[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 234 (Friday, December 5, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72450-72497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28536]
[[Page 72449]]
Vol. 79
Friday,
No. 234
December 5, 2014
Part III
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. 79 , No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 72450]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2014-0032; FF09E21000 FXES11190900000 145]
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, to assign a
listing priority number (LPN) to each species, and to determine whether
a 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 23 new candidates, changes the LPN
for one candidate, and removes one 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,
2013, through September 30, 2014.
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 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, Falls Church, 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 to the Falls Church, 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, Falls Church, 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 Headquarters,
MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (telephone 703-
358-2171). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may
call the Federal Information Relay Service 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.
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; (4) 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 (5) to request necessary information for
setting priorities for preparing listing proposals. We strongly
encourage collaborative
[[Page 72451]]
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 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104). 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 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.
Information on the LPN assigned to a particular species is summarized
in this CNOR and 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.
This revised notice supersedes all previous animal, plant, and
combined candidate notices of review for native species and supersedes
previous 12-month warranted-but-precluded petition findings for those
candidate species that were petitioned for listing.
Summary of This CNOR
Since publication of the previous CNOR on November 22, 2013 (78 FR
70104), 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.
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 23 new candidates, we
change the LPN for one candidate, and determine that a listing proposal
is not warranted for one species and thus remove it from candidate
status (see Candidate Removals, below). Combined with the other
decisions published separately from this CNOR, a total of 146 species
(67 plant and 79 animal species) are now candidates awaiting
preparation of rules proposing their listing. These 146 species, along
with the 36 species currently proposed for listing (including 1 species
proposed for listing due to similarity in appearance), are included in
Table 1.
[[Page 72452]]
Table 2 lists the changes from the previous CNOR, and includes 49
species identified in the previous CNOR as either proposed for listing
or classified as candidates that are no longer in those categories.
This includes 33 species for which we published a final listing rule,
11 candidate species for which we published a separate not-warranted
finding and removed from candidate status, 3 species for which we
published a withdrawal of a proposed rule, 1 species for which we
published a separate notice of removal from candidate status, and the 1
species in this notice that we have determined does not meet the
definition of an endangered or threatened species and therefore does
not warrant listing. We have removed this species from candidate status
in this CNOR.
New Candidates
We have identified 23 new candidate species through this notice
discussed below.
Birds
Ma'oma'o (Gymnomyza samoensis)--The ma'oma'o is a large, dusky
olive-green honeyeater that is known for making a variety of loud
distinctive calls. The genus Gymnomyza consists of three honeyeaters
restricted to a few islands in the southwestern Pacific. The ma'oma'o
is endemic to Upolu and Savaii, Independent Samoa (Samoa), and Tutuila
Island, American Samoa. The ma'oma'o is now believed to be extirpated
from Tutuila Island, American Samoa. It is currently only found in
small populations on the islands of Savaii and Upolu in Samoa. The
ma'oma'o is primarily restricted to mature, well-developed, moist,
mossy forests at upper elevations. Monitoring over the last decade has
provided evidence of a decline in the relative abundance of the
species. In 2007, the total population was estimated to be
approximately 500 individuals.
Little mature forest remains in Samoa, and the loss of forested
habitat due to logging, agricultural clearing, and catastrophic storms
is the primary threat to the ma'oma'o. Two storms in the 1990s,
Cyclones Ofa (1990) and Val (1991), destroyed much of the forested
habitat in Samoa, reducing forest canopy cover by 73 percent. In 2012,
Cyclone Evan caused additional severe forest damage. Loss of mature
forest is likely to affect the ma'oma'o by reducing breeding and
foraging habitat, increasing forest fragmentation, and increasing the
abundance and diversity of invasive species. Other threats to the
species include habitat degradation, predation by nonnative species,
and small population size. Habitat quality has degraded with the loss
of closed forest space and the spread of nonnative invasive weeds. Nest
predation by rats (Rattus spp.) and feral cats (Felis catus) is an
important threat to many island birds, including the ma'oma'o, and may
impede population growth. Small populations are more susceptible to
inbreeding depression (reduced reproductive vigor) and extirpation from
stochastic events (e.g., inclement weather, population demographics,
and altered predation patterns). Based on our evaluation that these
ongoing threats pose an imminent risk of a high magnitude, we assign a
LPN of 2 for this species.
Flowering Plants
Eighteen Hawaiian flowering plants (Cyanea kauaulaensis, Cyperus
neokunthianus, Cyrtandra hematos, Exocarpos menziesii, Kadua
haupuensis, Labordia lorenciana, Lepidium orbiculare, Phyllostegia
brevidens, Phyllostegia helleri, Phyllostegia stachyoides, Portulaca
villosa, Pritchardia bakeri, Sanicula sandwicensis, Santalum involutum,
Schiedea diffusa ssp. diffusa, Sicyos lanceoloideus, Stenogyne kaalae
ssp. sherffii, Wikstromoemia skottsbergiana)--Each of these 18 species
is endemic to one or more islands in the State of Hawaii ((Cyanea
kauaulaensis (Maui), Cyperus neokunthianus (Maui), Cyrtandra hematos
(Molokai), Exocarpos menziesii (Hawaii Island; extirpated from Lanai),
Kadua haupuensis (Kauai), Labordia lorenciana (Kauai), Lepidium
orbiculare (Kauai), Phyllostegia brevidens (Maui; extirpated from
Hawaii Island), Phyllostegia helleri (Kauai), Phyllostegia stachyoides
(Maui, Molokai, and Hawaii Island), Portulaca villosa (Maui and Nihoa),
Pritchardia bakeri (Oahu), Sanicula sandwicensis (Maui and Hawaii
Island), Santalum involutum (Kauai), Schiedea diffusa ssp. diffusa
(Maui), Sicyos lanceoloideus (Kauai and Oahu), Stenogyne kaalae ssp.
sherffii (Oahu), and Wikstromoemia skottsbergiana (Kauai)), and each is
negatively affected by nonnative animals and plants.
Introduced, nonnative animals damage and destroy plants and seeds,
modify habitat, create habitat more conducive to nonnative plant
introductions, and spread nonnative plant seeds. Nonnative plants
displace and outcompete native species. Introduced, nonnative plants
and animals are serious and ongoing threats to these species rangewide,
and these threats are increased by the continued inadequacy of existing
protective regulations. In addition, small population size (each
species has fewer than 100 individuals) is a serious and ongoing threat
to each of these species because (1) they may experience reduced
reproductive vigor due to ineffective pollination or inbreeding
depression; (2) they may experience reduced levels of genetic
variability, leading to diminished capacity to adapt and respond to
environmental changes, thereby lessening the probability of long-term
persistence; and (3) a single catastrophic event may result in
extirpation of remaining populations and extinction of the species.
Climate change may pose a threat to the ecosystems that support these
species, thus exacerbating the effects of the aforementioned threats.
There are varying degrees of conservation efforts ongoing for these
species; however, at a minimum, all of these species are listed on the
Hawaii Plant Extinction Prevention Program (PEPP) species list. Species
on the PEPP list are prioritized for monitoring, surveys, collection
and storing of seeds, propagation, and outplanting. The threats to each
of these species are imminent and of high magnitude, leading to a
relatively high likelihood of extinction. Therefore, we assign a LPN of
2 for the above plants that are full species and an LPN of 3 for those
that are subspecies or varieties.
Ferns and Allies
Four Hawaiian ferns (Asplenium diellaciniatum, Deparia kaalaana,
Dryopteris glabra var. pusilla, Hypolepis hawaiiensis var. mauiensis)--
Each of these four species is endemic to one or more islands in the
State of Hawaii (Asplenium diellaciniatum (Kauai), Deparia kaalaana
(Maui; extirpated from Kauai and Hawaii Island), Dryopteris glabra var.
pusilla (Kauai), Hypolepis hawaiiensis var. mauiensis (Maui)); and each
is negatively affected by nonnative animals and plants. Introduced,
nonnative animals damage and destroy plants and seeds, modify habitat,
create habitat more conducive to nonnative plant introductions, and
spread nonnative plant seeds. Nonnative plants displace and outcompete
native species. Introduced nonnative plants and animals are serious and
ongoing threats to these species rangewide, and these threats are
increased by the continued inadequacy of existing protective
regulations. In addition, small population size (each species has fewer
than 100 individuals) is a serious and ongoing threat to each of these
species because (1) they may experience reduced reproductive vigor due
to ineffective pollination or inbreeding depression; (2) they may
[[Page 72453]]
experience reduced levels of genetic variability, leading to diminished
capacity to adapt and respond to environmental changes, thereby
lessening the probability of long-term persistence; and (3) a single
catastrophic event may result in extirpation of remaining populations
and extinction of the species. Climate change may pose a threat to the
ecosystems that support these species, thus exacerbating the effects of
the aforementioned threats. There are varying degrees of conservation
efforts ongoing for these species; however, at a minimum, all of these
species are listed on the Hawaii Plant Extinction Prevention Program
(PEPP) species list. Species on the PEPP list are prioritized for
monitoring, surveys, collection and storing of seeds, propagation, and
outplanting. The threats to each of these species are imminent and of
high magnitude, leading to a relatively high likelihood of extinction.
Therefore, we assign a LPN of 2 for Asplenium diellaciniatum and
Deparia kaalaana and an LPN of 3 for Dryopteris glabra var. pusilla and
Hypolepis hawaiiensis var. mauiensis.
Listing Priority Changes in Candidates
We reviewed the LPN for all candidate species and are changing the
number for the following species discussed below.
Birds
Sprague's pipit (Anthus spragueii)--The Sprague's pipit is a small
grassland bird characterized by its high breeding flight display and
otherwise very secretive behavior. Sprague's pipits are strongly
associated with native prairie (land that has never been plowed),
especially on the breeding grounds. Its current breeding range includes
portions of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Canada. The
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 in areas outside of the direct flight path
between 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.
The primary stressor to the species is habitat conversion on the
breeding grounds. The Breeding Bird Survey shows a long-term decline
from 1966 through 2012. From 2002 through 2012, however, the long-term
population decline has leveled off and currently, there is no
discernable trend. The Christmas Bird Count data also indicates that
the population decline has stopped and the population trend has no
direction, either increasing or decreasing between 2003 and 2012.
In the Service's 12-month finding published on September 15, 2010,
we identified oil and gas development and associated infrastructure as
having a strong negative influence on the species based upon the
available information at that time. New information suggests that
Sprague's pipit avoidance response of these features is highly variable
across the range and thus the species' response to oil and gas
development and roads does not indicate that these are a threat.
Landscape modelling to predict Sprague's pipit habitat use on the
breeding range indicates the population is concentrated in north-
central Montana, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, Canada. Analysis of the
likelihood of prairie conversion in the area where most pipits occur
suggests that the risk of widespread conversion is low, with the most
likely risk scenario of future conversion to cropland predicting a
relatively low proportion (10-15 percent) of the breeding population
affected.
On the wintering range, conversion of prairie to cropland appears
to be accelerating. The species is widely distributed and mobile during
winter, but grassland conversion is ongoing and apparently widespread.
At this time, we believe that the species' trends can be explained by
the habitat changes that have occurred on the breeding range; however,
we will be more closely assessing the changes to the wintering range
and whether those changes threaten the Sprague's pipit.
The threats to the Sprague's pipit described above are moderate to
low in magnitude. Because of the relatively large population remaining
and the stable-to-uncertain (i.e. not showing a clear decline) trends
shown by surveys on both the breeding and wintering grounds, the
potential decline is nonimminent. In addition, the threat from
conversion of habitat on the breeding grounds is now nonimment.
Therefore, we are revising the LPN from 8 to an 11.
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 the 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 an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, we no
longer 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. 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
Astragalus cusickii var. packardiae (Packard's milkvetch)--The
following summary is based on information contained in our files.
Packard's milkvetch is narrowly endemic to a specific group of light-
colored sedimentary outcrops in southwestern Idaho. The total range of
the species covers approximately 26 square kilometers (km\2\) (10
square miles (mi\2\)) in Payette County. Suboccurrences of Packard's
milkvetch, which are typically represented by individual occupied
outcrops, are found at elevations ranging from 793 to 915 meters (m)
(2,600 to 3,000 feet (ft)). Occupied outcrops tend to be found on
steep, south- to west-facing slopes, and are relatively sparsely
vegetated.
Packard's milkvetch became a candidate species in 2010, based on
the identified primary threat of habitat degradation due to off highway
vehicles (OHVs). In response, on December 13, 2013, the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) made a decision that permanently closed 5,620 acres
within and near Packard's milkvetch habitat to OHV use, covering 68
percent of the species' occurrences. Monitoring data collected since
the closure was implemented in 2011 indicates that the OHV closure has
been effective at eliminating the primary threat to the species
throughout a large majority of the species' range.
Other natural and anthropogenic activities identified at the time
it was designated a candidate included an altered wildfire regime due
to invasive nonnative plant species and livestock use. There was little
data at the time to suggest whether these potential threats were
significant, but out of an abundance of caution, the Idaho Fish and
Wildlife Office (IFWO) considered
[[Page 72454]]
these activities along with the OHV monitoring data from 2008-2010 when
making the 2010 decision. However, by 2013, a 5-year monitoring dataset
(2008-2013) suggested a stable population and no association between
cover of nonnative plant species and wildfire and the abundance of
Packard's milkvetch.
In 2010, the population of Packard's milkvetch was estimated at
approximately 5,000 plants located within 26 suboccurrences with
abundance ranges from 3 to approximately 500 plants per suboccurrence.
Surveys in 2012 documented several additional occupied outcrops
collectively totaling approximately 2,000 individuals, which revised
the range-wide population estimate to 6,500 plants occurring within 28
suboccurrences. The 5-year monitoring dataset (2008-2013) has suggested
a stable population overall.
Therefore, based on (1) the reduction of the species' primary
threat (i.e., OHV use), (2) the increase in number of known
suboccurrences and resulting increase in the overall population, and
(3) the species' overall stable population status over a 5-year
monitoring period, we find that listing of Packard's milkvetch as
threatened or endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its
range is no longer warranted; the species no longer meets the
definition of a candidate species, and we are removing it from
candidate status.
In addition to the factors that led us to conclude that Packard's
milkvetch no longer warrants candidate status, the BLM and IFWO signed
a 20-year Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA) on December 20, 2013,
which further supports the BLM's OHV closure decision and commits to
continued enforcement and monitoring of the OHV closure. The CCA also
outlines the BLM's plans for long-term monitoring and future proactive
conservation measures to address new potential threats that may arise.
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 initial 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, and to ascertain if they need emergency listing.
First, the CNOR serves as an initial 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
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 treat the petition as
one that is resubmitted on the date of the 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. These
annual findings supercede any findings from previous CNORs and the
initial 12-month warranted-but-precluded finding, although all previous
findings are part of the administrative record for the new finding, and
we may rely upon them or incorporate them by reference in the new
finding as appropriate.
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
[[Page 72455]]
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 that 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 112 candidates for which we have received a petition to
list and the 5 listed species 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, except for the Selkirk ecosystem population and
the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem population of Grizzly bear (see Petitions To
Reclassify Species Already Listed), 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, 2013, through September 30,
2014. 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.
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
[[Page 72456]]
(``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
2014, 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 2014, 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 2014, on January 17, 2014, Congress passed a Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113-76), which provided funding
through September 30, 2014. In particular, it included an overall
spending cap of $20,515,000 for the listing program. Of that, no more
than $1,504,000 could be used for listing actions for foreign species,
and no more than $1,501,000 could be used to make 90-day or 12-month
findings on petitions. The Service thus had $ 12,905,000 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 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 the last few years, 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
[[Page 72457]]
reclassify a species to endangered if we can combine this with work
that is subject to a court order 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. 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 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, 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 2014 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 the
Service's 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 2014, we completed a delisting rule for one
species.) As discussed below, given the limited resources available for
listing, we find that we made expeditious progress in FY 2014 in the
Listing Program.
We provide below tables cataloguing the work of the Service's
Listing Program in FY 2014. 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 2014.
First, we made expeditious progress in the third and final step:
Listing qualified species. In FY 2014, we resolved the status of 35
species that we determined, or had previously determined, qualified for
listing. Moreover, for 32 species, the resolution was to add them to
the Lists, most with concurrent designations of critical habitat, and
for 3 species we published a withdrawal of the proposed rule. We also
proposed to list an additional 24 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 2014, we
worked on developing proposed listing rules for 34 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.
[[Page 72458]]
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 2014, we completed two 90-day petition
findings for two species.
Our accomplishments this year should also be considered in the
broader context of our commitment to reduce the number of candidate
species for which we have not made final determinations whether or not
to 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 for all 251
species that were included as candidates in the 2010 CNOR, the Service
submit to the Federal Register proposed listing rules or not-warranted
findings by the end of FY 2016, and for any proposed listing rules, the
Service complete final listing determinations 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 166 of the 2010 candidate species, as well as final listing rules
for 118 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 2014 included completing and
publishing the following determinations:
FY 2014 Completed Listing Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publication date Title Actions FR Pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11/14/2013..................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 78 FR 68660-68685.
Petition To List the petition finding, Not
Gunnison's Prairie Dog warranted.
as an Endangered or
Threatened Species.
11/26/2013..................... Initiation of Status Notice of Status Review 78 FR 70525-70527.
Review of Arctic
Grayling in the Upper
Missouri River System.
12/19/2013..................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 78 FR 76795-76807.
Petition To List petition finding, Not
Coleman's Coralroot as warranted.
an Endangered or
Threatened Species.
12/20/2013..................... Threatened Status for Final Rule_Revision.... 78 FR 76995-77005.
Eriogonum codium
(Umtanum Desert
Buckwheat) and
Physaria douglasii
subsp. tuplashensis
(White Bluffs
Bladderpod) and
Designation of
Critical Habitat.
2/24/2014...................... Determination of Final Listing 79 FR 10235-10293.
Threatened Species Threatened.
Status for the
Georgetown Salamander
and Salado Salamander
Throughout Their
Ranges.
3/31/2014...................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 79 FR 17993-17995.
Petition To List the petition finding,
Alexander Archipelago Substantial.
Wolf as Threatened or
Endangered.
4/9/2014....................... Threatened Species Final Listing 79 FR 19759-19796.
Status for the Olympia Threatened, with
Pocket Gopher, Roy Special Rule.
Prairie Pocket Gopher,
Tenino Pocket Gopher,
and Yelm Pocket
Gopher, with Special
Rule.
4/10/2014...................... Determination of Final Listing 79 FR 19973-20071.
Threatened Status for Threatened.
the Lesser Prairie-
Chicken.
4/29/2014...................... Endangered Species Final Listing 79 FR 24255-24310.
Status for Sierra Threatened and
Nevada Yellow-Legged Endangered.
Frog and Northern
Distinct Population
Segment of the
Mountain Yellow-Legged
Frog, and Threatened
Species Status for
Yosemite Toad.
5/6/2014....................... Determination of Final Listing 79 FR 25683-25688.
Threatened Status for Threatened.
Leavenworthia exigua
var. laciniata
(Kentucky Glade Cress).
6/3/2014....................... Threatened Species Final Listing 79 FR 31878-31883.
Status for Ivesia Threatened.
webberi.
6/10/2014...................... Determination of Final Listing 79 FR 33119-33137.
Endangered Status for Endangered.
the New Mexico Meadow
Jumping Mouse
Throughout Its Range.
7/8/2014....................... Threatened Status for Final Listing 79 FR 38677-38746.
the Northern Mexican Threatened.
Gartersnake and Narrow-
Headed Gartersnake.
7/24/2014...................... Endangered Species Final Listing 79 FR 43131-43161.
Status for the Zuni Endangered.
Bluehead Sucker.
8/1/2014....................... Endangered Status for Final Listing 79 FR 44712-44718.
Physaria globosa Endangered.
(Short's bladderpod),
Helianthus
verticillatus (whorled
sunflower), and
Leavenworthia crassa
(fleshy-fruit
gladecress).
8/4/2014....................... Determination of Final Listing 79 FR 45273-45286.
Endangered Status for Endangered.
the Sharpnose Shiner
and Smalleye Shiner.
[[Page 72459]]
8/6/2014....................... Withdrawal of the Proposed Listing 79 FR 46041-46087.
Proposed Rules To List Withdrawal.
Graham's Beardtongue
(Penstemon grahamii)
and White River
Beardtongue (Penstemon
scariosus var.
albifluvis) and
Designate Critical
Habitat.
8/12/2014...................... Endangered Status for Final Listing 79 FR 47222-47244.
the Florida Leafwing Endangered.
and Bartram's Scrub-
Hairstreak Butterflies.
8/13/2014...................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 79 FR 47413-47415.
Petition To List the petition finding, Not
Warton's Cave warranted Candidate
Meshweaver as removal.
Endangered or
Threatened.
8/13/2014...................... Threatened Status for Proposed Listing 79 FR 47521-47545.
the Distinct Withdrawal.
Population Segment of
the North American
Wolverine Occurring in
the Contiguous United
States; Establishment
of a Nonessential
Experimental
Population of the
North American
Wolverine in Colorado,
Wyoming, and New
Mexico.
8/19/2014...................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 79 FR 49045-49047.
Petition To List the petition finding,
Island Marble Substantial.
Butterfly as an
Endangered Species.
8/20/2014...................... Revised 12-Month Notice of 12-month 79 FR 49383-49422.
Finding on a Petition petition finding, Not
To List the Upper warranted Candidate
Missouri River removal.
Distinct Population
Segment of Arctic
Grayling as an
Endangered or
Threatened Species.
8/26/2014...................... 12-Month Finding on the Notice of 12-month 79 FR 51041-51066.
Petition To List Least petition finding, Not
Chub as an Endangered warranted Candidate
or Threatened Species. removal.
8/26/2014...................... Endangered Status for Final Listing 79 FR 50844-50854.
Vandenberg Endangered.
Monkeyflower.
8/29/2014...................... Threatened Status for Final Listing 79 FR 51657-51710.
Oregon Spotted Frog. Threatened.
9/4/2014....................... Endangered Species Final Listing 79 FR 52567-52575.
Status for Brickellia Endangered.
mosieri (Florida
Brickell-bush) and
Linum carteri var.
carteri (Carter's
Small-flowered Flax).
9/9/2014....................... Endangered Species Final Listing 79 FR 53315-53344.
Status for Agave Endangered and
eggersiana and Threatened.
Gonocalyx concolor,
and Threatened Species
Status for Varronia
rupicola.
9/12/2014...................... Threatened Status for Final Listing 79 FR 54627-54635.
Arabis georgiana Threatened.
(Georgia rockcress).
9/12/2014...................... Revised Designation of Final Critical Habitat 79 FR 54781-54846.
Critical Habitat for Final Listing_adding
the Contiguous United New Mexico to DPS
States Distinct boundary.
Population Segment of
the Canada Lynx and
Revised Distinct
Population Segment
Boundary.
9/18/2014...................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 79 FR 56029-56040.
Petition To List petition finding, Not
Eriogonum kelloggii warranted Candidate
(Red Mountain removal.
buckwheat) and Sedum
eastwoodiae (Red
Mountain stonecrop) as
Endangered or
Threatened Species.
9/18/2014...................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 79 FR 56041-56047.
Petition To List petition finding, Not
Symphyotrichum warranted Candidate
georgianum (Georgia removal.
aster) as Endangered
or Threatened Species.
9/23/2014...................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 79 FR 56730-56738.
Petition To List the petition finding, Not
Tucson Shovel-Nosed warranted Candidate
Snake. removal.
9/24/2014...................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 79 FR 57032-57041.
Petition To List petition finding, Not
Eriogonum corymbosum warranted Candidate
var. nilesii and removal.
Eriogonum diatomaceum.
10/1/2014...................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 79 FR 59140-59150.
Petition To List Rio petition finding, Not
Grande Cutthroat Trout warranted Candidate
as an Endangered or removal.
Threatened Species.
10/1/2014...................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 79 FR 59195-59204.
Petition To List petition finding, Not
Yellow-Billed Loon warranted Candidate
(Gavia adamsii) as an removal.
Endangered or
Threatened Species.
10/1/2014...................... Proposed Endangered Proposed Listing 79 FR 59363-59413.
Status for 21 Species Endangered and
and Proposed Threatened.
Threatened Status for
2 Species in Guam and
the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana
Islands.
[[Page 72460]]
10/3/2014...................... Threatened Species Final Listing 79 FR 59991-60038.
Status for the Western Threatened.
Distinct Population
Segment of the Yellow-
billed Cuckoo.
10/7/2014...................... Threatened Species Proposed Listing 79 FR 60406-60419.
Status for Black Threatened.
Pinesnake.
10/7/2014...................... Threatened Species Proposed Listing 79 FR 60419-60443.
Status for West Coast Threatened.
Distinct Population
Segment of Fisher.
10/9/2014...................... Endangered Species Proposed Listing 79 FR 61135-61161.
Status for Trichomanes Endangered.
punctatum ssp.
floridanum (Florida
Bristle Fern).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our expeditious progress also included work on listing actions that
we funded in previous fiscal years and in FY 2014 but did not complete
in FY 2014. 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. All the actions in the table
are being conducted under a deadline set by a court through a court
order or settlement agreement.
Actions Funded in Previous FYs and FY 2014 But Not Completed in FY 2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gunnison sage-grouse................. Final listing.
Dakota skipper and Poweshiek Final listing.
skipperling.
Red knot (rufa subspecies)........... Final listing.
Northern long-eared bat.............. Final listing.
Greater sage-grouse_Bi-State DPS..... Final listing.
Washington ground squirrel........... Proposed listing.
Xantus's murrelet.................... Proposed listing.
Columbia spotted frog_Great Basin DPS Proposed listing.
Sequatchie caddisfly................. Proposed listing.
Four Florida Keys plants (sand flax, Proposed listing.
Big Pine partridge pea, Blodgett's
silverbush, and wedge spurge).
Four Florida plants (Florida pineland Proposed listing.
crabgrass, Florida prairie clover,
pineland sandmat, and Everglades
bully).
White fringeless orchid.............. Proposed listing.
Black warrior waterdog............... Proposed listing.
Black mudalia........................ Proposed listing.
Elfin-woods warbler.................. Proposed listing.
Kentucky arrow darter and Cumberland Proposed listing.
arrow darter.
Six Cave beetles (Nobletts, Baker Proposed listing.
Station, Fowler's, Indian Grave
Point, inquirer, and Coleman).
Sicyos macrophyllus.................. Proposed listing.
Highlands tiger beetle............... Proposed listing.
Sicklefin redhorse................... Proposed listing.
Headwater chub....................... Proposed listing.
Roundtail chub DPS................... Proposed listing.
Page springsnail..................... Proposed listing.
Sonoran desert tortoise.............. Proposed listing.
Texas hornshell...................... Proposed listing.
New England cottontail............... Proposed listing.
Eastern massasauga................... Proposed listing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also funded work on resubmitted petitions findings for 112
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, 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 34 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 a revised 12-month
petition finding for the petitioned candidate species that we are
removing from candidate status, which is 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
[[Page 72461]]
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 2014, 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 3.6 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). In accordance with section
4(b)(3)(C)(i), we treat any petitions for which we made warranted-but-
precluded 12-month findings within the past year as having been
resubmitted on the date of the warranted-but-precluded finding. We are
making continued warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings on the
petitions for these species (for 12-month findings on resubmitted
petitions for species that we determined no longer meet the definition
of ``endangered species'' or ``threatened species,'' 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 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. The subspecies may also be
susceptible to disturbance in its roosting caves. The threats are
imminent and of high magnitude, since they are ongoing and severe
enough to pose a relatively high likelihood of extinction. Therefore,
we have retained an LPN of 3 for this DPS of a subspecies.
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk (Tamias minimus atristria)--The
following summary is based on information contained in our files.
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is endemic to the White Mountains, Otero
and Lincoln Counties, and the Sacramento Mountains, Otero County, New
Mexico. The Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk historically had a broad
distribution throughout the Sacramento Mountains within ponderosa pine
forests. The last verification of persistence of the Sacramento
Mountains population of Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk was in 1966, and
the subspecies appears to be extirpated from the Sacramento Mountains.
The only remaining known distribution of the least chipmunk is
restricted to open, high-elevation talus slopes within a subalpine
grassland, located in the Sierra Blanca area of the White Mountains in
Lincoln and Otero Counties, New Mexico.
The Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk faces threats from present or
threatened destruction, modification, and curtailment of its habitat
from the alteration or loss of mature ponderosa pine forests in one of
the two historically occupied areas. The documented decline in occupied
localities, in conjunction with the small numbers of individuals
captured, are linked to widespread habitat alteration. Moreover, the
highly fragmented nature of its distribution is a significant
contributor to the vulnerability of this subspecies and increases the
likelihood of very small, isolated populations being extirpated. As a
result of this fragmentation, even if suitable habitat exists (or is
restored) in the Sacramento Mountains, the likelihood of natural
recolonization of historical habitat or population expansion from the
White Mountains is extremely remote. Considering the high magnitude and
immediacy of these threats to the subspecies and its habitat, and the
[[Page 72462]]
vulnerability of the White Mountains population, we conclude that the
least chipmunk is in danger of extinction throughout all of its known
range now or in the foreseeable future.
The one known remaining extant population of Pe[ntilde]asco least
chipmunk in the White Mountains is particularly susceptible to
extinction as a result of small, reduced population sizes and its
isolation. Because of the reduced population size and lack of
contiguous habitat adjacent to the extant White Mountains population,
even a small impact on the White Mountains could have a very large
impact on the status of the species as a whole. As a result of its
restricted range, apparent small population size, and fragmented
historical habitat, the White Mountains population is inherently
vulnerable to extinction due to effects of small, population sizes
(e.g. loss of genetic diversity). These impacts are likely to be seen
in the population at some point in the foreseeable future, but do not
appear to be affecting this population currently as it appears to be
stable at this time. Therefore, we conclude that the threats to this
population are of high magnitude, but not imminent. Therefore, we
assign an LPN of 6 to the subspecies.
New England cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis)--We continue to
find that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the
date of publication of this notice. However, we are working on a
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 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.
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 (ha) (722,000 acres (ac)). The population declined
significantly between 1985 and 2001, and approximately 37 percent of
the historical known sites were occupied in 1999 by a relatively small
number of individuals. More recently, southern Idaho ground squirrels
have increased in abundance, and monitoring suggests that the
population may now be stable.
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. Nonnative
annuals may 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 to a moderate
level, 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. Therefore,
we have retained an LPN of 8 for this species.
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. 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 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.
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 are largely absent 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 remnant patches of older
forest in a highly fragmented and isolated condition. Modeling
indicates that 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 these threats is moderate to low. The threats are
imminent because habitat loss and reduced distribution are currently
occurring within the DPS. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 9 for
this DPS.
Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens)--The following
information
[[Page 72463]]
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 kilometers (km) (932 miles
(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 both the loss of sea ice habitat and the ongoing
practice of subsistence harvest are presently occurring, these threats
are imminent. However, these threats are not having significant
population-level effects currently, but are projected to, we determined
that the magnitude of the threats is moderate, not high. 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, 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
mi (805 km) 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 threats to the American Samoa DPS
of the spotless crake continue to be both imminent and high in
magnitude because the ongoing threats have a high likelihood of
affecting the ability of the species to survive in a relatively short
time frame. 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 species have
not changed over the past year. Predation by nonnative species and
natural catastrophes such as hurricanes are the primary threats to the
DPS. Of these, predation by nonnative species is
[[Page 72464]]
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. 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.
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. However, we are working on a
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 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 on information contained in the notice of 12-month finding (76
FR 62016) as well as communication with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service), Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, The Nature
Conservancy, Rio Grande Joint Venture, World Birding Center, Rio Grande
Valley Birding Festival, and the Universidad Aut[oacute]noma de
Tamaulipas. As of April, 2014, there are no changes to the range 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 Tamaulipas, Veracruz, San Luis Potosi, Nuevo Leon, and
northeast Queretaro. The species also occurs within the southern tip of
Texas, in the cities of Mission, McAllen, Pharr, and Edinburg (Hidalgo
County), and in Brownsville, Los Fresnos, San Benito, and Harlingen
(Cameron County). Feral populations also exist in southern California,
Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Florida and escaped birds have been reported
in central Texas. As of 2004, half of the native population is believed
to be found in the United States. 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. In Texas,
red-crowned parrots are thought to move between urban areas in search
of food and other available resources. There has not been systematic
annual monitoring of red-crowned parrot populations in Texas's Lower
Rio Grande Valley (LRGV), so no population trend information is
available; instead, numbers of parrots are most often reported from
more informal surveys including Christmas Bird Counts and E-bird;
surveys with wide variation in observers' skill levels. Counts of
nesting pairs have not been documented since McKinney's 1995 survey. In
Mexico, the level of monitoring of red-crowned parrots within the last
two decades is not well known; however, community groups did include
the species in bird surveys in the Ejido El Sabinito, in Sierras of
Tamaulipas, in 2012 and 2013, where they reported approximately 2,500
and 1,889 individuals, respectively. Anecdotal reports from Mexico
suggest that the species may be increasing in numbers in urban areas of
Tamaulipas and Neuvo Leon.
The primary threats within Mexico and Texas remain habitat
destruction and modification from logging, deforestation, and
conversion of suitable habitat for agricultural and urban development
purposes. In addition, existing regulations do not adequately address
the habitat or capture and trade threats to the species. Thus, the
inadequacy of existing regulations and their enforcement continue to
threaten the red-crowned parrot. Disease and predation are not
documented to threaten the species. Pesticide exposure is not known to
affect the red-crowned parrot. Conservation efforts include the
artificial nest structure projects, as well as habitat creation
projects such as one 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 initial steps and no results are yet available.
Threats to the species are imminent because habitat destruction and
inadequate regulatory mechanisms are ongoing. In addition, the threats
are high in magnitude, because they affect the species extensively at a
population level; therefore, we have determined that a LPN of 2 remains
appropriate for the species.
Sprague's pipit (Anthus spragueii)--See above in ``Listing Priority
Changes in Candidates.''
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 the 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 Natural
Resources Conservation Service has committed significant financial and
technical resources to address threats to this species on private lands
through
[[Page 72465]]
their Sage-grouse Initiative. Also notably, the Bureau of Land
Management and U.S. Forest Service are in the process of revising 98
Land Management Plans through 6 Environmental Impact Statements to
provide adequate regulatory mechanisms. 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). This
population was historically found in northern Oregon and central
Washington. On May 7, 2001, we concluded that listing the Columbia
Basin DPS of the western sage-grouse was warranted, but precluded by
higher priority listing actions (66 FR 22984). 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 indicating that listing may be warranted (68 FR 6500;
February 7, 2003), and that listing the greater sage-grouse was not
warranted (70 FR 2244; January 12, 2005). The court subsequently
remanded these latter findings 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)--We continue to find that
listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of
publication of this notice. However, we are working on a 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 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.
Reptiles
Eastern massasauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus)--We continue
to
[[Page 72466]]
find that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the
date of publication of this notice. However, we are working on a
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 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.
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 22, 2014. 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.
Over time, the extensive loss, degradation, and fragmentation of the
longleaf pine ecosystem, coupled with the disruption of natural fire
regimes, have resulted in extant Louisiana pine snake populations that
are isolated and small.
The Louisiana pine snake is currently restricted to six small,
isolated naturally occupied areas; four of these areas occur on Federal
lands, and two occur mainly on private industrial timberlands. All of
these remnant individuals may be vulnerable to factors associated with
low population sizes and demographic isolation, such as reduced genetic
heterozygosity. The currently occupied area in Louisiana and Texas is
estimated to be approximately 58,497 ha (144,549 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 was updated in 2013. The 2013 updated CCA directly
links the specific conservation actions performed by the cooperators to
the specific threats affecting the species. However, the historical and
ongoing loss or unavailability of preferable habitat (via fire
suppression, conversion to short rotation, dense-canopy, off-site pine
plantations, increases in the number and width of roads, and
urbanization) on private lands in the matrix between these extant
populations has eliminated dispersal among remnant populations and the
natural recolonization of vacant habitat patches. Because corridors
linking extant populations are extremely unlikely to be established,
the loss of any extant population would be permanent without future
reintroduction of captive-bred individuals.
All populations require active habitat management, and the lack of
adequate amounts of suitable habitat remains a threat for several
populations. The potential threats to nearly all 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 a relatively high likelihood of bringing about extinction
and therefore remain high in magnitude. The threats are not imminent,
because, while the extent of Louisiana pine snake habitat loss has been
great in the past, the rate of habitat loss on Federal lands is
declining and habitat conditions within occupied or preferable areas is
improving due to proactive habitat management and other threat
reduction through the CCA. Thus, based on nonimminent, high-magnitude
threats, we assign an LPN of 5 to this species.
Desert tortoise, Sonoran (Gopherus morafkai)--We continue to find
that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of
publication of this notice. However, we are working on a 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 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.
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 inches (in) (38 centimeters (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
incompatible 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 considered to be moderate to low, since populations extend
over a broad geographic area and conservation measures are in place in
some areas. However, since 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 threats are imminent. Thus, we have assigned a LPN 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
[[Page 72467]]
currently there is sufficient water for the turtles, so the threats are
not imminent we expect drought and irrigated agriculture in the region
to cause surface water in the Rio Sonoyta and Quitobaquito Springs to
dwindle further 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 water-dependent
subspecies. We retained a LPN of 6 for Sonoyta mud turtle due to high-
magnitude, nonimminent threats.
Amphibians
Columbia spotted frog, Great Basin DPS (Rana luteiventris)--We
continue to find that listing this species is warranted but precluded
as of the date of publication of this notice. However, we are working
on a 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 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.
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 is no longer a candidate for listing. In consideration of
these conservation efforts and the overall threat level to the species,
we determined that 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 LPN of 8 to this species.
Striped newt (Notophthalmus perstriatus)--The following summary is
based on information contained in our files. The striped newt is a
small salamander that 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
their 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. Prior
to 2014, there was thought to be a 125-km (78-mile (mi)) separation
between the western and eastern portions of the striped newt's range.
However, the discovery of five adult striped newts in Taylor County,
Florida, represents a significant possible range connection. 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 is moderate because most of the known striped
newt metapopulations are on conservation lands which reduces the threat
from further habitat fragmentation, and currently no diseases have been
found in striped newts. Since the majority of threats are ongoing, they
are imminent. Therefore, we assigned an LPN of 8 to this species.
However, due to recent information that suggests the striped newt is
likely extirpated from Apalachicola National Forest, the LPN may
warrant changing to a lower number in the future.
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
[[Page 72468]]
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, the
possible development of a roadway with potential to impact the recharge
area for the Meades Quarry Cave system, urban development in Knox
County, water quality impacts despite existing State and Federal laws,
and hybridization between spring salamanders and Berry Cave salamanders
in Meades Quarry Cave. 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. The threats are moderate
because the species still occurs in several different cave systems, and
existing populations appear stable. Based on moderate-magnitude
imminent threats, we continue to assign this species a LPN of 8.
Black Warrior waterdog (Necturus alabamensis)--We continue to find
that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of
publication of this notice. However, we are working on a 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 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.
Fishes
Headwater chub (Gila nigra)--We continue to find that listing this
species is warranted but precluded as of the date of publication of
this notice. However, we are working on a 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
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.
Roundtail chub (Gila robusta), Lower Colorado River DPS--We
continue to find that listing this species is warranted but precluded
as of the date of publication of this notice. However, we are working
on a 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 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.
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;
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
current drought in the western portions of the species' range is also a
threat. If drought conditions continue into the future, these
conditions are likely to have a severe impact on 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 species'
widely distributed range. 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, and groundwater levels continue to support surface spring and
stream flow in the majority of the species' range. Development, spills,
and runoff are not currently affecting the species on a rangewide
basis. Overall, the threats are nonimminent. 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/stream attributes,
mainly over gravel bottom 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 non-point 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 resulting in the
continued 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; this would
also make this species more vulnerable to catastrophic events. Threats
affecting the Pearl darter are localized in nature, affecting only
portions of the population within the drainage having only a localized
impact on the species and its' habitat. While water quality degradation
is the most pervasive threat, it is not significant within the areas
protected through The Nature Conservancy ownership and other areas
where best managmenet practices are routinely practiced. Thus, we
assigned a threat magnitude of moderate to low to this species. 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 an LPN of 8 for this species.
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. However, we are working on a 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 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
[[Page 72469]]
emergency posing a significant risk to the species.
Longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), Bay-Delta DPS--The
following summary is based on information contained in our files and
the petition we received on August 8, 2007. On April 2, 2012 (77
FR19756), we determined that listing the longfin smelt San Francisco
Bay-Delta distinct population segment (Bay-Delta DPS) was warranted but
precluded. Longfin smelt measure 9-11 cm (3.5-4.3 in) standard length.
Longfin smelt are considered pelagic and anadromous, although anadromy
in longfin smelt is poorly understood, and certain populations in other
parts of the species' range are not anadromous and complete their
entire life cycle in freshwater lakes and streams. Longfin smelt
usually live for 2 years, spawn, and then die, although some
individuals may spawn as 1- or 3-year-old fish before dying. In the
Bay-Delta, longfin smelt are believed to spawn primarily in freshwater
in the lower reaches of the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River.
Longfin smelt numbers in the Bay-Delta have declined significantly
since the 1980s. Abundance indices derived from the Fall Midwater Trawl
(FMWT), Bay Study Midwater Trawl (BSMT), and Bay Study Otter Trawl
(BSOT) all show marked declines in Bay-Delta longfin smelt populations
from 2002 to 2012. Longfin smelt abundance over the last decade is the
lowest recorded in the 40-year history of CDFG's FMWT monitoring
surveys.
The primary threat to the DPS is from reduced freshwater flows.
Freshwater flows, especially winter-spring flows, are significantly
correlated with longfin smelt abundance--longfin smelt abundance is
lower when winter-spring flows are lower. The long-term decline in
abundance of longfin smelt in the Bay-Delta has been partially
attributed to reductions in food availability and disruptions of the
Bay-Delta food web caused by establishment of the nonnative overbite
clam and likely by increasing ammonium concentrations. In the 2012, 12-
month finding, we determined that threats were high in magnitude and
imminent, resulting in an LPN of 3. The threats still remain high in
magnitude since they pose a significant risk to the DPS throughout its
range. The threats are ongoing, and thus are imminent. We are
maintaining an LPN of 3 for this population.
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.
Its shell can be moderately thick, smooth, and rhomboidal to oval in
shape. Its external coloration varies from tan to brown with continuous
dark brown, green-brown, or black rays, and internally it is pearly
white, with some having a light salmon tint. 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 to the Texas fatmucket 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 maintained 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. Its shell is long and oval, generally free of external
sculpturing, with external coloration that varies from yellowish- or
orangish-tan, brown, reddish-brown, to smoky-green with a pattern of
broken rays or irregular blotches. The internal color is bluish-white
or white and iridescent posteriorly. 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 river beds, thereby
removing mussel habitat; decrease water quality; modify stream flows;
and prevent fish host migration and distribution of freshwater mussels,
as well as 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 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 to the Texas fawnsfoot 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
[[Page 72470]]
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 assigned the
Texas fawnsfoot an LPN of 2.
Texas hornshell (Popenaias popei)--We continue to find that listing
this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of publication
of this notice. However, we are working on a 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
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.
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 populations appear to be stable
and reproducing, and the remaining five populations are small and
isolated and show no evidence of recruitment. It appears that 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), decrease water quality, modify stream flows,
and prevent 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 be likely to result in the
golden orb becoming in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future.
The threats to the golden orb are moderate in magnitude. Although
habitat loss and degradation from impoundments, sedimentation, sand and
gravel mining, and chemical contaminants are widespread throughout the
range of the golden orb, and are likely to be exacerbated by climate
change, which will increase the frequency and magnitude of droughts,
four large populations remain, including one that was recently
discovered, suggesting that the threats are not high in magnitude. The
threats from habitat loss and degradation are imminent because habitat
loss and degradation have already occurred and will likely 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 maintain an 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.
This species historically occurred throughout the Colorado and Brazos
River basins and is now known from only nine locations. The smooth
pimpleback has been eliminated from nearly the entire Colorado River
and all but one of its tributaries, and has been limited to the central
and lower Brazos River drainage. Five of the populations are
represented by no more than a few individuals and are small and
isolated. Six of the existing populations appear to be relatively
stable and recruiting.
The smooth pimpleback 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. 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 be likely to result in the smooth pimpleback becoming
in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future.
The threats to the smooth pimpleback are moderate in magnitude.
Although habitat loss and degradation from impoundments, sedimentation,
sand and gravel mining, and chemical contaminants are widespread
throughout the range of the smooth pimpleback, and may be exacerbated
by climate change, which will increase the frequency and magnitude of
droughts, several large populations remain, including one that was
recently discovered, suggesting that the threats are not high in
magnitude. The threats from habitat loss and degradation are imminent
because they 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,
but evidence of recruitment is limited in the Concho River population
and is present in the San Saba River population, which may be the only
remaining recruiting populations of Texas pimpleback. The remaining two
populations are represented by one or two individuals and are highly
disjunct.
The Texas pimpleback 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 (which will increase the frequency and magnitude of droughts),
[[Page 72471]]
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 be likely to result in the Texas
pimpleback becoming in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future.
The threats to the Texas pimpleback are high in magnitude, because
habitat loss and degradation from impoundments, sedimentation, sand and
gravel mining, and chemical contaminants are widespread throughout the
entire range of the Texas pimpleback and profoundly affect its survival
and recruitment. The only remaining populations are small, isolated,
and highly vulnerable to stochastic events, which could lead to
extirpation or extinction. The threats are imminent because habitat
loss and degradation have already occurred and will continue as the
human population continues to grow in central Texas. All 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 assigned the
Texas pimpleback an LPN of 2.
Snails
Black mudalia (Elimia melanoides)--We continue to find that listing
this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of publication
of this notice. However, we are working on a 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
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.
Magnificent ramshorn (Planorbella magnifica)--Magnificent ramshorn,
is the largest North American air-breathing freshwater snail in the
family Planorbidae. It has a relatively thin discoidal (i.e., coiling
in one plane) shell that reaches a diameter commonly exceeding 35mm and
heights exceeding 20mm. The great width of its shell, in relation to
the diameter, makes it easily identifiable at all ages. 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. The species is known from only four sites in the lower Cape
Fear River Basin in North Carolina. Although the complete historical
range of the species is unknown, the size of the species and the fact
that it was not reported until 1903 are indications that the species
may have always been rare and localized.
Salinity and pH are 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 likely have 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 and
increased salinity and alteration of flow patterns, as well as
increased input of nutrients and other pollutants.
The magnificent ramshorn appears to be extirpated from the wild due
to habitat loss and degradation resulting from a variety of human-
induced and natural factors. The only known surviving individuals of
the species are presently being held and propagated at a private
residence, a lab at North Carolina State University's Veterinary
School, and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission's Watha
State Fish Hatchery. 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 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 three captive populations
exist; a single robust captive population of the species comprised of
greater than 200 adults, and two small populations of 50 or more
individuals. Although the robust captive population of the species has
been maintained since 1993, a single catastrophic event affecting this
captive population, such as a severe storm, disease, or predator
infestation, could result in the near extinction of the species.
Therefore, we assigned this species a 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 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 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 (Euglandina 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 the long-
term survival of the native snail fauna in American Samoa, including
the sisi snail, is predation by nonnative predatory snails. The threats
are
[[Page 72472]]
imminent and of high magnitude, since they are severe enough to affect
the continued existence of the species, leading to a relatively high
likelihood of extinction. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 for
this species.
Tutuila tree snail (Eua zebrina)--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 ongoing predation by nonnative predatory snails and rats. The
magnitude of threats is high because they result in direct mortality
leading to significant population declines to the Tutuila tree snail
rangewide. 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 is endemic to Santa Cruz and Cochise Counties in
southeastern Arizona and adjacent portions of northern Sonora, Mexico.
Currently, the Huachuca springsnail inhabits at least 21 spring sites
in southeastern Arizona and northern Sonora, Mexico. The species is
most commonly found in shallow water habitats, often in rocky seeps at
the spring source. Threats include habitat modification and destruction
through catastrophic wildfire, unmanaged grazing at the landscape
scale, and the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms. 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 the Huachuca
springsnail.
Page springsnail (Pyrgulopsis morrisoni)--We continue to find that
listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of
publication of this notice. However, we are working on a 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 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.
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. Hylaeus 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. Hylaeus 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 H. 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. Because the
ongoing threats adversely affect H. anthracinus throughout its entire
range, and cause impacts that are sufficiently severe that they could
lead to population declines, the threats are high in magnitude and are
imminent. 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. Hylaeus 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. Hylaeus 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 H. 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. Because the
ongoing threats adversely affect H. assimulans throughout its entire
range, and cause impacts that are sufficiently severe that they could
lead to population declines, the threats are high in magnitude and are
imminent. 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
[[Page 72473]]
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 relatively high
likelihood of extinction throughout its entire range. The threats are
ongoing throughout its entire range, thus the threats are imminent.
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 presents a
relatively 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 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
presents a relatively 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 are high in magnitude because their severity
presents a relatively 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 presents a relatively 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)--
[[Page 72474]]
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 LPN of 5.
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly (Atlantea tulita)--The following
summary is based on information in our files and in the petition we
received on February 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 life zone 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., a
plant that is used for laying the eggs, and 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 threats 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. Activities leading to habitat
modification and destruction are expected to continue and potentially
increase in the foreseeable future. These threats are high in magnitude
and imminent because known populations occur in areas that are subject
to ongoing development, increased traffic, and increased road
maintenance and construction and they directly affect populations
during all life stages throughout the range of the species. Therefore,
we assigned a LPN of 2 to this species.
Sequatchie caddisfly (Glyphopsyche sequatchie)--We continue to find
that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of
publication of this notice. However, we are working on a 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 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..
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
known only 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
along KY Highway 1964. 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 of this cave were
surveyed for the species during 1995 and 1996, and only one additional
site (Richardson's Spring) 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 on the survival of 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)--We continue
to find that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the
date of publication of this notice. However, we are working on a
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 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.
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
[[Page 72475]]
environment, and is only known from one privately owned Kentucky cave
in Bell County.
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 the survival of this species. 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)--We continue to
find that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the
date of publication of this notice. However, we are working on a
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 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.
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
Kentucky caves in Jefferson County. The cave entrance at the species'
original location (Oxmoor, also called Highbaugh Cave) was closed due
to residential development and placement of fill in the early 1990s. 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. Several other caves in Jefferson County were surveyed for the
species in 1994, but individuals of the species were observed at only
one additional location, Eleven Jones Cave. This cave is located on the
southeast bank of Beargrass Creek near Cave Hill Cemetery and
Arboretum. Due to pollution and reportedly high carbon dioxide levels
in the cave, additional searches of the cave have not been possible.
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 the survival of 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 non-imminent 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 Kentucky cave (Tatum Cave)
in Marion County. 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 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 a total of 16 populations distributed across 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 different populations of the
species to varying degrees throughout the species' range and are thus
of moderate magnitude.
Rattlesnake-master borer moth (Papaipema eryngii)--The following
information is based on information in our files. Rattlesnake-master
borer moths are obligate residents of undisturbed prairie remnants,
savanna, and pine barrens that contain their only food plant--
rattlesnake-master (Eryngium yuccifolium). The rattlesnake-master borer
moth is known from 16 sites distributed over 5 States: Illinois,
Arkansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma,
[[Page 72476]]
and North Carolina. Currently 12 of the sites contain extant
populations, 3 contain populations with unknown status, and 1 contains
a population that is considered extirpated.
Although the rattlesnake-master plant is widely distributed across
26 States and is a common plant in remnant prairies, it is a
conservative species, meaning it is not found in disturbed areas, with
relative frequencies of less than 1 percent. The habitat range for the
rattlesnake-master borer moth is very narrow and appears to be limiting
for the species. The ongoing effects of habitat loss, fragmentation,
degradation, and modification from agriculture, development, flooding,
invasive species, and secondary succession have resulted in fragmented
populations and population declines. Rattlesnake-master borer moths are
affected by habitat fragmentation and population isolation. Almost all
of the sites with extant populations of the rattlesnake-master borer
moth are isolated from one another, with the populations in Kentucky,
North Carolina, and Oklahoma occurring within a single site for each
State, thus precluding recolonization from other populations. These
small, isolated populations are likely to become unviable over time due
to lower genetic diversity reducing their ability to adapt to
environmental change, effects of stochastic events, and inability to
recolonize areas where they are extirpated.
Rattlesnake-master borer moths have life-history traits that make
them more susceptible to outside stressors. They are univoltine (having
a single flight per year), do not disperse widely, and are monophagous
(have only one food source). The life history of the species makes it
particularly sensitive to fire, which is the primary practice used in
prairie management. The species is only safe from fire once it bores
into the root of the host plant, which makes adult, egg, and first
larval stages subject to mortality during prescribed burns and
wildfires. Fire and grazing cause direct mortality to the moth and
destroy food plants if the intensity, extent, or timing is not
conducive to the species' biology. Although fire management is a threat
to the species, lack of management is also a threat, and at least one
site has become extirpated likely because of the succession to woody
habitat. The species is sought after by collectors, and the host plant
is very easy to identify, making the moth susceptible to collection,
and thus many sites are kept undisclosed to the public.
Existing regulatory mechanisms provide protection for 12 of the 16
sites containing rattlesnake-master borer moth populations. Illinois'
endangered species statute provides regulatory mechanisms to protect
the species from potential impacts from actions such as development and
collecting on the 10 Illinois sites; however, illegal collections of
the species have occurred at two sites. A permit is required for
collection by site managers within the sites in North Carolina and
Oklahoma. The rattlesnake-master borer moth is also listed as
endangered in Kentucky by the State's Nature Preserves Commission,
although at this time the Kentucky legislature has not enacted any
statute that provides legal protection for species listed as threatened
or endangered. There are no statutory mechanisms in place to protect
the populations in North Carolina, Arkansas, or Oklahoma.
Some threats that the rattlesnake-master moth faces are high in
magnitude, such as habitat conversion and fragmentation, and population
isolation. These threats with the highest magnitude occur in many of
the populations throughout the species' range, but although they are
likely to affect each population at some time, they are not likely to
affect all of the populations at any one time. Other threats, such as
agricultural and nonagricultural development, mortality from
implementation of some prairie management tools (such as fire),
flooding, succession, and climate change are of moderate to low
magnitude. For example, the life history of rattlesnake-master borer
moths makes them highly sensitive to fire, which can cause mortality of
individuals through most of the year and can affect entire populations.
Conversely, complete fire suppression can also be a threat to
rattlesnake-master borer moths as prairie habitat declines and woody or
invasive species become established such that the species' only food
plant is not found in disturbed prairies. Although these threats can
cause direct and indirect mortality of the species, they are of
moderate or low magnitude because they affect only some populations
throughout the range and to varying degrees. Overall, the threats are
moderate. The threats are imminent because they are ongoing; every
known population of rattlesnake-master borer moth has at least one
ongoing threat, and some have several working in tandem. Thus, we
assigned a LPN of 8 to this species.
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 (such as wildfire or flooding from
storms). The threats are of low to moderate magnitude because the
Forest Service has no plans to modify the springs where this species
occurs. In addition, the effects of the other threats are unlikely to
be permanent, as they stem from occasional natural events that do not
result in permanent water quality degradation. In addition, because of
the physical habitat structure (large boulders surrounding the springs)
and the location of the springs (on hillsides above the stream or in
the headwaters where there is little watershed to generate large flood
flows), flooding, resulting from thunderstorms or post-fire runoff is
not a factor affecting this species at this time. 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. 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 known to be 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. New surveys completed in 2013
indicate that the Arapahoe snowfly may occur in additional drainages
other than Elkhorn Creek; however, the results are preliminary, and
surveys are continuing in 2014. We will evaluate and incorporate the
results of these new surveys into our review when they become
available. The species previously occurred downriver at Young Gulch,
but it is likely that either habitat became unsuitable or other unknown
causes extirpated the species. Habitats
[[Page 72477]]
at Young Gulch were further degraded by the High Park Fire in 2012, and
potentially by a flash flood disaster in September 2013.
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. While
limited dispersal capabilities, restricted range, dependence on
pristine habitats, and small population size are characteristics that
make this species vulnerable to stochastic events and catastrophes (and
potential impacts from climate change), these events are not currently
occurring and increased temperatures will adversely affect the species
in the future. Therefore, we have assigned the Arapahoe 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 determined that the meltwater lednian stonefly was a
candidate for listing 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
immediacy 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)--We continue to
find that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the
date of publication of this notice. However, we are working on a
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 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.
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. 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 could quickly decimate a 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 thus 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. Therefore, 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 could 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
thus 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. Therefore, 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 pools. This species is endemic to the Hawaiian
Islands, and is currently
[[Page 72478]]
known from 2 pools on the island of 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 could
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 cm (1 to 6 in) 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 down-cutting 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 threats affect individuals in the population and have 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 not imminent. The LPN for A. alpina remains an 11 due
to the presence of moderate-to-low threats, and the determination that
the threats are not imminent at this point in time.
Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett's silverbush)--We continue to find
that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of
publication of this notice. However, we are working on a 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 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.
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, Artemisia campestris var.
wormskioldii (formerly A. borealis var. wormskioldii) is currently
known from two natural populations (one in Klickitat County and one in
Grant County, Washington) and four outplanted populations in Oregon and
Washington. This plant is restricted to exposed basalt, cobbly-sandy
terraces, and sand habitat along the shore of, and on islands within,
the Columbia River. Annual monitoring indicates that the two natural
populations have declined from historical numbers and now total roughly
550 individuals. Two populations were outplanted with approximately
3,000 individuals, and when monitored in 2012, approximately 900
individuals still remained; the other two outplanted populations have
not been monitored since 120 individuals were outplanted at the sites
in 2013. It is possible that additional natural populations of the
species exist as there are relatively large stretches of the mid-
Columbia River and its tributaries that have not been surveyed
specifically for this plant; however, we currently know of the species
only from the above six locations. The species is also cultivated ex
situ for future translocation projects.
Habitat loss from inundation behind hydroelectric dams and
placement of riprap along the Columbia River is thought to be the cause
of historical population loss. Current threats to northern wormwood
include possible direct loss of habitat through regulation of water
levels in the Columbia River;
[[Page 72479]]
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. At
the Grant County site, ongoing conservation actions have reduced
trampling, but have not eliminated or reduced the other threats. At the
Klickitat County site (Miller Island), active conservation measures are
not currently in place. The magnitude of these threats is high, as the
remaining populations are small, isolated, and each 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 an 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 magnitude of threats is high as available monitoring data
indicate declines in excess of 70 percent within the perimeter of
wildfires that occurred in 2007 which negatively affected nearly 50
percent of the known occurrences in Nevada and Utah. In addition,
livestock use impacts were observed at all sites visited in Utah in
2011 with 25 percent of the sites (containing 73 percent of the
individuals) being directly affected. 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
occurring throughout a large portion of the species' range. The high
magnitude and immediacy of threats leave 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, because they
are ongoing, 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, a total of 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 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
[[Page 72480]]
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 only 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 and 2,469 m (8,000 and 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 likely threats to the species. The threats that B. pusilla faces
are moderate in magnitude, primarily because of the recent leveling off
of the population decline. 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 Hawaiian Islands of Maui and Hawaii. This species is
known from 13 populations collectively totaling fewer than 750
individuals.
Calamagrostis expansa is threatened by habitat degradation and loss
by feral pigs (Sus scrofa), and by competition with nonnative plants.
All of the known populations of C. expansa on Maui occur in managed
areas. Pig exclusion fences have been constructed, and control of
nonnative plants is ongoing within the exclosures but still pose a
threat to the species. On the island of Hawaii, the population in the
Upper Waiakea Forest Reserve has been fenced entirely. This species is
not represented in an ex situ collection. Threats to this species from
feral pigs and nonnative plants are still ongoing despite the
conservation actions, and are thus imminent and of high magnitude,
given the limited number of individuals, 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 ha (43.4 ac) of Klamath National Forest and
privately owned lands that stretch for 10 km (6 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.
Major 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, fire
breaks, 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 fire breaks. Dyer's woad
(Isatis tinctoria), an invasive, nonnative plant that may prevent
germination of Siskiyou mariposa lily seedlings, 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 threatens
the continued existence of this species. The main threat is competition
by dyer's woad. However, because efforts are under way 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.
Overall, the threats are nonimment since the threats of competition
from nonnative invasive plants has been reduced to localized areas and
are not anticipated to overwhelm a large portion of the species' range
in the immediate future. The likelihood that a large proportion of the
Gunsight-Humbug Ridge range would be affected by disturbance, and
therefore invaded by dyer's woad at the same time, is low. Therefore,
we have assigned a LPN of 11 to this species.
Chamaecrista lineata var. keyensis (Big Pine partridge pea)--We
continue to find that listing this species is
[[Page 72481]]
warranted but precluded as of the date of publication of this notice.
However, we are working on a 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 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.
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum (Pineland sandmat)--We continue
to find that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the
date of publication of this notice. However, we are working on a
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 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.
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. serpyllum (Wedge spurge)--We continue to
find that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the
date of publication of this notice. However, we are working on a
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 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.
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 facing C. 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 C.
parryi var. fernandina from habitat destruction or modification are
lower in magnitude than they were 9 years ago when we originally
determined that the species was a candidate for listing. One of the two
populations (Upper Las Virgenes Canyon Open Space Preserve) is now 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 C. 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 C.
parryi var. fernandina.
The other population (Newhall Ranch) is under the threat of
development. A CCA was being developed with the landowner to address
conservation of the plants; however, as of 2014, work on the CCA has
been suspended. Until such an agreement is finalized, the threat of
development and the potential damage to the Newhall Ranch population
still exist, 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 C. 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 C. 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 C. 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
this species 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. Wright's marsh thistle is a flowering
plant in the sunflower family. It is prickly with short black spines
and a 3- to 8-foot (ft) (0.9- to 2.4-meter (m)) single stalk covered
with succulent leaves. Flowers are white to pale pink in areas of the
Sacramento Mountains, but are vivid pink in all the Pecos Valley
locations. 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.
Long-term drought, in combination with ground and surface
waterwithdrawal, pose a current and future threat to Wright's marsh
thistle and its habitat. In addition, we expect that these threats will
likely intensify in the foreseeable future. However, the threats are
moderate in magnitude because the majority of the threats (habitat loss
and degradation due to alteration of the hydrology of its rare wetland
habitat), while serious and
[[Page 72482]]
occurring rangewide, do not at this time collectively and significantly
adversely affect the species at a population level. All of the threats
are ongoing and therefore imminent. Thus, we continue to assign an LPN
of 8 to Wright's marsh thistle.
Dalea carthagenensis ssp. floridana (Florida prairie-clover)--We
continue to find that listing this species is warranted but precluded
as of the date of publication of this notice. However, we are working
on a 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 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.
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 produces erect, leafy,
flowering stems from May to October. The species 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, 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. With so few populations, the loss of any known
sites would constitute a significant contraction of the species' range
and increase the risk of extinction of the species. Because most of the
significant threats to D. hirstii affect the species over a period of
years and, in some cases, are being managed to some extent, the threats
are nonimminent. Based on nonimminent threats of a high magnitude, we
retain a LPN of 5 for this species.
Digitaria pauciflora (Florida pineland crabgrass)--We continue to
find that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the
date of publication of this notice. However, we are working on a
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 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.
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, but will take time for the mining operations to be put into
place. This will result in the loss and fragmentation of Frisco
buckwheat populations over a longer time scale. 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
Hawaii Island. Festuca hawaiiensis is known from four populations
collectively 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, the historical range of F. hawaiiensis may have included
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 ungulates. The threats are imminent because they are
not controlled and are ongoing in the remaining, unfenced populations.
Firebreaks have been established to protect 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 which could bring about extinction on a
relatively short time scale. 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 (BIBE), Texas, and one in the
privately owned Area de Protecci[oacute]n de Flora y Fauna (APFF,
Protected Area for Flora and Fauna) 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
[[Page 72483]]
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; due to prevailing security issues in
northern Mexico. We do not know if or when these sites can be safely
monitored. The BIBE site was monitored in September 2013; at that time
the total population was estimated to be less than 200 individual
plants.
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. A historically unprecedented period of exceptional drought
and high temperatures prevailed throughout the species' range from
October 2010 until November 2011. 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. Thus, we maintained an LPN of 11
for this species.
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 Hawaiian Islands of Kauai,
Molokai, Maui, and Hawaii. Gardenia remyi is known from 19 populations
collectively totaling between 85 and 87 individuals. This species is
threatened by pigs (Sus scrofa), goats (Capra hircus), and deer (Axis
axis and Odocoileus hemionus), which degrade and destroy habitat and
possibly forage upon the species, and by nonnative plants that
outcompete and displace it. G. 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 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, leading to a relatively high
likelihood of extinction. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 for
this species.
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 Hawaiian Islands of Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Maui, and
Hawaii. This subspecies is known from 44 widely scattered populations
collectively totaling approximately 200 individuals. Many of the
populations, which are widely separated, 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 the apparent low seedling recruitment 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 imminent because
they are ongoing and 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.
Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 3 for this subspecies.
Kadua (=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. Kadua fluviatilis
(formerly 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 collectively
totaling between 400 and 900 individuals. Kadua 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. Threats to
this species are imminent because they are ongoing, and are of high
magnitude, leading to a relatively high likelihood of extinction.
Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 for this species.
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, but will take time for the mining operations to be put into
place. This will result in the loss and fragmentation of Ostler's
peppergrass populations over a longer time scale.
[[Page 72484]]
Other threats to the 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)--We continue to find that listing this
species is warranted but precluded as of the date of publication of
this notice. However, we are working on a 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
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.
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 collectively
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 imminent
and of high magnitude because because they are ongoing and they pose a
severe threat throughout the limited range of this species leading to a
relatively high likelihood of extinction. Therefore, we have retained
an LPN of 2 for this species.
Nothocestrum latifolium ([revaps]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. N. latifolium is
known from 17 declining populations collectively 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
imminent because they are ongoing and of high magnitude, since they are
severe enough to affect the continued existence of the species, leading
to a relatively high likelihood of extinction. 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, Hawaii. This species is currently known from 8 populations
collectively 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
imminent and of a high magnitude to the wild populations on both
islands, because it is ongoing and 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 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
[[Page 72485]]
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)--
We continue to find that listing this species is warranted but
precluded as of the date of publication of this notice. However, we are
working on a 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 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.
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 five
populations collectively 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 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
Hawaiian Islands of Maui and Hawaii. This species is currently known
from 6 populations collectively 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 feral pigs
(Sus scrofa), goats (Capra hircus), cattle (Bos taurus), mouflon (Ovis
musimon), feral sheep (O. aries), and slugs (Limax maximus, Milax
gagates, and Vaginulus plebeius); by degradation and destruction of
habitat by feral ungulates; and by nonnative plants that compete for
light and nutrients. 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 predating on
the plants which can result in death or reduction in reproductive
capacity. Overall, the threats to the species from pigs, goats, cattle,
mouflon, feral sheep, slugs, and nonnative plants are imminent and of
high magnitude. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 for this
species.
Ranunculus mauiensis (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 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
collectively totaling 198 individuals. Ranunculus mauiensis is
threatened by direct predation 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); by
habitat degradation and destruction by feral ungulates; 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 in 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 imminent and of high magnitude, since they are severe enough to
affect the continued existence of the species, leading to a relatively
high likelihood of extinction. 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 fewer 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
[[Page 72486]]
Understanding-Conservation Agreement. The Conservation Strategy,
completed in 2003, contains goals and objectives for recovery and
survival and 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, the
threats to R. subumbellata from various land uses have been reduced to
a moderate magnitude. In high lake level years such as 2011 and 2013,
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 Hawaiian Islands of Maui, Molokai, and Hawaii. It is presumed
extirpated from Lanai. Currently, this species is known from 8
populations collectively totaling between 30 and 32 individuals on
Maui, from 4 populations collectively 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. 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 ongoing threats from goats and
nonnative plants are imminent and of high magnitude. These threats
cause mortality and reduced reproductive capacity for the majority of
the populations, leading to a relatively high likelihood of extinction.
Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 for this species.
Sicyos macrophyllus ([revaps]Anunu)--We continue to find that
listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of
publication of this notice. However, we are working on a 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 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.
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 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 because they are leading to populations declines for a
species that already has low population numbers and fragmented
distribution; the threats are also ongoing and therefore imminent.
Therefore, we assigned a LPN of 2 to Solanum conocarpum.
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 individuals. On Molokai and the NWHI, this species is
exposed to threats from nonnative plants that outcompete and displace
it. Solanum nelsonii is exposed to threats 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. However, the threats are
ongoing and are not being controlled in the majority of sites, they are
therefore imminent. 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. Therefore, we have retained 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;
[[Page 72487]]
vulnerability associated with small population size; and drought
associated with climate change. Existing regulatory mechanisms are
inadequate to protect the species from these threats. The threats to
Frisco clover are 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. For example, although mining for precious metals
and gravel historically occurred throughout Frisco clover's range, and
mining operations may eventually expand into occupied habitats, there
are no active mines within the immediate vicinity of any known
population. 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. Cyclosorus boydiae is a
small- to medium-sized fern found in mesic to wet forests along stream
banks on the Hawaiian Islands of Oahu and Maui. It has been extirpated
from the island of Hawaii. Currently, C. boydiae is known from seven
populations collectively 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 threats are
imminent because they are ongoing, and of moderate magnitude because
pigs no longer threaten the largest population and nonnative plants
have been reduced. 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. Huperzia
stemmermanniae is an epiphytic, pendant clubmoss found in mesic-to-wet
Metrosideros polymorpha-Acacia koa (ohia-koa) forests on the Hawaiian
Islands of Maui and Hawaii. Only 3 populations are known, collectively
totaling approximately 20 individuals. The Maui population has not been
observed since 1995. Huperzia stemmermanniae is threatened by feral
pigs (Sus scrofa), 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. Huperzia
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 imminent and 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. 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 on the Hawaiian Islands of
Maui, Oahu, and Hawaii in 9 known populations collectively totaling at
least 50 individuals. M. s. 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. s. 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 and leading to a relatively high likelihood of
extinction. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 3 for this plant
variety.
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 and associated species assessment forms or 5-year
review documents also constitute the findings for the resubmitted
petitions to reclassify these species. Our updated assessments for
these species are provided below. We find that reclassification to
endangered status for one grizzly bear ecosystem population, delta
smelt, and Sclerocactus brevispinus are all currently warranted but
precluded by work identified above (see Findings for Petitioned
Candidate Species). We find that uplisting the Selkirk ecosystem
population and the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem population of grizzly bear is
no longer warranted; the species remains listed as threatened. One of
the primary reasons that the work identified above is considered to
have higher priority is that the grizzly bear population, 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
population (Region 6)--Since 1990, we have received and reviewed five
petitions requesting a change in status for the North Cascades grizzly
bear population (55 FR 32103, August 7, 1990; 56 FR 33892, July 24,
1991; 57 FR 14372, April 20, 1992; 58 FR 43856, August 18, 1993; 63 FR
30453, June 4, 1998). In response to these petitions, we
[[Page 72488]]
determined that grizzly bears in the North Cascade ecosystem warrant a
change to endangered status. In 2014, we continue to find that
reclassifying this population as endangered is warranted but precluded
and we continue to assign a LPN of 3 for the uplisting of the North
Cascades population based on high magnitude threats that are ongoing,
thus imminent. However, higher priority listing actions, including
court-approved settlements, court-ordered and statutory deadlines for
petition findings and listing determinations, emergency listing
determinations, and responses to litigation, continue to preclude
reclassifying grizzly bears in this ecosystem. Furthermore, proposed
rules to reclassify threatened species to endangered are a lower
priority than listing currently unprotected species (i.e., candidate
species), since species currently listed as threatened are already
afforded the protection of the ESA and the implementing regulations. We
continue to monitor this population and will change its status or
implement an emergency uplisting if necessary.
Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis)--Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem
population (Region 6)--Since 1992, we have received and reviewed six
petitions requesting a change in status for the Cabinet-Yaak grizzly
bear population (57 FR 14372, April 20, 1992; 58 FR 8250, February 12,
1993; 58 FR 43856, August 18, 1993; 58 FR 43856, August 18, 1993; 63 FR
30453, June 4, 1998; 64 FR 26725, May 17, 1999). In response to these
petitions, we previously determined that grizzly bears in the Cabinet-
Yaak ecosystem warranted a change to endangered status. However, for
several years, this population's status has been improving. The
population trend has now changed from declining to stable. The U.S.
Forest Service has established regulatory mechanisms for motorized
access management and attractant storage, and researchers have
documented some movement between the Cabinet-Yaak and other populations
in Canada. Together, these improvements have reduced the threats to
this population. Until the Record of Decision for motorized access
management is more fully implemented and we have several more years of
a positive population trend, we remain cautious in our interpretation.
We conclude that the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem population continues to
face several threats, and retain this populations's threatened status,
but we no longer find that the population is warranted for uplisting to
endangered status (i.e., ``on the brink of extinction''). This
constitutes our not-warranted finding on the six uplisting petitions we
received.
Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis)--Selkirk ecosystem
population (Region 6)--Since 1992, we have received and reviewed four
petitions requesting a change in status for individual grizzly bear
populations (57 FR 14372, April 20, 1992; 58 FR 8250, February 12,
1993; 58 FR 43856, August 18, 1993; 64 FR 26725, May 17, 1999). In
response to these petitions, we previously determined that grizzly
bears within the Selkirk ecosystem warranted a change to endangered
status but reclassification was precluded by higher priority listing
actions. However, improvements to habitat and the institutionalization
of those improvements in National Forest Land Management Plans, as well
as new information about population size have significantly reduced
threats to this population from habitat destruction, and improved the
adequacy of regulatory mechanisms. Population estimates indicate that
the population is approaching recovery goals of 90 bears, and levels of
human-caused mortality have been low in recent years. Additionally,
food storage orders have been implemented and some movement between the
Selkirk Mountains and other populations in Canada has been documented.
However, until there are significant improvements to regulatory
mechanisms in Canada, full implementation of motorized access
management by the U.S. Forest Service, and improved population
connectivity, we remain cautious in our interpretation. We conclude
that the Selkirk ecosystem population continues to face several threats
and will retain this populations's threatened status, but we no longer
find that the population is warranted for uplisting to endangered
status (i.e., ``on the brink of extinction''). This constitutes our
not-warranted finding on the four uplisting petitions we received.
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 that 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 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 at a
population level, 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 mi by 5 mi 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
[[Page 72489]]
threats has the potential to severely affect the survival of 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
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 notices 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 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 the 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 are those we included either as
proposed species or as candidates in the previous CNOR (published
November 22, 2013, at 78 FR 70104) that are no longer proposed species
or candidates for listing. Since November 22, 2013, we listed 33
species, withdrew 3 species from proposed status, and removed 13
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 the species is no longer 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 and species that are not subject to the degree of threats
sufficient that the species is a candidate for listing (for reasons
other than that conservation efforts have removed or reduced the
threats to the species).
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 and therefore are not candidates
for listing, 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.
[[Page 72490]]
Request for Information
We request you submit any further information on the species named
in this notice 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.
Public Availability of Comments
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 is published under the authority of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: November 18, 2014.
David Cottingham,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
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).
PE........... 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.
[[Page 72491]]
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).
PT........... 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.
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).
PE........... ............. R2........... Canis lupus Canidae........ Wolf, Mexican U.S.A. (AZ,
baileyi. gray. NM).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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............ 2............ R1........... Gymnomyza Meliphagidae... Ma'oma'o....... U.S.A. (AS),
samoensis. Independent
Samoa.
C *.......... 5............ R8........... Synthliboramphus Alcidae........ Murrelet, U.S.A. (CA),
hypoleucus. Xantus's. Mexico.
C *.......... 2............ R2........... Amazona Psittacidae.... Parrot, red- U.S.A. (TX),
viridigenalis. crowned. 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 *.......... 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 72492]]
REPTILES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C *.......... 8............ R3........... Sistrurus Viperidae...... Massasauga U.S.A. (IA, IL,
catenatus. (=rattlesnake) IN, MI, MN,
, eastern. MO, NY, OH,
PA, WI),
Canada.
PE........... ............. R1........... Emoia slevini... Scincidae...... Skink, Slevin's U.S.A. (Guam,
(Guali'ek Mariana
Halom Tano). Islands).
PT........... 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 *.......... 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).
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).
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.
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 *.......... 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 *.......... 5............ R4........... Moxostoma sp.... Catostomidae... Redhorse, U.S.A. (GA, NC,
sicklefin. TN).
C *.......... 3............ R8........... Spirinchus Osmeridae...... Smelt, longfin U.S.A. (AK, CA,
thaleichthys. (San Francisco OR, WA),
bay-delta DPS). Canada.
PSAT......... N/A.......... R1........... Salvelinus malma Salmonidae..... Trout, Dolly U.S.A. (AK,
Varden. WA), Canada,
East Asia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
PE........... 2............ R1........... Samoana fragilis Partulidae..... Snail, fragile U.S.A. (GU,
tree. MP).
PE........... 2............ R1........... Partula Partulidae..... Snail, Guam U.S.A. (GU).
radiolata. tree.
[[Page 72493]]
PE........... 2............ R1........... Partula gibba... Partulidae..... Snail, Humped U.S.A. (GU,
tree. MP).
PE........... 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.
C *.......... 5............ R8........... Hermelycaena Lycaenidae..... Butterfly, U.S.A. (CA).
[Lycaena] Hermes copper.
hermes.
PE........... 3............ R1........... Hypolimnas Nymphalidae.... Butterfly, U.S.A. (GU,
octucula Mariana eight- MP).
mariannensis. spot.
PE........... 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.
PE........... ............. R1........... Ischnura luta... Coenagrionidae. Damselfly, Rota U.S.A. (Mariana
blue. Islands).
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.
[[Page 72494]]
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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 *.......... 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.
C *.......... 8............ R6........... Boechera Brassicaceae... Rockcress, U.S.A. (WY).
(Arabis) Fremont County
pusilla. or small.
PE........... ............. R1........... Bulbophyllum Orchidaceae.... Cebello U.S.A. (Guam,
guamense. halumtano. Mariana
Islands).
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............ 2............ R1........... Cyanea Campanulaceae.. No common name. U.S.A. (HI).
kauaulaensis.
PT........... ............. R1........... Cycas Cycadaceae..... Fadang......... U.S.A. (Guam,
micronesica. Mariana
Islands).
C............ 2............ R1........... Cyperus Cyperaceae..... No common name. U.S.A. (HI).
neokunthianus.
C............ 2............ R1........... Cyrtandra Gesneriaceae... Ha[revaps]iwale U.S.A. (HI).
hematos.
C *.......... 3............ R4........... Dalea Fabaceae....... Prairie-clover, U.S.A. (FL).
carthagenensis Florida.
var. floridana.
PE........... ............. R1........... Dendrobium Orchidaceae.... No common name. U.S.A. (Guam,
guamens. Mariana
Islands).
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 *.......... 8............ R6........... Eriogonum Polygonaceae... Buckwheat, U.S.A. (UT).
soredium. Frisco.
PE........... ............. R1........... Eugenia bryanii. Myrtaceae...... No common name. U.S.A. (Guam).
C............ 2............ R1........... Exocarpos Santalaceae.... Menzies ballart U.S.A. (HI).
menziesii.
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........... ............. R1........... Hedyotis Rubiaceae...... Paudedo........ U.S.A. (Guam).
megalantha.
PE........... ............. R1........... Heritiera Malvaceae...... Ufa-halomtano.. U.S.A. (Guam,
longipetiolata. Mariana
Islands).
C *.......... 3............ R1........... Joinvillea Joinvilleaceae. [revaps]Ohe.... U.S.A. (HI).
ascendens
ascendens.
C *.......... 2............ R1........... Kadua Rubiaceae...... Kampua[revaps]a U.S.A. (HI).
(=Hedyotis)
fluviatilis.
C............ 2............ R1........... Kadua haupuensis Rubiaceae...... No common name. U.S.A. (HI).
C............ 2............ R1........... Labordia Loganiaceae.... No common name. U.S.A. (HI).
lorenciana.
C............ 2............ R1........... Lepidium Brassicaceae... No common name. U.S.A. (HI).
orbiculare.
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).
[[Page 72495]]
PE........... ............. R1........... Maesa walkeri... Primulaceae.... No common name. U.S.A. (Guam,
Mariana
Islands).
C *.......... 2............ R1........... Myrsine Myrsinaceae.... Kolea.......... U.S.A. (HI).
fosbergii.
PE........... ............. R1........... Nervilia Orchidaceae.... No common name. U.S.A. (Guam,
jacksoniae. Mariana
Islands).
C *.......... 2............ R1........... Nothocestrum Solanaceae..... [revaps]Aiea... U.S.A. (HI).
latifolium.
C *.......... 2............ R1........... Ochrosia Apocynaceae.... Holei.......... U.S.A. (HI).
haleakalae.
PE........... ............. R1........... Phyllanthus Phyllanthaceae. No common name. U.S.A. (Guam).
saffordii.
C............ 2............ R1........... Phyllostegia Lamiaceae...... No common name. U.S.A. (HI).
brevidens.
C............ 2............ R1........... Phyllostegia Lamiaceae...... No common name. U.S.A. (HI).
helleri.
C............ 2............ R1........... Phyllostegia Lamiaceae...... No common name. U.S.A. (HI).
stachyoides.
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............ 2............ R1........... Portulaca Portulacaceae.. Ihi............ U.S.A. (HI).
villosa.
C............ 2............ R1........... Pritchardia Arecaceae...... Lo[revaps]ulu U.S.A. (HI).
bakeri. (=Lo[revaps]ul
u lelo).
C *.......... 3............ R1........... Pseudognaphalium Asteraceae..... [revaps]Ena[rev U.S.A. (HI).
(=Gnaphalium) aps]ena.
sandwicensium
var.
molokaiense.
PE........... ............. R1........... Psychotria Rubiaceae...... Aplokating- U.S.A. (Guam).
malaspinae. palaoan.
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........... Sanicula Apiaceae....... No common name. U.S.A. (HI).
sandwicensis.
C............ 2............ R1........... Santalum Santalaceae.... No common name. U.S.A. (HI).
involutum.
C............ 3............ R1........... Schiedea diffusa Caryophyllaceae No common name. U.S.A. (HI).
ssp. diffusa.
C *.......... 2............ R1........... Schiedea Caryophyllaceae Ma[revaps]oli[r U.S.A. (HI).
pubescens. evaps]oli.
C............ 2............ R1........... Sicyos Cucurbitaceae.. No common name. U.S.A. (HI).
lanceoloideus.
C *.......... 2............ R1........... Sicyos Cucurbitaceae.. [revaps]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.
PE........... ............. R1........... Solanum guamense Solanaceae..... Bereng-henas U.S.A. (Guam,
halomtano. Mariana
Islands).
C *.......... 8............ R1........... Solanum nelsonii Solanaceae..... Popolo......... U.S.A. (HI).
C............ 3............ R1........... Stenogyne kaalae Lamiaceae...... No common name. U.S.A. (HI).
ssp. sherffii.
C............ 8............ R2........... Streptanthus Brassicaceae... Twistflower, U.S.A. (TX).
bracteatus. bracted.
PT........... ............. R1........... Tabernaemontana Apocynaceae.... No common name. U.S.A. (Guam,
rotensis. Mariana
Islands).
PE........... ............. R1........... Tinospora Menispermaceae. No common name. U.S.A (Guam).
homosepala.
C *.......... 8............ R6........... Trifolium Fabaceae....... Clover, Frisco. U.S.A. (UT).
friscanum.
PE........... ............. R1........... Tuberolabium Orchidaceae.... No common name. U.S.A. (Guam,
guamense. Mariana
Islands).
C............ 2............ R1........... Wikstroemia Thymelaeaceae.. No common name. U.S.A. (HI).
skottsbergiana.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERNS AND ALLIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C............ 2............ R1........... Asplenium Aspleniaceae... No common name. U.S.A. (HI).
diellaciniatum.
C *.......... 8............ R1........... Cyclosorus Thelypteridacea No common name. U.S.A. (HI).
boydiae. e.
C............ 2............ R1........... Deparia kaalaana Woodsiaceae.... No common name. U.S.A. (HI).
C............ 3............ R1........... Dryopteris Dryopteridaceae Kilau.......... U.S.A. (HI).
glabra var.
pusilla.
C............ 3............ R1........... Hypolepis Dennstaedtiacea Olua........... U.S.A. (HI).
hawaiiensis e.
var. mauiensis.
C *.......... 2............ R1........... Huperzia Lycopodiaceae.. Wawae[revaps]io U.S.A. (HI).
(=Phlegmariurus le.
)
stemmermanniae.
C *.......... 3............ R1........... Microlepia Dennstaedtiacea Palapalai...... U.S.A. (HI).
strigosa var. e.
mauiensis
(=Microlepia
mauiensis).
PE........... 3............ R4........... Trichomanes Hymenophyllacea Florida bristle U.S.A. (FL).
punctatum e. fern.
floridanum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 72496]]
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
Code Expl. range
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAMMALS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T............ L............ 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.
E............ L............ R2........... Zapus hudsonius Zapodidae...... Mouse, New U.S.A. (AZ, CO,
luteus. Mexico meadow NM).
jumping.
T............ L............ R1........... Thomomys mazama Geomyidae...... Pocket gopher, U.S.A. (WA).
glacialis. Roy Prairie.
T............ L............ R1........... Thomomys mazama Geomyidae...... Pocket gopher, U.S.A. (WA).
pugetensis. Olympia.
T............ L............ R1........... Thomomys mazama Geomyidae...... Pocket gopher, U.S.A. (WA).
tumuli. Tenino.
T............ L............ R1........... Thomomys mazama Geomyidae...... Pocket gopher, U.S.A. (WA).
yelmensis. Yelm.
Rc........... A............ R6........... Cynomys Sciuridae...... Prairie dog, U.S.A. (CO,
gunnisoni. Gunnison's NM).
(populations
in central and
south-central
Colorado,
north-central
New Mexico).
Rp........... A............ R6........... Gulo gulo luscus Mustelidae..... Wolverine, U.S.A. (CA, CO,
North American ID, MT, OR,
(Contiguous UT, WA, WY).
U.S. DPS).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIRDS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T............ L............ R8........... Coccyzus Cuculidae...... Cuckoo, yellow- U.S.A. (Lower
americanus. billed 48 States),
(Western U.S. Canada,
DPS). Mexico,
Central and
South America.
Rc........... A............ R7........... Gavia adamsii... Gaviidae....... Loon, yellow- U.S.A. (AK),
billed. Canada,
Norway,
Russia,
coastal waters
of southern
Pacific and
North Sea.
T............ L............ R2........... Tympanuchus Phasianidae.... Prairie- U.S.A. (CO, KA,
pallidicinctus. chicken, NM, OK, TX).
lesser.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPTILES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T............ L............ R2........... Thamnophis Colubridae..... Gartersnake, U.S.A. (AZ,
rufipunctatus. narrow-headed. NM).
T............ L............ R2........... Thamnophis eques Colubridae..... Gartersnake, U.S.A. (AZ, NM,
megalops. northern NV), Mexico.
Mexican.
Rc........... A............ R2........... Chionactis Colubridae..... Snake, Tucson U.S.A. (AZ).
occipitalis shovel-nosed.
klauberi.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMPHIBIANS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E............ L............ R8........... Rana muscosa.... Ranidae........ Frog, mountain U.S.A (CA, NV).
yellow-legged
(northern
California
DPS).
T............ L............ R1........... Rana pretiosa... Ranidae........ Frog, Oregon U.S.A. (CA, OR,
spotted. WA), Canada
(BC).
E............ L............ R8........... Rana sierrae.... Ranidae........ Frog, Sierra U.S.A. (CA,
Nevada yellow- NV).
legged frog.
T............ L............ R2........... Eurycea Plethodontidae. Salamander, U.S.A. (TX).
naufragia. Georgetown.
T............ L............ R2........... Eurycea Plethodontidae. Salamander, U.S.A. (TX).
chisholmensis. Salado.
T............ L............ R8........... Anaxyrus canorus Bufonidae...... Toad, Yosemite. U.S.A. (CA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISHES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rc........... A............ R6........... Iotichthys Cyprinidae..... Chub, least.... U.S.A. (UT).
phlegethontis.
Rc........... A............ R6........... Thymallus Salmonidae..... Grayling, U.S.A. (AK, MI,
arcticus. Arctic (upper MT, WY),
Missouri River Canada,
DPS). northern Asia,
northern
Europe.
[[Page 72497]]
E............ L............ R2........... Notropis Cyprinidae..... Shiner, U.S.A. (TX).
oxyrhynchus. sharpnose.
E............ L............ R2........... Notropis buccula Cyprinidae..... Shiner, U.S.A. (TX).
smalleye.
E............ L............ R2........... Catostomus Catostomidae... Sucker, Zuni U.S.A. (AZ,
discobolus bluehead. NM).
yarrowi.
Rc........... U............ R2........... Oncorhynchus Salmonidae..... Trout, Rio U.S.A. (CO,
clarki Grande NM).
virginalis. cutthroat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INSECTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E............ L............ R4........... Strymon acis Lycaenidae..... Butterfly, U.S.A. (FL).
bartrami. Bartram's
scrub-
hairstreak.
E............ L............ R4........... Anaea troglodyta Nymphalidae.... Butterfly, U.S.A. (FL).
floridalis. Florida
leafwing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARACHNIDS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rc........... N............ R2........... Cicurina wartoni Dictynidae..... Meshweaver, U.S.A. (TX).
Warton's cave.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLOWERING PLANTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E............ L............ R4........... Agave eggersiana Agavaceae...... No common name. U.S.A. (VI).
T............ L............ R4........... Arabis georgiana Brassicaceae... Rockcress, U.S.A. (AL,
Georgia. GA).
Rc........... A............ R1........... Astragalus Fabaceae....... Milkvetch, U.S.A. (ID).
cusickii var. Packard's.
packardiae.
E............ L............ R4........... Brickellia Asteraceae..... Brickell-bush, U.S.A. (FL).
mosieri. Florida.
Rc........... A............ R8........... Eriogonum Polygonaceae... Buckwheat, Las U.S.A. (NV).
corymbosum var. Vegas.
nilesii.
Rc........... A............ R8........... Eriogonum Polygonaceae... Buckwheat, U.S.A (NV).
diatomaceum. Churchill
Narrows.
Rc........... A............ R8........... Eriogonum Polygonaceae... Buckwheat, Red U.S.A. (CA).
kelloggii. Mountain.
E............ L............ R4........... Gonocalyx Ericaceae...... No common name. U.S.A. (PR).
concolor.
E............ L............ R4........... Helianthus Asteraceae..... Sunflower, U.S.A. (AL, GA,
verticillatus. whorled. TN).
T............ L............ R8........... Ivesia webberi.. Rosaceae....... Ivesia, Webber. U.S.A. (CA,
NV).
E............ L............ R4........... Leavenworthia Brassicaceae... Gladecress, U.S.A. (AL).
crassa. fleshy-fruit.
T............ L............ R4........... Leavenworthia Brassicaceae... Gladecress, U.S.A. (KY).
exigua var. Kentucky.
laciniata.
E............ L............ R4........... Linum carteri Linaceae....... Flax, Carter's U.S.A. (FL).
var. carteri. small-flowered.
E............ L............ R8........... Mimulus Phrymaceae..... Monkeyflower, U.S.A. (CA).
fremontii var. Vandenberg.
vandenbergensis.
Rp........... A............ R6........... Penstemon Scrophulariacea Beardtongue, U.S.A. (CO,
grahamii. e. Graham's. UT).
Rp........... A............ R6........... Penstemon Scrophulariacea Beardtongue, U.S.A. (CO,
scariosus var. e. White River. UT).
albifluvis.
E............ L............ R4........... Physaria globosa Brassicaceae... Bladderpod, U.S.A. (IN, KY,
Short's. TN).
Rc........... A............ R8........... Sedum Crassulaceae... Stonecrop, Red U.S.A. (CA).
eastwoodiae. Mountain.
Rc........... U............ R4........... Symphyotrichum Asteraceae..... Aster, Georgia. U.S.A. (AL, FL,
georgianum. GA, NC, SC).
T............ L............ R4........... Varronia Boraginaceae... No common name. U.S.A. (PR),
(=Cordia) Anegada.
rupicola.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2014-28536 Filed 12-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P