[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 232 (Friday, December 2, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 87246-87272]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28817]
[[Page 87245]]
Vol. 81
Friday,
No. 232
December 2, 2016
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
Notification of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description
of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 87246]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2016-0095; FF09E21000 FXES11190900000 167]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native
Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened;
Annual Notification of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual
Description of Progress on Listing Actions
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notification 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, and by 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 earlier candidate
conservation measures to alleviate threats to the species.
This CNOR summarizes the status and threats that we evaluated in
order to determine whether species qualify as candidates, to assign a
listing priority number (LPN) to each candidate 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.
This CNOR changes the LPN for one candidate. 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 30.
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,
2015, through September 30, 2016.
Moreover, we request any additional status information that may be
available for the 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 notification 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 Conservation and Communications, Falls Church, VA (see
address under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or on our Web site
(http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/candidate-species-report).
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 Conservation and
Communications, Falls Church, VA (see address under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief, Branch of Conservation and
Communications, 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 solely on the best scientific
and commercial data available. 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--either on our own initiative, or in
response to a petition we have received. If we have made a finding on a
petition to list a species, and 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 encourage
collaborative
[[Page 87247]]
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 CNORs since 1975. The most recent was
published on December 24, 2015 (80 FR 80584). 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 Conservation and Communications (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, 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 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(s).
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 species 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 concluded that 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/1983_LPN_Policy_FR_pub.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 more-
detailed explanation for our determination of the magnitude and
immediacy of threat(s) and assignment of the LPN.
To the extent this revised notice differs from any previous animal,
plant, and combined candidate notices of review for native species or
previous 12-month warranted-but-precluded petition findings for those
candidate species that were petitioned for listing, this notice
supercedes them.
Summary of This CNOR
Since publication of the previous CNOR on December 24, 2015 (80 FR
80584), 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 rules to list species under the ESA and on
final listing determinations. 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 change the LPN for one candidate.
Combined with other findings and determinations published separately
from this CNOR, a total of 30 species (10 plant and 20 animal species)
are now candidates awaiting preparation of rules proposing their
listing. Table 1 identifies these 30 species, along with the 20 species
currently proposed for listing (including 1 species proposed for
listing due to similarity in appearance).
Table 2 lists the changes for species identified in the previous
CNOR, and includes 97 species identified in the previous CNOR as either
proposed for listing or classified as candidates that are no longer in
those categories. This includes 78 species for which we
[[Page 87248]]
published a final listing rule (includes 11 DPSs of green sea turtle),
18 candidate species for which we published separate not-warranted
findings and removed them from candidate status, and 1 species for
which we published a withdrawal of a proposed rule.
New Candidates
We have not identified any new candidate species through this
notice but identified one species--island marble butterfly--as a
candidate on April 5, 2016, as a result of a separate petition finding
published in the Federal Register (81 FR 19527).
Listing Priority Changes in Candidates
We reviewed the LPNs for all candidate species and are changing the
number for the following species discussed below.
Flowering plants
Boechera pusilla (Fremont County rockcress)--The following summary
is based on information in our files and in the petition received on
July 24, 2007. Fremont County rockcress is a perennial herb consisting
of a single population made of eight subpopulations found on sparsely
vegetated granite-pegmatite outcrops at an elevation between 2,438 and
2,469 meters (m) (8,000 and 8,100 feet (ft)) in Fremont County,
Wyoming. The entire species' range is located on lands managed by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and is protected by their regulatory
mechanisms as well as by a 1998 Secretarial Order that withdraws the
species' habitat from mineral development for 50 years. The species'
range is likely limited by the presence of granite-pegmatite outcrops;
however, the species has likely persisted without competition from
other herbaceous plant or sagebrush-grassland species present in the
surrounding landscape due to this dependence on a very specific, yet
limited, substrate.
Overutilization and predation are not threats to the species, and
regulatory mechanisms have removed threats associated with habitat loss
and fragmentation. We previously determined that threats to the Fremont
County rockcress were moderate in magnitude and imminent, due largely
to uncertainty regarding a small and declining population size
attributed to an unknown threat. Although the population likely
declined in the past, new information since our last review has helped
clarify that the population likely fluctuates around a stable, average
size in response to precipitation, with the population increasing
during wet years and declining during dry years, but within a normal
range of variation that may not be a threat to the species. Therefore,
drought is likely the previously unidentified threat, which reduces the
size of the population. Although the effects of climate change may
result in drier summers, the Fremont County rockcress may benefit from
longer growing seasons and more precipitation at the start of the
growing season. Further, asexual reproduction helps reduce risks
associated with a small population size. However, stochastic events
could negatively affect the population, so drought and small population
size are threats to the species. Although the population has declined
in the past and could fluctuate in the future due to precipitation, the
entire species' habitat is protected by the BLM's fully implemented and
effective regulatory mechanisms, and no other impacts rise to the level
of a threat. With drought implicated as the previously unidentified
threat and an improved understanding of population fluctuations, we now
determine that the magnitude of the threat to the species from drought
is low. This is because the species may be adapted to drought and
stochastic events. No other threat is ongoing, so we determine that the
threats are now nonimminent. Additional surveys in 2016 will help
clarify population trends, fluctuations, and the effects of drought and
small population size on the species. Because the threats are low in
magnitude and are nonimminent, we are changing the LPN from an 8 to an
11.
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. As described further in the paragraphs that follow, 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) of the ESA, when we receive a
petition to list a species, 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, within 12 months of the receipt of the petition, one of
the following three possible findings (a ``12-month finding''):
(1) The petitioned action is not warranted, and promptly publish
the finding in the Federal Register;
(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 or not 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,'' and after making such a finding, we must promptly publish it
in the Federal Register.
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-
[[Page 87249]]
precluded 12-month findings. Nevertheless, if we receive a petition to
list a species that we have already identified as a candidate, 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 and made a continued warranted-but-precluded finding on a
resubmitted petition 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 for each such species at least once a year
in compliance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA, until we publish a
proposal to list the species or make a final not-warranted finding. We
make these annual resubmitted petition findings through the CNOR. To
the extent these annual findings differ from the initial 12-month
warranted-but-precluded finding or any of the resubmitted petition
findings in previous CNORs, they supercede the earlier findings,
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 candidate, we will make prompt
use of the emergency listing authority under section 4(b)(7) of the
ESA. 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 has precluded
action on listing candidate species.
In preparing this CNOR, we reviewed the current status of, and
threats to, the 29 candidates for which we have received a petition to
list and the 3 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, 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.
However, for some of these species, we are currently engaged in a
thorough review of all available data to determine whether to proceed
with a proposed listing rule; as a result of this review we may
conclude that listing is no longer warranted.
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, 2015, through September 30,
2016. 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/reports/candidate-species-report. 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)--either on our own
initiative or through the mechanism that section 4 provides for the
public to petition us to add species to the Lists of Endangered or
Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
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 proposals to determine whether any species is
threatened or endangered; and (2) that expeditious progress is being
[[Page 87250]]
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 proposed listing 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 regulation, and
(3) the Service's workload, along with the Service's prioritization of
the proposed listing regulation in relation to other actions in its
workload.
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 rules designating critical habitat or final critical habitat
determinations; 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
(31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, since FY 2002, the Service's
listing budget has included a subcap for critical habitat designations
for already-listed species to ensure that some funds within the listing
cap are available for completing Listing Program actions other than
critical habitat designations for already-listed species. (``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 all of the funds
within the critical habitat subcap to address court-mandated
designations of critical habitat, and consequently none of the funds
within the critical habitat subcap were available for other listing
activities. In some FYs since 2006, we have not needed to use all of
the funds within the critical habitat to comply with court orders, and
we therefore could use the remaining funds within the subcap towards
additional proposed listing determinations for high-priority candidate
species. In other FYs, while we did not need to use all of the funds
within the critical habitat subcap to comply with court orders
requiring critical habitat actions, we did not apply any of the
remaining funds towards additional proposed listing determinations, and
instead applied the remaining funds towards completing critical habitat
determinations concurrently with proposed listing determinations. This
allowed us to combine the proposed listing determination and proposed
critical habitat designation into one rule, thereby being more
efficient in our work. In FY 2016, based on the Service's workload, we
were able to use some of the funds within the critical habitat subcap
to fund proposed listing determinations.
Since FY 2012, Congress has 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
either subcap, we are able to use the remaining funds for completing
proposed or final listing determinations. In FY 2016, based on the
Service's workload, we were able to use some of the funds within 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 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 the cap and
subcaps, Congress and the courts have in effect determined the amount
of money available for listing activities nationwide. Therefore, the
funds that remain within the listing cap--after paying for work 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, respectively--set the framework within which we make our
determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.
For FY 2016, on December 18, 2015, Congress passed a Consolidated
Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 114-113), which provided funding through
September 30, 2016. That Appropriations Act included an overall
spending cap of $20,515,000 for the listing program. Of that, no more
than $4,605,000 could be used for critical habitat determinations; 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 from those comments 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. In the past,
we estimated that the median cost for preparing and publishing a 90-day
finding was $4,500 and for a 12-month finding, $68,875. We have
streamlined our processes for making 12-month petition findings to be
as efficient as possible to reduce these costs and we estimate that we
have cut this cost in half. We estimate that the
[[Page 87251]]
median costs for preparing and publishing a proposed listing rule with
proposed critical habitat is $240,000; and for a final listing
determination with a final critical habitat determination, $205,000.
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 ESA)
listing and critical habitat actions with absolute statutory deadlines;
and (4) section 4 listing actions that do not have absolute statutory
deadlines.
In previous years, the Service received many new petitions and a
single petition to list 404 species, significantly increasing the
number of actions within the third category of our workload--actions
that have absolute statutory deadlines. As a result of the outstanding
petitions to list hundreds of species, and our successful efforts to
continue making initial petition findings within 90 days of receiving
the petition to the maximum extent practicable, we currently have over
550 12-month petition findings yet to be initiated and completed.
Because we are not able to work on all of these at once, we recently
finalized a new methodology for prioritizing status reviews and
accompanying 12-month findings (81 FR 49248; July 27, 2016). Moving
forward, we are applying this methodology to 12-month findings to
prioritize the outstanding petition findings and develop a multi-year
workplan for completing them.
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), a species, or a 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.
Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened species
to endangered species are generally lower in priority, because as
listed species, they are already afforded the protections of the ESA
and implementing regulations. However, for efficiency reasons, we may
choose to work on a proposed rule to reclassify a species to endangered
if we can combine this with work that is subject to a court 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.
On September 1, 2016, the Service released its National Listing
Workplan for addressing ESA listing and critical habitat decisions over
the next seven years. The workplan identifies the Service's schedule
for addressing all 30 species currently on the candidate list and
conducting 320 status reviews (also referred to as 12-month findings)
for species that have been petitioned for federal protections under the
ESA. The petitioned species are prioritized using our final
prioritization methodology. As we implement our listing work plan and
work on proposed rules for the highest-priority species, we prepare
multi-species proposals when appropriate, and these include species
with lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same
threats as one of the highest-priority species.
Listing Program Workload. From 2011-2016, we proposed and finalized
listing determinations in accordance with a workplan we had developed
for our listing work for that time period; we have subsequently
developed a National Listing Workplan to cover the future period from
2017 to 2023. Each FY we determine, based on the amount of funding
Congress has made available within the Listing Program spending cap, if
we can accomplish the work that we have planned to do. Up until 2012,
we prepared Allocation Tables that identified the actions that we
funded for that FY, and how much we estimated it would cost to complete
each action; these Allocation Tables are part of our record for 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 478 species, and proposed listing
rules or not-warranted findings for 40 species.
These settlement agreements have led to a number of results that
affect our preclusion analysis. First, the Service has been 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, completion, before the end of FY 2016, of proposed listings
or not-warranted findings for the remaining candidate species that were
included in the 2010 CNOR was the Service's highest priority
(compliance with a court order) for FY 2016. Therefore, one of the
Service's highest priorities is to make steady progress towards
completing by the end of 2017 the remaining final listing
determinations for the 2010 candidate species taking
[[Page 87252]]
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 listing
actions with deadlines required by court orders and court-approved
settlement agreements and listing actions with absolute statutory
deadlines. We provide tables in the Expeditious Progress section,
below, identifying the listing actions that we completed in FY 2016, as
well as those we worked on but did not complete in FY 2016.
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 2016, we completed delisting rules for seven
species.) As discussed below, given the limited resources available for
listing, we find that we are making expeditious progress in adding
qualified species to the Lists.
We provide below tables cataloguing the work of the Service's
Listing Program in FY 2016. This work includes all three of the steps
necessary for adding species to the Lists: (1) Identifying species that
may warrant listing; (2) undertaking the evaluation of the best
available scientific data about those species and the threats they face
in preparation for a proposed or final determination; 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 are making expeditious progress to
add qualified species to the Lists.
First, we are making expeditious progress in listing qualified
species. In FY 2016, we resolved the status of 97 species that we
determined, or had previously determined, qualified for listing.
Moreover, for 78 of those species, the resolution was to add them to
the Lists, some with concurrent designations of critical habitat, and
for 1 species we published a withdrawal of the proposed rule. We also
proposed to list an additional 18 qualified species.
Second, we are making expeditious progress in working towards
adding qualified species to the Lists. In FY 2016, we worked on
developing proposed listing rules or not-warranted 12-month petition
findings for 3 species (most of them with concurrent critical habitat
proposals). Although we have not yet completed those actions, we are
making expeditious progress towards doing so.
Third, we are making expeditious progress in identifying additional
species that may qualify for listing. In FY 2016, we completed 90-day
petition findings for 57 species and 12-month petition findings for 30
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 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. The Service has completed proposed listing rules or not-
warranted findings for all 251 of the 2010 candidate species, as well
as final listing rules for 140 of those proposed rules, and is
therefore making adequate progress towards meeting all of the
requirements of the MDL Settlement Agreement. Both by entering into the
settlement agreement and by making progress towards final listing
determinations for those species proposed for listing (of the 251
species on the 2010 candidate list), the Service is making expeditious
progress to add qualified species to the lists.
The Service's progress in FY 2016 included completing and
publishing the following determinations:
FY 2016 Completed Listing Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publication date Title Actions FR pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/22/2015...................... 90-Day and 12-month 90-Day and 12-month 80 FR 79533-79554.
Findings on a petition findings--
Petition to List the Substantial and
Miami Tiger Beetle as warranted; Proposed
an Endangered or listing; Endangered.
Threatened Species;
Proposed Endangered
Species Status for
the Miami Tiger
Beetle.
1/6/2016........................ 12-Month Finding on a 12-Month petition 81 FR 435-458.
Petition to List the finding; Not
Alexander Archipelago warranted.
Wolf as an Endangered
or Threatened Species.
1/12/2016....................... 90-Day Findings on 17 90-Day petition 81 FR 1368-1375.
Petitions. findings;
Substantial and not
substantial.
3/16/2016....................... 90-Day Findings on 29 90-Day petition 81 FR 14058-14072.
Petitions. findings;
Substantial and not
substantial.
4/5/2016........................ 12-Month Findings on 12-Month petition 81 FR 19527-19542.
Petitions To List finding; Warranted
Island Marble but precluded and;
Butterfly, San Not warranted;
Bernardino Flying Candidate removal.
Squirrel, Spotless
Crake, and Sprague's
Pipit as Endangered
or Threatened Species.
[[Page 87253]]
4/6/2016........................ Final Rule to List Final Listing; 81 FR 20057-20090.
Eleven Distinct Endangered and
Population Segments Threatened.
of the Green Sea
Turtle (Chelonia
mydas) as Endangered
or Threatened and
Revision of Current
Listings Under the
Endangered Species
Act.
4/7/2016........................ Final Listing Final Listing; 81 FR 20449-20481.
Determination for the Endangered and
Big Sandy Crayfish Threatened.
and the Guyandotte
River Crayfish.
4/18/2016....................... Withdrawal of the Proposed Listing; 81 FR 22709-22808.
Proposed Rule To List Withdrawal.
the West Coast
Distinct Population
Segment of Fisher.
6/22/2016....................... Threatened Species Final Listing; 81 FR 40534-40547.
Status for the Elfin- Threatened.
Woods Warbler With
4(d) Rule.
7/6/2016........................ 12-Month Findings on 12-Month petition 81 FR 43972-43979.
Petitions To List the finding; Not
Eagle Lake Rainbow warranted.
Trout and the
Ichetucknee Siltsnail
as Endangered or
Threatened Species.
8/10/2016....................... Endangered Species Proposed Listing; 81 FR 52796-52809.
Status for Texas Endangered.
Hornshell.
8/17/2016....................... Threatened Status for Final Listing; 81 FR 55057-55084.
Lepidium papilliferum Threatened.
(Slickspot
Peppergrass)
Throughout Its Range.
9/9/2016........................ Endangered Species Proposed Listing; 81 FR 62450-62455.
Status for Guadalupe Endangered.
Fescue.
9/13/2016....................... Threatened Species Proposed Listing; 81 FR 62826-62833.
Status for Threatened.
Platanthera
integrilabia (White
Fringeless Orchid).
9/14/2016....................... 90-Day Findings on 10 90-Day petition 81 FR 63160-63165.
Petitions. findings;
Substantial and not
substantial.
9/15/2016....................... Threatened Species Proposed Listing; 81 FR 63454-63466.
Status for Threatened.
Chorizanthe parryi
var. fernandina (San
Fernando Valley
Spineflower).
9/20/2016....................... Threatened Species 12-Month petition 81 FR 64414-64426.
Status for the Iiwi finding; Warranted;
(Drepanis coccinea). Proposed Listing;
Threatened.
9/21/2016....................... Endangered Species Proposed Listing; 81 FR 64829-64843.
Status for Sonoyta Endangered.
Mud Turtle.
9/21/2016....................... 12-Month Findings on 12-Month petition 81 FR 64843-64857.
Petitions To List findings; Not
Nine Species as warranted; Candidate
Endangered or removals.
Threatened Species.
9/21/2016....................... Threatened Species Proposed Listing; 81 FR 64857-64868.
Status for Pearl Threatened.
Darter.
9/22/2016....................... Endangered Species 12-Month petition 81 FR 65324-65334.
Status for Rusty finding; Warranted;
Patched Bumble Bee. Proposed Listing;
Endangered.
9/22/2016....................... Endangered Status for Final Listing; 81 FR 65465-65508.
Five Species from Threatened.
American Samoa.
9/29/2016....................... Endangered Species Final Listing; 81 FR 66842-66865.
Status for Threatened and
Chamaecrista lineata Endangered.
var. keyensis (Big
Pine Partridge Pea),
Chamaesyce deltoidea
ssp. serpyllum (Wedge
Spurge), and Linum
arenicola (Sand
Flax), and Threatened
Species Status for
Argythamnia
blodgettii
(Blodgett's
Silverbush).
9/30/2016....................... Threatened Species Final Listing; 81 FR 67193-67214.
Status for the Threatened.
Eastern Massasauga
Rattlesnake.
9/30/2016....................... Endangered Species Proposed Listing; 81 FR 67270-67287.
Status for the Kenk's Endangered.
Amphipod.
9/30/2016....................... Endangered Status for Final Listing; 81 FR 67786-67860.
49 Species From the Endangered.
Hawaiian Islands.
10/4/2016....................... 12-Month Finding on a 12-Month petition 81 FR 68379-68397.
Petition to List the finding; Warranted;
Western Glacier Proposed Listing;
Stonefly as an Threatened.
Endangered or
Threatened Species;
Proposed Threatened
Species Status for
Meltwater Lednian
Stonefly and Western
Glacier Stonefly.
10/5/2016....................... Threatened Species Final Listing; 81 FR 68963-68985.
Status for Kentucky Threatened.
Arrow Darter with
4(d) Rule.
10/5/2016....................... Endangered Species Final Listing; 81 FR 68985-69007.
Status for the Miami Endangered.
Tiger Beetle
(Cicindelidia
floridana).
10/6/2016....................... Threatened Species Final Listing; 81 FR 69417-69425.
Status for Suwannee Threatened.
Moccasinshell.
10/6/2016....................... 12-Month Findings on 12-Month petition 81 FR 69425-69442.
Petitions To List 10 finding; Not
Species as Endangered warranted; Candidate
or Threatened Species. removal.
10/6/2016....................... Proposed Threatened Proposed Listing; 81 FR 69454-69475.
Species Status for Threatened.
Louisiana pinesnake.
10/6/2016....................... Endangered Species Proposed Listing; 81 FR 69500-69508.
Status for Black Endangered.
Warrior Waterdog.
[[Page 87254]]
10/11/2016...................... Proposed Threatened Proposed Listing; 81 FR 70282-70308.
Species Status for Threatened;
Sideroxylon Endangered.
reclinatum ssp.
austrofloridense
(Everglades Bully),
Digitaria pauciflora
(Florida Pineland
Crabgrass), and
Chamaesyce deltoidea
ssp. pinetorum
(Pineland Sandmat)
and Endangered
Species Status for
Dalea carthagenensis
var. floridana
(Florida Prairie-
Clover).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our expeditious progress also included work on listing actions that
we funded in previous fiscal years and in FY 2016, but did not complete
in FY 2016. 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. The Pacific walrus proposed
listing determination in the top portion of the table is being
conducted under a deadline set by a court through a court-approved
settlement agreement.
Actions Funded in Previous FYs and FY 2016 but Not Yet Completed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific walrus......................... Proposed listing determination.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hermes copper butterfly................ Proposed listing determination.
Cirsium wrightii (Wright's marsh Proposed listing determination.
thistle).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also funded work on resubmitted petition findings for 29
candidate species (species petitioned prior to the last CNOR). We did
not include an updated assessment form as part of our resubmitted
petition findings for the three candidate species for which we are
preparing either proposed listing determinations or not-warranted 12-
month findings. However, in the course of preparing the proposed
listing determinations or 12-month not-warranted findings for those
species, we have continued to monitor new information about their
status so that we can make prompt use of our authority under section
4(b)(7) of the ESA 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). Because the majority of these petitioned species were
already candidate species prior to our receipt of a petition to list
them, we had already assessed their status using funds from our
Candidate Conservation Program, so we continue to monitor the status of
these species through our Candidate Conservation Program. The cost of
updating the species assessment forms and publishing the joint
publication of the CNOR and resubmitted petition findings is shared
between the Listing Program and the Candidate Conservation Program.
During FY 2016, we also funded work on resubmitted petition
findings for petitions to uplist three listed species (one grizzly bear
population, 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, and have been
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 resolved the listing status of all of the
species we identified as candidates after 2010, 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 6.1 million acres of habitat. In some instances, the sustained
implementation of strategically designed conservation efforts has
culminated in making listing unnecessary for species that are
candidates for listing or for which listing has been proposed (see
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/non-listed-species-precluded-from-listing-due-to-conservation-report).
Findings for Petitioned Candidate Species
Below are updated summaries for petitioned candidates for which we
published findings under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA. In accordance
[[Page 87255]]
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.
Mammals
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 Pe[ntilde]asco 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, is 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
vulnerability of the White Mountains population, we conclude that the
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is in danger of extinction throughout all
of its known range now or in the foreseeable future.
Because 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 due to the lack of contiguous habitat, even a small impact on
the White Mountains could have a very large impact on the status of the
subspecies as a whole. The combination of its restricted range,
apparent small population size, and fragmented historical habitat make
the White Mountains population 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, and we assign an LPN of 6 to the
subspecies.
Sierra Nevada red fox, Sierra Nevada DPS (Vulpes vulpes necator)--
The following summary is based on information contained in our files
and in our warranted-but-precluded finding, published in the Federal
Register on October 8, 2015 (80 FR 60990). The Sierra Nevada red fox is
a subspecies of red fox found at high elevations (above 4,000 ft) in
the Cascade and Sierra Nevada mountains of Oregon and California. It is
somewhat smaller than lowland-dwelling red foxes, with a thicker coat
and furry pads on its feet during winter months to facilitate travel
over snow. The subspecies consists of two distinct population segments
(DPSs), one in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the other in the
Cascades. The only known remnant of the Sierra Nevada DPS is a
population in the Sonora Pass area estimated to contain approximately
29 adults, including an estimated 14 breeding individuals.
The Sierra Nevada DPS originally extended along the Sierra Nevada
Mountains above about 1,200 m (3,937 ft), from Sierra County south into
Inyo and Tulare Counties. Recent sightings have been limited to the
general area around Sonora Pass, and to the northern portion of
Yosemite National Park. Those areas are connected by high-quality
habitat, facilitating potential travel between them. The Yosemite
sightings were collected by remote camera on 3 days in the winter of
2014-2015, and indicate one to three individuals. The sightings around
Sonora Pass primarily consist of photographs and genetically-tested
hair or scat samples collected from 2011 to 2014 as part of a study of
red foxes in the area. The study covered approximately 50 square miles
(130 square kilometers), which was estimated to constitute 20 to 50
percent of the contiguous high-quality habitat in the general area.
Sierra Nevada red fox numbers in the study area dropped from six in
2011 to two in 2014. During the same time period, the study also
documented an increase in nonnative red foxes from zero to two
(possibly three), and an increase in the number of hybrids from zero to
eight. Scientists identified an additional three hybrids in 2013, but
they were no longer in the area in 2014. There is no evidence of
hybrids in the study area since 2014.
The Sierra Nevada DPS of the Sierra Nevada red fox may be
vulnerable to extinction from genetic swamping (gradual loss of the
identifying characteristics of a population due to extensive
hybridization). The DPS may also be vulnerable to outbreeding
depression (lowered survival or reproductive fitness in hybrids).
Because the DPS consists of few individuals, any portions of the
population not undergoing hybridization may be subject to inbreeding
depression (congenital defects due to breeding among close relatives).
If additional interbreeding with nonnative foxes is curtailed, then
inbreeding depression may also be a future concern for those portions
of the population that have undergone hybridization, because
hybridization can introduce new deleterious alleles into the
population. Small populations may also suffer proportionately greater
impacts from deleterious chance events such as storms or local disease
outbreaks. Finally, the DPS may be made more susceptible to extinction
because of competition with coyotes. Coyotes are known to chase and
kill red foxes, thereby excluding them from necessary habitat. Normally
they are kept out of high-elevation areas during winter, and during the
red-fox pupping season in early spring, by high snow banks, but coyotes
have recently been found living year-round in areas around Sonora Pass
occupied by Sierra Nevada red foxes. Global climate change may
facilitate encroachment of coyotes into the area by limiting deposition
and longevity of high-elevation snowpacks in the Sierra Nevada
Mountains. The threats to this red fox population are ongoing and,
therefore, imminent. The threats are high in magnitude because the
population is so small (fewer than 50 adults), and it could be
extirpated by any of the population-level threats discussed above.
Therefore, we assigned the Sierra Nevada DPS of the Sierra Nevada red
fox a LPN of 3.
Red tree vole, north Oregon coast DPS (Arborimus longicaudus)--The
[[Page 87256]]
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. Red tree voles
generally avoid younger forests, and while their nests are found in
younger forests, these forests are unlikely to provide long-term
persistence of red tree vole populations.
Although data are not available to rigorously assess population
trends, information from retrospective surveys indicates population
numbers of 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 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 not
preventing 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 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 the species'
reduced distribution, the red tree vole is 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)--We continue to find
that listing this subspecies is warranted but precluded as of the date
of publication of this notice. However, we are working on a thorough
review of all available data and expect to publish either a proposed
listing rule or a 12-month not-warranted finding prior to making the
next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the course of
preparing a proposed listing rule or not-warranted petition finding, we
are continuing to monitor new information about this subspecies' status
so that we can make prompt use of our authority under section 4(b)(7)
of the ESA in the case of an emergency posing a significant risk to the
subspecies.
Birds
Red-crowned parrot (Amazona viridigenalis)--The following summary
is based on information contained in the notice of 12-month finding (76
FR 62016; October 6, 2011), scientific reports, journal articles, and
newspaper and magazine articles, and on communications with internal
and external partners. Currently, 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 areas of isolated habitat in the
Mexican states of Veracruz, San Luis Potosi, Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas,
and northeast Queretaro, with the majority of its remaining range in
Tamaulipas. In Texas, red-crowned parrots occur 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 wild 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. The species within Texas is thought to move
between urban areas in search for food and other available resources.
Parrots were found to occur exclusively in urban habitats in the Texas
Lower Rio Grande Valley during the breeding season. Loss of nesting
habitat is a concern for the species in southern Texas. Nest boxes were
provided in 2011, in areas where the red-crowned parrots had actively
traveled during the prior spring, summer, and fall months; however, as
of March 2013, these nest sites had not been used. Recent monitoring
efforts for red-crowned parrots in Mexico have been done on a
relatively localized level, taking place on pastureland in southeastern
Tamaulipas and in forested areas of the Tamaulipan Sierras nearby to
Ciudad Victoria. In southern Texas, red-crowned parrots have been
included in Christmas Bird Counts, and special monitoring efforts have
included an online iNaturalist project developed in 2015, and an
intensive, one-night roost survey in January 2016.
The primary threats within Mexico and Texas remain habitat
destruction and modification from logging, deforestation, conversion of
suitable habitat, and urbanization; trapping; and illegal trade. Recent
reassessment of a site in southeastern Tamaulipas, first studied in the
1990s, showed red-crowned parrots to be persisting in pastureland with
remaining large trees, providing some hope that this species can
coexist with ranching, provided that large trees are left standing and
there is a high level of watchfulness to prevent poaching. Multiple
laws and regulations have been passed to control illegal trade, but
they are not adequately enforced; poaching of nests has been documented
as recently as 2015. In addition, existing regulations do not address
the habitat threats to the species. In South Texas, at least four city
ordinances have been put in place that prohibit malicious acts (injury,
mortality) to birds and their habitat. Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department now considers the species to be indigenous in Texas, a
classification that affords State protection for the individual
parrots. Conservation efforts include monitoring and habitat-use
research, as well as education and outreach in Mexico and Texas.
Conservation also includes revegetation efforts, as well as
conservation of existing native tracts of land, to provide habitat in
the future once trees have matured. Threats to the species are
extensive and are imminent, and, therefore, we have determined that an
LPN of 2 remains appropriate for the species.
Reptiles
Gopher tortoise, eastern population (Gopherus polyphemus) -- The
[[Page 87257]]
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. In the eastern portion of the gopher tortoise's range in
South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and Alabama (east of the Mobile and
Tombigbee Rivers) it 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 and predation (mainly on nests and young
tortoises), and existing regulatory mechanisms do not address habitat
enhancement or protection in perpetuity for relocated tortoise
populations. The magnitude of threats to the gopher tortoise in the
eastern part of its range is moderate to low, as populations extend
over a broad geographic area and conservation measures are in place in
some areas. However, because the species is currently being affected by
a number of threats including destruction and modification of its
habitat, disease, predation, and exotics, the threat is imminent. Thus,
we have assigned an LPN of 8 for this species.
Amphibians
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,
upward to Taylor County in western Georgia.
Prior to 2014, scientists thought there was a 125-km (78-mi)
separation between the western and eastern portions of the striped
newt's range. However, in 2014, the discovery of five adult striped
newts in Taylor County, Florida, represents a significant reduction in
the gap between these areas. In addition to the newts discovered in
Taylor County, Florida, researchers also discovered 15 striped newts
(14 paedomorphs and 1 non-gilled adult) in a pond in Osceola County,
Florida, in 2014, which represents a significant range expansion to the
south. 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 and drought,
and existing regulatory mechanisms have not addressed the threats.
Overall, the magnitude of the threats is moderate, and the threats are
ongoing and, therefore, imminent. Therefore, we assigned an LPN of 8 to
the striped newt.
Berry Cave salamander (Gyrinophilus gulolineatus)--The following
summary is based on information in our files. The Berry Cave salamander
is recorded from Berry Cave in Roane County; from Mud Flats, Aycock
Spring, Christian, Meades Quarry, Meades River, Fifth, and The Lost
Puddle caves in Knox County; from Blythe Ferry Cave in Meigs County;
from Small Cave in McMinn County; and from an unknown cave in Athens,
McMinn County, Tennessee. 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 documented two new populations of Berry
Cave salamanders at Aycock Spring and Christian caves and led species
experts to conclude that Berry Cave salamander populations are robust
at Berry and Mudflats caves, where population declines had been
previously reported. Further survey efforts in Berry Cave and Mudflats
Cave in 2014 and early 2015 confirmed that viable populations of Berry
Cave salamanders persist in these caves. One juvenile Berry Cave
salamander was spotted during a May 10, 2014, survey in Small Cave,
McMinn County. Significant sediment deposition was observed in the
sinkhole entrance to the cave, likely due to nearby agricultural and
pastureland use.
Ongoing threats to this species include lye leaching in the Meades
Quarry Cave as a result of past quarrying activities, the possible
development of a roadway with potential to affect the recharge area for
the Meades Quarry Cave system, urban development in Knox County, water-
quality impacts despite existing State and Federal laws, and
hybridization between spring salamanders and Berry Cave salamanders in
Meades Quarry Cave. These threats, coupled with confined distribution
of the species and apparent low population densities, are all factors
that leave the Berry Cave salamander vulnerable to extirpation. We have
determined that the Berry Cave salamander faces ongoing and therefore
imminent threats. The threats to the salamander are moderate in
magnitude because, although some of the threats to the species are
widespread, the salamander still occurs in several different cave
systems, and existing populations appear stable. We continue to assign
this species an LPN of 8.
Fishes
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 FR
19756), we determined that the longfin smelt San Francisco Bay-Delta
distinct population segment (Bay-Delta DPS) warranted listing as an
endangered or threatened species under the ESA, but that listing was
precluded by higher-priority listing actions. 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
[[Page 87258]]
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 2016. Longfin smelt abundance over the last decade is the
lowest recorded in the 40-year history of the FMWT monitoring surveys
of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly the
California Department of Fish and Game). The 2015 longfin smelt
abundance index numbers for the FMWT are the lowest ever recorded.
The primary threat to the DPS is from reduced freshwater flows.
Freshwater flows, especially winter-spring flows, are significantly
correlated with longfin smelt abundance (i.e., 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 (Corbula amurensis) and likely by increasing ammonium
concentrations. The threats remain high in magnitude, as they pose a
significant risk to the DPS throughout its range. The threats are
ongoing, and thus are imminent. Thus, 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 host fish migration and distribution of freshwater mussels.
This species is also threatened by sedimentation, dewatering, sand and
gravel mining, and chemical contaminants. These threats may be
exacerbated by the current and projected effects of climate change,
population fragmentation and isolation, and the anticipated threat of
nonnative species. Threats to the Texas 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
resliency of a population 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 host fish migration and distribution of freshwater mussels.
The species is also threatened by sedimentation, dewatering, sand and
gravel mining, and chemical contaminants. These threats may be
exacerbated by the current and projected effects of climate change,
population fragmentation and isolation, and the anticipated threat of
nonnative species. Threats to the Texas fawnsfoot and its habitat are
not being adequately addressed through existing regulatory mechanisms.
Because of the limited distribution of this endemic species and its
lack of mobility, these threats are likely to result in the extinction
of the Texas fawnsfoot in the foreseeable future.
The threats 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 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 resiliency of a
population and an increase in the species' vulnerability to extinction.
Based on imminent, high-magnitude threats, we assigned the Texas
fawnsfoot an LPN of 2.
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
[[Page 87259]]
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 host fish migration and distribution of freshwater mussels.
The species is also threatened by sedimentation, dewatering, sand and
gravel mining, and chemical contaminants. These threats may be
exacerbated by the current and projected effects of climate change,
population fragmentation and isolation, and the anticipated threat of
nonnative species. Threats to the golden orb and its habitat are not
being addressed by 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 resliency of a population
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 host fish migration and distribution of
freshwater mussels. The species is also threatened by sedimentation,
dewatering, sand and gravel mining, and chemical contaminants. These
threats may be exacerbated by the current and projected effects of
climate change, population fragmentation, and isolation, and the
anticipated threat of nonnative species. Threats to the 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 resliency of a
population 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 it is now known to occur only in four streams within
these basins. Only two populations appear large enough to be stable,
but evidence of recruitment is limited in one of them (the Concho River
population) so the San Saba River population 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 host fish migration and distribution of freshwater mussels.
This species is also threatened by sedimentation, dewatering, sand and
gravel mining, and chemical contaminants. These threats may be
exacerbated by the current and projected effects of climate change
(which will increase the frequency and magnitude of droughts),
population fragmentation and isolation, and the anticipated threat of
nonnative species. Threats to the Texas pimpleback and its habitat are
not being 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
[[Page 87260]]
population requirement, which causes a reduction in the resiliency of a
population 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
Magnificent ramshorn (Planorbella magnifica)--Magnificent ramshorn
is the largest North American air-breathing freshwater snail in the
family Planorbidae. It has a discoidal (i.e., coiling in one plane),
relatively thin shell that reaches a diameter commonly exceeding 35
millimeters (mm) and heights exceeding 20 mm. 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 was historically known from only
four sites in the lower Cape Fear River Basin in North Carolina--all
four sites appear to be extirpated. 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 suggest that the species may have
always been rare and localized.
Salinity and pH appear to have been major factors limiting the
distribution of the magnificent ramshorn, as the snail prefers
freshwater bodies with circumneutral pH (i.e., pH within the range of
6.8-7.5). While members of the family Planorbidae are hermaphroditic,
it is currently unknown whether magnificent ramshorns self-fertilize
their eggs, mate with other individuals of the species, or both. Like
other members of the Planorbidae family, the magnificent ramshorn is
believed to be primarily a vegetarian, feeding on submerged aquatic
plants, algae, and detritus. While several factors have likely
contributed to the possible extirpation of the magnificent ramshorn in
the wild, the primary factors include loss of habitat associated with
the extirpation of beavers (and their impoundments) in the early 20th
century, increased salinity and alteration of flow patterns, as well as
increased input of nutrients and other pollutants. 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 population of
the species comprised of approximately 300+ adults, a population with
approximately 200+ adults, and a population of 50+ small individuals.
Although captive populations of the species have been maintained since
1993, a single catastrophic event, such as a severe storm, disease, or
predator infestation, affecting a captive population could result in
the near extinction of the species. The threats are high in magnitude
and ongoing--therefore, we assigned this species an LPN of 2.
Insects
Hermes copper butterfly (Lycaena hermes)--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 thorough
review of all available data and expect to publish either a proposed
listing rule or a 12-month not-warranted finding prior to making the
next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the course of
preparing a proposed listing rule or not-warranted petition finding, 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) of
the ESA in the case of an emergency posing a significant risk to the
species.
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 life zone (i.e., Maricao Commonwealth Forest,
municipality of Maricao). The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly
population has been estimated at around 50 adults in the northern karst
region and fewer than 20 adults in the volcanic serpentine central
mountains of the island. The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly has only
been found utilizing Oplonia spinosa (prickly bush) as its host plant
(i.e., plant used for laying the eggs, which also serves as a food
source for development of the larvae).
The primary threats to the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly are
development, habitat fragmentation, and other natural or manmade
factors such as human-induced fires, use of herbicides and pesticides,
vegetation management, and climate change. These factors, if they
occurred in habitat occupied by the species, would substantially affect
the distribution and abundance of the species, as well as its habitat.
In addition, due to the lack of effective enforcement of existing
policies and regulations, the threats to the species' habitat are not
being reduced. These threats are of a high magnitue and are imminent
because the occurrence of known populations in areas that are subject
to development, increased traffic, increased road maintenance and
construction, and other threats directly affects the species during all
life stages and is likely to result in population decreases. These
threats are expected to continue and potentially increase in the
foreseeable future. Therefore, we assign an LPN of 2 to the Puerto
Rican harlequin butterfly. In 2015, the Service, through the Partners
for Fish and Wildlife Program, signed a cooperative agreement with a
local nongovernmental organization, Iniciativa Herpetol[oacute]gica, to
promote the enhancement and conservation of suitable habitat for the
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly on private lands located within its
range on the northern karst region of the island.
Rattlesnake-master borer moth (Papaipema eryngii)--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 31 sites in 7 States: Illinois, Arkansas, Kentucky,
Oklahoma, North Carolina, Kansas, and Missouri. Currently 27 of the
sites contain extant populations, 3 contain populations with unknown
status, and 1 contains a population that is considered extirpated. The
14 Missouri populations and 1 Kansas population were identified in 2015
and are considered extant; however, there are no trend data for these
sites.
[[Page 87261]]
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; the effects of stochastic events; and their
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 recorded
before 2015. The 15 populations identified in 2015 are under a range of
protection and management levels. 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 this status
currently provides no statutory protection. 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 an LPN of 8 to this species.
Arapahoe snowfly (Arsapnia 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. Until 2013,
the Arapahoe snowfly had been confirmed in only two streams (Elkhorn
Creek and Young Gulch), both of which are small tributaries of the
Cache la Poudre River in the Roosevelt National Forest, Larimer County,
Colorado. However, the species has not been identified in Young Gulch
since 1986; it is likely that either the habitat became unsuitable or
other unknown causes extirpated the species. Habitats at Young Gulch
were further degraded by the High Park Fire in 2012, and potentially by
a flash flood in September 2013. New surveys completed in 2013 and 2014
identified the Arapahoe snowfly in seven new localities, including
Elkhorn Creek, Sheep Creek (a tributary of the Big Thompson River),
Central Gulch (a tributary of Saint Vrain Creek), and Bummer's Gulch,
Martin Gulch, and Bear Canyon Creek (tributaries of Boulder Creek in
Boulder County). However, the numbers of specimens collected at each
location were extremely low. These new locations occur on U.S. Forest
Service land, Boulder County Open Space, and private land.
Climate change is a threat to the Arapahoe snowfly and modifies its
habitats by reducing snowpacks, altering streamflows, increasing water
temperatures, fostering mountain pine beetle outbreaks, and increasing
the frequency of destructive wildfires. Limited dispersal capabilities,
a 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 are not addressing 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 catastrophic
events (and potential impacts from climate change), there are no
stochastic or catastrophic events that are currently occurring, and
although temperatures are increasing, the increasing temperatures are
not yet having adverse effects on the species. Therefore, we have
assigned the Arapahoe snowfly an LPN of 5.
Flowering Plants
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
[[Page 87262]]
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 addressing these threats to the species.
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 (Chapin Mesa milkvetch)--The following
summary is based on information provided by Mesa Verde National Park
and Colorado Natural Heritage Program, contained in our files, and in
the petition we received on July 30, 2007. Chapin Mesa milkvetch is a
narrow endemic perennial plant that grows in the mature pinyon-juniper
woodland of mesa tops on Chapin Mesa in the Mesa Verde National Park
and in the adjoining Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Park in southern 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. Cheatgrass is
likely to increase given its rapid spread and persistence in habitat
disturbed by wildfires, fire and fuels management, and development of
infrastructure, and given the inability of land managers to control it
on a landscape scale. Other threats to Chapin Mesa milkvetch include
fires, fire-break clearings, and drought. Existing regulatory
mechanisms are not addressing the threats. The threats to the species
overall are imminent and moderate in magnitude, because the species is
currently facing them in many portions of its range, but the threats do
not collectively result in population declines on a short time scale.
Therefore, we have assigned Chapin Mesa milkvetch an LPN of 8.
Boechera pusilla (Fremont County rockcress)--See above summary
under Listing Priority Changes in Candidates.
Cirsium wrightii (Wright's marsh thistle)--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 thorough
review of all available data and expect to publish either a proposed
listing rule or a 12-month not-warranted finding prior to making the
next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the course of
preparing a proposed listing rule or not-warranted petition finding, 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) of
the ESA 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 square miles (13 square
kilometers), 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 it will take time for the mining operations to be put
into place and to affect the species. 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 in conjunction
with surface disturbance from mining activities. Existing regulatory
mechanisms are not addressing the threats to the species.
Vulnerabilities of the species include small population size and
climate change. 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.
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
square miles (13 square kilometers), 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 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. Other threats to the
species include nonnative species, vulnerability associated with small
population size, and climate change. Existing regulatory mechanisms are
not addressing the threats to the species. 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
[[Page 87263]]
across its entire range. Therefore, we have assigned Ostler's
peppergrass an LPN of 8.
Pinus albicaulis (whitebark pine)--The following summary is based
on information in our files and in the petition received on December 9,
2008. Whitebark pine 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. Whitebark pine 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. Although whitebark pine is still also experiencing some
mortality from predation by the native mountain pine beetle
(Dendroctonus ponderosae), the current epidemic is subsiding. We also
anticipate that continuing environmental effects resulting from climate
change will result in direct habitat loss for whitebark pine. Models
predict that suitable habitat for whitebark pine will decline
precipitously within the next 100 years. Past and ongoing fire
suppression is also negatively affecting populations of whitebark pine
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 not addressing the threats presented above.
As the mountain-pine-beetle epidemic is subsiding, we no longer
consider this threat to be having the high level of impact that was
seen in recent years. However, given projected warming trends, we
expect that conditions will remain favorable for epidemic levels of
mountain pine beetle into the foreseeable future. The significant
threats from white pine blister rust, fire and fire suppression, and
environmental effects of climate change remain on the landscape.
However, the overall magnitude of threats to whitebark pine is somewhat
diminished given the current absence of epidemic levels of mountain
pine beetle, and because of this, individuals with genetic resistance
to white pine blister rust likely have a higher probability of
survival. Survival and reproduction of genetically resistant trees are
critical to the persistence of the species given the imminent,
ubiquitous presence of white pine blister rust on the landscape.
Overall, the threats to the species are ongoing, and therefore
imminent, and are moderate in magnitude. We find the current LPN of 8
is appropriate.
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 population declines for a species
that already has low population numbers and fragmented distribution;
the threats are also ongoing and therefore imminent. Therefore, we
assigned an LPN of 2 to Solanum conocarpum.
Streptanthus bracteatus (bracted twistflower)--The following
summary is based on information obtained from our files, on-line
herbarium databases, surveys and monitoring data, seed-collection data,
and scientific publications. Bracted twistflower, an annual herbaceous
plant of the Brassicaceae (mustard family), is endemic to a small
portion of the Edwards Plateau of Texas. The Texas Natural Diversity
Database, as revised on March 8, 2015, lists 17 element occurrences
(EOs; populations) that were documented from 1989 to 2015 in five
counties. Currently, 10 EOs remain with intact habitat, 2 EOs are
partially intact, 2 EOs are on managed rights-of-way, and 3 EO sites
have been developed and the populations are presumed extirpated. Only 8
of the intact EOs and portions of 2 EOs are in protected natural areas.
Four extant EOs are vulnerable to development and other impacts. Five
EOs have been partially or completely developed, including 2 EOs that
were destroyed in 2012 and 2013, respectively.
The continued survival of bracted twistflower is imminently
threatened by habitat destruction from urban development, severe
herbivory from dense herds of white-tailed deer and other herbivores,
and the increased density of woody plant cover. Additional ongoing
threats include erosion and trampling from foot and mountain-bike
trails, a pathogenic fungus of unknown origin, and insufficient
protection by existing regulations. Furthermore, due to the small size
and isolation of remaining populations, and lack of gene flow between
them, several populations are now inbred and may have insufficient
genetic diversity for long-term survival. Bracted twistflower
populations often occur in habitats that also support the endangered
golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia), and while that does
afford some protection to the plant, the two species may require
different vegetation management. Bracted twistflower is potentially
threatened by as-yet unknown impacts of climate change. The Service has
established a voluntary memorandum of agreement with Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department, the City of Austin, Travis County, the Lower
Colorado River Authority, and the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center
to protect bracted twistflower and its habitats on tracts of Balcones
Canyonlands Preserve. While the scope of this agreement does not
protect the species throughout its range, the implementaiton of these
responsibilities result in a moderate magnitude of threats and in the
future will contribute to the species' conservation and recovery. The
threats to bracted twistflower are ongoing and, therefore, imminent;
consequently we maintain 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
[[Page 87264]]
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 in conjunction with
surface disturbance from mining activities. Existing regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to protect the species from these threats.
Vulnerabilities of the species include small population size and
climate change.
The threats to Frisco clover are moderate in magnitude, because,
while serious and occurring throughout a majority of its range, 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.
However, activity may resume at one gravel mine on State lands in the
near future where expansion plans have been discussed but not submitted
to the State of Utah for permitting. At this time, avoidance of
occupied habitat appears to be feasible for this mine's expansion.
Overall, the threats of mining activities, invasive species, inadequacy
of existing regulatory mechanisms, small population size, and climate
change are imminent, because the species is currently facing these
threats across its entire range. Therefore, we have assigned Frisco
clover an LPN of 8.
Petitions To Reclassify Species Already Listed
We previously made warranted-but-precluded findings on three
petitions seeking to reclassify threatened species to endangered
status. The taxa involved in the reclassification petitions are one
population 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, above). 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. Those protections are set forth in our
regulations: 50 CFR 17.40(b) (grizzly bear); 50 CFR 17.31, and, by
reference, 50 CFR 17.21 (delta smelt); and 50 CFR 17.71, and, by
reference, 50 CFR 17.61 (Sclerocactus brevispinus). It is therefore
unlawful for any person, among other prohibited acts, to take (i.e., to
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or
collect, or attempt to engage in such activity) a grizzly bear or a
delta smelt, subject to applicable exceptions. And it is unlawful for
any person, among other prohibited acts, to remove or reduce to
possession Sclerocactus brevispinus from an area under Federal
jurisdiction, subject to applicable exceptions. 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 determined
that grizzly bears in the North Cascade ecosystem warrant a change to
endangered status. We have continued to find that these petitions are
warranted but precluded through our annual CNOR process. On February
19, 2015, in partnership with the National Park Service, we issued a
notice of intent to jointly prepare a North Cascades Ecosystem Grizzly
Bear Restoration Plan and Environmental Impact Statement to determine
how to restore the grizzly bear to the North Cascades ecosystem (80 FR
8894; February 19, 2015). Natural recovery in this ecosystem is
challenged by the absence of a verified population (only three
confirmed observations in the last 20 years), as well as isolation from
any contiguous population in British Columbia and the United States.
In 2016, we continue to find that reclassifying grizzly bears in
this ecosystem as endangered is warranted but precluded, and we
continue to assign an LPN of 3 for the uplisting of the North Cascades
population based on high-magnitude threats, including very small
population size, incomplete habitat protection measures (motorized-
access management), and population fragmentation resulting in genetic
isolation. However, we also acknowledge the possibility that there is
no longer a population present in the ecosystem, and restoration
efforts (possibly including designation of an experimental population
under section 10(j) of the ESA) may be used to establish a viable
population in this recovery zone. The threats are high in magnitude,
because the limiting factors for grizzly bears in this recovery zone
are human-caused mortality and extremely small population size. The
threats are ongoing, and 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), as species currently listed as
threatened are already afforded protection under the ESA and the
implementing regulations. We continue to monitor grizzly bears in this
ecosystem and will change their status or implement an emergency
uplisting if necessary.
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 and the petition we received on
March 8, 2006. Delta smelt are slender-bodied fish, generally about 60
to 70
[[Page 87265]]
millimeters (mm) (2 to 3 inches (in)) long, although they may reach
lengths of up to 120 mm (4.7 in). Delta smelt are in the Osmeridae
family (smelts). Live fish are nearly translucent and have a steely
blue sheen to their sides. Delta smelt feed primarily on small
planktonic (free-floating) crustaceans, and occasionally on insect
larvae. Delta smelt are endemic to the San Francisco Bay and
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Delta) in California. Studies
indicate that delta smelt require specific environmental conditions
(freshwater flow, water quality) and habitat types within the estuary
for migration, spawning, egg incubation, rearing, and larval and
juvenile transport from spawning to rearing habitats. Delta smelt are a
euryhaline (tolerate a wide range of salinities) species; however, they
rarely occur in water with salinities more than 10-12 (about one-third
seawater). Feyrer et al. found that relative abundance of delta smelt
was related to fall salinity and turbidity (water clarity). Laboratory
studies found that delta smelt larval feeding increased with increased
turbidity.
Delta smelt have been in decline for decades, and numbers have
trended precipitously downward since the early 2000s. In the wet water
year of 2011, the Fall Mid-Water Trawl (FMWT) index for delta smelt
increased to 343, which is the highest index recorded since 2001. It
immediately declined again in 2012 to 42 and continued to decline in
2013 and 2014, when the index was 18 and 9, respectively. A new all-
time low was reached in 2015 with an index of 7. Eleven of the last 12
years have seen FMWT indexes that have been the lowest ever recorded,
and the 2015-2016 results from all five of the surveys analyzed in this
review have been the lowest ever recorded for the delta smelt.
The primary known threats cited in the 12-month finding to
reclassify the delta smelt from threatened to endangered (75 FR 17667;
April 7, 2010) are: Entrainment by State and Federal water export
facilities; summer and fall increases in salinity due to reductions in
freshwater flow and summer and fall increases in water clarity; and
effects from introduced species, primarily the overbite clam and Egeria
densa. Additional threats included predation, entrainment into power
plants, contaminants, and the increased vulnerability to all these
threats resulting from small population size. Since the 2010 warranted
12-month finding, we have identified climate change as a threat;
climate change was not analyzed in the 2010 12-month finding. Since the
2010 12-month finding, one of the two power plants within the range of
the delta smelt using water for cooling has shut down, and power plants
are no longer thought to be a threat to the population as a whole. We
have identified a number of existing regulatory mechanisms that provide
protective measures that affect the stressors acting on the delta
smelt. Despite these existing regulatory mechanisms and other
conservations efforts, the decrease in population levels makes clear
that the stressors continue to act on the species such that it is
warranted for uplisting under the ESA.
We are unable to determine with certainty which threats or
combinations of threats are directly responsible for the decrease in
delta smelt abundance. However, the apparent low abundance of delta
smelt in concert with ongoing threats throughout its range indicates
that the delta smelt is now in danger of extinction throughout its
range. The threats to the species are of a high magnitude, and
imminent. Therefore, we retained an LPN of 2 for uplisting this
species.
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)--Pariette cactus is restricted
to clay badlands of the Uinta geologic formation in the Uinta Basin of
northeastern Utah. The species is restricted to one population with an
overall range of approximately 16 miles by 5 miles in extent. The
species' entire population is within a developed and expanding oil and
gas field. The location of the species' habitat exposes it to
destruction from road, pipeline, and well-site construction in
connection with oil and gas development. The species may be illegally
collected as a specimen plant for horticultural use. Recreational off-
road vehicle use and livestock trampling are additional threats. The
species is currently federally listed as threatened (44 FR 58868,
October 11, 1979; 74 FR 47112, September 15, 2009). The threats are of
a high magnitude, because any one of the 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. 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 the Pariette cactus. Furthermore, proposed rules to
reclassify threatened species to endangered are generally a lower
priority than listing currently unprotected species (i.e., candidate
species), as species currently listed as threatened are already
afforded the protection of the ESA and the implementing regulations.
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 document
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.
[[Page 87266]]
In Table 1, the ``category'' column on the left side of the table
identifies the status of each species according to the following codes:
PE--Species proposed for listing as endangered. Proposed species are
those species for which we have published a proposed rule to list as
endangered or threatened in the Federal Register. This category does
not include species for which we have withdrawn or finalized the
proposed rule.
PT--Species proposed for listing as threatened.
PSAT--Species proposed for listing as threatened due to similarity of
appearance.
C--Candidates: Species for which we have on file sufficient information
on biological vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list
them as endangered or threatened. Issuance of proposed rules for these
species is precluded at present by other higher priority listing
actions. This category includes species for which we made a 12-month
warranted-but-precluded finding on a petition to list. We made new
findings on all petitions for which we previously made ``warranted-but-
precluded'' findings. We identify the species for which we made a
continued warranted-but-precluded finding on a resubmitted petition by
the code ``C*'' in the category column (see Findings for Petitioned
Candidate Species 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
December 24, 2015, at 80 FR 80584) that are no longer proposed species
or candidates for listing. Since December 24, 2015, we listed 78
species, withdrew 1 species from proposed status, and removed 18
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 the candidate list, 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 the best available information on biological
vulnerability and threats is insufficient to support a conclusion that
the species is an endangered species or a threatened species.
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.
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,
[[Page 87267]]
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).
HQ (Foreign). Chief, Branch of Foreign Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Headquarters, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA
22041-3803 (703/358-2370).
We will provide information we receive 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 14, 2016.
Stephen Guertin,
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C *.......... 6.......... R2.............. Tamias minimus Sciuridae...... Chipmunk, U.S.A. (NM).
atristriatus. Pe[ntilde]asco
least.
C *.......... 3.......... R8.............. Vulpes vulpes Canidae........ Fox, Sierra U.S.A. (CA,
necator. Nevada red OR).
(Sierra Nevada
DPS).
C *.......... 9.......... R1.............. Arborimus Cricetidae..... Vole, Red U.S.A. (OR).
longicaudus. (north Oregon
coast DPS).
C *.......... 9.......... R7.............. Odobenus Odobenidae..... Walrus, Pacific U.S.A. (AK),
rosmarus Russian
divergens. Federation
(Kamchatka and
Chukotka).
PT........... 6.......... R6.............. Gulo gulo Mustelidae..... Wolverine, U.S.A. (CA, CO,
luscus. North American ID, MT, OR,
(Contiguous UT, WA, WY).
U.S. DPS).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIRDS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PT........... ........... R1.............. Drepanis Fringillidae... Iiwi U.S.A. (HI).
coccinea. (honeycreeper).
C *.......... 2.......... R2.............. Amazona Psittacidae.... Parrot, red- U.S.A. (TX),
viridigenalis. crowned. Mexico.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPTILES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PT........... 5.......... R4.............. Pituophis Colubridae..... Snake, U.S.A. (LA,
ruthveni. Louisiana pine. TX).
C *.......... 8.......... R4.............. Gopherus Testudinidae... Tortoise, U.S.A. (AL, FL,
polyphemus. gopher GA, LA, MS,
(eastern SC).
population).
PE........... 6.......... R2.............. Kinosternon Kinosternidae.. Turtle, Sonoyta U.S.A. (AZ),
sonoriense mud. Mexico.
longifemorale.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMPHIBIANS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C *.......... 8.......... R4.............. Notophthalmus Salamandridae.. Newt, striped.. U.S.A. (FL,
perstriatus. GA).
C *.......... 8.......... R4.............. Gyrinophilus Plethodontidae. Salamander, U.S.A. (TN).
gulolineatus. Berry Cave.
PE........... 2.......... R4.............. Necturus Proteidae...... Waterdog, black U.S.A. (AL).
alabamensis. warrior ( =
Sipsey Fork).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISHES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PT........... 8.......... R2.............. Gila nigra..... Cyprinidae..... Chub, headwater U.S.A. (AZ,
NM).
PT........... 9.......... R2.............. Gila robusta... Cyprinidae..... Chub, roundtail U.S.A. (AZ, CO,
(Lower NM, UT, WY).
Colorado River
Basin DPS).
[[Page 87268]]
PE........... 2.......... R5.............. Crystallaria Percidae....... Darter, diamond U.S.A. (KY, OH,
cincotta. TN, WV).
PT........... 8.......... R4.............. Percina aurora. Percidae....... Darter, Pearl.. U.S.A. (LA,
MS).
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 Salmonidae..... Trout, Dolly U.S.A. (AK,
malma. 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.
PE........... 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 Unionidae...... Pimpleback, U.S.A. (TX).
petrina. Texas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNAILS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C *.......... 2.......... R4.............. Planorbella Planorbidae.... Ramshorn, U.S.A. (NC).
magnifica. magnificent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INSECTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PE........... ........... R3.............. Bombus affinis. Apidae......... Bee, rusty U.S.A. (CT, DE,
patched bumble. DC, GA, IL,
IN, IA, KY,
ME, MD, MA,
MI, MN, MO,
NH, NJ, NY,
NC, ND, OH, ,
PA, RI, SC,
SD, TN, VT,
VA, WV, WI,
Canada
(Ontario,
Quebec).
C *.......... 5.......... R8.............. Lycaena hermes. Lycaenidae..... Butterfly, U.S.A. (CA).
Hermes copper.
C *.......... 3.......... R1.............. Euchloe Pieridae....... Butterfly, U.S.A. (WA).
ausonides Island marble.
insulanus.
C *.......... 2.......... R4.............. Atlantea tulita Nymphalidae.... Butterfly, U.S.A. (PR).
Puerto Rican
harlequin.
C *.......... 8.......... R3.............. Papaipema Noctuidae...... Moth, U.S.A. (AR, IL,
eryngii. rattlesnake- KY, NC, OK).
master borer.
C *.......... 5.......... R6.............. Arsapnia (= Capniidae...... Snowfly, U.S.A. (CO).
Capnia) Arapahoe.
arapahoe.
PT........... 5.......... R6.............. Lednia tumana.. Nemouridae..... Stonefly, U.S.A. (MT).
meltwater
lednian.
PT........... ........... R6.............. Zapada glacier. Nemouridae..... Stonefly, U.S.A. (MT).
western
glacier.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRUSTACEANS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PE........... 8.......... R5.............. Stygobromus Crangonyctidae. Amphipod, U.S.A. (DC).
kenki. Kenk's.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLOWERING PLANTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C *.......... 8.......... R6.............. Astragalus Fabaceae....... Milkvetch, U.S.A. (CO).
microcymbus. skiff.
C *.......... 8.......... R6.............. Astragalus Fabaceae....... Milkvetch, U.S.A. (CO).
schmolliae. Chapin Mesa.
C *.......... 8.......... R6.............. Boechera (= Brassicaceae... Rockcress, U.S.A. (WY).
Arabis) Fremont County
pusilla. or small.
PT........... 12......... R4.............. Chamaesyce Euphorbiaceae.. Sandmat, U.S.A. (FL).
deltoidea pineland.
pinetorum.
PT........... 6.......... R8.............. Chorizanthe Polygonaceae... Spineflower, U.S.A. (CA).
parryi var. San Fernando
fernandina. Valley.
C *.......... 8.......... R2.............. Cirsium Asteraceae..... Thistle, U.S.A. (AZ,
wrightii. Wright's. NM), Mexico.
PT........... 3.......... R4.............. Dalea Fabaceae....... Prairie-clover, U.S.A. (FL).
carthagenensis Florida.
var. floridana.
PT........... 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........... 11......... R2.............. Festuca Poaceae........ Fescue, U.S.A. (TX),
ligulata. Guadalupe. Mexico.
C *.......... 8.......... R6.............. Lepidium Brassicaceae... Peppergrass, U.S.A. (UT).
ostleri. Ostler's.
C *.......... 8.......... R6.............. Pinus Pinaceae....... Pine, whitebark U.S.A. (CA, ID,
albicaulis. MT, NV, OR,
WA, WY),
Canada (AB,
BC).
PE........... 2.......... R1.............. Sicyos Cucurbitaceae.. Anunu.......... U.S.A. (HI).
macrophyllus.
[[Page 87269]]
PT........... 12......... R4.............. Sideroxylon Sapotaceae..... Bully, U.S.A. (FL).
reclinatum Everglades.
austrofloriden
se.
C *.......... 2.......... R4.............. Solanum Solanaceae..... Bacora, marron. U.S.A. (PR).
conocarpum.
C *.......... 8.......... R2.............. Streptanthus Brassicaceae... Twistflower, U.S.A. (TX).
bracteatus. bracted.
C *.......... 8.......... R6.............. Trifolium Fabaceae....... Clover, Frisco. U.S.A. (UT).
friscanum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E............ L.......... R1.............. Emballonura Emballonuridae. Bat, Pacific U.S.A. (AS),
semicaudata sheath-tailed Fiji,
semicaudata. (American Independent
Samoa DPS). Samoa, Tonga,
Vanuatu.
Rp........... A.......... 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.
Rc........... U.......... R1.............. Urocitellus Sciuridae...... Squirrel, U.S.A. (WA,
washingtoni. Washington OR).
ground.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIRDS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rc........... A.......... R1.............. Porzana Rallidae....... Crake, spotless U.S.A. (AS),
tabuensis. (American Australia,
Samoa DPS). Fiji,
Independent
Samoa,
Marquesas,
Philippines,
Society
Islands,
Tonga.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Gallicolumba Columbidae..... Ground-dove, U.S.A. (AS),
stairi. friendly Independent
(American Samoa.
Samoa DPS).
E............ L.......... R1.............. Oceanodroma Hydrobatidae... Storm-petrel, U.S.A. (HI),
castro. band-rumped Atlantic
(Hawaii DPS). Ocean, Ecuador
(Galapagos
Islands),
Japan.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Gymnomyza Meliphagidae... Ma'oma'o....... U.S.A. (AS),
samoensis. Independent
Samoa.
Rc........... U.......... R8.............. Synthliboramphu Alcidae........ Murrelet, U.S.A. (CA),
s hypoleucus. Xantus's. Mexico.
Rc........... A.......... R6.............. Anthus Motacillidae... Pipit, U.S.A. (AR, AZ,
spragueii. Sprague's. CO, KS, LA,
MN, MS, MT,
ND, NE, NM,
OK, SD, TX),
Canada,
Mexico.
T............ L.......... R4.............. Dendroica Emberizidae.... Warbler, elfin- U.S.A. (PR).
angelae. woods.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPTILES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PT........... 8.......... R3.............. Sistrurus Viperidae...... Massasauga (= U.S.A. (IA, IL,
catenatus. rattlesnake), IN, MI, MN,
eastern. MO, NY, OH,
PA, WI),
Canada.
T............ L.......... R1.............. Chelonia mydas. Cheloniidae.... Sea turtle, Central North
green (Central Pacific Ocean.
North Pacific
DPS).
E............ L.......... R1.............. Chelonia mydas. Cheloniidae.... Sea turtle, Central South
green (Central Pacific Ocean.
South Pacific
DPS).
E............ L.......... R1.............. Chelonia mydas. Cheloniidae.... Sea turtle, Central West
green (Central Pacific Ocean.
West Pacific
DPS).
T............ L.......... HQ (Foreign).... Chelonia mydas. Cheloniidae.... Sea turtle, Eastern Indian
green (East and Western
Indian-West Pacific
Pacific DPS). Oceans.
T............ L.......... R8.............. Chelonia mydas. Cheloniidae.... Sea turtle, East Pacific
green (East Ocean.
Pacific DPS).
E............ L.......... HQ (Foreign).... Chelonia mydas. Cheloniidae.... Sea turtle, Mediterranean
green Sea.
(Mediterranean
DPS).
[[Page 87270]]
T............ L.......... R4.............. Chelonia mydas. Cheloniidae.... Sea turtle, North Atlantic
green (North Ocean.
Atlantic DPS).
T............ L.......... HQ (Foreign).... Chelonia mydas. Cheloniidae.... Sea turtle, North Indian
green (North Ocean.
Indian DPS).
T............ L.......... R4.............. Chelonia mydas. Cheloniidae.... Sea turtle, South Atlantic
green (South Ocean.
Atlantic DPS).
T............ L.......... HQ (Foreign).... Chelonia mydas. Cheloniidae.... Sea turtle, Southwest
green Indian Ocean.
(Southwest
Indian DPS).
T............ L.......... HQ (Foreign).... Chelonia mydas. Cheloniidae.... Sea turtle, Southwest
green Pacific Ocean.
(Southwest
Pacific DPS).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMPHIBIANS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rc........... U.......... R8.............. Lithobates onca Ranidae........ Frog, relict U.S.A. (AZ, NV,
leopard. UT).
Rc........... N.......... R2.............. Hyla wrightorum Hylidae........ Treefrog, U.S.A. (AZ),
Arizona Mexico
(Huachuca/ (Sonora).
Canelo DPS).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISHES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rc........... A.......... R6.............. Etheostoma Percidae....... Darter, U.S.A. (AR, CO,
cragini. Arkansas. KS, MO, OK).
T............ L.......... R4.............. Etheostoma Percidae....... Darter, U.S.A. (KY).
spilotum. Kentucky arrow.
Rc........... U.......... R4.............. Moxostoma sp... Catostomidae... Redhorse, U.S.A. (GA, NC,
sicklefin. TN).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLAMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T............ L.......... R4.............. Medionidus Unionidae...... Moccasinshell, U.S.A. (FL,
walkeri. Suwannee. GA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNAILS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rc........... N.......... R4.............. Elimia Pleuroceridae.. Mudalia, black. U.S.A. (AL).
melanoides.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Eua zebrina.... Partulidae..... Snail, no U.S.A. (AS).
common name.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Ostodes Potaridae...... Snail, no U.S.A. (AS).
strigatus. common name.
Rc........... A.......... R2.............. Pyrgulopsis Hydrobiidae.... Springsnail, U.S.A. (AZ),
thompsoni. Huachuca. Mexico.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INSECTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E............ L.......... R1.............. Hylaeus Colletidae..... Bee, Hawaiian U.S.A. (HI).
anthracinus. yellow-faced.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Hylaeus Colletidae..... Bee, Hawaiian U.S.A. (HI).
assimulans. yellow-faced.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Hylaeus facilis Colletidae..... Bee, Hawaiian U.S.A. (HI).
yellow-faced.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Hylaeus hilaris Colletidae..... Bee, Hawaiian U.S.A. (HI).
yellow-faced.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Hylaeus kuakea. Colletidae..... Bee, Hawaiian U.S.A. (HI).
yellow-faced.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Hylaeus Colletidae..... Bee, Hawaiian U.S.A. (HI).
longiceps. yellow-faced.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Hylaeus mana... Colletidae..... Bee, Hawaiian U.S.A. (HI).
yellow-faced.
Rc........... A.......... R4.............. Pseudanophthalm Carabidae...... Cave beetle, U.S.A. (KY).
us caecus. Clifton.
Rc........... A.......... R4.............. Pseudanophthalm Carabidae...... Cave beetle, U.S.A. (KY).
us frigidus. icebox.
Rc........... A.......... R4.............. Pseudanophthalm Carabidae...... Cave beetle, U.S.A. (KY).
us troglodytes. Louisville.
Rc........... X.......... R4.............. Pseudanophthalm Carabidae...... Cave beetle, U.S.A. (KY).
us parvus. Tatum.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Megalagrion Coenagrionidae. Damselfly, U.S.A. (HI).
xanthomelas. orangeblack
Hawaiian.
Rc........... X.......... R2.............. Heterelmis Elmidae........ Riffle beetle, U.S.A. (AZ).
stephani. Stephan's.
Rc........... A.......... R4.............. Cicindela Cicindelidae... Tiger beetle, U.S.A. (FL).
highlandensis. highlands.
E............ L.......... R4.............. Cicindelidia Cicindelidae... Tiger beetle, U.S.A. (FL).
floridana. Miami.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRUSTACEANS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T............ L.......... R5.............. Cambarus Cambaridae..... Crayfish, Big U.S.A. (KY, VA,
callainus. Sandy. WV).
[[Page 87271]]
E............ L.......... R5.............. Cambarus Cambaridae..... Crayfish, U.S.A. (WV).
veteranus. Guyandotte
River.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Procaris Procarididae... Shrimp, U.S.A. (HI).
hawaiana. anchialine
pool.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLOWERING PLANTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T............ L.......... R4.............. Argythamnia Euphorbiaceae.. Silverbush, U.S.A. (FL).
blodgettii. Blodgett's.
Rc........... A.......... R1.............. Artemisia Asteraceae..... Wormwood, U.S.A. (OR,
borealis var. northern. WA).
wormskioldii.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Calamagrostis Poaceae........ Reedgrass, Maui U.S.A. (HI).
expansa.
E............ L.......... R4.............. Chamaecrista Fabaceae....... Pea, Big Pine U.S.A. (FL).
lineata var. partridge.
keyensis.
E............ L.......... R4.............. Chamaesyce Euphorbiaceae.. Spurge, wedge.. U.S.A. (FL).
deltoidea
serpyllum.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Cyanea Campanulaceae.. No common name. U.S.A. (HI).
kauaulaensis.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Cyperus Cyperaceae..... No common name. U.S.A. (HI).
neokunthianus.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Cyrtandra Gesneriaceae... Haiwale........ U.S.A. (HI).
hematos.
Rc........... N.......... R5.............. Dichanthelium Poaceae........ Panic grass, U.S.A. (DE, GA,
hirstii. Hirst NC, NJ).
Brothers'.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Exocarpos Santalaceae.... Heau........... U.S.A. (HI).
menziesii.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Festuca Poaceae........ No common name. U.S.A. (HI).
hawaiiensis.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Gardenia remyi. Rubiaceae...... Nanu........... U.S.A. (HI).
E............ L.......... R1.............. Joinvillea Joinvilleaceae. Ohe............ U.S.A. (HI).
ascendens
ascendens.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Kadua (= Rubiaceae...... Kampuaa........ U.S.A. (HI).
Hedyotis)
fluviatilis.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Kadua Rubiaceae...... No common name. U.S.A. (HI).
haupuensis.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Labordia Loganiaceae.... No common name. U.S.A. (HI).
lorenciana.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Lepidium Brassicaceae... Anaunau........ U.S.A. (HI).
orbiculare.
T............ L.......... R1.............. Lepidium Brassicaceae... Peppergrass, U.S.A. (ID).
papilliferum. slickspot.
E............ L.......... R4.............. Linum arenicola Linaceae....... Flax, sand..... U.S.A. (FL).
E............ L.......... R1.............. Myrsine Myrsinaceae.... Kolea.......... U.S.A. (HI).
fosbergii.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Nothocestrum Solanaceae..... Aiea........... U.S.A. (HI).
latifolium.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Ochrosia Apocynaceae.... Holei.......... U.S.A. (HI).
haleakalae.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Phyllostegia Lamiaceae...... No common name. U.S.A. (HI).
brevidens.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Phyllostegia Lamiaceae...... No common name. U.S.A. (HI).
helleri.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Phyllostegia Lamiaceae...... No common name. U.S.A. (HI).
stachyoides.
T............ L.......... R4.............. Platanthera Orchidaceae.... Orchid, white U.S.A. (AL, GA,
integrilabia. fringeless. KY, MS, NC,
SC, TN, VA).
E............ L.......... R1.............. Portulaca Portulacaceae.. Ihi............ U.S.A. (HI).
villosa.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Pritchardia Arecaceae...... Loulu (= Loulu U.S.A. (HI).
bakeri. lelo).
E............ L.......... R1.............. Pseudognaphaliu Asteraceae..... Enaena......... U.S.A. (HI).
m (=
Gnaphalium)
sandwicensium
var.
molokaiense.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Ranunculus Ranunculaceae.. Makou.......... U.S.A. (HI).
hawaiensis.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Ranunculus Ranunculaceae.. Makou.......... U.S.A. (HI).
mauiensis.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Sanicula Apiaceae....... No common name. U.S.A. (HI).
sandwicensis.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Santalum Santalaceae.... Iliahi......... U.S.A. (HI).
involutum.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Schiedea Caryophyllaceae No common name. U.S.A. (HI).
diffusa ssp.
diffusa.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Schiedea Caryophyllaceae Maolioli....... U.S.A. (HI).
pubescens.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Sicyos Cucurbitaceae.. Anunu.......... U.S.A. (HI).
lanceoloideus.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Solanum Solanaceae..... Popolo......... U.S.A. (HI).
nelsonii.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Stenogyne Lamiaceae...... No common name. U.S.A. (HI).
kaalae ssp.
sherffii.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Wikstroemia Thymelaceae.... Akia........... U.S.A. (HI).
skottsbergiana.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERNS AND ALLIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E............ L.......... R1.............. Asplenium Aspleniaceae... No common name. U.S.A. (HI).
diellaciniatum.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Cyclosorus Thelypteridacea Kupukupu U.S.A. (HI).
boydiae. e. makalii.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Deparia Athyraceae..... No common name. U.S.A. (HI).
kaalaana.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Dryopteris Dryopteridaceae Hohiu.......... U.S.A. (HI).
glabra var.
pusilla.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Huperzia (= Lycopodiaceae.. No common name. U.S.A. (HI).
Phlegmariurus)
stemmermanniae.
[[Page 87272]]
E............ L.......... R1.............. Hypolepis Dennstaedtiacea Olua........... U.S.A. (HI).
hawaiiensis e.
var. mauiensis.
E............ L.......... R1.............. Microlepia Dennstaedtiacea No common name. U.S.A. (HI).
strigosa var. e.
mauiensis (=
Microlepia
mauiensis).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2016-28817 Filed 12-1-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P