Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions, 75176-75244 [E8-28986]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 10, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75176-75244]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-28986]



[[Page 75175]]

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

Part II





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



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

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 10, 2008 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 75176]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R9-ES-2008-0115; MO-9221050083 - B2]


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of review.

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

SUMMARY: In this Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service (Service), present an updated list of plant and 
animal species native to the United States that we regard as candidates 
for or have proposed for addition to the Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended. Identification of candidate species can assist 
environmental planning efforts by providing advance notice of potential 
listings, allowing landowners and resource managers to alleviate 
threats and thereby possibly remove the need to list species as 
endangered or threatened. Even if we subsequently list a candidate 
species, the early notice provided here could result in more options 
for species management and recovery by prompting candidate conservation 
measures to alleviate threats to the species.
    The CNOR summarizes the status and threats that we evaluated in 
order to determine that species qualify as candidates and to assign a 
listing priority number (LPN) to each species, or to remove species 
from candidate status. Additional material that we relied on is 
available in the Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment 
Forms (species assessment forms, previously called candidate forms) for 
each candidate species.
    Overall, this CNOR recognizes 1 new candidate, changes the LPN for 
11 candidates, and removes 2 species from candidate status. Combined 
with other decisions for individual species that were published 
separately from this CNOR in the past year, the current number of 
species that are candidates for listing is 251.
    This document also includes our findings on resubmitted petitions 
and describes our progress in revising the Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants during the period September 30, 2007, 
through September 30, 2008.
    We request additional status information that may be available for 
the 251 candidate species identified in this CNOR.

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

ADDRESSES: This notice is available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov, and https://endangered.fws.gov/candidates/
index.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 Candidate Conservation, Arlington, VA (see address below), or 
on our Internet website (https://endangered.fws.gov/candidates/
index.html). Please submit any new information materials, comments, or 
questions of a general nature on this notice to the Arlington, VA, 
address listed below. 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Endangered Species Coordinator(s) 
in the appropriate Regional Office(s) or Chief, Branch of Candidate 
Conservation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203 (telephone 703-358-2105; facsimile 703-
358-1735). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf 
(TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-
8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Information Solicited

    We request additional status information that may be available for 
any of the candidate species identified in this CNOR. We will consider 
this information in preparing listing documents and future revisions to 
the notice of review, as it will help us in monitoring changes in the 
status of candidate species and in management for conserving them. We 
also request information on additional species to consider including as 
candidates as we prepare future updates of this notice.
    You may submit your information concerning this notice in general 
or for any of the species included in this notice by one of the methods 
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    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 in SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION. General information we receive will be available at the 
Branch of Candidate Conservation, Arlington, VA (see address above).

Candidate Notice of Review

Background

    The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.) (Act), requires that we identify species of wildlife and plants 
that are endangered or threatened, based on the best available 
scientific and commercial information. As defined in section 3 of the 
Act, an endangered species is any species which is in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a 
threatened species is any species which 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 to list as endangered or threatened, but for which 
preparation and publication of a proposal is precluded by higher-
priority listing actions. A species may be indentified by us as a 
candidate for listing based on an evaluation of its status that we 
conducted on our own initiative, or as a result of making a finding on 
a petition to list a species that listing is warranted but precluded by 
other higher priority listing action (see the Petition Findings 
section, below).
    We maintain this list of candidates for a variety of reasons: to 
notify the public that these species are facing threats to their 
survival; to provide advance knowledge of potential listings that could 
affect decisions of environmental planners and developers; to provide 
information that may stimulate and guide conservation efforts that will 
remove or reduce threats to these species and possibly make listing 
unnecessary; to solicit input from interested parties to help us 
identify those candidate species that may not require protection under 
the Act or additional species that may require the

[[Page 75177]]

Act's protections; and to solicit necessary information for setting 
priorities for preparing listing proposals. We strongly encourage 
collaborative conservation efforts for candidate species and offer 
technical and financial assistance to facilitate such efforts. For 
additional information regarding such assistance, please contact the 
appropriate Regional Office listed in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION or 
visit our Internet website, https://endangered.fws.gov/candidates/
index.html.

Previous Notices of Review

    We have been publishing candidate notices of review (CNOR) since 
1975. The most recent CNOR (prior to this CNOR) was published on 
December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69033). CNORs published since 1994 are 
available on our Internet website, https://www.fws.gov/endangered/
candidates/. For copies of CNORs published prior to 1994, 
please contact the Branch of Candidate Conservation (see ADDRESSES 
section above).
    On September 21, 1983, we published guidance for assigning an LPN 
for each candidate species (48 FR 43098). Using this guidance, we 
assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of 
threats, immediacy of threats, and taxonomic status; the lower the LPN, 
the higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 
would have the highest listing priority). Such a priority ranking 
guidance system is required under section 4(h)(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 
1533(h)(3)). 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. When 
evaluating the magnitude of the threat(s) facing the species, we 
consider information such as: the number of populations and/or extent 
of range of the species affected by the threat(s); the biological 
significance of the affected population(s), taking into consideration 
the life history characteristics of the species and its current 
abundance and distribution; 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; and whether the effects are 
likely to be permanent.
    As used in our priority ranking system, immediacy of threat is 
categorized as either ``imminent'' or ``nonimminent'' and is not a 
measure of how quickly the species is likely to become extinct if the 
threats are not addressed; rather, immediacy is based on when the 
threats will begin. If a threat is currently occurring or likely to 
occur in the very near future, we classify the threat as imminent. 
Determining the immediacy of threats helps ensure that species facing 
actual, identifiable threats are given priority for listing proposals 
over those for which threats are only potential or species that are 
intrinsically vulnerable to certain types of threats but are not known 
to be presently facing such threats.
    Our priority ranking system has three categories for taxonomic 
status: species that are the sole members of a genus; full species (in 
a genus that has more than one species); and subspecies, distinct 
population segments of vertebrate species, and species for which 
listing is appropriate in a significant portion of their range rather 
than their entire range.
    The result of the ranking system is that we assign each candidate a 
listing priority number of 1 to 12. For example, if the threat(s) is 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 
(e.g., a species that is the only member of a genus would be assigned 
to the LPN 1 category, a full species to LPN 2, and a subspecies, DPS, 
or a species for which listing is appropriate in a significant portion 
of its range would be assigned to LPN 3). In summary, the LPN ranking 
system provides a basis for making decisions about the relative 
priority for preparing a proposed rule to list a given species. No 
matter which LPN we assign to a species, each species included in this 
notice as a candidate is one for which we have sufficient information 
to prepare a proposed rule to list it 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 guidance is available on our website at: https://
www.fws.gov/endangered/policy/. For more information on the 
LPN assigned to a particular species, the species assessment for each 
candidate contains the LPN chart and a rationale for the determination 
of the magnitude and imminence of threat(s) and assignment of the LPN; 
that information is summarized in this CNOR.
    This revised notice supersedes all previous animal, plant, and 
combined candidate notices of review.

Summary of This CNOR

    Since publication of the CNOR on December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69033), 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 high 
priorities (i.e., species with LPNs of 1, 2, or 3). This review and 
reevaluation ensures that we focus conservation efforts on those 
species at greatest risk first.
    In addition to reviewing candidate species since publication of the 
last CNOR, we have worked on numerous findings in response to petitions 
to list species, and on proposed and final determinations for rules to 
list species under the Act. Some of these findings and determinations 
have been completed and published in the Federal Register, while work 
on others is still under way. See the discussions of Preclusion and 
Expeditious Progress, below, for details.
    Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information, with this CNOR we identify 1 new candidate species (see 
New Candidates , below), change the LPN for 11 candidates (see Listing 
Priority Changes in Candidates, below) and determine that listing 
proposals are not warranted for 2 species and thus remove them from 
candidate status (see Candidate Removals, below). Combined with the 
other decisions published separately from this CNOR for individual 
species that previously were candidates, a total of 251 species 
(including 109 plant and 142 animal species) are now candidates 
awaiting preparation of rules proposing their listing. These 251 
species, along with the 50 species currently proposed for listing, are 
included in Table 1.
    Table 2 lists the changes from the previous CNOR, and includes 
three species identified in the previous CNOR as either proposed for 
listing or classified as candidates that are no longer in those 
categories. This includes one species for which we published a final 
rule to list, plus the two species that we have determined do not 
warrant preparation of a rule to propose listing and therefore have 
been removed from candidate status in this CNOR.

[[Page 75178]]

New Candidates

    Below we present a brief summary of one new plant candidate, 
Sphaeralcea gierischii (Gierisch mallow), which we are recognizing in 
this CNOR. Complete information, including references, can be found in 
the species assessment form. You may obtain a copy of this form from 
the Regional Office having the lead for the species (Region 2), or from 
our Internet website (https://endangered.fws.gov/candidates/). 
For this species, we find that we have on file sufficient information 
on biological vulnerability and threats to support a proposal to list 
as endangered or threatened, but that preparation and publication of a 
proposal is precluded by higher-priority listing actions (i.e., it met 
our definition of a candidate species). We also note below that four 
other species, Gunnison's prairie dog (specifically in the portion of 
its range in montane portions of central and south central Colorado and 
north central New Mexico), Rio Grande cutthroat trout, northern Mexican 
garter snake, and Jollyville Plateau salamander, were identified as 
candidates earlier this year as a result of separate petition findings 
published in the Federal Register.

Mammals

    Gunnison's prairie dog (Cynomys gunnisoni) - In a separate 
warranted but precluded 12-month petition finding published on February 
5, 2008 (73 FR 6660), we previously announced candidate status for the 
Gunnison's prairie dog in the montane portion of its range, located in 
central and south-central Colorado and north-central New Mexico. As 
described in that notice, we determined that the montane portion of the 
range, which comprises approximately 40 percent of the total range of 
the species, is a significant portion of the range where listing the 
species is warranted. In that notice we assigned the population an LPN 
of 2. In this CNOR, we are making a technical correction to the LPN, 
changing it to a 3. This correction makes the LPN for Gunnison's 
prairie dog consistent with the clear intent of our 1983 LPN guidance 
(48 FR 43098). Under our LPN guidance, among listable entities facing 
threats of the same magnitude and imminence, a species that is the only 
member of a genus has highest priority (e.g. LPN 1), a full species (in 
a genus with more than one species) has the next highest priority (e.g. 
LPN 2), and a subspecies or DPS are in the following priority category 
(e.g. LPN 3). To be consistent with this approach, when we make a 
finding that listing is warranted but precluded for a species in a 
significant portion of its range (rather than throughout its entire 
range), we assign it to the same LPN category as a subspecies or DPS 
(e.g. LPN 3).

Reptiles

    Northern Mexican gartersnake (Thamnophis eques megalops) - We 
previously announced candidate status for this species in a separate 
warranted but precluded 12-month petition finding published on November 
25, 2008 (73 FR 71787).

Amphibians

    Jollyville Plateau salamander (Eurycea tonkawae) - We previously 
announced candidate status for this species in a separate warranted but 
precluded 12-month petition finding published on December 13, 2007 (72 
FR 71039).

Fish

    Rio Grande cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis) - We 
previously announced candidate status for this subspecies in a separate 
warranted but precluded 12-month petition finding published on May 14, 
2008 (73 FR 27899).

Flowering Plants

    Sphaeralcea gierischii (Gierisch mallow) - The following 
information is based on information contained in our files, including 
site visits by species experts. There are nine known populations of 
this species on a combined total of approximately 59.5 acres (ac) 
(24.12 hectares (ha)) in Arizona and Utah. Seven populations are found 
on approximately 55 ac (22.3 ha) managed by the Bureau of Land 
Management in Arizona. One population occurs on approximately 2 ac 
(0.81 ha) on land managed by the Arizona State Land Department. One 
population occurs on approximately 2.5 ac (1.01 ha) in Utah. The 
primary threat to the species in Arizona is ongoing gypsum mining and 
associated activities. The primary threat to the species in Utah is 
potential impacts from off-road vehicle use. The threats are high in 
magnitude, since survival of the species is threatened throughout its 
entire range in Arizona by gypsum mining, with the two largest 
populations in active mining operations. Loss of those two populations 
would significantly reduce the total number of individuals throughout 
the range, threatening the long-term viability of this species. The 
threats are imminent, since they are ongoing in Arizona. Therefore, we 
assigned an LPN of 2 to this species.

Listing Priority Changes in Candidates

    We reviewed the LPN for all candidate species and are changing the 
numbers for the following species discussed below. Some of the changes 
reflect actual changes in either the magnitude or imminence of the 
threats. In one case, the LPN change reflects a change in the taxonomy 
of the species. For some species, the LPN change reflects efforts to 
ensure national consistency as well as closer adherence to the 1983 
guidelines in assigning these numbers, rather than an actual change in 
the nature of the threats.

Mammals

    Gunnison's prairie dog (Cynomys gunnisoni) (montane population) - 
See above summary under ``New Candidates''.

Birds

    Red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) - The following summary is based 
on information containted in our files and information provided by 
petitioners. Four petitions to emergency list the red knot have been 
received: one on August 9, 2004, two others on August 5, 2005, and the 
latest on February 27, 2008. The rufa subspecies is one of six 
recognized subspecies of red knot and one of three subspecies occurring 
in North America (hereafter all mention of red knot in this CNOR refers 
strictly to the rufa subspecies). This subspecies makes one of the 
longest distance migrations known in the animal kingdom, as it travels 
between breeding areas in the central Canadian Arctic and wintering 
areas that are primarily in southern South America along the coast of 
Chile and Argentina. They migrate along the Atlantic coast of the 
United States, where they may be found from Maine to Florida.
    The Delaware Bay area (in Delaware and New Jersey) is the largest 
known spring migration stopover area, with far fewer migrants 
congregating elsewhere along the Atlantic coast. The concentration in 
the Delaware Bay area occurs from the middle of May to early June, 
corresponding to the spawning season of horseshoe crabs. The knots feed 
on horseshoe crab eggs, rebuilding energy reserves needed to complete 
migrations to the Arctic and arrive on the breeding grounds in good 
condition. In the past, horseshoe crab eggs at Delaware Bay were so 
numerous that a knot could eat enough in two to three weeks to double 
its weight.
    Surveys at wintering areas and at Delaware Bay during spring 
migration indicate a substantial decline in the red knot in recent 
years. At the Delaware

[[Page 75179]]

Bay area, peak counts between 1982 and 1998 were as high as 95,360 
knots. Counts may vary considerably between years. Some of the 
fluctuations can be attributed to predator-prey cycles in the breeding 
grounds, and counts show that knots rebound from such reductions. 
Research shows that since 1998, a high proportion of red knots leaving 
the Delaware Bay failed to achieve threshold departure masses needed to 
fly to breeding grounds and survive an initial few days of snow cover, 
and this corresponded to reduced annual survival rates. Recently, peak 
counts at the Delaware Bay area have been lower than in the past and do 
not show a rebound. The peaks were 13,315 in 2004; 15,345 in 2005; 
13,455 in 2006; and 12,375 in 2007. Counts in recent years at the 
principal wintering areas in South America also are substantially lower 
than in the past and do not show a rebound.
    The primary factor threatening the red knot is destruction and 
modification of its habitat, particularly the reduction in key food 
resources resulting from reductions in horseshoe crabs, which are 
harvested primarily for use as bait and secondarily to support a 
biomedical industry. Commercial harvest increased substantially in the 
1990s. Since 1999, a series of timing restrictions and substantially 
lower harvest quotas have been adopted by the Atlantic States Marine 
Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), as well as New Jersey and Delaware. In 
May 2006, the ASMFC adopted restrictions effective from October 1, 
2006, to September 30, 2008, including a prohibition on harvest and 
landing of horseshoe crabs in New Jersey and Delaware from January 1 
through June 7, harvest of males only from June 8 through December 31, 
and harvest limited to no more than 100,000 horseshoe crabs per state 
per year. The ASMFC also adopted other restrictions applicable to 
Maryland and Virginia. New Jersey established regulations in 2006 which 
superseded ASMFC restrictions; resulting in a moratorium on all 
horseshoe crab harvest in New Jersey from May 15, 2006 through June 7, 
2008. In March 2008, New Jersey passed legislation imposing an open-
ended moratorium on horseshoe crab harvest or landing within the State 
until such time as the red knot has fully recovered. In February 2007, 
Delaware imposed a 2-year moratorium, effective January 1, 2007, on 
harvest of horseshoe crabs within Delaware lands or waters. In June 
2007, following litigation by two businesses involved in the harvesting 
and sale of horseshoe crabs, Delaware's moratorium was overturned. 
Consequently Delaware developed regulations allowing for a male-only 
horseshoe crab harvest, consistent with restrictions adopted by ASMFC. 
The reductions in commercial harvest since 1999 are substantial: 
726,660 horseshoe crab landings for bait were reported in 1999 in 
Delaware and New Jersey, compared to 173,177 in 2004 and a preliminary 
2007 report of 76,663 crabs landed for bait in Delaware and no 
horseshoe crabs landed in New Jersey as a result of the State-imposed 
harvest moratorium. However, we do not know whether horseshoe crab 
populations will rebuild or how long a lag time there may be in 
increased availability of eggs, as the species needs 8-10 years to 
reach sexual maturity, and other key information for estimating 
population response is lacking. A survey in Delaware Bay showed 
horseshoe crab spawning activity was stable or slightly declining from 
1999 to 2004. Updated spawning information following implementation of 
additional harvest restrictions shows that female horseshoe crab 
spawning activity in Delaware Bay has been stable for the overall 
period of 1999 to 2007 and male horseshoe crab spawning increased 
during that period. Thus, despite additional harvest regulations, 
numbers of spawning females have not yet shown an increase.
    The numbers of red knots at key wintering areas in South America 
remained relatively steady from 2005 to 2007, giving optimism that the 
declining trend may have ceased or slowed. In 2008, however, counts of 
red knots within principal wintering areas showed an all-time low of 
only 14,800 red knots. Counts of red knots within the principal 
wintering areas in Chile and Argentina declined by nearly 75 percent 
from 1985 to 2007 and declined by an additional 15 percent in the past 
year (2007 to 2008). Thus, in recent years the number of knots in these 
survey areas has been much lower than in the past and the trend in the 
abundance is not improving despite a nearly tenfold reduction in 
horseshoe crab landings since the late 1990s.
    Other identified threat factors include habitat destruction due to 
beach erosion and various shoreline protection and stabilization 
projects that are affecting areas used by migrating knots for foraging, 
the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, human disturbance, 
and competition with other species for limited food resources. Also, 
the concentration of red knots in the Delaware Bay areas and at a 
relatively small number of wintering areas makes the species vulnerable 
to potential large-scale events in those areas such as oil spills or 
severe weather in those areas. Overall, we conclude that the threats, 
in particular the modification of habitat through harvesting of 
horseshoe crabs, severe enough that it puts the viability of the knot 
at substantial risk and is therefore of a high magnitude. The threats 
are currently occurring, and therefore imminent because of continuing 
suppressed horseshoe-crab-egg forage conditions for red knot within the 
Delaware Bay stopover. To help ensure consistency in the application of 
our listing priority process, we changed the LPN from a 6 to a 3 for 
this subspecies because threats are imminent.
    Lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) - The following 
summary is based on information contained in our files and the petition 
received on October 5, 1995. Additional information can be found in the 
12-month finding published on June 7, 1998 (63 FR 31400). This species 
occurs in Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. Biologists 
estimate that the occupied range has declined by 92 percent since the 
1800s.
    The most serious threat to the lesser prairie-chicken is the 
present and threatened destruction, modification, and curtailment of 
its habitat and range. This includes loss of habitat from conversion of 
native rangelands to introduced forages and cultivation; conversion of 
suitable restored habitat in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to 
cropland; cumulative habitat degradation caused by severe grazing; and 
energy development, including wind, oil, and gas development. The 
magnitude of threats to the species from wind energy development and 
conversion of CRP lands to croplands has increased recently, both in 
terms of ongoing activity and potential activity expected in the next 
few years. Additional threats are woody plant invasion of open prairies 
due to fire suppression, herbicide use (including resumption of 
herbicide use in shinnery oak habitat), and habitat fragmentation 
caused by structural and transportation developments. Many of these 
threats may exacerbate the normal effects of periodic drought on 
lesser- prairie-chicken populations. In many cases, the remaining 
suitable habitat has become fragmented by the spatial arrangement of 
these various activities. The increasing level of habitat fragmentation 
means that (1) some of the remaining habitat patches may become smaller 
than necessary to meet the requirements of individuals and populations; 
(2) necessary habitat heterogeneity may be lost to areas of homogeneous 
habitat structure; (3) areas between habitat patches may harbor higher 
levels of

[[Page 75180]]

predators or brood parasites; and (4) the probability of recolonization 
of habitat that becomes unoccupied decreases as the distance between 
suitable habitat patches expands. Based on our most recent assessment, 
we find that ongoing threats to the lesser prairie-chicken have 
increased in terms of the amount of habitat involved and that the 
overall magnitude of threats to the lesser prairie-chicken throughout 
its range is high because the threats put the viability of the lesser 
prairie chicken at substantial risk. The threats are ongoing and thus, 
imminent. Consequently, we changed the LPN from an 8 to a 2 for this 
species.

Amphibians

    Georgetown salamander (Eurycea naufragia) - The following summary 
is based on information contained in our files. No new information was 
provided in the petition received on May 11, 2004. The Georgetown 
salamander is known from spring outlets along five tributaries to the 
San Gabriel River and one cave in the City of Georgetown, Williamson 
County, Texas. The Georgetown salamander has a very limited 
distribution and depends on a constant supply of clean water from the 
Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer for its survival.
    Primary threats to this species are degradation of water quality 
due to expanding urbanization. Increased impervious cover by 
development increases the quantity and velocity of runoff that leads to 
erosion and greater pollution transport. Pollutants and contaminants 
that enter the Edwards Aquifer are discharged from spring outlets in 
salamander habitat and have serious morphological and physiological 
effects to the species. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 
(TCEQ) adopted the Edwards Rules in 1995 and 1997, which require a 
number of water-quality-protection measures for new development 
occurring in the recharge and contributing zones of the Edwards 
Aquifer. New developments are still obligated to comply with 
regulations that were applicable at the time when project applications 
for development were first filed. However, Chapter 245 of the Texas 
Local Government Code permits ``grandfathering'' of state regulations. 
Grandfathering allows developments to be exempted from any new local or 
state requirements for water-quality controls and impervious-cover 
limits if the developments were planned prior to the implementation of 
such regulations. As a result of the grandfathering law, very few 
developments have followed these ordinances. In addition, it is 
significant that even if they were followed with every new development, 
these ordinances do not span the entire watershed for the Edwards 
Aquifer. The TCEQ has developed voluntary water quality protection 
measures for development in the Edwards Aquifer region of Texas; 
however, it is unknown if these measures will be implemented throughout 
a large portion of the watershed or if they will be effective in 
maintaining or improving water quality.
    Development occurring outside the TCEQ's jurisdiction can have 
negative consequences on water quality and thus affect the species. 
Water-quality impacts threaten the continued existence of the 
Georgetown salamander by altering physical aquatic habitats and the 
food sources of the salamander. The threats are imminent because 
urbanization is ongoing, and continues to expand over the Northern 
Segment of the Edwards Aquifer. However, Williamson County and the 
Williamson County Conservation Fund are currently actively working to 
protect habitat and acquire land within the contributing watershed for 
the Georgetown salamander. Also, they are planning to conduct 
monitoring and data-collecting activities in an effort that is expected 
to lead to the development of a conservation strategy for this species. 
Although this species still meets our definition of a candidate, these 
conservation actions reduce the magnitude of the threat to the 
Georgetown salamander to a moderate level by reducing the amount of 
development occurring in the portion of the watershed that affects the 
species. Thus, we have changed the LPN from a 2 to an 8 for this 
species.

Fishes

    Headwater chub (Gila nigra) - The following summary is based on 
information contained in our files and the 12-month finding on a 
petition to list the species, which was published May 3, 2006 (71 FR 
26007). The range of the headwater chub has been reduced by 
approximately 60 percent. Seventeen streams (125 miles (200 kilometers) 
of stream) are thought to be occupied out of 20 streams (312 miles (500 
kilometers) of stream) formerly occupied in the Gila River Basin in 
Arizona and New Mexico. Recent surveys have documented one new 
population. All remaining populations are fragmented and isolated and 
threatened by a combination of factors.
    Headwater chub are threatened by introductions of nonnative fish 
that prey on them and/or compete with them for food. These nonnative 
fish are difficult to eliminate and, therefore, pose an ongoing threat. 
Habitat destruction and modification has occurred and continues to 
occur as a result of dewatering, impoundment, channelization, and 
channel changes caused by alteration of riparian vegetation and 
watershed degradation from mining, grazing, roads, water pollution, 
urban and suburban development, groundwater pumping, and other human 
actions. Existing regulatory mechanisms do not appear to be adequate 
for addressing the impact of nonnative fish and also have not removed 
or eliminated the threats that continue to be posed in relation to 
habitat destruction or modification. The fragmented nature and rarity 
of existing populations makes them vulnerable to other natural or 
manmade factors, such as drought and wildfire.
    The Arizona Game and Fish Department has created the Arizona 
Statewide Conservation Agreement for Roundtail Chub (G. robusta), 
Headwater Chub, Flannelmouth Sucker (Catostomus latipinnis), Little 
Colorado River Sucker (Catostomus spp.), Bluehead Sucker (C. 
discobolus), and Zuni Bluehead Sucker (C. discobolus yarrowi), which is 
now final. The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish recently listed 
the headwater chub as endangered and created a recovery plan for the 
species, Colorado River Basin Chubs (Roundtail Chub, Gila Chub (G. 
intermedia), and Headwater Chub) Recovery Plan, which was approved by 
the New Mexico State Game Commission on November 16, 2006. Both the 
Arizona Agreement and the New Mexico Recovery Plan recommend 
preservation and enhancement of extant populations and restoration of 
historical headwater-chub populations. The recovery and conservation 
actions prescribed by Arizona and New Mexico plans, which we believe 
will reduce and remove threats to this species, will require further 
discussions and authorizations before they can be implemented, but 
several of the actions are being planned. Although threats are ongoing, 
new information indicates long-term persistence and stability of 
existing populations. Surveys conducted in 2006-2007 found a new 
population and determined that the Fossil Creek population is now 
stable-secure. Currently 10 of the 17 extant populations are considered 
stable based on abundance and evidence of recruitment. Based on our 
assessment, threats (e.g., nonnative species, habitat loss from land 
uses) remain imminent but are now of a moderate magnitude because the 
threat of nonnative species and habitat destruction appear to be of

[[Page 75181]]

a lower magnitude than previously thought because all populations are 
continuing to persist, and have persisted over approximately 15 years 
of surveys on average, and some populations such as the upper Gila 
River are now considered stable. Thus we changed the LPN from a 2 to an 
8 for this species.

Clams

    Texas hornshell (Popenaias popei) - The following summary is based 
on information contained in our files and information provided by the 
New Mexico Department of Game and Fish and Texas Parks and Wildlife 
Department. No new information was provided in the petition received on 
May 11, 2004. The Texas hornshell is a freshwater mussel found in the 
Black River in New Mexico, and the Rio Grande and the Devils River in 
Texas. Until March 2008, the only known extant populations were in New 
Mexico's Black River and one locality in the Rio Grande near Laredo, 
Texas. In March 2008, two new localities were confirmed in Texas - one 
in the Devils River and one in the mainstem Rio Grande in the Rio 
Grande Wild and Scenic River segment downstream of Big Bend National 
Park.
    The primary threats to this species are habitat alterations such as 
stream bank channelization, impoundments, and diversions for 
agriculture and flood control; contamination of water by oil and gas 
activity; alterations in the natural riverine hydrology; and increased 
sedimentation from prolonged overgrazing and loss of native vegetation. 
Although riverine habitats throughout the species' known occupied range 
are under constant threat from these ongoing or potential activities, 
numerous conservation actions to benefit the species are underway in 
New Mexico, including the completion of a state recovery plan for the 
species and the drafting of a Candidate Conservation Agreement with 
Assurances, and are beginning in Texas. We changed the LPN from a 2 to 
an 8 based on our conclusion that these conservation actions have 
reduced the magnitude of threats from high to moderate. This change in 
the magnitude of threat is due to the discovery of previously unknown 
locations where the species persists, as well as the implementation of 
recovery planning and conservation actions that are underway in New 
Mexico, and are beginning in Texas. The threats are still occurring, 
and thus remain imminent.
    Slabside pearlymussel (Lexingtonia dolabelloides) - The following 
summary is based on information contained in our files. The slabside 
pearlymussel is a freshwater mussel (Unionidae) endemic to the 
Cumberland and Tennessee River systems (Cumberlandian Region) in 
Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia. It requires shoal habitats 
in free-flowing rivers to survive and successfully recruit new 
individuals into its populations.
    Habitat destruction and alteration (e.g., impoundments, 
sedimentation, and pollutants) are the chief factors contributing to 
the decline of this species, which has been extirpated from numerous 
regional streams and is no longer found in Kentucky. The slabside 
pearlymussel was historically known from at least 32 streams, but is 
currently restricted to no more than 10 isolated stream segments. 
Current status information for most of the 10 populations deemed to be 
extant is available from recent periodic sampling efforts (sometimes 
annually) and other field studies. Comprehensive surveys have taken 
place in the Middle and North Forks Holston River, Paint Rock River, 
and Duck River in the past several years. Based on recent information, 
the overall population of the slabside pearlymussel is declining 
rangewide. Of the five streams in which the species remains in good 
numbers (e.g., Clinch, North and Middle Forks Holston, Paint Rock, Duck 
Rivers), the Middle and upper North Fork Holston Rivers have undergone 
drastic recent declines, while the Clinch population has been in a 
longer-term decline. Most of the remaining five populations (e.g., 
Powell River, Big Moccasin Creek, Hiwassee River, Elk River, Bear 
Creek) have doubtful viability, and several if not all of them may be 
on the verge of extirpation.
    The threats remain high in magnitude, since all populations of this 
species are severely affected in numerous ways (impoundments, 
sedimentation, small population size, isolation of populations, gravel 
mining, municipal pollutants, agricultural runoff, nutrient enrichment, 
and coal processing pollution) which result in mortality and/or reduced 
reproductive output. Since the threats are ongoing, they are imminent. 
Therefore, to help ensure consistency in the application of our listing 
priority process, we changed the LPN from a 5 to a 2 because the 
threats are imminent and high in magnitude.

Snails

    Fat-whorled pondsnail (Stagnicola bonnevillensis) - The fat-whorled 
pondsnail, also known as the Bonneville pondsnail, occupies four spring 
pools north of the Great Salt Lake in Box Elder County, Utah. The 
number of individuals is unknown, and the total known occupied habitat 
is less than 1 hectare (2.45 acres). The primary threat has been 
chemical contamination of the groundwater. Significant actions are 
under way to remediate this threat, including implementation of a 
Corrective Action Plan to characterize and remediate groundwater 
contamination and implementation of a site management plan. Also, a 
groundwater model and risk assessment is being developed. The CAP is 
being implemented, and conservation measures are currently being 
monitored for effectiveness. Because these efforts have been under way 
for a sufficient period to reduce the threat from contamination, the 
magnitude of threats is reduced from moderate to low, and the threat is 
now nonimminent. Therefore, we have changed the listing priority from 
an 8 to an 11 for this species.
    Elongate mud meadows springsnail (Pyrgulopsis notidicola) - The 
following summary is based on information contained in our files. 
Pyrgulopsis notidicola is endemic to Soldier Meadow, which is located 
at the northern extreme of the western arm of the Black Rock Desert in 
the transition zone between the Basin and Range Physiographic Province 
and the Columbia Plateau Province, Humboldt County, Nevada. The type 
locality, and the only known location of the species, occurs in a 
stretch of thermal (between 45[deg] and 32[deg] Celsius, 113[deg] and 
90[deg] Fahrenheit) aquatic habitat that is approximately 600 m (1,968 
ft) long and 2 m (6.7 ft) wide. Pyrgulopsis notidicola occurs only in 
shallow, flowing water on gravel substrate. The species does not occur 
in deep water (i.e., impoundments) where water velocity is low, gravel 
substrate is absent, and sediment levels are high.
    The species and its habitat are threatened by recreational use in 
the areas where it occurs, as well as by the ongoing impacts of past 
water diversions and livestock grazing and current off-highway vehicle 
travel. Conservation measures implemented recently by the Bureau of 
Land Management include the installation of fencing to exclude 
livestock, wild horses, burros and other large mammals; closing of 
access roads to spring, riparian, and wetland areas and the limiting of 
vehicles to designated routes; the establishment of a designated 
campground away from the habitats of sensitive species; the 
installation of educational signage; and increased staff presence, 
including law enforcement and a volunteer site steward during the 6-
month period of peak visitor use. These conservation measures have 
reduced the magnitude of threats to the

[[Page 75182]]

species to moderate; all remaining threats are nonimminent and involve 
long-term changes to the habitat for the species resulting from past 
impacts. Therefore, we have changed the LPN from 2 to 11.

Insects

    Mardon skipper (Polites mardon) - The following summary is based on 
information contained in our files and the petition we received on 
December 24, 2002. The Mardon skipper is a northwestern butterfly with 
a remarkably disjunct range. Currently this species is known from four 
widely separated regions: south Puget Sound region, southern Washington 
Cascades, Siskiyou Mountains of southern Oregon, and coastal 
northwestern California/southern Oregon. The number of documented 
locations for the species has increased from fewer than 10 in 1997 to 
more than 100 rangewide in 2008. New site locations have been 
documented in each year that targeted surveys have been conducted since 
1999. In the past 8 years, significant local populations have been 
located in the Washington Cascades and in Southern Oregon, with a few 
local sites supporting populations of hundreds of Mardon skippers.
    The Mardon skipper spends its entire life cycle in one location, 
often on the same grassland patch. The dispersal ability of Mardon 
skipper is restricted. Threats to the Mardon skipper include direct 
impacts to individuals and local populations by off-road vehicle use, 
livestock grazing, and pesticide drift. Habitat destruction or 
modification through conifer encroachment, invasive nonnative plants, 
roadside maintenance, and grassland/meadow management activities such 
as prescribed burning and mowing are also threats. However, these 
threats have been substantially reduced due to protections provided by 
State and Federal special status species programs. The magnitude of the 
threats is moderate because current regulatory mechanisms associated 
with State and Federal special status species programs afford a 
relatively high level of protection from additional habitat loss or 
destruction across most of the species' range. Threats are imminent 
because all sites within the species' range currently have one or more 
identified threats that are resulting in direct impacts to individuals 
within the populations, or a gradual loss or degradation of the 
species' habitats. Mardon skippers face a variety of threats that may 
occur at any time at any of the locations. Low numbers of individuals 
have been found at most of the known locations. Only a few locations 
are known to harbor greater than 100 individuals, and specific 
locations could easily be lost by changes in vegetation composition or 
from the threat of wildfire. The great distances between the known 
locations for the species would not allow for dispersal of the species 
between populations; thus, loss of any population could lead to 
extirpation of the species at any of these locations. However, the 
discovery of new populations and the wide geographic range for the 
Mardon skipper provides a buffer against threats that could destroy all 
existing habitat simultaneously or jeopardize the continued existence 
of the species.
    Since the threats are ongoing, they are imminent. Therefore, to 
help ensure consistency in the application of our listing priority 
process, we changed the LPN to reflect the fact that the threats are 
imminent. At the same time, for the reasons described above, the 
threats are now moderate in magnitude. Therefore, we changed the 
listing priority number from a 5 to an 8 for the Mardon skipper.
    Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle (Cicindela albissima) - The 
following summary is based on information contained in our files and 
the petition received April 25, 1994. The Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger 
beetle occurs only at the Coral Pink Sand Dunes, approximately 7 miles 
west of Kanab, Kane County, in south-central Utah. It is restricted to 
a small part of the dune field, situated at an elevation of about 1,820 
m (6,000 ft).
    The beetle's habitat is being adversely affected by ongoing, 
recreational off-road vehicle use that is destroying and degrading the 
beetle's habitat, especially the interdunal swales used by the larvae. 
The continued survival of the beetle depends on the preservation of its 
habitat. The two agencies that manage the dunes field, the Utah 
Department of Parks and Recreation and the Bureau of Land Management, 
have restricted recreational off-road vehicle use in some areas, which 
reduces impacts. However, the protected areas may not be of sufficient 
size to enable the population to increase in size, and off-road vehicle 
use continues outside of the protected areas. Ongoing monitoring and 
research has documented that conservation measures have failed to 
lessen population declines. The beetle's population is also vulnerable 
to over-collecting by professional and hobby tiger beetle collectors. 
The taxon was previously recognized as a full species, resulting in a 
change in the listing priority from a 9 to an 8, based on imminent 
threats of a low to moderate magnitude. The magnitude of the threat 
from off-road vehicle use is now high, since this threat results in 
direct mortality to adult beetles, reduces available prey, and disturbs 
and desiccates the microhabitat of the larvae, and in tandem with 
drought, continues to cause steady declines in the tiger beetle 
population. The threats continue to be ongoing and are, therefore, 
imminent. Therefore, we changed the LPN from an 8 to a 2.

Flowering plants

    Churchill Narrows buckwheat (Eriogonum diatomaceum) - The following 
information is based on information contained in our files. Eriogonum 
diatomaceum is restricted to chalky, diatomaceous outcrops between 
1,311 and 1,390 meters (m) (4,300 and 4,560 feet (ft)) elevation in the 
Churchill Narrows located in the Pine Nut Mountains, Lyon County, 
Nevada.
    Field surveys during 2005 have shown that the habitat of nearly all 
the 15 known occurrences of E. diatomaceum is subject to exploration 
and potential development of existing mining claims. Observations in 
2003 confirmed that mining activities have had direct and indirect 
impacts on E. diatomaceum in the recent past. Mineral development must 
continue to be considered a threat of high magnitude because all known 
populations of E. diatomaceum occur within existing mining claims on a 
substrate with economic potential. However, because previous 
applications to develop these industrial mineral deposits have been 
withdrawn, we no longer consider mining to pose an imminent threat to 
the species. Other threats to the species from trampling and soil 
disturbance by livestock and other land uses are likely to have 
localized impacts and to be cumulative over time; we do not consider 
these activities to pose an imminent threat to the species. 
Nevertheless, all known populations are small and current regulatory 
mechanisms in place are inadequate in protecting the species throughout 
its range. Eriogonum diatomaceum is considered threatened by the Nevada 
Native Plant Society and was added to the Nevada State List of 
critically endangered and threatened plants. Due to the nonimminent 
threats of high magnitude, we have changed the LPN from a 2 to a 5 for 
this species.

Candidate Removals

    As summarized below, we have evaluated the threats to the following 
two species and considered factors that, individually and in 
combination, currently or potentially could pose a risk to these 
species and their habitat. After a review of the best available

[[Page 75183]]

scientific and commercial data, we conclude that listing these two 
species under the Endangered Species Act is not warranted because the 
species are not likely to become endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their 
range. Therefore, for each of these species we find that proposing a 
rule to list it is not warranted, and we no longer consider it to be a 
candidate species for listing. We will continue to monitor the status 
of these species, and to accept additional information and comments 
concerning this finding. We will reconsider our determination for each 
species in the event that new information indicates that the threats to 
the species are of a considerably greater magnitude or imminence than 
identified through assessments of information contained in our files, 
as summarized here.

Snails

    Ogden mountainsnail (formerly considered to be Oreohelix 
peripherica wasatchensis) - The Ogden mountainsnail was previously 
thought to be a subspecies occurring at a single site near the mouth of 
Ogden Canyon in Weber County, Utah. The subspecies was considered to be 
vulnerable to extirpation from stochastic or human-caused events due to 
its restricted range, its proximity to an expanding residential area, 
and impacts from relatively heavy recreational use. Recent molecular 
phylogenetic studies have clarified that what was previously classified 
as Oreohelix peripherica wasatchensis is actually two distinct clades 
(i.e., taxa descending from a common ancestor) rather than being a 
separate subspecies: one clade is part of a different species, O. 
strigosa, and the other is part of a different subspecies, O. p. 
peripherica Because O. p. wasatchensis is no longer recognized as a 
valid subspecies, it is not a listable entity under the Act. Therefore, 
we find that listing O. p. wasatchensis is not warranted, and we have 
removed it from candidate status.
    Both O. strigosa and O. p. peripherica are widespread and abundant. 
Our assessment shows that threats to the clades of these taxa at the 
Ogden Canyon site are not affecting the overall status of O. strigosa 
or O. p. peripherica such that either taxon is likely to become in 
danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. Consequently, we find that listing is 
not warranted for either O. strigosa or O. p. peripherica.

Flowering Plants

    Indigofera trita subsp. scabra (formerly Indigofera mucronata var. 
keyensis) (Florida indigo or Asian indigo) - The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. No new information was 
provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. In 2007 we became 
aware of new information regarding this plant's taxonomic status. We 
now believe the most appropriate name for Florida indigo is I. trita 
subsp. scabra. The current understanding is that this plant is 
widespread, ranging widely from south Florida and the Caribbean to Asia 
and Africa. We have only general information on this plant's status 
outside of the United States. In Florida, this plant occurs in coastal 
rock barrens, ecotone rock barren areas, and scraped areas mimicking 
rock barren habitat. Based upon available data, there are 12 
occurrences of Florida indigo on eight islands in the upper and middle 
Florida Keys, in Monroe County; half of the original occurrences in the 
Keys are now extirpated, as are historic occurrences on mainland 
Florida in Collier and Miami-Dade Counties. Most occurrences in Florida 
are small; total population size is probably close to 3,000 
individuals. In the United States, Florida indigo is threatened by 
habitat loss, even on public lands, as well as habitat loss and 
degradation from exotic plants on all sites. Shading by hardwoods is a 
problem at approximately half of the sites. Planned restoration 
activities, illegal dumping, and trespass have also been identified as 
threats. Florida indigo is vulnerable to natural disturbances, such as 
hurricanes, tropical storms, and storm surges; however, these factors 
may also work to maintain coastal rock barren habitat in the long-term. 
Sea level rise is considered a long-term threat that will continue.
    Although threats remain in Florida, the Florida indigo is now 
considered to be a taxon that is widely distributed. We are not aware 
of threats elsewhere in its considerable range; the species does not 
warrant listing throughout its entire range. We have analyzed whether 
the Florida population is a significant portion of the range. Based on 
our evaluation of this population's low level of contribution toward 
the resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the species as a 
whole, we conclude that the Florida population of the Florida indigo is 
not a significant portion of the range. Based on findings and analysis 
in our updated assessment, we conclude that listing this species under 
the Endangered Species Act is not warranted throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. The species no longer meets our 
definition of a candidate, and we have removed it from candidate 
status.

Petition Findings

    The Act provides two mechanisms for considering species for 
listing. One method allows the Secretary, on his own initiative, to 
identify species for listing under the standards of section 4(a)(1). We 
implement this 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. Under section 4(b)(3)(A), 
when we receive such a petition, we must determine within 90 days, to 
the maximum extent practicable, whether the petition presents 
substantial information that listing may be warranted (a ``90-day 
finding''). If we make a positive 90-day finding, we must promptly 
commence a status review of the species under section 4(b)(3)(A); we 
must then make and publish one of three possible findings within 12 
months of the receipt of the petition (a ``12-month finding''):
    1. The petitioned action is not warranted;
    2. The petitioned action is warranted (in which case we are 
required to promptly publish a proposed regulation to implement the 
petitioned action; once we publish a proposed rule for a species, 
section 4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) govern further procedures regardless of 
whether we issued the proposal in response to a petition); or
    3. The petitioned action is warranted but (a) the immediate 
proposal of a regulation and final promulgation of regulation 
implementing the petitioned action is precluded by pending proposals, 
and (b) expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to 
the lists of endangered or threatened species. (We refer to this as a 
``warranted-but-precluded finding.'')
    Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that when we make a 
warranted-but-precluded finding on a petition, we are to treat such a 
petition as one that is resubmitted on the date of such a finding. 
Thus, we are required to publish new 12-month findings on these 
``resubmitted'' petitions on an annual basis.
    On December 5, 1996, we made a final decision to redefine 
``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

[[Page 75184]]

precluded (61 FR 64481; December 6, 1996). Therefore, 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.
    This publication provides notice of substantial 90-day findings and 
the warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings pursuant to section 
4(b)(3) for candidate species listed on Table 1 that we identified on 
our own initiative, and that subsequently have been the subject of a 
petition to list. Even though all candidate species identified through 
our own initiative already have received the equivalent of substantial 
90-day and warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings, we reviewed the 
status of the newly petitioned candidate species and through this CNOR 
are publishing 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.
    Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act, once a petition is 
filed regarding a candidate species, we must make a 12-month petition 
finding in compliance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act at least once 
a year, until we publish a proposal to list the species or make a final 
not-warranted finding. We make these annual findings for petitioned 
candidate species through the CNOR.
    Section 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the Act 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, whether it was 
identified through our own initiative or through the petition process, 
we will make prompt use of the emergency listing authority under 
section 4(b)(7). 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 also constitute the Service's annual finding on the 
status of petitioned species pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i).
    On June 20, 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 
Circuit held that the 1999 CNOR (64 FR 57534; October 25, 1999) did not 
demonstrate that we fulfilled the second component of the warranted-
but-precluded 12-month petition findings for the Gila chub and 
Chiracahua leopard frog (Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton, 254 
F.3d 833 (9\th\ Cir. 2001)). The court found that the one-line 
designation in the table of candidates in the 1999 CNOR, with no 
further explanation, did not satisfy section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii)'s 
requirement that the Service publish a finding ``together with a 
description and evaluation of the reasons and data on which the finding 
is based.'' The court suggested that this one-line statement of 
candidate status also precluded meaningful judicial review.
    On June 21, 2004, the United States District Court for Oregon 
agreed that we can use the CNOR as a vehicle for making petition 
findings and that our reasoning for why listing is precluded does not 
need to be based on an assessment at a regional level (as opposed to a 
national level) (Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton Civ. No. 03-
1111-AA (D. Or.)). However, t