh thistle faces threats primarily from natural and 
human-caused modifications of its habitat due to ground and surface 
water depletion, drought, invasion of Phragmites australis, and from 
the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The species occupies 
relatively small areas of seeps, springs, and wetland habitat in an 
arid region plagued by drought and ongoing and future water 
withdrawals. The species' highly specific requirements of saturated 
soils with surface or subsurface water flow make it particularly 
vulnerable. The threats that Wright's marsh thistle faces are moderate 
in magnitude because the major threats (habitat loss and degradation 
due to alteration of the hydrology of its rare wetland habitat), while 
serious and occurring rangewide, do not collectively significantly 
adversely affect the species. Still, long-term drought, in combination 
with ground and surface water withdrawal, poses a current and future 
threat to Wright's marsh thistle and its habitat. All of the threats 
are ongoing and therefore imminent. In addition to their current 
existence, we expect these threats to likely intensify in the 
foreseeable future. Thus, we continue to

[[Page 70144]]

assign an LPN of 8 to the Wright's marsh thistle.
    Dalea carthagenensis ssp. floridana (Florida prairie-clover)--The 
following summary is based on information contained in our files. No 
new information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 
2004. Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana is found in pine rocklands, 
edges of rockland hammocks, coastal uplands, and marl prairie. Dalea 
carthagenensis var. floridana occurs in Big Cypress National Preserve 
(BCNP) in Monroe and Collier Counties and at six locations within 
Miami-Dade County, Florida, albeit mostly in limited numbers. There are 
a total of nine extant occurrences, seven of which are on conservation 
lands. In addition, plants were reintroduced to a park in Miami-Dade 
County in 2006, but only four remain.
    Existing occurrences are extremely small and may not be viable, 
especially some of the occurrences in Miami-Dade County. Remaining 
habitats are fragmented. Climatic changes, including sea-level rise, 
are long-term threats that are expected to reduce the extent of 
habitat. This plant is threatened by habitat loss and degradation due 
to fire suppression, the difficulty of applying prescribed fire to pine 
rocklands, and threats from exotic plants. Damage to plants by off-road 
vehicles is a serious threat within the BCNP; damage attributed to 
illegal mountain biking at the R. Hardy Matheson Preserve has been 
reduced. One location within BCNP is threatened by changes in mowing 
practices; this threat is low in magnitude. This species is being 
parasitized by the introduced insect lobate lac scale (Paratachardina 
pseudolobata) at some localities (e.g., R. Hardy Matheson Preserve), 
but we do not know the extent of this threat. This plant is vulnerable 
to natural disturbances, such as hurricanes, tropical storms, and storm 
surges. Due to its restricted range and the small sizes of most 
isolated occurrences, this species is vulnerable to environmental 
(catastrophic hurricanes), demographic (potential episodes of poor 
reproduction), and genetic (potential inbreeding depression) threats. 
The magnitude of threats is high because of the limited number of 
occurrences and the small number of individual plants at each 
occurrence. The threats are imminent; even though many sites are on 
conservation lands, these plants still face significant ongoing 
threats. Therefore, we have assigned an LPN of 3 to Florida prairie-
clover.
    Dichanthelium hirstii (Hirst Brothers' panic grass)--The following 
summary is based on information contained in our files. No new 
information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. 
Dichanthelium hirstii is a perennial grass that occurs in coastal plain 
intermittent ponds, usually in wet savanna or pine barren habitats, and 
is known to occur at only three sites in New Jersey, one site in 
Delaware, and two sites in North Carolina. While all six extant D. 
hirstii populations are located on public land or privately owned 
conservation lands, threats to the species from encroachment of woody 
and herbaceous vegetation, competition from rhizomatous perennials, 
fluctuations in hydrology, and threats associated with small population 
number and size are significant. Given the naturally fluctuating number 
of plants found at each site, and the isolated nature of the wetlands 
(limiting dispersal opportunities), even small changes in the species' 
habitat could result in local extirpation. Loss of any known sites 
would constitute a significant contraction of the species' range. 
Therefore, the threats are high in magnitude. Because most of the 
potential threats to D. hirstii evolve over a period of years before 
they rise to the level of becoming imminent threats, and, in some 
cases, are being managed to some extent that delays their onset, the 
threats are nonimminent. Based on nonimminent threats of a high 
magnitude, we retain an LPN of 5 for this species.
    Digitaria pauciflora (Florida pineland crabgrass)--The following 
summary is based on information contained in our files. No new 
information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. 
This perennial grass was historically found in central to southern 
Miami-Dade County, Florida, most commonly in habitat along the border 
between pine rockland and marl prairie. Pine rocklands in Miami-Dade 
County have largely been destroyed by residential, commercial, and 
urban development and agriculture. With most remaining habitat having 
been negatively altered, this species has been extirpated from much of 
its historical range, including likely extirpation from all areas 
outside of National Parks. Two large occurrences remain within 
Everglades National Park and Big Cypress National Preserve; plants on 
Federal lands are protected from the threat of habitat loss due to 
development. However, any unknown plants, indefinite occurrences, and 
suitable habitat remaining on private or non-conservation land are 
threatened by development. Continued development of suitable habitat 
diminishes the potential for reintroduction into its historical range. 
Extant occurrences are in low-lying areas and will be affected by 
climatic changes, including rising sea level.
    Fire suppression, the difficulty of applying prescribed fire to 
pine rocklands, and threats from exotic plants are ongoing threats. 
Since the only known remaining occurrences are on lands managed by the 
National Park Service, the threats of fire suppression and exotics are 
somewhat reduced. The presence of the exotic Old World climbing fern is 
of particular concern due to its ability to spread rapidly. In Big 
Cypress National Preserve, plants are threatened by off-road-vehicle 
use. Changes to hydrology are a potential threat. Hydrology has been 
altered within Long Pine Key due to artificial drainage, which lowered 
ground water, and construction of roads, which either impounded or 
diverted water. Regional water management intended to restore the 
Everglades has the potential to affect the pinelands of Long Pine Key, 
where a large population occurs. At this time, it is not known whether 
Everglades restoration will have a positive or negative effect. This 
narrow endemic may be vulnerable to catastrophic events and natural 
disturbances, such as hurricanes. Overall, the magnitude of threats is 
high. Only two known occurrences remain and the likelihood of 
establishing a sizable population on other lands is diminished due to 
continuing habitat loss. Impacts from climatic changes, including sea-
level rise, are currently low, but expected to be severe in the future. 
The majority of threats are nonimminent as they are long-term in nature 
(water management, hurricanes, and sea-level rise). Therefore, we 
assigned an LPN of 5 for this species.
    Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii (Las Vegas buckwheat)--We 
continue to find that listing this species is warranted but precluded 
as of the date of publication of this notice of review. However, we are 
working on a proposed listing rule that we expect to publish prior to 
making the next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the 
course of preparing the proposed listing rule, we are continuing to 
monitor new information about this species' status so that we can make 
prompt use of our authority under Section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 
emergency posing a significant risk to the species.
    Eriogonum kelloggii (Red Mountain buckwheat)--We continue to find 
that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of 
publication of this notice of review. However, we are working on a 
proposed listing rule

[[Page 70145]]

that we expect to publish prior to making the next annual resubmitted 
petition 12-month finding. In the course of preparing the proposed 
listing rule, we are continuing to monitor new information about this 
species' status so that we can make prompt use of our authority under 
Section 4(b)(7) in the case of an emergency posing a significant risk 
to the species.
    Eriogonum soredium (Frisco buckwheat)--The following summary is 
based on information in our files and the petition we received on July 
30, 2007. Frisco buckwheat is a narrow endemic perennial plant 
restricted to soils derived from Ordovician limestone outcrops. The 
range of the species is less than 5 sq mi (13 sq km) with four known 
populations. All four populations occur exclusively on private lands in 
Beaver County, Utah, and each population occupies a very small area 
with high densities of plants. Available population estimates are 
highly variable and inaccurate due to the limited access for surveys 
associated with private lands.
    The primary threat to Frisco buckwheat is habitat destruction from 
precious metal and gravel mining. Mining for precious metals 
historically occurred within the vicinity of all four populations. 
Three of the populations are currently in the immediate vicinity of 
active limestone quarries. Ongoing mining in the species' habitat has 
the potential to extirpate one population in the near future and 
extirpate all populations in the foreseeable future. Ongoing 
exploration for precious metals and gravel indicate that mining will 
continue, resulting in the loss and fragmentation of Frisco buckwheat 
populations. Other threats to the species include nonnative species, 
vulnerability associated with small population size, and climate 
change. Existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect the 
species from these threats. The threats that Frisco buckwheat faces are 
moderate in magnitude, because while serious and occurring rangewide, 
the threats do not significantly reduce populations on a short time 
scale. The threats are imminent because three of the populations are 
currently in the immediate vicinity of active limestone quarries. 
Therefore, we have assigned Frisco buckwheat an LPN of 8.
    Festuca hawaiiensis (no common name)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. No new information was 
provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. This species is a 
cespitose (growing in dense, low tufts) annual found in dry forests on 
the island of Hawaii, Hawaii. Festuca hawaiiensis is known from 4 
populations totaling approximately 1,000 individuals in and around the 
Pohakuloa Training Area. Historically, this species was also found on 
Hualalai and Puu Huluhulu, but it no longer occurs at these sites. In 
addition, F. hawaiiensis possibly occurred on Maui. This species is 
threatened by pigs (Sus scrofa), goats (Capra hircus), mouflon (Ovis 
musimon), and feral sheep (O. aries) that degrade and destroy habitat; 
fire; military training activities; and nonnative plants that 
outcompete and displace it. Feral pigs, goats, mouflon, and feral sheep 
have been fenced out of a portion of the populations of F. hawaiiensis 
and nonnative plants have been reduced in the fenced area, but the 
majority of the populations are still affected by threats from 
nonnative ungulates. The threats are imminent because they are not 
controlled and are ongoing in the remaining, unfenced populations. 
Firebreaks have been established at two populations, but fire is an 
imminent threat to the remaining populations that have no firebreaks. 
There are no ex situ collections. The threats are of a high magnitude 
because they could adversely affect the majority of F. hawaiiensis 
populations resulting in direct mortality or reduced reproductive 
capacity. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 for this species.
    Festuca ligulata (Guadalupe fescue)--The following summary is based 
on information obtained from the original species petition, received in 
1975, and from our files, on-line herbarium databases, and scientific 
publications. Six small populations of Guadalupe fescue, a member of 
the Poaceae (grass family), have been documented in mountains of the 
Chihuahuan Desert in Texas and in Coahuila, Mexico. Only two extant 
populations have been confirmed in the last 5 years: One in the Chisos 
Mountains, Big Bend National Park, Texas, and one in the privately 
owned Area de Protecci[oacute]n de Flora y Fauna (Protected Area for 
Flora and Fauna--APFF) Maderas del Carmen in northern Coahuila. Despite 
intensive searches, a population known from Guadalupe Mountains 
National Park, Texas, has not been found since 1952, and is presumed 
extirpated. In 2009, botanists confirmed Guadalupe fescue at one site 
in APFF Maderas del Carmen, but could not find the species at the 
original site, known as Sierra El Jard[iacute]n, which was first 
reported in 1973. Two additional Mexican populations, near Fraile in 
southern Coahuila, and the Sierra de la Madera in central Coahuila, 
have not been monitored since 1941 and 1977, respectively. A great 
amount of potentially suitable habitat in Coahuila and adjacent Mexican 
states has never been surveyed. A historically unprecedented period of 
exceptional drought and high temperatures prevailed throughout the 
species' range from October 2010 until November 2011. We will not know 
what impacts this unusual weather had on Guadalupe fescue populations 
until post-drought monitoring has been completed.
    The potential threats to Guadalupe fescue include changes in the 
wildfire cycle and vegetation structure, trampling from humans and pack 
animals, possible grazing, trail runoff, fungal infection of seeds, 
small sizes and isolation of populations, and limited genetic 
diversity. The Service and the National Park Service established a 
candidate conservation agreement (CCA) in 2008 to provide additional 
protection for the Chisos Mountains population and to promote 
cooperative conservation efforts with U.S. and Mexican partners. The 
threats to Guadalupe fescue are of moderate magnitude and are not 
imminent due to the provisions of the CCA and other conservation 
efforts that address threats from trampling, grazing, trail runoff, and 
genetic diversity, as well as the likelihood that other populations 
exist in mountains of Coahuila and adjacent Mexican states that have 
not been surveyed. Thus, we retain an LPN of 11 for the Guadalupe 
fescue.
    Gardenia remyi (Nanu)--The following summary is based on 
information contained in our files. No new information was provided in 
the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Gardenia remyi is a tree 
found in mesic to wet forests on the islands of Kauai, Molokai, Maui, 
and Hawaii, Hawaii. Gardenia remyi is known from 19 populations 
totaling between 85 and 87 individuals. This species is threatened by 
pigs (Sus scrofa), goats (Capra hircus), and deer (Axis axis and 
Odocoileus hemionus) that degrade and destroy habitat and possibly 
forage upon the species, and by nonnative plants that outcompete and 
displace it. Gardenia remyi is also threatened by landslides and 
reduced reproductive vigor on the island of Hawaii. This species is 
represented in ex situ collections. On Kauai, G. remyi individuals have 
been outplanted within ungulate-proof exclosures in two locations. 
Feral pigs have been fenced out of the west Maui populations of G. 
remyi, and nonnative plants have been reduced in those areas. However, 
these threats are ongoing in the remaining unfenced populations and are 
therefore imminent. In addition, the threat from goats and deer is 
ongoing and imminent

[[Page 70146]]

throughout the range of the species because no goat or deer control 
measures have been undertaken for any of the populations of G. remyi. 
All of the threats are of a high magnitude because habitat destruction, 
predation, and landslides could significantly affect the entire 
species, resulting in direct mortality or reduced reproductive capacity 
and leading to a relatively high likelihood of extinction. Therefore, 
we have retained an LPN of 2 for this species.
    Hedyotis fluviatilis (Kamapuaa)--The following summary is based on 
information contained in our files. No new information was provided in 
the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Hedyotis fluviatilis is a 
scandent (climbing) shrub found in mixed shrubland to wet lowland 
forests on the islands of Oahu and Kauai, Hawaii. This species is known 
from 11 populations totaling between 400 and 900 individuals. H. 
fluviatilis is threatened by pigs (Sus scrofa) and goats (Capra hircus) 
that degrade and destroy habitat, and by nonnative plants that 
outcompete and displace it. Landslides and hurricanes are a potential 
threat to populations on Kauai. Herbivory by pigs and goats is a likely 
threat. This species is not represented in an ex situ collection. We 
have retained an LPN of 2 because the severity of the threats to the 
species is high and the threats are ongoing and therefore imminent.
    Joinvillea ascendens ssp. ascendens (Ohe)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. No new information was 
provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Joinvillea 
ascendens ssp. ascendens is an erect herb found in wet to mesic 
Metrosideros polymorpha-Acacia koa (ohia-koa) lowland and montane 
forests on the islands of Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Maui, and Hawaii, 
Hawaii. This subspecies is known from 44 widely scattered populations 
totaling approximately 200 individuals. The very widely separated 
populations typically include only one or two individuals. This 
subspecies is threatened by destruction or modification of habitat by 
pigs (Sus scrofa), goats (Capra hircus), and deer (Axis axis and 
Odocoileus hemionus), and by nonnative plants that outcompete and 
displace native plants. Herbivory by pigs, goats, deer, and rats 
(Rattus exulans, R. norvegicus, and R. rattus) is a likely threat to 
this species. Landslides are a potential threat to populations on Kauai 
and Molokai. Seedlings have rarely been observed in the wild. Seeds 
germinate in cultivation, but most die soon thereafter. It is uncertain 
if this rarity of reproduction is typical of this subspecies, or if it 
is related to habitat disturbance. Feral pigs have been fenced out of a 
few of the populations of this subspecies, and nonnative plants have 
been reduced in those populations that are fenced. However, these 
threats are not controlled and are ongoing in the remaining, unfenced 
populations. This species is represented in ex situ collections. The 
threats are of high magnitude because habitat degradation, nonnative 
plants, and predation result in mortality and may severely affect the 
reproductive capacity of the majority of populations of this species, 
leading to a relatively high probability of extinction. The threats are 
ongoing and thus are imminent. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 3 
for this subspecies.
    Lepidium ostleri (Ostler's peppergrass)--The following summary is 
based on information in our files and the petition we received on July 
30, 2007. Ostler's peppergrass is a long-lived perennial herb in the 
mustard family that grows in dense, cushion-like tufts. Ostler's 
peppergrass is a narrow endemic restricted to soils derived from 
Ordovician limestone outcrops. The range of the species is less than 5 
sq mi (13 sq km) with only four known populations. All four populations 
occur exclusively on private lands in the southern San Francisco 
Mountains of Beaver County, Utah. Available population estimates are 
highly variable and inaccurate due largely to the limited access for 
surveys associated with private lands.
    The primary threat to Ostler's peppergrass is habitat destruction 
from precious metal and gravel mining. Mining for precious metals 
historically occurred within the vicinity of all four populations. 
Three of the populations are currently in the immediate vicinity of 
active limestone quarries, but mining is only currently occurring in 
the area of one population. Ongoing mining in the species' habitat has 
the potential to extirpate one population in the near future. Ongoing 
exploration for precious metals and gravel indicate that mining will 
continue, resulting in the loss and fragmentation of Ostler's 
peppergrass populations. Other threats to species include nonnative 
species, vulnerability associated with small population size, climate 
change, and the overall inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. 
The threats that Ostler's peppergrass faces are moderate in magnitude, 
because while serious and occurring rangewide, the threats do not 
collectively result in significant population declines on a short time 
scale. The threats are imminent because the species is currently facing 
them across its entire range. Therefore, we have assigned Ostler's 
peppergrass an LPN of 8.
    Linum arenicola (Sand flax)--The following summary is based on 
information contained in our files. No new information was provided in 
the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Sand flax is found in pine 
rockland and marl prairie habitats, which require periodic wildfires in 
order to maintain an open, shrub-free subcanopy and reduce leaf-litter 
levels. Based upon available data, there are 12 extant occurrences of 
sand flax; 11 others have been extirpated or destroyed. For the most 
part, only small and isolated occurrences remain in low-lying areas in 
a restricted range of southern Florida and the Florida Keys. Viability 
is uncertain for 10 of 12 occurrences.
    Sand flax is threatened by habitat loss and degradation due to 
development; climatic changes, including sea-level rise, which 
ultimately are likely to substantially reduce the extent of available 
habitat; fire suppression and difficulty in applying prescribed fire; 
road maintenance activities; exotic species; illegal dumping; natural 
disturbances, such as hurricanes, tropical storms, and storm surges; 
and the small and fragmented nature of the current population. Reduced 
pollinator activity and suppression of pollinator populations from 
pesticides used in mosquito control and decreased seed production due 
to increased seed predation in a fragmented wildland urban interface 
may also affect sand flax; however, not enough information is known on 
this species' reproductive biology or life history to assess these 
potential threats. Some of the threats to the species--including fire 
suppression, difficulty in applying prescribed fire, road maintenance 
activities, exotic species, and illegal dumping--threaten nearly all 
remaining populations. However, some efforts are under way to use 
prescribed fire to control exotics on conservation lands where this 
species occurs.
    There are some circumstances that may mitigate the impacts of the 
threats upon the species. For example, a survey conducted in 2009 
showed approximately 74,000 plants on a non-conservation, public site 
in Miami-Dade County; this is far more plants than was previously 
known. Although a portion of the plants will be affected by 
development, approximately 60,000 are anticipated to be protected and 
managed. Still, this project will need to be carefully monitored 
because impacts would affect the largest known occurrence of the 
species. In addition, much of the pine rockland on Big Pine

[[Page 70147]]

Key, the location of the largest occurrence in the Keys, is protected 
from development.
    Nevertheless, due to the small and fragmented nature of the current 
population, stochastic events, disease, or genetic bottlenecks may 
strongly affect this species in the Keys. One example is Hurricane 
Wilma, which inundated most of the species' habitat on Big Pine Key in 
2005, and plants were not found 8-9 weeks post-storm; the density of 
sand flax declined to zero in all management units at The Nature 
Conservancy's preserve in 2006. In a 2007 post-hurricane assessment, 
sand flax was found in northern plots, but not in any of the southern 
plots on Big Pine Key. More current data are not available.
    Overall, the magnitude of threats is high, because the threats 
affect all 12 known occurrences of the species, and can result in a 
precipitous decline to the population levels, particularly when 
combined with the potential impacts from hurricanes or other natural 
disasters. Because development is not immediate for the majority of the 
largest population in Miami-Dade County and another population in the 
Keys is also largely protected from development since much of it is 
within public and private conservation lands, the threat of habitat 
loss remains nonimminent. In addition, sea level rise is a long-term 
threat since we do not have evidence that it is currently affecting any 
population of sand flax. Therefore, we retained an LPN of 5 for this 
species.
    Myrsine fosbergii (Kolea)--The following summary is based on 
information contained in our files. No new information was provided in 
the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Myrsine fosbergii is a 
branched shrub or small tree found in lowland mesic and wet forests, on 
watercourses or stream banks, on the islands of Kauai and Oahu, Hawaii. 
This species is currently known from 14 populations totaling a little 
more than 100 individuals. Myrsine fosbergii is threatened by feral 
pigs (Sus scrofa) and goats (Capra hircus) that degrade and destroy 
habitat and may forage upon the plant, and by nonnative plants that 
compete for light and nutrients. This species is represented in an ex 
situ collection. Although there are plans to fence and remove ungulates 
from the Helemano area of Oahu, which may benefit this species, no 
conservation measures have yet been taken to protect this species from 
nonnative herbivores. Feral pigs and goats are found throughout the 
known range of M. fosbergii, as are nonnative plants. The threats from 
feral pigs, goats, and nonnative plants are of a high magnitude because 
they pose a severe threat throughout the limited range of this species, 
and they are ongoing and therefore imminent. We have retained an LPN of 
2 for this species.
    Nothocestrum latifolium (`Aiea)--The following summary is based on 
information contained in our files. No new information was provided in 
the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Nothocestrum latifolium is a 
small tree found in dry to mesic forests on the islands of Kauai, Oahu, 
Maui, Molokai, and Lanai, Hawaii. Nothocestrum latifolium is known from 
17 declining populations totaling fewer than 1,200 individuals. This 
species is threatened by feral pigs (Sus scrofa), goats (Capra hircus), 
and deer (Axis axis and Odocoileus hemionus) that degrade and destroy 
habitat and may forage upon it; by nonnative plants that compete for 
light and nutrients; and by decreased reproductive viability through 
the loss of pollinators. This species is represented in an ex situ 
collection. Ungulates have been fenced out of four areas where N. 
latifolium currently occurs, hundreds of N. latifolium individuals have 
been outplanted in fenced areas, and nonnative plants have been reduced 
in some populations that are fenced. However, these ongoing 
conservation efforts for this species benefit only a few of the known 
populations. The threats are not controlled and are ongoing in the 
remaining unfenced populations. In addition, little natural 
regeneration has been observed in this species. The threats are of a 
high magnitude, since they are severe enough to affect the continued 
existence of the species, leading to a relatively high likelihood of 
extinction. The threats are imminent, since they are ongoing. 
Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 for this species.
    Ochrosia haleakalae (Holei)--The following summary is based on 
information contained in our files. No new information was provided in 
the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Ochrosia haleakalae is a tree 
found in dry to mesic forests, often on lava, on the islands of Hawaii 
and Maui. This species is currently known from 8 populations totaling 
between 64 and 76 individuals. Ochrosia haleakalae is threatened by 
fire; by feral pigs (Sus scrofa), goats (Capra hircus), and cattle (Bos 
taurus) that degrade and destroy habitat and may directly forage upon 
it; and by nonnative plants that compete for light and nutrients. This 
species is represented in ex situ collections. Feral pigs, goats, and 
cattle have been fenced out of one wild and one outplanted population 
on private lands on the island of Maui and one outplanted population in 
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park on the island of Hawaii. Nonnative 
plants have been reduced in the fenced areas. The threat from fire is 
of a high magnitude and imminent because no control measures have been 
undertaken to address this threat that could adversely affect most O. 
haleakalae population sites. The threats from feral pigs, goats, and 
cattle are ongoing to the unfenced populations of O. haleakalae. The 
threat from nonnative plants is ongoing and imminent and of a high 
magnitude to the wild populations on both islands as this threat 
adversely affects the survival and reproductive capacity of the 
majority of the individuals of this species, leading to a relatively 
high likelihood of extinction. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 
for this species.
    Pinus albicaulis (Whitebark pine)--The following summary is based 
on information in our files and in the petition received on December 9, 
2008. Pinus albicaulis is a hardy conifer found at alpine tree line and 
subalpine elevations in Washington, Oregon, Nevada, California, Idaho, 
Montana, and Wyoming, and in British Columbia and Alberta, Canada. In 
the United States, approximately 96 percent of land where the species 
occurs is federally owned or managed, primarily by the U.S. Forest 
Service. Pinus albicaulis is a slow-growing, long-lived tree that often 
lives for 500 and sometimes more than 1,000 years. It is considered a 
keystone, or foundation, species in western North America, where it 
increases biodiversity and contributes to critical ecosystem functions.
    The primary threat to the species is from disease in the form of 
the nonnative white pine blister rust and its interaction with other 
threats. Pinus albicaulis also is currently experiencing significant 
mortality from predation by the native mountain pine beetle. We also 
anticipate that continuing environmental effects resulting from climate 
change will result in direct habitat loss for P. albicaulis. Models 
predict that suitable habitat for P. albicaulis will decline 
precipitously within the next 100 years. Past and ongoing fire 
suppression is also negatively affecting populations of P. albicaulis 
through direct habitat loss. Additionally, environmental changes 
resulting from changing climatic conditions are acting alone and in 
combination with the effects of fire suppression to increase the 
frequency and severity of wildfires. Lastly, the existing regulatory 
mechanisms are inadequate to address the threats

[[Page 70148]]

presented above. The threats that face P. albicaulis are high in 
magnitude because the major threats occur throughout all of the 
species' range and are having a major population-level effect on the 
species. The threats are imminent because rangewide disease, predation, 
fire and fire suppression, and environmental effects of climate change 
are affecting P. albicaulis currently and are expected to continue and 
likely intensify in the foreseeable future. Thus, we have assigned P. 
albicaulis an LPN of 2.
    Platanthera integrilabia (Correll) Leur (White fringeless orchid)--
The following summary is based on information contained in our files. 
No new information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 
2004. Platanthera integrilabia is a perennial herb that grows in 
partially, but not fully, shaded, wet, boggy areas at the head of 
streams and on seepage slopes in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, 
Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee. Historically, there were at 
least 90 populations of P. integrilabia. It is presumed extirpated from 
North Carolina and Virginia. Currently there are about 60 sites 
supporting extant populations of the species.
    Several populations have been destroyed due to road, residential, 
and commercial construction; impacts from all-terrain vehicle use; and 
projects that altered soil and site hydrology such that suitability for 
the species was reduced. The best available information indicates that 
many extant populations and their habitat are adversely affected by 
factors that alter the vegetation communities, soils, and hydrology in 
the sites where they occur. These factors include right-of-way 
maintenance, timber harvesting, invasive species encroachment, and 
prolonged drought. Several of the known populations are in or adjacent 
to road or powerline rights-of-way. Increased light availability in 
rights-of-way might enhance growth and reproductive output of P. 
integrilabia, but this positive effect is often short-lived due to 
encroachment of woody vegetation and aggressive grasses. Mechanical 
clearing of these areas may benefit the species by periodically 
restoring adequate light levels, but can promote development of dense, 
shrubby vegetation due to extensive suckering of woody species. The 
indiscriminant use of herbicides to manage vegetation in these areas 
could pose a significant threat to the species. Some of the known sites 
for the species occur in areas that are managed specifically for timber 
production. Timber management is not necessarily incompatible with the 
protection and management of the species, but care must be taken during 
timber management to ensure the hydrology of bogs supporting the 
species is not altered. Natural succession following timber harvests 
has been associated with reduced vigor, flowering, and reproduction in 
P. integrilabia populations, presumably due to altered light and soil 
moisture resulting from encroachment of woody species and grasses. 
Because of the species dependence upon moderate-to-high light levels, 
some type of active management to prevent complete canopy closure is 
required at most locations. Collecting for commercial and other 
purposes is a potential threat. Herbivory (primarily deer) threatens 
the species at several sites. Due to the alteration of habitat and 
changes in natural conditions, protection and recovery of this species 
is dependent upon active management rather than just preservation of 
habitat. Invasive, nonnative plants such as Japanese honeysuckle and 
kudzu also threaten several sites. Feral hogs have caused soil 
disturbance and destroyed plants at several sites. The threats are 
widespread; however, the impact of those threats on the species 
survival is moderate in magnitude. Several of the sites are protected 
to some degree from the threats by being within State parks, national 
forests, wildlife management areas, or other protected land. The 
threats however are imminent since they are ongoing, and we have 
therefore assigned an LPN of 8 to this species.
    Pseudognaphalium (= Gnaphalium) sandwicensium var. molokaiense 
(Enaena)--The following summary is based on information contained in 
our files. No new information was provided in the petition we received 
on May 11, 2004. Pseudognaphalium sandwicensium var. molokaiense is a 
perennial herb found in strand vegetation in dry consolidated dunes on 
the islands of Molokai and Maui, Hawaii. Historically, this variety was 
also found on Oahu and Lanai. This variety is known from 5 populations 
totaling approximately 200 to 20,000 individuals (depending upon 
rainfall) in the Moomomi area on the island of Molokai, and from 2 
populations of a few individuals at Waiehu dunes and at Puu Kahulianapa 
on west Maui. Pseudognaphalium s. var. molokaiense is threatened by 
feral goats (Capra hircus) and axis deer (Axis axis) that degrade and 
destroy habitat and possibly browse upon it, and by nonnative plants 
that compete for light and nutrients. Potential threats also include 
collection for cultural use and off-road vehicles that directly damage 
plants and degrade habitat. Weed control is conducted for one 
population on Molokai; however, no conservation efforts have been 
initiated to date for the other populations on Molokai or for the 
individuals on Maui. This species is represented in an ex situ 
collection. The ongoing, and therefore, imminent threats from feral 
goats, axis deer, nonnative plants, collection, and off-road vehicles 
are of a high magnitude because no control measures have been 
undertaken for the Maui population or for the four of the five Molokai 
populations, and the threats result in direct mortality or 
significantly reduce reproductive capacity for the majority of the 
populations, leading to a relatively high likelihood of extinction. 
Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 3 for this plant variety.
    Ranunculus hawaiensis (Makou)--The following summary is based on 
information contained in our files. No new information was provided in 
the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Ranunculus hawaiensis is an 
erect or ascending perennial herb found in mesic to wet forests 
dominated by Metrosideros polymorpha (ohia) and Acacia koa (koa) with 
scree substrate (loose stones or rocky debris on a slope) on the 
islands of Maui and Hawaii, Hawaii. This species is currently known 
from 6 populations totaling 14 individuals on the island of Hawaii. On 
Maui, it was historically known from an area in east Maui, but 
individuals have not been seen at this location since 1995. Ranunculus 
hawaiensis is threatened by direct predation by slugs (Limax maximus, 
Milax gagates, and Vaginulus plebeius); by degradation and destruction 
of habitat by feral pigs (Sus scrofa), goats (Capra hircus), cattle 
(Bos taurus), mouflon (Ovis musimon), and feral sheep (O. aries); and 
by competition for light and nutrients by nonnative plants. This 
species is represented in ex situ collections and three populations 
have been outplanted into protected exclosures; however, feral 
ungulates and nonnative plants are not controlled in the remaining, 
unfenced populations. In addition, the threat from introduced slugs is 
of a high magnitude because slugs occur throughout the limited range of 
this species and no effective measures have been undertaken to control 
them or prevent them from causing significant adverse impacts to this 
species. Overall, the threats from pigs, goats, cattle, mouflon, feral 
sheep, slugs, and nonnative plants are of a high magnitude, and ongoing 
(imminent) for R. hawaiensis. We have retained an LPN of 2 for this 
species.
    Ranunculus mauiensis (Makou)--The following summary is based on

[[Page 70149]]

information contained in our files. No new information was provided in 
the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Ranunculus mauiensis is an 
erect to weakly ascending perennial herb found in open sites in mesic 
to wet forests and along streams on the islands of Maui, Kauai, and 
Molokai, Hawaii. This species is currently known from 14 populations 
totaling 198 individuals. Ranunculus mauiensis is threatened by feral 
pigs (Sus scrofa), goats (Capra hircus), mule deer (Odocoileus 
hemionus), axis deer (Axis axis), and slugs (Limax maximus, Milax 
gagates, and Vaginulus plebeius) that consume it; by feral pigs, goats, 
and deer that degrade and destroy habitat; and by nonnative plants that 
compete for light and nutrients. This species is represented in an ex 
situ collection. Feral pigs have been fenced out of one Maui population 
of R. mauiensis, and nonnative plants have been reduced within the 
fenced area. One individual occurs in the Kamakou Preserve on Molokai, 
managed by The Nature Conservancy. However, ongoing conservation 
efforts benefit only two populations. The threats are of high magnitude 
and are imminent because they are ongoing in the Kauai and the majority 
of the Maui populations. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 for 
this species.
    Rorippa subumbellata (Tahoe yellow cress)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files and the petition received 
on December 27, 2000. Rorippa subumbellata is a small, branching 
perennial herb known only from the shores of Lake Tahoe in California 
and Nevada.
    Data collected over the last 25 years generally indicate that 
species occurrence fluctuates yearly as a function of both lake level 
and the amount of exposed habitat. Records kept since 1900 show a 
preponderance of years with high lake levels that would isolate and 
reduce R. subumbellata occurrences at higher beach elevations. From the 
standpoint of the species, less favorable peak years have occurred 
almost twice as often as more favorable low-level years. Annual surveys 
are conducted to determine population numbers, site occupancy, and 
general disturbance regime. At least within a certain range, the data 
clearly show that more individuals are present when lake levels are low 
and less when lake levels are high.
    Many Rorippa subumbellata sites are intensively used for commercial 
and public purposes and are subject to various activities such as 
erosion control, marina developments, pier construction, and 
recreation. The U.S. Forest Service, California Tahoe Conservancy, and 
California Department of Parks and Recreation have management programs 
for R. subumbellata that include monitoring, fenced enclosures, and 
transplanting efforts when funds and staff are available. Public 
agencies (including the Service), private landowners, and environmental 
groups collaborated to develop a Conservation Strategy coupled with a 
Memorandum of Understanding-Conservation Agreement. The Conservation 
Strategy, completed in 2003, contains goals and objectives for recovery 
and survival, a research and monitoring agenda, and serves as the 
foundation for an adaptive management program. Because of the continued 
commitments to conservation demonstrated by regulatory and land 
management agencies participating in the conservation strategy, we have 
determined the threats to R. subumbellata from various land uses have 
been reduced to a moderate magnitude. In high lake level years such as 
2011, however, recreational use is concentrated within R. subumbellata 
habitat, and we consider this threat in particular to be ongoing and 
imminent. Therefore, we are maintaining an LPN of 8 for this species.
    Schiedea pubescens (Maolioli)--The following summary is based on 
information contained in our files. No new information was provided in 
the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Schiedea pubescens is a 
reclining or weakly climbing vine found in diverse mesic to wet forests 
on the islands of Maui, Molokai, and Hawaii, Hawaii. It is presumed 
extirpated from Lanai. Currently, this species is known from 8 
populations totaling between 30 and 32 individuals on Maui, from 4 
populations totaling between 21 and 22 individuals on Molokai, and from 
1 population of 4 to 6 individuals on the island of Hawaii. Schiedea 
pubescens is threatened by feral pigs (Sus scrofa) and goats (Capra 
hircus) that consume it and degrade and destroy habitat, and by 
nonnative plants that compete for light and nutrients. Feral ungulates 
have been fenced out of the population of S. pubescens on the island of 
Hawaii. Feral goats have been fenced out of a few of the west Maui 
populations of S. pubescens. Nonnative plants have been reduced in the 
populations that are fenced on Maui. However, the threats are not 
controlled and are ongoing in the remaining unfenced populations on 
Maui and the four populations on Molokai. Additional fenced areas are 
planned for the Hawaii Island population at Pohakuloa Training Area on 
the island of Hawaii. Nonnative feral ungulates and nonnative plants 
will be controlled within these fenced areas. Fire is a potential 
threat to the Hawaii Island population. This species is not represented 
in an ex situ collection. Due to the extremely low number of 
individuals of this species, the threats from goats and nonnative 
plants are of a high magnitude. These threats cause mortality and 
reduced reproductive capacity for the majority of the populations, 
leading to a relatively high likelihood of extinction. The threats are 
imminent because they are ongoing with respect to most of the 
populations. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 for this species.
    Sedum eastwoodiae (Red Mountain stonecrop)--We continue to find 
that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of 
publication of this notice of review. However, we are working on a 
proposed listing rule that we expect to publish prior to making the 
next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the course of 
preparing the proposed listing rule, we are continuing to monitor new 
information about this species' status so that we can make prompt use 
of our authority under Section 4(b)(7) in the case of an emergency 
posing a significant risk to the species.
    Sicyos macrophyllus (`Anunu)--We continue to find that listing this 
species is warranted but precluded as of the date of publication of 
this notice of review. However, we are working on a proposed listing 
rule that we expect to publish prior to making the next annual 
resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the course of preparing the 
proposed listing rule, we are continuing to monitor new information 
about this species' status so that we can make prompt use of our 
authority under Section 4(b)(7) in the case of an emergency posing a 
significant risk to the species.
    Solanum conocarpum (marron bacora)--The following summary is based 
on information in our files and in the petition we received on November 
21, 1996. Solanum conocarpum is a dry-forest shrub in the island of St. 
John, U.S. Virgin Islands. Its current distribution includes eight 
localities in the island of St. John, each ranging from 1 to 144 
individuals. The species has been reported to occur on dry, poor soils. 
It can be locally abundant in exposed topography on sites disturbed by 
erosion, areas that have received moderate grazing, and around 
ridgelines as an understory component in diverse woodland communities. 
A habitat suitability model suggests that the vast majority of Solanum 
conocarpum

[[Page 70150]]

habitat is found in the lower elevation coastal scrub forest. Efforts 
have been conducted to propagate the species to enhance natural 
populations, and planting of seedlings has been conducted in the island 
of St. John. Solanum conocarpum is threatened by the lack of natural 
recruitment, absence of dispersers, fragmented distribution, lack of 
genetic variation, climate change, and habitat destruction or 
modification by exotic mammal species. These threats are evidenced by 
the reduced number of individuals, low number of populations, and lack 
of connectivity between populations. Overall, the threats are of high 
magnitude; the threats are also ongoing and therefore imminent. 
Therefore, we assigned a LPN of 2 to this species.
    Solanum nelsonii (popolo)--The following summary is based on 
information contained in our files. No new information was provided in 
the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Solanum nelsonii is a 
sprawling or trailing shrub found in coral rubble or sand in coastal 
sites. This species is known from populations on Molokai (approximately 
300 individuals), the island of Hawaii (5 individuals), and the 
northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), Hawaii. The current populations 
in the NWHI are found on Kure (unknown number of individuals), Midway 
(approximately 260 individuals), Laysan (approximately 490 
individuals), Pearl and Hermes (unknown number of individuals), and 
Nihoa (8,000 to 15,000 individuals). On Molokai, S. nelsonii is 
moderately threatened by ungulates which degrade and destroy habitat 
and which may eat S. nelsonii. On Molokai and the NWHI, this species is 
threatened by nonnative plants that outcompete and displace it. S. 
nelsonii is threatened by herbivory by a nonnative grasshopper 
(Schistocera nitens) in the NWHI. On Kure, Midway, Laysan, and Pearl 
and Hermes in the NWHI, tsunamis are also a potential threat to S. 
nelsonii. This species is represented in ex situ collections. Ungulate 
exclusion fences, routine fence monitoring and maintenance, and weed 
control protect the population of S. nelsonii on Molokai. Limited weed 
control is conducted in the NWHI. These threats are of moderate 
magnitude because of the relatively large number of plants, and the 
fact that this species is found on more than one island. The threats 
are imminent for the majority of the populations because they are 
ongoing and are not being controlled. We therefore retained an LPN of 8 
for this species.
    Symphyotrichum georgianum (Georgia aster)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. No new information was 
provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Georgia aster is 
a relict species of post oak savanna/prairie communities that existed 
in the Southeast prior to widespread fire suppression and extirpation 
of large, native, grazing animals. Georgia aster currently occurs in 
the States of Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The 
species is presumed extant in 8 counties in Alabama, 22 counties in 
Georgia, 9 counties in North Carolina, and 15 counties in South 
Carolina. The species appears to have been eliminated from Florida.
    Most remaining populations survive adjacent to roads, utility 
rights-of-way, and other openings where current land management mimics 
natural disturbance regimes. Most populations are small (10 to 100 
stems), and because the species' main mode of reproduction is 
vegetative, each isolated population may represent only a few 
genotypes. Many populations are currently threatened by one or more of 
the following factors: Woody succession due to fire suppression, 
development, highway expansion or improvement, and herbicide 
application. However, the species is still relatively widely 
distributed, and information indicates that the species is more 
abundant than when we initially identified it as a candidate for 
listing. Taking into account its distribution and abundance, and the 
fact that it is increasing, the magnitude of threats is moderate. The 
threats are currently occurring and therefore are imminent. Thus we 
assigned an LPN of 8 for this species.
    Trifolium friscanum (Frisco clover)--The following summary is based 
on information in our files and the petition we received on July 30, 
2007. Frisco clover is a narrow endemic perennial herb found only in 
Utah, with five known populations restricted to sparsely vegetated, 
pinion-juniper-sagebrush communities and shallow, gravel soils derived 
from volcanic gravels, Ordovician limestone, and dolomite outcrops. The 
majority (68 percent) of Frisco clover plants occur on private lands, 
with the remaining plants found on Federal and State lands.
    On the private and State lands, the most significant threat to 
Frisco clover is habitat destruction from mining for precious metals 
and gravel. Active mining claims, recent prospecting, and an increasing 
demand for precious metals and gravel indicate that mining in Frisco 
clover habitats will increase in the foreseeable future, likely 
resulting in the loss of large numbers of plants. Other threats to 
Frisco clover include nonnative, invasive species; vulnerability 
associated with small population size; and drought associated with 
climate change. Existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to 
protect the species from these threats. We consider the threats to 
Frisco clover to be moderate in magnitude because, while serious and 
occurring rangewide, they are not acting independently or cumulatively 
to have a highly significant negative impact on its survival or 
reproductive capacity. The threats are imminent because the species is 
currently facing them across its entire range. Therefore, we have 
assigned Frisco clover an LPN of 8.
Ferns and Allies
    Cyclosorus boydiae (no common name)--The following summary is based 
on information contained in our files. No new information was provided 
in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. This species is a small- 
to medium-sized fern found in mesic to wet forests along stream banks 
on the islands of Oahu and Maui, Hawaii. Historically, this species was 
also found on the island of Hawaii, but it has been extirpated there. 
Currently, this species is known from 7 populations totaling 
approximately 400 individuals. This species is threatened by feral pigs 
that degrade and destroy habitat and may eat this plant, and by 
nonnative plants that compete for light and nutrients. Feral pigs have 
been fenced out of the largest population on Maui, and nonnative plants 
have been reduced in the fenced area. No conservation efforts are under 
way to alleviate threats to the other two populations on Maui, or the 
two populations on Oahu. This species is represented in an ex situ 
collection. The magnitude of the threats acting upon the currently 
extant populations is moderate because the largest population is 
protected from pigs, and nonnative plants have been reduced in this 
area. The threats are ongoing and therefore imminent. Therefore, we 
have retained an LPN of 8 for this species.
    Huperzia stemmermanniae (Waewaeiole)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. No new information was 
provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. This species is 
an epiphytic, pendant clubmoss found in mesic-to-wet Metrosideros 
polymorpha-Acacia koa (ohia-koa) forests on the islands of Maui and 
Hawaii, Hawaii. Only 3 populations are known, totaling approximately 20 
individuals. The Maui population has not been observed since 1995. 
Huperzia stemmermanniae is threatened by feral pigs (Sus scrofa),

[[Page 70151]]

goats (Capra hircus), cattle (Bos taurus), and axis deer (Axis axis) 
that degrade and destroy habitat, and by nonnative plants that compete 
for light, space, and nutrients. H. stemmermanniae is also threatened 
by randomly occurring natural events due to its small population size. 
One individual at Waikamoi Preserve may benefit from fencing for axis 
deer and pigs. This species is represented in ex situ collections. The 
threats from pigs, goats, cattle, axis deer, and nonnative plants are 
of a high magnitude because they are sufficiently severe to adversely 
affect the species throughout its limited range, resulting in direct 
mortality or significantly reducing reproductive capacity and leading 
to a relatively high likelihood of extinction. The threats are imminent 
because they are ongoing. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 for 
this species.
    Microlepia strigosa var. mauiensis (Palapalai)--The following 
summary is based on information contained in our files. No new 
information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. 
Microlepia strigosa var. mauiensis is a terrestrial fern found in 
mesic-to-wet forests. It is currently found in Hawaii on the islands of 
Maui, Oahu, and Hawaii from at least 9 populations totaling at least 50 
individuals. There is a possibility that the range of this plant 
variety could be larger and include the other main Hawaiian Islands. M. 
strigosa var. mauiensis is threatened by feral pigs (Sus scrofa) that 
degrade and destroy habitat, and by nonnative plants that compete for 
light and nutrients. Pigs have been fenced out of some areas on east 
and west Maui, Oahu, and on Hawaii where M. strigosa var. mauiensis 
currently occurs and nonnative plants have been reduced in the fenced 
areas. However, the threats are not controlled and are ongoing in the 
remaining unfenced populations on Maui, Oahu, and Hawaii. Therefore, 
the threats from feral pigs and nonnative plants are imminent. The 
threats are of a high magnitude because they are sufficiently severe to 
adversely affect the species throughout its range, resulting in direct 
mortality or significantly reducing reproductive capacity, leading to a 
relatively high likelihood of extinction. We therefore retained an LPN 
of 3 for M. strigosa var. mauiensis.

Petitions To Reclassify Species Already Listed

    We previously made warranted-but-precluded findings on five 
petitions seeking to reclassify threatened species to endangered 
status. The taxa involved in the reclassification petitions are three 
populations of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), delta smelt 
(Hypomesus transpacificus), and Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette 
cactus). Because these species are already listed under the ESA, they 
are not candidates for listing and are not included in Table 1. 
However, this notice of review and associated species assessment forms 
or 5-year review documents also constitute the resubmitted petition 
findings for these species. Our updated assessments for these species 
are provided below. We find that reclassification to endangered status 
for the three grizzly bear populations, delta smelt, and Sclerocactus 
brevispinus are all currently warranted but precluded by work 
identified above (see ``Findings for Petitioned Candidate Species''). 
One of the primary reasons that the work identified above is considered 
to have higher priority is that the grizzly bear populations, delta 
smelt, and Sclerocactus brevispinus are currently listed as threatened, 
and therefore already receive certain protections under the ESA. We 
promulgated regulations extending take prohibitions for wildlife and 
plants under section 9 to threatened species (50 CFR 17.31 and 50 CFR 
17.71, respectively). Prohibited actions under section 9 for wildlife 
include, but are not limited to, take (i.e., to harass, harm, pursue, 
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to 
engage in such activity). For plants, prohibited actions under section 
9 include removing or reducing to possession any listed plant from an 
area under Federal jurisdiction (50 CFR 17.61). Other protections that 
apply to these threatened species even before we complete proposed and 
final reclassification rules include those under section 7(a)(2) of the 
ESA whereby Federal agencies must insure that any action they 
authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of any endangered or threatened species.
    Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) North Cascades ecosystem, 
Cabinet-Yaak, and Selkirk populations (Region 6)--Between 1986 and 
2007, we have received and reviewed 10 petitions requesting a change in 
status for individual grizzly bear populations (51 FR 16363, May 2, 
1986; 55 FR 32103, August 7, 1990; 56 FR 33892, July 24, 1991; 57 FR 
14372, April 20, 1992; 58 FR 8250, February 12, 1993; 58 FR 38552, July 
19, 1993; 58 FR 43856, August 18, 1993; 58 FR 43857, August 18, 1993; 
59 FR 46611, September 9, 1994; 63 FR 30453, June 4, 1998; 64 FR 26725, 
May 17, 1999; 72 FR 14866, March 29, 2007). Through this process, we 
determined that grizzly bears within the Cabinet-Yaak, Selkirk, and 
North Cascade ecosystems warrant endangered status. On April 18, 2007, 
the Service initiated a 5-year review to evaluate the current status of 
grizzly bears in the lower 48 States (72 FR 19549-19551). This status 
review was completed on August 29, 2011, and is available online at: 
http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A001. The status review recommended that 
reclassifying the Cabinet-Yaak, Selkirk, and North Cascades grizzly 
bear populations as endangered was warranted but precluded. Our updated 
assessment continues to find that reclassifying these populations as 
endangered is warranted but precluded and we continue to assign a LPN 
of 3 for the uplisting of these populations based on high magnitude 
threats that are ongoing, thus imminent.
    Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) (Region 8) (see 75 FR 17667, 
April 7, 2010, for additional information on why reclassification to 
endangered is warranted but precluded)--The following summary is based 
on information contained in our files. In April, 2010 we completed a 
12-month finding for delta smelt in which we determined a change in 
status from threatened to endangered was warranted, although precluded 
by other high priority listings. The primary rationale for 
reclassifying delta smelt from threatened to endangered was the 
significant declines in delta smelt abundance that have occurred since 
2001. Delta smelt abundance, as indicated by the Fall Mid-Water Trawl 
survey, was exceptionally low between 2004 and 2010, increased during 
the wet year of 2011, and decreased again to a very a low level in 
2012.
    The primary threats to the delta smelt are direct entrainments by 
State and Federal water export facilities, summer and fall increases in 
salinity and water clarity resulting from decreases in freshwater flow 
into the estuary, and effects from introduced species. Ammonia in the 
form of ammonium may also be a significant threat to the survival of 
the delta smelt. Additional potential threats are predation by striped 
and largemouth bass and inland silversides, entrainment into power 
plants, contaminants, and small population size. Existing regulatory 
mechanisms have not proven adequate to halt the decline of delta smelt 
since the time of listing as a threatened species.
    As a result of our analysis of the best available scientific and 
commercial data, we have retained the

[[Page 70152]]

recommendation of uplisting the delta smelt to an endangered species 
with a LPN of 2, based on high magnitude and imminent threats. The 
magnitude of the threats is high, because the threats occur rangewide 
and result in mortality or significantly reduce the reproductive 
capacity of the species. Threats are imminent because they are ongoing 
and, in some cases (e.g., nonnative species), considered irreversible.
    Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette cactus) (Region 6) (see 72 FR 
53211, September 18, 2007, and the species assessment form (see 
ADDRESSES) for additional information on why reclassification to 
endangered is warranted but precluded)--Sclerocactus brevispinus is 
restricted to clay badlands of the Uinta geologic formation in the 
Uinta Basin of northeastern Utah. The species is restricted to one 
population with an overall range of approximately 16 miles by 5 miles 
in extent. The species' entire population is within a developed and 
expanding oil and gas field. The location of the species' habitat 
exposes it to destruction from road, pipeline, and well-site 
construction in connection with oil and gas development. The species 
may be collected as a specimen plant for horticultural use. 
Recreational off-road vehicle use and livestock trampling are 
additional potential threats. The species is currently federally listed 
as threatened by its previous inclusion within the species Sclerocactus 
glaucus. The threats are of a high magnitude because any one of the 
threats has the potential to severely affect this species, a narrow 
endemic with a highly limited range and distribution. Threats are 
ongoing and, therefore, are imminent. Thus, we assigned an LPN of 2 to 
this species for uplisting.

Current Notice of Review

    We gather data on plants and animals native to the United States 
that appear to merit consideration for addition to the Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists). This notice of 
review identifies those species that we currently regard as candidates 
for addition to the Lists. These candidates include species and 
subspecies of fish, wildlife, or plants, and DPSs of vertebrate 
animals. This compilation relies on information from status surveys 
conducted for candidate assessment and on information from State 
Natural Heritage Programs, other State and Federal agencies, 
knowledgeable scientists, public and private natural resource 
interests, and comments received in response to previous notices of 
review.
    Tables 1 and 2 list animals arranged alphabetically by common names 
under the major group headings, and list plants alphabetically by names 
of genera, species, and relevant subspecies and varieties. Animals are 
grouped by class or order. Plants are subdivided into two groups: (1) 
Flowering plants and (2) ferns and their allies. Useful synonyms and 
subgeneric scientific names appear in parentheses with the synonyms 
preceded by an ``equals'' sign. Several species that have not yet been 
formally described in the scientific literature are included; such 
species are identified by a generic or specific name (in italics), 
followed by ``sp.'' or ``ssp.'' We incorporate standardized common 
names in these documents as they become available. We sort plants by 
scientific name due to the inconsistencies in common names, the 
inclusion of vernacular and composite subspecific names, and the fact 
that many plants still lack a standardized common name.
    Table 1 lists all candidate species, plus species currently 
proposed for listing under the ESA. We emphasize that in this notice of 
review we are not proposing to list any of the candidate species; 
rather, we will develop and publish proposed listing rules for these 
species in the future. We encourage State agencies, other Federal 
agencies, and other parties to give consideration to these species in 
environmental planning.
    In Table 1, the ``category'' column on the left side of the table 
identifies the status of each species according to the following codes:
    PE--Species proposed for listing as endangered. Proposed species 
are those species for which we have published a proposed rule to list 
as endangered or threatened in the Federal Register. This category does 
not include species for which we have withdrawn or finalized the 
proposed rule.
    PT--Species proposed for listing as threatened.
    PSAT--Species proposed for listing as threatened due to similarity 
of appearance.
    C--Candidates: Species for which we have on file sufficient 
information on biological vulnerability and threats to support 
proposals to list them as endangered or threatened. Issuance of 
proposed rules for these species is precluded at present by other 
higher priority listing actions. This category includes species for 
which we made a 12-month warranted-but-precluded finding on a petition 
to list. We made new findings on all petitions for which we previously 
made ``warranted-but-precluded'' findings. We identify the species for 
which we made a continued warranted-but-precluded finding on a 
resubmitted petition by the code ``C*'' in the category column (see 
``Findings for Petitioned Candidate Species'' section for additional 
information).
    The ``Priority'' column indicates the LPN for each candidate 
species, which we use to determine the most appropriate use of our 
available resources. The lowest numbers have the highest priority. We 
assign LPNs based on the immediacy and magnitude of threats, as well as 
on taxonomic status. We published a complete description of our listing 
priority system in the Federal Register (48 FR 43098, September 21, 
1983).
    The third column, ``Lead Region,'' identifies the Regional Office 
to which you should direct information, comments, or questions (see 
addresses under Request for Information at the end of the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section).
    Following the scientific name (fourth column) and the family 
designation (fifth column) is the common name (sixth column). The 
seventh column provides the known historical range for the species or 
vertebrate population (for vertebrate populations, this is the 
historical range for the entire species or subspecies and not just the 
historical range for the distinct population segment), indicated by 
postal code abbreviations for States and U.S. territories. Many species 
no longer occur in all of the areas listed.
    Species in Table 2 of this notice of review are those we included 
either as proposed species or as candidates in the previous CNOR 
(published November 21, 2012, at 77 FR 69994) that are no longer 
proposed species or candidates for listing. Since November 21, 2012, we 
listed 81 species, withdrew 1 proposed listing, and removed 11 species 
from the candidate list. The first column indicates the present status 
of each species, using the following codes (not all of these codes may 
have been used in this CNOR):
    E--Species we listed as endangered.
    T--Species we listed as threatened.
    Rc--Species we removed from the candidate list because currently 
available information does not support a proposed listing.
    Rp--Species we removed from because we have withdrawn the proposed 
listing.
    The second column indicates why we no longer regard the species as 
a candidate or proposed species using the following codes (not all of 
these codes may have been used in this CNOR):
    A--Species that are more abundant or widespread than previously 
believed

[[Page 70153]]

and species that are not subject to the degree of threats sufficient to 
warrant continuing candidate status, or issuing a proposed or final 
listing.
    F--Species whose range no longer includes a U.S. territory.
    I--Species for which we have insufficient information on biological 
vulnerability and threats to support issuance of a proposed rule to 
list.
    L--Species we added to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and Plants.
    M--Species we mistakenly included as candidates or proposed species 
in the last notice of review.
    N--Species that are not listable entities based on the ESA's 
definition of ``species'' and current taxonomic understanding.
    U--Species that are not subject to the degree of threats sufficient 
to warrant issuance of a proposed listing or continuance of candidate 
status due, in part or totally, to conservation efforts that remove or 
reduce the threats to the species.
    X--Species we believe to be extinct.
    The columns describing lead region, scientific name, family, common 
name, and historical range include information as previously described 
for Table 1.

Request for Information

    We request you submit any further information on the species named 
in this notice of review as soon as possible or whenever it becomes 
available. We are particularly interested in any information:
    (1) Indicating that we should add a species to the list of 
candidate species;
    (2) Indicating that we should remove a species from candidate 
status;
    (3) Recommending areas that we should designate as critical habitat 
for a species, or indicating that designation of critical habitat would 
not be prudent for a species;
    (4) Documenting threats to any of the included species;
    (5) Describing the immediacy or magnitude of threats facing 
candidate species;
    (6) Pointing out taxonomic or nomenclature changes for any of the 
species;
    (7) Suggesting appropriate common names; and
    (8) Noting any mistakes, such as errors in the indicated historical 
ranges.
    Submit information, materials, or comments regarding a particular 
species to the Regional Director of the Region identified as having the 
lead responsibility for that species. The regional addresses follow:
    Region 1. Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, American Samoa, Guam, 
and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Regional Director 
(TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Eastside Federal Complex, 911 NE. 
11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181 (503/231-6158).
    Region 2. Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. Regional 
Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 500 Gold Avenue SW., 
Room 4012, Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505/248-6920).
    Region 3. Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, 
Ohio, and Wisconsin. Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 55437-
1458 (612/713-5334).
    Region 4. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Puerto Rico, 
and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30345 
(404/679-4156).
    Region 5. Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, 
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. 
Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate 
Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035-9589 (413/253-8615).
    Region 6. Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South 
Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 
80225-0486 (303/236-7400).
    Region 7. Alaska. Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503-6199 (907/786-3505).
    Region 8. California and Nevada. Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W2606, Sacramento, CA 
95825 (916/414-6464).
    We will provide information received in response to the previous 
CNOR to the Region having lead responsibility for each candidate 
species mentioned in the submission. We will likewise consider all 
information provided in response to this CNOR in deciding whether to 
propose species for listing and when to undertake necessary listing 
actions (including whether emergency listing under section 4(b)(7) of 
the ESA is appropriate). Information and comments we receive will 
become part of the administrative record for the species, which we 
maintain at the appropriate Regional Office.
    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or 
other personal identifying information in your submission, be advised 
that your entire submission--including your personal identifying 
information--may be made publicly available at any time. Although you 
can ask us in your submission to withhold from public review your 
personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be 
able to do so.

Authority

    This notice of review is published under the authority of the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: October 28, 2013.
Daniel M. Ashe,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[[Page 70154]]



                            Table 1--Candidate Notice of Review (Animals and Plants)
         [Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Status
-----------------------------  Lead  region   Scientific name       Family        Common name       Historical
   Category       Priority                                                                            range
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     MAMMALS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PE...........  .............  R3...........  Myotis            ...............  Bat, northern    U.S.A. (AL, AR,
                                              septentrionalis.                   long-eared.      CT, DE, DC,
                                                                                                  FL, GA, IL,
                                                                                                  IN, IA, KS,
                                                                                                  KY, LA, ME,
                                                                                                  MD, MA, MI,
                                                                                                  MN, MS, MO,
                                                                                                  MT, NE, NH,
                                                                                                  NJ, NY, NC,
                                                                                                  ND, OH, OK,
                                                                                                  PA, RI, SC,
                                                                                                  SD, TN, VT,
                                                                                                  VA, WV, WI,
                                                                                                  WY); Canada
                                                                                                  (AB, BC, LB,
                                                                                                  MB, NB, NF,
                                                                                                  NS, NT, ON,
                                                                                                  PE, QC, SK,
                                                                                                  YT).
C*...........  3............  R1...........  Emballonura       Emballonuridae.  Bat, Pacific     U.S.A. (GU,
                                              semicaudata                        sheath-tailed    CNMI).
                                              rotensis.                          (Mariana
                                                                                 Islands
                                                                                 subspecies).
C*...........  3............  R1...........  Emballonura       Emballonuridae.  Bat, Pacific     U.S.A. (AS),
                                              semicaudata                        sheath-tailed    Fiji,
                                              semicaudata.                       (American        Independent
                                                                                 Samoa DPS).      Samoa, Tonga,
                                                                                                  Vanuatu.
C*...........  6............  R2...........  Tamias minimus    Sciuridae......  Chipmunk,        U.S.A. (NM).
                                              atristriatus.                      Pe[ntilde]asco
                                                                                 least.
C*...........  2............  R5...........  Sylvilagus        Leporidae......  Cottontail, New  U.S.A. (CT, MA,
                                              transitionalis.                    England.         ME, NH, NY,
                                                                                                  RI, VT).
C*...........  6............  R8...........  Martes pennanti.  Mustelidae.....  Fisher (west     U.S.A. (CA, CT,
                                                                                 coast DPS).      IA, ID, IL,
                                                                                                  IN, KY, MA,
                                                                                                  MD, ME, MI,
                                                                                                  MN, MT, ND,
                                                                                                  NH, NJ, NY,
                                                                                                  OH, OR, PA,
                                                                                                  RI, TN, UT,
                                                                                                  VA, VT, WA,
                                                                                                  WI, WV, WY),
                                                                                                  Canada.
PT...........  12...........  R6...........  Lynx canadensis.  Felidae........  Lynx, Canada     U.S.A. (CO, ID,
                                                                                 (New Mexico      ME, MI, MN,
                                                                                 population).     MT, NH, NY,
                                                                                                  OR, UT, VT,
                                                                                                  WA, WI, WY),
                                                                                                  Canada.
PE...........  3............  R2...........  Zapus hudsonius   Zapodidae......  Mouse, New       U.S.A. (AZ, CO,
                                              luteus.                            Mexico meadow    NM).
                                                                                 jumping.
PT...........  3............  R1...........  Thomomys mazama   Geomyidae......  Pocket gopher,   U.S.A. (WA).
                                              glacialis.                         Roy Prairie.
PT...........  3............  R1...........  Thomomys mazama   Geomyidae......  Pocket gopher,   U.S.A. (WA).
                                              pugetensis.                        Olympia.
PT...........  3............  R1...........  Thomomys mazama   Geomyidae......  Pocket gopher,   U.S.A. (WA).
                                              tumuli.                            Tenino.
PT...........  3............  R1...........  Thomomys mazama   Geomyidae......  Pocket gopher,   U.S.A. (WA).
                                              yelmensis.                         Yelm.
C*...........  2............  R6...........  Cynomys           Sciuridae......  Prairie dog,     U.S.A. (CO,
                                              gunnisoni.                         Gunnison's       NM).
                                                                                 (populations
                                                                                 in central and
                                                                                 south-central
                                                                                 Colorado,
                                                                                 north-central
                                                                                 New Mexico).
C*...........  8............  R1...........  Urocitellus       Sciuridae......  Squirrel,        U.S.A. (ID).
                                              endemicus.                         Southern Idaho
                                                                                 ground.
C*...........  5............  R1...........  Urocitellus       Sciuridae......  Squirrel,        U.S.A. (WA,
                                              washingtoni.                       Washington       OR).
                                                                                 ground.
C*...........  9............  R1...........  Arborimus         Cricetidae.....  Vole, Red        U.S.A. (OR).
                                              longicaudus.                       (north Oregon
                                                                                 coast DPS).
C*...........  9............  R7...........  Odobenus          Odobenidae.....  Walrus, Pacific  U.S.A. (AK),
                                              rosmarus                                            Russian
                                              divergens.                                          Federation
                                                                                                  (Kamchatka and
                                                                                                  Chukotka).
PT...........  6............  R6...........  Gulo gulo luscus  Mustelidae.....  Wolverine,       U.S.A. (CA, CO,
                                                                                 North American   ID, MT, OR,
                                                                                 (Contiguous      UT, WA, WY).
                                                                                 U.S. DPS).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 70155]]

 
                                                      BIRDS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C*...........  3............  R1...........  Porzana           Rallidae.......  Crake, spotless  U.S.A. (AS),
                                              tabuensis.                         (American        Australia,
                                                                                 Samoa DPS).      Fiji,
                                                                                                  Independent
                                                                                                  Samoa,
                                                                                                  Marquesas,
                                                                                                  Philippines,
                                                                                                  Society
                                                                                                  Islands,
                                                                                                  Tonga.
PT...........  3............  R8...........  Coccyzus          Cuculidae......  Cuckoo, yellow-  U.S.A. (Lower
                                              americanus.                        billed           48 States),
                                                                                 (Western U.S.    Canada,
                                                                                 DPS).            Mexico,
                                                                                                  Central and
                                                                                                  South America.
C*...........  9............  R1...........  Gallicolumba      Columbidae.....  Ground-dove,     U.S.A. (AS),
                                              stairi.                            friendly         Independent
                                                                                 (American        Samoa.
                                                                                 Samoa DPS).
PT...........  3............  R5...........  Calidris canutus  Scolopacidae...  Knot, red......  U.S.A.
                                              rufa.                                               (Atlantic
                                                                                                  coast),
                                                                                                  Canada, South
                                                                                                  America.
C*...........  8............  R7...........  Gavia adamsii...  Gaviidae.......  Loon, yellow-    U.S.A. (AK),
                                                                                 billed.          Canada,
                                                                                                  Norway,
                                                                                                  Russia,
                                                                                                  coastal waters
                                                                                                  of southern
                                                                                                  Pacific and
                                                                                                  North Sea.
C*...........  5............  R8...........  Synthliboramphus  Alcidae........  Murrelet,        U.S.A. (CA),
                                              hypoleucus.                        Xantus's.        Mexico.
C*...........  8............  R6...........  Anthus spragueii  Motacillidae...  Pipit,           U.S.A. (AR, AZ,
                                                                                 Sprague's.       CO, KS, LA,
                                                                                                  MN, MS, MT,
                                                                                                  ND, NE, NM,
                                                                                                  OK, SD, TX),
                                                                                                  Canada,
                                                                                                  Mexico.
C*...........  2............  R2...........  Amazona           Psittacidae....  Parrot, red-     U.S.A. (TX),
                                              viridigenalis.                     crowned.         Mexico.
PT...........  2............  R2...........  Tympanuchus       Phasianidae....  Prairie-         U.S.A. (CO, KA,
                                              pallidicinctus.                    chicken,         NM, OK, TX).
                                                                                 lesser.
C*...........  8............  R6...........  Centrocercus      Phasianidae....  Sage-grouse,     U.S.A. (AZ, CA,
                                              urophasianus.                      greater.         CO, ID, MT,
                                                                                                  ND, NE, NV,
                                                                                                  OR, SD, UT,
                                                                                                  WA, WY),
                                                                                                  Canada (AB,
                                                                                                  BC, SK).
PT...........  3............  R8...........  Centrocercus      Phasianidae....  Sage-grouse,     U.S.A. (AZ, CA,
                                              urophasianus.                      greater (Bi-     CO, ID, MT,
                                                                                 State DPS).      ND, NE, NV,
                                                                                                  OR, SD, UT,
                                                                                                  WA, WY),
                                                                                                  Canada (AB,
                                                                                                  BC, SK).
C*...........  6............  R1...........  Centrocercus      Phasianidae....  Sage-grouse,     U.S.A. (AZ, CA,
                                              urophasianus.                      greater          CO, ID, MT,
                                                                                 (Columbia        ND, NE, NV,
                                                                                 Basin DPS).      OR, SD, UT,
                                                                                                  WA, WY),
                                                                                                  Canada (AB,
                                                                                                  BC, SK).
PE...........  2............  R6...........  Centrocercus      Phasianidae....  Sage-grouse,     U.S.A. (AZ, CO,
                                              minimus.                           Gunnison.        NM, UT).
C*...........  3............  R1...........  Oceanodroma       Hydrobatidae...  Storm-petrel,    U.S.A. (HI),
                                              castro.                            band-rumped      Atlantic
                                                                                 (Hawaii DPS).    Ocean, Ecuador
                                                                                                  (Galapagos
                                                                                                  Islands),
                                                                                                  Japan.
C*...........  11...........  R4...........  Dendroica         Emberizidae....  Warbler, elfin-  U.S.A. (PR).
                                              angelae.                           woods.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    REPTILES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PT...........  .............  R2...........  Thamnophis        Colubridae.....  Gartersnake,     U.S.A. (AZ,
                                              rufipunctatus.                     narrow-headed.   NM).
PT...........  3............  R2...........  Thamnophis eques  Colubridae.....  Gartersnake,     U.S.A. (AZ, NM,
                                              megalops.                          northern         NV), Mexico.
                                                                                 Mexican.
C*...........  8............  R3...........  Sistrurus         Viperidae......  Massasauga (=    U.S.A. (IA, IL,
                                              catenatus.                         rattlesnake),    IN, MI, MN,
                                                                                 eastern.         MO, NY, OH,
                                                                                                  PA, WI),
                                                                                                  Canada.
C*...........  3............  R4...........  Pituophis         Colubridae.....  Snake, black     U.S.A. (AL, LA,
                                              melanoleucus                       pine.            MS).
                                              lodingi.
C*...........  5............  R4...........  Pituophis         Colubridae.....  Snake,           U.S.A. (LA,
                                              ruthveni.                          Louisiana pine.  TX).
C*...........  3............  R2...........  Chionactis        Colubridae.....  Snake, Tucson    U.S.A. (AZ).
                                              occipitalis                        shovel-nosed.
                                              klauberi.
C*...........  5............  R2...........  Gopherus          Testudinidae...  Tortoise,        U.S.A. (AZ, CA,
                                              morafkai.                          Sonoran desert.  NV, UT).
C*...........  8............  R4...........  Gopherus          Testudinidae...  Tortoise,        U.S.A. (AL, FL,
                                              polyphemus.                        gopher           GA, LA, MS,
                                                                                 (eastern         SC).
                                                                                 population).

[[Page 70156]]

 
C*...........  6............  R2...........  Kinosternon       Kinosternidae..  Turtle, Sonoyta  U.S.A. (AZ),
                                              sonoriense                         mud.             Mexico.
                                              longifemorale.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   AMPHIBIANS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C*...........  9............  R8...........  Rana              Ranidae........  Frog, Columbia   U.S.A. (AK, ID,
                                              luteiventris.                      spotted (Great   MT, NV, OR,
                                                                                 Basin DPS).      UT, WA, WY),
                                                                                                  Canada (BC).
PE...........  3............  R8...........  Rana muscosa....  Ranidae........  Frog, mountain   U.S.A (CA, NV).
                                                                                 yellow-legged
                                                                                 (northern
                                                                                 California
                                                                                 DPS).
PT...........  2............  R1...........  Rana pretiosa...  Ranidae........  Frog, Oregon     U.S.A. (CA, OR,
                                                                                 spotted.         WA), Canada
                                                                                                  (BC).
PE...........  .............  R8...........  Rana sierrae....  Ranidae........  Frog, Sierra     U.S.A. (CA,
                                                                                 Nevada yellow-   NV).
                                                                                 legged frog.
C*...........  8............  R8...........  Lithobates onca.  Ranidae........  Frog, relict     U.S.A. (AZ, NV,
                                                                                 leopard.         UT).
C*...........  8............  R4...........  Notophthalmus     Salamandridae..  Newt, striped..  U.S.A. (FL,
                                              perstriatus.                                        GA).
C*...........  8............  R4...........  Gyrinophilus      Plethodontidae.  Salamander,      U.S.A. (TN).
                                              gulolineatus.                      Berry Cave.
PE...........  8............  R2...........  Eurycea           Plethodontidae.  Salamander,      U.S.A. (TX).
                                              naufragia.                         Georgetown.
PE...........  2............  R2...........  Eurycea           Plethodontidae.  Salamander,      U.S.A. (TX).
                                              chisholmensis.                     Salado.
PT...........  11...........  R8...........  Anaxyrus canorus  Bufonidae......  Toad, Yosemite.  U.S.A. (CA).
C............  3............  R2...........  Hyla wrightorum.  Hylidae........  Treefrog,        U.S.A. (AZ),
                                                                                 Arizona          Mexico
                                                                                 (Huachuca/       (Sonora).
                                                                                 Canelo DPS).
C*...........  2............  R4...........  Necturus          Proteidae......  Waterdog, black  U.S.A. (AL).
                                              alabamensis.                       warrior (=
                                                                                 Sipsey Fork).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     FISHES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C*...........  8............  R2...........  Gila nigra......  Cyprinidae.....  Chub, headwater  U.S.A. (AZ,
                                                                                                  NM).
C*...........  7............  R6...........  Iotichthys        Cyprinidae.....  Chub, least....  U.S.A. (UT).
                                              phlegethontis.
C*...........  9............  R2...........  Gila robusta....  Cyprinidae.....  Chub, roundtail  U.S.A. (AZ, CO,
                                                                                 (Lower           NM, UT, WY).
                                                                                 Colorado River
                                                                                 Basin DPS).
C*...........  11...........  R6...........  Etheostoma        Percidae.......  Darter,          U.S.A. (AR, CO,
                                              cragini.                           Arkansas.        KS, MO, OK).
C............  8............  R4...........  Etheostoma        Percidae.......  Darter,          U.S.A. (KY,
                                              sagitta.                           Cumberland       TN).
                                                                                 arrow.
PE...........  2............  R5...........  Crystallaria      Percidae.......  Darter, diamond  U.S.A. (KY, OH,
                                              cincotta.                                           TN, WV).
C............  2............  R4...........  Etheostoma        Percidae.......  Darter,          U.S.A. (KY).
                                              spilotum.                          Kentucky arrow.
C*...........  8............  R4...........  Percina aurora..  Percidae.......  Darter, Pearl..  U.S.A. (LA,
                                                                                                  MS).
C*...........  3............  R6...........  Thymallus         Salmonidae.....  Grayling,        U.S.A. (AK, MI,
                                              arcticus.                          Arctic (upper    MT, WY),
                                                                                 Missouri River   Canada,
                                                                                 DPS).            northern Asia,
                                                                                                  northern
                                                                                                  Europe.
C*...........  5............  R4...........  Moxostoma sp....  Catostomidae...  Redhorse,        U.S.A. (GA, NC,
                                                                                 sicklefin.       TN).
PE...........  5............  R2...........  Notropis          Cyprinidae.....  Shiner,          U.S.A. (TX).
                                              oxyrhynchus.                       sharpnose.
PE...........  5............  R2...........  Notropis buccula  Cyprinidae.....  Shiner,          U.S.A. (TX).
                                                                                 smalleye.
C*...........  3............  R8...........  Spirinchus        Osmeridae......  Smelt, longfin   U.S.A. (AK, CA,
                                              thaleichthys.                      (San Francisco   OR, WA),
                                                                                 bay-delta DPS).  Canada.
PE...........  3............  R2...........  Catostomus        Catostomidae...  Sucker, Zuni     U.S.A. (AZ,
                                              discobolus                         bluehead.        NM).
                                              yarrowi.
PSAT.........  N/A..........  R1...........  Salvelinus malma  Salmonidae.....  Trout, Dolly     U.S.A. (AK,
                                                                                 Varden.          WA), Canada,
                                                                                                  East Asia.
C*...........  9............  R2...........  Oncorhynchus      Salmonidae.....  Trout, Rio       U.S.A. (CO,
                                              clarki                             Grande           NM).
                                              virginalis.                        cutthroat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      CLAMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C*...........  2............  R2...........  Lampsilis         Unionidae......  Fatmucket,       U.S.A. (TX).
                                              bracteata.                         Texas.
C*...........  2............  R2...........  Truncilla         Unionidae......  Fawnsfoot,       U.S.A. (TX).
                                              macrodon.                          Texas.
C*...........  8............  R2...........  Popenaias popei.  Unionidae......  Hornshell,       U.S.A. (NM,
                                                                                 Texas.           TX), Mexico.
C*...........  8............  R2...........  Quadrula aurea..  Unionidae......  Orb, golden....  U.S.A. (TX).
C*...........  8............  R2...........  Quadrula          Unionidae......  Pimpleback,      U.S.A. (TX).
                                              houstonensis.                      smooth.

[[Page 70157]]

 
C*...........  2............  R2...........  Quadrula petrina  Unionidae......  Pimpleback,      U.S.A. (TX).
                                                                                 Texas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     SNAILS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C*...........  8............  R4...........  Elimia            Pleuroceridae..  Mudalia, black.  U.S.A. (AL).
                                              melanoides.
C*...........  2............  R4...........  Planorbella       Planorbidae....  Ramshorn,        U.S.A. (NC).
                                              magnifica.                         magnificent.
C*...........  2............  R1...........  Ostodes           Potaridae......  Sisi snail.....  U.S.A. (AS).
                                              strigatus.
C*...........  2............  R1...........  Samoana fragilis  Partulidae.....  Snail, fragile   U.S.A. (GU,
                                                                                 tree.            MP).
C*...........  2............  R1...........  Partula           Partulidae.....  Snail, Guam      U.S.A. (GU).
                                              radiolata.                         tree.
C*...........  2............  R1...........  Partula gibba...  Partulidae.....  Snail, Humped    U.S.A. (GU,
                                                                                 tree.            MP).
C*...........  2............  R1...........  Partula           Partulidae.....  Snail,           U.S.A. (MP).
                                              langfordi.                         Langford's
                                                                                 tree.
C*...........  2............  R1...........  Eua zebrina.....  Partulidae.....  Snail, Tutuila   U.S.A. (AS).
                                                                                 tree.
C*...........  11...........  R2...........  Pyrgulopsis       Hydrobiidae....  Springsnail,     U.S.A. (AZ),
                                              thompsoni.                         Huachuca.        Mexico.
C*...........  11...........  R2...........  Pyrgulopsis       Hydrobiidae....  Springsnail,     U.S.A. (AZ).
                                              morrisoni.                         Page.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     INSECTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C*...........  2............  R1...........  Hylaeus           Colletidae.....  Bee, Hawaiian    U.S.A. (HI).
                                              anthracinus.                       yellow-faced.
C*...........  2............  R1...........  Hylaeus           Colletidae.....  Bee, Hawaiian    U.S.A. (HI).
                                              assimulans.                        yellow-faced.
C*...........  2............  R1...........  Hylaeus facilis.  Colletidae.....  Bee, Hawaiian    U.S.A. (HI).
                                                                                 yellow-faced.
C*...........  2............  R1...........  Hylaeus hilaris.  Colletidae.....  Bee, Hawaiian    U.S.A. (HI).
                                                                                 yellow-faced.
C*...........  2............  R1...........  Hylaeus kuakea..  Colletidae.....  Bee, Hawaiian    U.S.A. (HI).
                                                                                 yellow-faced.
C*...........  2............  R1...........  Hylaeus           Colletidae.....  Bee, Hawaiian    U.S.A. (HI).
                                              longiceps.                         yellow-faced.
C*...........  2............  R1...........  Hylaeus mana....  Colletidae.....  Bee, Hawaiian    U.S.A. (HI).
                                                                                 yellow-faced.
PE...........  3............  R4...........  Strymon acis      Lycaenidae.....  Butterfly,       U.S.A. (FL).
                                              bartrami.                          Bartram's
                                                                                 scrub-
                                                                                 hairstreak.
PE...........  3............  R4...........  Anaea troglodyta  Nymphalidae....  Butterfly,       U.S.A. (FL).
                                              floridalis.                        Florida
                                                                                 leafwing.
C*...........  5............  R8...........  Hermelycaena      Lycaenidae.....  Butterfly,       U.S.A. (CA).
                                              [Lycaena]                          Hermes copper.
                                              hermes.
C*...........  3............  R1...........  Hypolimnas        Nymphalidae....  Butterfly,       U.S.A. (GU,
                                              octucula                           Mariana eight-   MP).
                                              mariannensis.                      spot.
C*...........  2............  R1...........  Vagrans egistina  Nymphalidae....  Butterfly,       U.S.A. (GU,
                                                                                 Mariana          MP).
                                                                                 wandering.
C*...........  2............  R4...........  Atlantea tulita.  Nymphalidae....  Butterfly,       U.S.A. (PR).
                                                                                 Puerto Rican
                                                                                 harlequin.
C*...........  5............  R4...........  Glyphopsyche      Limnephilidae..  Caddisfly,       U.S.A. (TN).
                                              sequatchie.                        Sequatchie.
C............  5............  R4...........  Pseudanophthalmu  Carabidae......  Cave beetle,     U.S.A. (TN).
                                              s insularis.                       Baker Station
                                                                                 (= insular).
C*...........  5............  R4...........  Pseudanophthalmu  Carabidae......  Cave beetle,     U.S.A. (KY).
                                              s caecus.                          Clifton.
C*...........  11...........  R4...........  Pseudanophthalmu  Carabidae......  Cave beetle,     U.S.A. (TN).
                                              s colemanensis.                    Coleman.
C............  5............  R4...........  Pseudanophthalmu  Carabidae......  Cave beetle,     U.S.A. (TN).
                                              s fowlerae.                        Fowler's.
C*...........  5............  R4...........  Pseudanophthalmu  Carabidae......  Cave beetle,     U.S.A. (KY).
                                              s frigidus.                        icebox.
C............  5............  R4...........  Pseudanophthalmu  Carabidae......  Cave beetle,     U.S.A. (TN).
                                              s tiresias.                        Indian Grave
                                                                                 Point (=
                                                                                 Soothsayer).
C*...........  5............  R4...........  Pseudanophthalmu  Carabidae......  Cave beetle,     U.S.A. (TN).
                                              s inquisitor.                      inquirer.
C*...........  5............  R4...........  Pseudanophthalmu  Carabidae......  Cave beetle,     U.S.A. (KY).
                                              s troglodytes.                     Louisville.
C............  5............  R4...........  Pseudanophthalmu  Carabidae......  Cave beetle,     U.S.A. (TN).
                                              s paulus.                          Noblett's.
C*...........  5............  R4...........  Pseudanophthalmu  Carabidae......  Cave beetle,     U.S.A. (KY).
                                              s parvus.                          Tatum.
C*...........  8............  R1...........  Megalagrion       Coenagrionidae.  Damselfly,       U.S.A. (HI).
                                              xanthomelas.                       orangeblack
                                                                                 Hawaiian.

[[Page 70158]]

 
C............  2............  R8...........  Ambrysus          Naucoridae.....  Naucorid bug (=  U.S.A. (CA).
                                              funebris.                          Furnace
                                                                                 Creek),
                                                                                 Nevares Spring.
C*...........  8............  R3...........  Papaipema         Noctuidae......  Moth,            U.S.A. (AR, IL,
                                              eryngii.                           rattlesnake-     KY, NC, OK).
                                                                                 master borer.
C*...........  11...........  R2...........  Heterelmis        Elmidae........  Riffle beetle,   U.S.A. (AZ).
                                              stephani.                          Stephan's.
PT...........  8............  R3...........  Hesperia dacotae  Hesperiidae....  Skipper, Dakota  U.S.A. (MN, IA,
                                                                                                  SD, ND, IL),
                                                                                                  Canada.
PE...........  2............  R3...........  Oarisma           Hesperiidae....  Skipperling,     U.S.A. (IA, IL,
                                              poweshiek.                         Poweshiek.       IN, MI, MN,
                                                                                                  ND, SD, WI),
                                                                                                  Canada (MB).
C*...........  5............  R6...........  Capnia arapahoe.  Capniidae......  Snowfly,         U.S.A. (CO).
                                                                                 Arapahoe.
C*...........  5............  R6...........  Lednia tumana...  Nemouridae.....  Stonefly,        U.S.A. (MT).
                                                                                 meltwater
                                                                                 lednian.
C*...........  5............  R4...........  Cicindela         Cicindelidae...  Tiger beetle,    U.S.A. (FL).
                                              highlandensis.                     highlands.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    ARACHNIDS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C*...........  8............  R2...........  Cicurina wartoni  Dictynidae.....  Meshweaver,      U.S.A. (TX).
                                                                                 Warton's cave.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   CRUSTACEANS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C............  8............  R5...........  Stygobromus       Crangonyctidae.  Amphipod,        U.S.A. (DC).
                                              kenki.                             Kenk's.
C*...........  5............  R1...........  Metabetaeus       Alpheidae......  Shrimp,          U.S.A. (HI).
                                              lohena.                            anchialine
                                                                                 pool.
C*...........  5............  R1...........  Palaemonella      Palaemonidae...  Shrimp,          U.S.A. (HI).
                                              burnsi.                            anchialine
                                                                                 pool.
C*...........  5............  R1...........  Procaris          Procarididae...  Shrimp,          U.S.A. (HI).
                                              hawaiana.                          anchialine
                                                                                 pool.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                FLOWERING PLANTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C*...........  11...........  R8...........  Abronia alpina..  Nyctaginaceae..  Sand-verbena,    U.S.A. (CA).
                                                                                 Ramshaw
                                                                                 Meadows.
PE...........  8............  R4...........  Agave eggersiana  Agavaceae......  No common name.  U.S.A. (VI).
PT...........  8............  R4...........  Arabis georgiana  Brassicaceae...  Rockcress,       U.S.A. (AL,
                                                                                 Georgia.         GA).
C*...........  11...........  R4...........  Argythamnia       Euphorbiaceae..  Silverbush,      U.S.A. (FL).
                                              blodgettii.                        Blodgett's.
C*...........  3............  R1...........  Artemisia         Asteraceae.....  Wormwood,        U.S.A. (OR,
                                              borealis var.                      northern.        WA).
                                              wormskioldii.
C*...........  2............  R6...........  Astragalus        Fabaceae.......  Milkvetch,       U.S.A. (ID, NV,
                                              anserinus.                         Goose Creek.     UT).
C............  3............  R1...........  Astragalus        Fabaceae.......  Milkvetch,       U.S.A. (ID).
                                              cusickii var.                      Packard's.
                                              packardiae.
C*...........  8............  R6...........  Astragalus        Fabaceae.......  Milkvetch,       U.S.A. (CO).
                                              microcymbus.                       skiff.
C*...........  8............  R6...........  Astragalus        Fabaceae.......  Milkvetch,       U.S.A. (CO).
                                              schmolliae.                        Schmoll.
C*...........  11...........  R6...........  Astragalus        Fabaceae.......  Milkvetch,       U.S.A. (CO).
                                              tortipes.                          Sleeping Ute.
PE...........  2............  R1...........  Bidens            Asteraceae.....  Ko`oko`olau....  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              amplectens.
C*...........  8............  R6...........  Boechera          Brassicaceae...  Rockcress,       U.S.A. (WY).
                                              (Arabis)                           Fremont County
                                              pusilla.                           or small.
PE...........  8............  R4...........  Brickellia        Asteraceae.....  Brickell-bush,   U.S.A. (FL).
                                              mosieri.                           Florida.
C*...........  2............  R1...........  Calamagrostis     Poaceae........  Reedgrass, Maui  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              expansa.
C*...........  11...........  R8...........  Calochortus       Liliaceae......  Mariposa lily,   U.S.A. (CA,
                                              persistens.                        Siskiyou.        OR).
C*...........  9............  R4...........  Chamaecrista      Fabaceae.......  Pea, Big Pine    U.S.A. (FL).
                                              lineata var.                       partridge.
                                              keyensis.
C*...........  12...........  R4...........  Chamaesyce        Euphorbiaceae..  Sandmat,         U.S.A. (FL).
                                              deltoidea                          pineland.
                                              pinetorum.
C*...........  9............  R4...........  Chamaesyce        Euphorbiaceae..  Spurge, wedge..  U.S.A. (FL).
                                              deltoidea
                                              serpyllum.
C*...........  6............  R8...........  Chorizanthe       Polygonaceae...  Spineflower,     U.S.A. (CA).
                                              parryi var.                        San Fernando
                                              fernandina.                        Valley.
C*...........  8............  R2...........  Cirsium wrightii  Asteraceae.....  Thistle,         U.S.A. (AZ,
                                                                                 Wright's.        NM), Mexico.
C*...........  3............  R4...........  Dalea             Fabaceae.......  Prairie-clover,  U.S.A. (FL).
                                              carthagenensis                     Florida.
                                              var floridana.
C*...........  5............  R5...........  Dichanthelium     Poaceae........  Panic grass,     U.S.A. (DE, GA,
                                              hirstii.                           Hirst            NC, NJ).
                                                                                 Brothers'.
C*...........  5............  R4...........  Digitaria         Poaceae........  Crabgrass,       U.S.A. (FL).
                                              pauciflora.                        Florida
                                                                                 pineland.
C*...........  6............  R8...........  Eriogonum         Polygonaceae...  Buckwheat, Las   U.S.A. (NV).
                                              corymbosum var.                    Vegas.
                                              nilesii.
C............  5............  R8...........  Eriogonum         Polygonaceae...  Buckwheat,       U.S.A (NV).
                                              diatomaceum.                       Churchill
                                                                                 Narrows.

[[Page 70159]]

 
C*...........  5............  R8...........  Eriogonum         Polygonaceae...  Buckwheat, Red   U.S.A. (CA).
                                              kelloggii.                         Mountain.
C*...........  8............  R6...........  Eriogonum         Polygonaceae...  Buckwheat,       U.S.A. (UT).
                                              soredium.                          Frisco.
C*...........  2............  R1...........  Festuca           Poaceae........  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              hawaiiensis.
C*...........  11...........  R2...........  Festuca ligulata  Poaceae........  Fescue,          U.S.A. (TX),
                                                                                 Guadalupe.       Mexico.
C*...........  2............  R1...........  Gardenia remyi..  Rubiaceae......  Nanu...........  U.S.A. (HI).
PE...........  5............  R4...........  Gonocalyx         Ericaceae......  No common name.  U.S.A. (PR).
                                              concolor.
C*...........  2............  R1...........  Hedyotis          Rubiaceae......  Kampua`a.......  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              fluviatilis.
PE...........  2............  R4...........  Helianthus        Asteraceae.....  Sunflower,       U.S.A. (AL, GA,
                                              verticillatus.                     whorled.         TN).
PT...........  5............  R8...........  Ivesia webberi..  Rosaceae.......  Ivesia, Webber.  U.S.A. (CA,
                                                                                                  NV).
C*...........  3............  R1...........  Joinvillea        Joinvilleaceae.  'Ohe...........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              ascendens
                                              ascendens.
PE...........  5............  R4...........  Leavenworthia     Brassicaceae...  Gladecress,      U.S.A. (AL).
                                              crassa.                            fleshy-fruit.
PT...........  3............  R4...........  Leavenworthia     Brassicaceae...  Gladecress,      U.S.A. (KY).
                                              exigua var.                        Kentucky.
                                              laciniata.
C*...........  8............  R6...........  Lepidium ostleri  Brassicaceae...  Peppergrass,     U.S.A. (UT).
                                                                                 Ostler's.
C*...........  5............  R4...........  Linum arenicola.  Linaceae.......  Flax, sand.....  U.S.A. (FL).
PE...........  3............  R4...........  Linum carteri     Linaceae.......  Flax, Carter's   U.S.A. (FL).
                                              var. carteri.                      small-flowered.
PE...........  3............  R8...........  Mimulus           Phrymaceae.....  Monkeyflower,    U.S.A. (CA).
                                              fremontii var.                     Vandenberg.
                                              vandenbergensis.
C*...........  2............  R1...........  Myrsine           Myrsinaceae....  Kolea..........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              fosbergii.
C*...........  2............  R1...........  Nothocestrum      Solanaceae.....  'Aiea..........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              latifolium.
C*...........  2............  R1...........  Ochrosia          Apocynaceae....  Holei..........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              haleakalae.
PT...........  2............  R6...........  Penstemon         Scrophulariacea  Beardtongue,     U.S.A. (CO,
                                              grahamii.         e.               Graham's.        UT).
PT...........  9............  R6...........  Penstemon         Scrophulariacea  Beardtongue,     U.S.A. (CO,
                                              scariosus var.    e.               White River.     UT).
                                              albifluvis.
PE...........  8............  R4...........  Physaria globosa  Brassicaceae...  Bladderpod,      U.S.A. (IN, KY,
                                                                                 Short's.         TN).
C*...........  2............  R6...........  Pinus albicaulis  Pinaceae.......  Pine, whitebark  U.S.A. (CA, ID,
                                                                                                  MT, NV, OR,
                                                                                                  WA, WY),
                                                                                                  Canada (AB,
                                                                                                  BC).
C*...........  8............  R4...........  Platanthera       Orchidaceae....  Orchid, white    U.S.A. (AL, GA,
                                              integrilabia.                      fringeless.      KY, MS, NC,
                                                                                                  SC, TN, VA).
C*...........  3............  R1...........  Pseudognaphalium  Asteraceae.....  `Ena`ena.......  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              (=Gnaphalium)
                                              sandwicensium
                                              var.
                                              molokaiense.
C*...........  2............  R1...........  Ranunculus        Ranunculaceae..  Makou..........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              hawaiensis.
C*...........  2............  R1...........  Ranunculus        Ranunculaceae..  Makou..........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              mauiensis.
C*...........  8............  R8...........  Rorippa           Brassicaceae...  Cress, Tahoe     U.S.A. (CA,
                                              subumbellata.                      yellow.          NV).
C*...........  2............  R1...........  Schiedea          Caryophyllaceae  Ma'oli'oli.....  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              pubescens.
C*...........  5............  R8...........  Sedum             Crassulaceae...  Stonecrop, Red   U.S.A. (CA).
                                              eastwoodiae.                       Mountain.
C*...........  2............  R1...........  Sicyos            Cucurbitaceae..  'Anunu.........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              macrophyllus.
C............  12...........  R4...........  Sideroxylon       Sapotaceae.....  Bully,           U.S.A. (FL).
                                              reclinatum                         Everglades.
                                              austrofloridens
                                              e.
C*...........  2............  R4...........  Solanum           Solanaceae.....  Bacora, marron.  U.S.A. (PR).
                                              conocarpum.
C*...........  8............  R1...........  Solanum nelsonii  Solanaceae.....  Popolo.........  U.S.A. (HI).
C............  8............  R2...........  Streptanthus      Brassicaceae...  Twistflower,     U.S.A. (TX).
                                              bracteatus.                        bracted.
C*...........  8............  R4...........  Symphyotrichum    Asteraceae.....  Aster, Georgia.  U.S.A. (AL, FL,
                                              georgianum.                                         GA, NC, SC).
C*...........  8............  R6...........  Trifolium         Fabaceae.......  Clover, Frisco.  U.S.A. (UT).
                                              friscanum.
PT...........  5............  R4...........  Varronia          Boraginaceae...  No common name.  U.S.A. (PR),
                                              (=Cordia)                                           Anegada.
                                              rupicola.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                FERNS AND ALLIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C*...........  8............  R1...........  Cyclosorus        Thelypteridacea  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              boydiae.          e.
C*...........  2............  R1...........  Huperzia (=       Lycopodiaceae..  Wawae'iole.....  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              Phlegmariurus)
                                              stemmermanniae.
C*...........  3............  R1...........  Microlepia        Dennstaedtiacea  Palapalai......  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              strigosa var.     e.
                                              mauiensis (=
                                              Microlepia
                                              mauiensis).
C............  3............  R4...........  Trichomanes       Hymenophyllacea  Florida bristle  U.S.A. (FL).
                                              punctatum         e.               fern.
                                              floridanum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 70160]]


                Table 2--Animals and Plants Formerly Candidates or Formerly Proposed for Listing
         [Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Status
-------------------------   Lead region    Scientific name       Family          Common name    Historical range
    Code        Expl.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     MAMMALS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E..........  L..........  R4............  Eumops            Molossidae......  Bat, Florida      U.S.A. (FL).
                                           floridanus.                         bonneted.
Rc.........  A..........  R1............  Thomomys mazama   Geomyidae.......  Pocket gopher,    U.S.A. (WA).
                                           couchi.                             Shelton.
Rc.........  N..........  R1............  Thomomys mazama   Geomyidae.......  Pocket gopher,    U.S.A. (WA).
                                           douglasii.                          Brush Prairie.
Rc.........  A..........  R1............  Thomomys mazama   Geomyidae.......  Pocket gopher,    U.S.A. (WA).
                                           louiei.                             Cathlamet.
Rc.........  A..........  R1............  Thomomys mazama   Geomyidae.......  Pocket gopher,    U.S.A. (WA).
                                           melanops.                           Olympic.
Rc.........  X..........  R1............  Thomomys mazama   Geomyidae.......  Pocket gopher,    U.S.A. (WA).
                                           tacomensis.                         Tacoma.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      BIRDS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T..........  L..........  R1............  Eremophila        Alaudidae.......  Horned lark,      U.S.A. (OR, WA),
                                           alpestris                           streaked.         Canada (BC).
                                           strigata.
Rc.........  A..........  R7............  Brachyramphus     Alcidae.........  Murrelet,         U.S.A. (AK),
                                           brevirostris.                       Kittlitz's.       Russia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   AMPHIBIANS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E..........  L..........  R2............  Eurycea           Plethodontidae..  Salamander,       U.S.A. (TX).
                                           waterlooensis.                      Austin blind.
E..........  L..........  R2............  Plethodon         Plethodontidae..  Salamander,       U.S. A. (NM).
                                           neomexicanus.                       Jemez Mountains.
E..........  L..........  R2............  Eurycea tonkawae  Plethodontidae..  Salamander,       U.S.A. (TX).
                                                                               Jollyville
                                                                               Plateau.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     FISHES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E..........  L..........  R3............  Cottus sp.......  Cottidae........  Sculpin, grotto.  U.S.A. (MO).
T..........  L..........  R4............  Elassoma          Elassomatidae...  Sunfish, spring   U.S.A. (AL).
                                           alabamae.                           pygmy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      CLAMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E..........  L..........  R4............  Ptychobranchus    Unionidae.......  Kidneyshell,      U.S.A. (AL, KY,
                                           subtentum.                          fluted.           TN, VA).
E..........  L..........  R4............  Lampsilis         Unionidae.......  Mucket, Neosho..  U.S.A. (AR, KS,
                                           rafinesqueana.                                        MO, OK).
E..........  L..........  R4............  Lexingtonia       Unionidae.......  Pearlymussel,     U.S.A. (AL, KY,
                                           dolabelloides.                      slabside.         TN, VA).
T..........  L..........  R4............  Quadrula          Unionidae.......  Rabbitsfoot.....  U.S.A. (AL, AR,
                                           cylindrica                                            GA, IN, IL, KS,
                                           cylindrica.                                           KY, LA, MS, MO,
                                                                                                 OK, OH, PA, TN,
                                                                                                 WV).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     SNAILS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E..........  L..........  R1............  Partulina         Achatinellidae..  Snail, Lanai      U.S.A. (HI).
                                           semicarinata.                       tree.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Partulina         Achatinellidae..  Snail, Lanai      U.S.A. (HI).
                                           variabilis.                         tree.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Newcombia         Achatinellidae..  Snail, Newcomb's  U.S.A. (Hl).
                                           cumingi.                            tree.
E..........  L..........  R2............  Pyrgulopsis       Hydrobiidae.....  Springsnail,      U.S.A. (TX).
                                           texana.                             Phantom.
E..........  L..........  R2............  Pseudotryonia     Hydrobiidae.....  Tryonia, Diamond  U.S.A. (TX).
                                           adamantina.
E..........  L..........  R2............  Tryonia           Hydrobiidae.....  Tryonia,          U.S.A. (TX).
                                           circumstriata.                      Gonzales.
E..........  L..........  R2............  Tryonia cheatumi  Hydrobiidae.....  Tryonia, Phantom  U.S.A. (TX).
Rc.........  N..........  R2............  Sonorella         Helminthoglyptid  Talussnail,       U.S.A. (AZ).
                                           rosemontensis.    ae.               Rosemont.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     INSECTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E..........  L..........  R1............  Drosophila        Drosophilidae...  fly, Hawaiian     U.S.A. (HI).
                                           digressa.                           Picture-wing.
E..........  L..........  R8............  Plebejus shasta   Lycaenidae......  Blue, Mt.         U.S.A. (NV).
                                           charlestonensis.                    Charleston.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Euphydryas        Nymphalidae.....  Checkerspot       U.S.A. (OR, WA),
                                           editha taylori.                     butterfly,        Canada (BC)
                                                                               Taylor's (=
                                                                               Whulge).
Rp.........  U..........  R6............  Cicindela         Cicindelidae....  Tiger beetle,     U.S.A. (UT).
                                           albissima.                          Coral Pink Sand
                                                                               Dunes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 70161]]

 
                                                  CRUSTACEANS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E..........  L..........  R2............  Gammarus          Gammaridae......  Amphipod,         U.S.A. (TX).
                                           hyalleloides.                       diminutive.
E..........  L..........  R2............  Gammarus pecos..  Gammaridae......  Amphipod, Pecos.  U.S.A. (TX)
E..........  L..........  R1............  Vetericaris       Procaridae......  Shrimp,           U.S.A. (HI).
                                           chaceorum.                          anchialine pool.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                FLOWERING PLANTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E..........  L..........  R1............  Bidens            Asteraceae......  Ko`oko`olau.....  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           campylotheca
                                           pentamera.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Bidens            Asteraceae......  Ko`oko`olau.....  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           campylotheca
                                           waihoiensis.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Bidens conjuncta  Asteraceae......  Ko`oko`olau.....  U.S.A. (HI).
E..........  L..........  R1............  Bidens            Asteraceae......  Ko`oko`olau.....  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           hillenbrandiana
                                           hillebrandina.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Bidens micrantha  Asteraceae......  Ko`oko`olau.....  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           ctenophylla.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Calamagrostis     Poaceae.........  Reedgrass,        U.S.A. (HI).
                                           hillebrandii.                       Hillebrand's.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Canavalia         Fabaceae........  `Awikiwiki......  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           pubescens.
E..........  L..........  R4............  Chromolaena       Asteraceae......  Thoroughwort,     U.S.A. (FL).
                                           frustrata.                          Cape Sable.
E..........  L..........  R4............  Consolea          Cactaceae.......  Cactus, Florida   U.S.A. (FL).
                                           corallicola.                        semaphore.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Cyanea            Campanulaceae...  Haha............  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           asplenifolia.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Cyanea            Campanulaceae...  Haha............  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           duvalliorum.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Cyanea horrida..  Campanulaceae...  Haha............  U.S.A. (HI).
E..........  L..........  R1............  Cyanea kunthiana  Campanulaceae...  Haha............  U.S.A. (HI).
E..........  L..........  R1............  Cyanea            Campanulaceae...  Haha............  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           magnicalyx.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Cyanea maritae..  Campanulaceae...  Haha............  U.S.A. (HI).
E..........  L..........  R1............  Cyanea marksii..  Campanulaceae...  Haha............  U.S.A. (HI).
E..........  L..........  R1............  Cyanea munroi...  Campanulaceae...  Haha............  U.S.A. (HI).
E..........  L..........  R1............  Cyanea obtusa...  Campanulaceae...  Haha............  U.S.A. (HI).
E..........  L..........  R1............  Cyanea profuga..  Campanulaceae...  Haha............  U.S.A. (HI).
E..........  L..........  R1............  Cyanea solanacea  Campanulaceae...  Haha............  U.S.A. (HI).
E..........  L..........  R1............  Cyanea            Campanulaceae...  `Aku............  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           tritomantha.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Cyrtandra         Gesneriaceae....  Ha`iwale........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           ferripilosa.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Cyrtandra         Gesneriaceae....  Ha`iwale........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           filipes.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Cyrtandra         Gesneriaceae....  Ha`iwale........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           nanawaleensis.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Cyrtandra         Gesneriaceae....  Ha`iwale........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           oxybapha.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Cyrtandra         Gesneriaceae....  Ha`iwale........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           wagneri.
E..........  L..........  R2............  Echinomastus      Cactaceae.......  Cactus, Acuna...  U.S.A. (AZ),
                                           erectocentrus                                         Mexico.
                                           var. acunensis.
T..........  L..........  R1............  Eriogonum codium  Polygonaceae....  Buckwheat,        U.S.A. (WA).
                                                                               Umtanum Desert.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Festuca           Poaceae.........  No common name..  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           molokaiensis.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Geranium          Geraniaceae.....  Nohoanu.........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           hanaense.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Geranium          Geraniaceae.....  Nohoanu.........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           hillebrandii.
E..........  L..........  R4............  Harrisia          Cactaceae.......  Pricklyapple,     U.S.A. (FL).
                                           aboriginum.                         aboriginal
                                                                               (shellmound
                                                                               applecactus).
Rc.........  A..........  R8............  Hazardia          Asteraceae......  Orcutt's          U.S.A. (CA),
                                           orcuttii.                           hazardia.         Mexico.
T..........  L..........  R2............  Hibiscus          Malvaceae.......  Rose-mallow,      U.S.A. (TX).
                                           dasycalyx.                          Neches River.
E..........  L..........  R2............  Leavenworthia     Brassicaceae....  Gladecress,       U.S.A. (TX).
                                           texana.                             Texas golden.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Mucuna sloanei    Fabaceae........  Sea bean........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           var. persericea.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Myrsine           Myrsinaceae.....  Kolea...........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           vaccinioides.
E..........  L..........  R2............  Pediocactus       Cactaceae.......  Cactus,           U.S.A. (AZ).
                                           peeblesianus                        Fickeisen
                                           var.                                plains.
                                           fickeiseniae.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Peperomia         Piperaceae......  `Ala `ala wai     U.S.A. (HI).
                                           subpetiolata.                       nui.
Rc.........  A..........  R8............  Phacelia          Hydrophyllaceae.  Phacelia,         U.S.A. (CA),
                                           stellaris.                          Brand's.          Mexico.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Phyllostegia      Lamiaceae.......  No common name..  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           bracteata.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Phyllostegia      Lamiaceae.......  No common name..  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           floribunda.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Phyllostegia      Lamiaceae.......  No common name..  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           haliakalae.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Phyllostegia      Lamiaceae.......  No common name..  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           pilosa.

[[Page 70162]]

 
T..........  L..........  R1............  Physaria          Brassicaceae....  Bladderpod,       U.S.A. (WA).
                                           douglasii                           White Bluffs.
                                           tuplashensis.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Pittosporum       Pittosporaceae..  Hoawa...........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           halophilum.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Pittosporum       Pittosporaceae..  Hoawa...........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           hawaiiense.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Platydesma remyi  Rutaceae........  No common name..  U.S.A. (HI).
E..........  L..........  R1............  Pleomele          Agavaceae.......  Hala pepe.......  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           fernaldii.
Rc.........  A..........  R8............  Potentilla        Rosaceae........  Cinquefoil,       U.S.A. (NV).
                                           basaltica.                          Soldier Meadow.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Pritchardia       Arecaceae.......  Loulu...........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           lanigera.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Schiedea diffusa  Caryophyllaceae.  No common name..  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           macraei.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Schiedea          Caryophyllaceae.  No common name..  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           hawaiiensis.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Schiedea jacobii  Caryophyllaceae.  No common name..  U.S.A. (HI).
E..........  L..........  R1............  Schiedea laui...  Caryophyllaceae.  No common name..  U.S.A. (HI).
E..........  L..........  R1............  Schiedea          Caryophyllaceae.  No common name..  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           salicaria.
Rc.........  U..........  R4............  Solidago plumosa  Asteraceae......  Goldenrod,        U.S.A. (NC).
                                                                               Yadkin River.
E..........  L..........  R2............  Sphaeralcea       Malvaceae.......  Mallow, Gierisch  U.S.A. (AZ, UT).
                                           gierischii.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Stenogyne         Lamiaceae.......  No common name..  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           cranwelliae.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Stenogyne         Lamiaceae.......  No common name..  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           kauaulaensis.
E..........  L..........  R1............  Wikstroemia       Thymelaeaceae...  Akia............  U.S.A. (HI).
                                           villosa.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-27391 Filed 11-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P