[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