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, 66370-66439 [2011-27122]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 26, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66370-66439]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27122]



[[Page 66369]]

Vol. 76

Wednesday,

No. 207

October 26, 2011

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. 76 , No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 66370]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2011-0061; 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 determine that 
species should be removed from candidate status. Additional material 
that we relied on is available in the Species Assessment and Listing 
Priority Assignment Forms (species assessment forms) for each candidate 
species.
    Overall, this CNOR recognizes three new candidates, changes the LPN 
for seven candidates, and removes three species from candidate status. 
Combined with other decisions for individual species that were 
published separately from this CNOR in the past year, the current 
number of species that are candidates for listing is 244.
    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, 
2010, through September 30, 2011.
    We request additional status information that may be available for 
the 244 candidate species identified in this CNOR.

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

ADDRESSES: This notice is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-e-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 
Office of Communications and Candidate Conservation, Arlington, VA (see 
address under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or on our Web site 
(https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/SpeciesReport.do?listingType=C&mapstatus=1). Please submit any new 
information, materials, comments, or questions of a general nature on 
this notice to the Arlington, VA, address listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any new information, materials, 
comments, or questions pertaining to a particular species to the 
address of the Endangered Species Coordinator in the appropriate 
Regional Office listed in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We request additional status information 
that may be available for any of the candidate species identified in 
this CNOR. We will consider this information to monitor changes in the 
status or LPN of candidate species and to manage candidates as we 
prepare listing documents and future revisions to the notice of review. 
We also request information on additional species to consider including 
as candidates as we prepare future updates of this notice.
    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 under Request 
for Information in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. General information we 
receive will be available at the Office of Communications and Candidate 
Conservation, Arlington, VA (see address under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Candidate Notice of Review

Background

    The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.) (ESA), requires that we identify species of wildlife and plants 
that are endangered or threatened, based on the best available 
scientific and commercial information. As defined in section 3 of the 
ESA, an endangered species is any species 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. We may identify a species as a candidate for 
listing after we have conducted an evaluation of its status on our own 
initiative, or after we have made a positive finding on a petition to 
list a species, in particular we have found 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 request input from interested parties to help us 
identify

[[Page 66371]]

those candidate species that may not require protection under the ESA 
or additional species that may require the ESA's protections; and to 
request 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 under Request for Information or visit our Web site, 
https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/cca.html.

Previous Notices of Review

    We have been publishing candidate notices of review (CNOR) since 
1975. The most recent CNOR (prior to this CNOR) was published on 
November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222). CNORs published since 1994 are 
available on our Web site, https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/cnor.html. For copies of CNORs published prior to 1994, please contact 
the Office of Communications and Candidate Conservation (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above).
    On September 21, 1983, we published guidance for assigning an LPN 
for each candidate species (48 FR 43098). Using this guidance, we 
assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of 
threats, immediacy of threats, and taxonomic status; the lower the LPN, 
the higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 
would have the highest listing priority). Section 4(h)(3) of the ESA 
(15 U.S.C. 1533(h)(3)) requires the Secretary to establish guidelines 
for such a priority-ranking guidance system. As explained below, in 
using this system we first categorize based on the magnitude of the 
threat(s), then by the immediacy of the threat(s), and finally by 
taxonomic status.
    Under this priority-ranking system, magnitude of threat can be 
either ``high'' or ``moderate to low.'' This criterion helps ensure 
that the species facing the greatest threats to their continued 
existence receive the highest listing priority. It is important to 
recognize that all candidate species face threats to their continued 
existence, so the magnitude of threats is in relative terms. For all 
candidate species, the threats are of sufficiently high magnitude to 
put them in danger of extinction, or make them likely to become in 
danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. But for species with 
higher magnitude threats, the threats have a greater likelihood of 
bringing about extinction or are expected to bring about extinction on 
a shorter timescale (once the threats are imminent) than for species 
with lower magnitude threats. Because we do not routinely quantify how 
likely or how soon extinction would be expected to occur absent 
listing, we must evaluate factors that contribute to the likelihood and 
time scale for extinction. We therefore consider information such as: 
The number of populations or extent of range of the species affected by 
the threat(s) or both; 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; 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; whether the 
effects are likely to be permanent; and the extent to which any ongoing 
conservation efforts reduce the severity of the threat.
    As used in our priority-ranking system, immediacy of threat is 
categorized as either ``imminent'' or ``nonimminent'' and is based on 
when the threats will begin. If a threat is currently occurring or 
likely to occur in the very near future, we classify the threat as 
imminent. Determining the immediacy of threats helps ensure that 
species facing actual, identifiable threats are given priority for 
listing proposals over those for which threats are only potential or 
species that are intrinsically vulnerable to certain types of threats 
but are not known to be presently facing such threats.
    Our priority ranking system has three categories for taxonomic 
status: Species that are the sole members of a genus; full species (in 
genera that have more than one species); and subspecies and distinct 
population segments of vertebrate species (DPS).
    The result of the ranking system is that we assign each candidate a 
listing priority number of 1 to 12. For example, if the 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 
(i.e., a species that is the only member of its genus would be assigned 
to the LPN 1 category, a full species to LPN 2, and a subspecies or DPS 
would be assigned to LPN 3). In summary, the LPN ranking system 
provides a basis for making decisions about the relative priority for 
preparing a proposed rule to list a given species. No matter which LPN 
we assign to a species, each species included in this notice as a 
candidate is one for which we have sufficient information to prepare a 
proposed rule 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 1983 guidance is available on our Web site at: 
https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/48fr43098-43105.pdf. For 
more information on the LPN assigned to a particular species, the 
species assessment for each candidate contains the LPN chart and a 
rationale for the determination of the magnitude and immediacy of 
threat(s) and assignment of the LPN; that information is summarized in 
this CNOR.
    This revised notice supersedes all previous animal, plant, and 
combined candidate notices of review.

Summary of This CNOR

    Since publication of the previous CNOR on November 10, 2010 (75 FR 
69222), 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 ESA. Some of these findings and determinations 
have been completed and published in the Federal Register, while work 
on others is still under way (see Preclusion and Expeditious Progress, 
below, for details).
    Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information, with this CNOR we identify 3 new candidate species (see 
New Candidates, below), change the LPN for 7 candidates (see Listing 
Priority Changes in Candidates, below) and determine that a listing 
proposal is not warranted for 3 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 244 species 
(including 104 plant and 140 animal

[[Page 66372]]

species) are now candidates awaiting preparation of rules proposing 
their listing. These 244 species, along with the 48 species currently 
proposed for listing (includes 4 species proposed for listing due to 
similarity in appearance), are included in Table 1.
    Table 2 lists the changes from the previous CNOR, and includes 14 
species identified in the previous CNOR as either proposed for listing 
or classified as candidates that are no longer in those categories. 
This includes nine species for which we published a final listing rule, 
one species for which we published an emergency listing rule, one 
species for which we published a withdrawal of a proposed rule, plus 
the three species that we have determined do not meet the definition of 
endangered or threatened and therefore do not warrant listing. We have 
removed these species from candidate status in this CNOR. Also included 
in Table 2 are three species for which we published an emergency 
listing rule due to similarity in appearance; these three species were 
not previously candidate species.

New Candidates

    Below we present a brief summary of one new snail (magnificent 
ramshorn), one new insect (Poweshiek skipperling), and one new plant 
candidate (Streptanthus bracteatus), which are additions to this year's 
CNOR. Complete information, including references, can be 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 our Web site 
(https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/SpeciesReport.do?listingType=C&mapstatus=1). For these 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 18 other species--Pacific 
walrus, gopher tortoise (eastern population), striped newt, 7 species 
of Hawaiian yellow-faced bees (Hylaeus anthracinus, H. assimulans, H. 
facilis, H. hilaris, H. kuakea, H. longiceps, and H. mana), Hermes 
copper butterfly, Mt. Charleston blue butterfly, Puerto Rican harlequin 
butterfly, Boechera pusilla (Fremont County rockcress), Eriogonum 
soredium (Frisco buckwheat), Lepidium ostleri (Ostler's peppergrass), 
Pinus albicaulis (whitebark pine), Trifolium friscanum (Frisco 
clover)--were identified as candidates earlier this year as a result of 
separate petition findings published in the Federal Register.

Mammals

    Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens)--We previously 
announced candidate status for this species, and described the reasons 
and data on which the finding was based, in a separate warranted-but-
precluded 12-month petition finding published on February 10, 2011 (76 
FR 7634).

Reptiles

    Gopher tortoise, eastern population (Gopherus polyphemus)--We 
previously announced candidate status for this species, and described 
the reasons and data on which the finding was based, in a separate 
warranted-but-precluded 12-month petition finding published on July 27, 
2011 (76 FR 45130).

Amphibians

    Striped newt (Notophthalmus perstriatus)--We previously announced 
candidate status for this species, and described the reasons and data 
on which the finding was based, in a separate warranted-but-precluded 
12-month petition finding published on June 7, 2011 (76 FR 32911).

Snails

    Magnificent ramshorn (Planorbella magnifica)--The following summary 
is based on information in our files. No new information was provided 
in the petition received on April 20, 2010 (after we initiated our 
assessment of this species). The magnificent ramshorn is a freshwater 
snail in the family Planorbidae (Pilsbry 1903). It is the largest North 
American snail in this family. The magnificent ramshorn is endemic to 
the lower Cape Fear River basin, North Carolina. The species has been 
recorded from only four sites in the lower Cape Fear River Basin in New 
Hanover and Brunswick Counties, North Carolina, but is believed to be 
extirpated from all four of these sites. The only known surviving 
population is a captive population, comprised of approximately 100 
adults, being maintained and propagated by a private biologist.
    Available information indicates that suitable habitat for the 
species is restricted to relatively shallow, sheltered portions of 
still or sluggish, freshwater bodies with an abundance and diversity of 
submerged aquatic vegetation and a circumneutral pH (pH within the 
range of 6.8-7.5). The only known records for the species are post-1900 
and are from manmade millponds constructed in the 1700s to provide a 
freshwater source for rice agriculture. However, these impoundments 
closely replicate beaver-pond habitat, and it is plausible that the 
species was once a faunal component of beaver ponds. The species may 
also have once inhabited backwater and other sluggish portions of the 
main channel of lower Cape Fear River.
    Beaver-pond habitat was eliminated for several decades throughout 
much of the lower Cape Fear River as a result of the extirpation of the 
North American beaver due to trapping and hunting during the 19th and 
early 20th centuries. This, together with draining and destruction of 
beaver ponds for development, agriculture, and other purposes, is 
believed to have led to a significant decline in the snail's habitat. 
Also, dredging and deepening of the Cape Fear River channel, which 
began as early as 1822, and opening of the Atlantic Intercoastal 
Waterway (through Snow's Cut) in 1930 for navigational purposes have 
caused saltwater intrusion, altered the diversity and abundance of 
aquatic vegetation, and changed flows and current patterns far up the 
river channel and its lower tributaries. Under these circumstances, the 
magnificent ramshorn could have survived only in areas of tributary 
streams not affected by salt water intrusion and other changes, such as 
the millponds protected from saltwater intrusion by their dams. The 
species is believed to have been eliminated from the millponds from 
which it has been recorded due to saltwater intrusion during severe 
storms (Hurricane Fran) and drought conditions, increased input of 
nutrients and other pollutants from development activities adversely 
affecting water quality/chemistry and leading to increased nuisance 
aquatic plant and algae growth, and efforts, harmful to the snail, by 
landowners to control nuisance plant and algae growth.
    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 known to have previously supported the snail 
continue to be affected or threatened by most of the same factors 
(i.e., saltwater 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 a single captive population of the species is known to 
exist. Although this captive population of the species has been 
maintained since 1993, a single catastrophic event, such as a severe 
storm, disease, or predator infestation, affecting this captive 
population could

[[Page 66373]]

result in extinction of the species. Accordingly, the magnitude of the 
threats to the species' survival is high. The threats are ongoing and 
therefore imminent. Thus, we have assigned an LPN of 2 to this species.

Insects

    Hawaiian yellow-faced bees (Hylaeus anthracinus, H. assimulans, H. 
facilis, H. hilaris, H. kuakea, H. longiceps, and H. mana)--We 
previously announced candidate status for these species, and described 
the reasons and data on which the finding was based, in a separate 
warranted-but-precluded 12-month petition finding published on 
September 6, 2011 (76 FR 55170).
    Hermes copper butterfly (Hermelycaena [Lycaena] hermes)--We 
previously announced candidate status for this species, and described 
the reasons and data on which the finding was based, in a separate 
warranted-but-precluded 12-month petition finding published on April 
14, 2011 (76 FR 20918).
    Mt. Charleston blue butterfly (Plebejus shasta charlestonensis)--We 
previously announced candidate status for this species, and described 
the reasons and data on which the finding was based, in a separate 
warranted-but-precluded 12-month petition finding published on March 8, 
2011 (76 FR 12667).
    Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly (Atlantea tulita)--We previously 
announced candidate status for this species, and described the reasons 
and data on which the finding was based, in a separate warranted-but-
precluded 12-month petition finding published on May 31, 2011 (76 FR 
31282).
    Poweshiek skipperling (Oarisma poweshiek) --The following summary 
is based on information contained in our files. The Poweshiek 
skipperling is a small butterfly that currently inhabits high-quality 
tallgrass prairie in Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and 
Wisconsin and prairie fens in Michigan; it also occurs in the province 
of Manitoba, Canada. The species is presumed to be extirpated from 
Illinois and Indiana and from many sites within occupied States.
    The Poweshiek skipperling is threatened by degradation of its 
native prairie habitat by overgrazing, invasive species, gravel mining, 
and herbicide applications; inbreeding, population isolation, and 
prescribed fire threaten some populations. Prairie succeeds to 
shrubland or forest without periodic fire, grazing, or mowing; thus, 
the species is also threatened at sites where such disturbances are not 
applied. The Service, State agencies, the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux 
Tribe, and private organizations (e.g., The Nature Conservancy) protect 
and manage some Poweshiek skipperling sites. Careful and considered 
management is always necessary to ensure its persistence, even at 
protected sites. The species may be secure at a few sites where public 
and private landowners manage native prairie in ways that conserve 
Poweshiek skipperling, but approximately one-quarter of the inhabited 
sites are privately owned with little or no protection. A few private 
sites are protected from conversion by easements, but these do not 
preclude adverse effects from overgrazing. The threats are such that 
the Poweshiek skipperling warrants listing; the threats are high in 
magnitude because habitat degradation and other stressors has resulted 
in sharp declines in the western portion of its range which contains 
more than 90 percent of the species site records. We assigned this 
species an LPN of 2 to reflect the ongoing, and therefore, imminent 
threats to the species' habitat and sharp population declines 
documented recently, especially in Iowa and Minnesota.

Flowering Plants

    Boechera pusilla (Fremont County rockcress) --We previously 
announced candidate status for this species, and described the reasons 
and data on which the finding was based, in a separate warranted-but-
precluded 12-month petition finding published on June 9, 2011 (76 FR 
33924).
    Eriogonum soredium (Frisco buckwheat)--We previously announced 
candidate status for this species, and described the reasons and data 
on which the finding was based, in a separate warranted-but-precluded 
12-month petition finding published on February 23, 2011 (76 FR 10166).
    Lepidium ostleri (Ostler's peppergrass)--We previously announced 
candidate status for this species, and described the reasons and data 
on which the finding was based, in a separate warranted-but-precluded 
12-month petition finding published on February 23, 2011 (76 FR 10166).
    Pinus albicaulis (whitebark pine)--We previously announced 
candidate status for this species, and described the reasons and data 
on which the finding was based, in a separate warranted-but-precluded 
12-month petition finding published on July 19, 2011 (76 FR 42631).
    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. From 1989 to 2010, 32 
populations have been documented in five counties; of these, 15 
populations remain with intact habitat, 9 persist in degraded or 
partially destroyed habitats, and 8 are presumed extirpated. Only 9 of 
the intact populations occur in protected natural areas.
    The continued survival of bracted twistflower is imminently 
threatened by habitat destruction from urban development, severe 
herbivory from very dense herds of white-tailed deer, 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. The consistent failure of pilot reintroduction 
efforts has so far prevented the augmentation and reintroduction of 
populations in protected, managed sites. Optimal vegetation management 
of bracted twistflower populations may be incompatible with the 
management of golden-cheeked warbler nesting habitat. The species 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. The threats to bracted twistflower are 
of moderate magnitude, and are ongoing and, therefore, imminent. We 
find that bracted twistflower is warranted for listing throughout all 
of its range and assigned it an LPN of 8.
    Trifolium friscanum (Frisco clover)-- We previously announced 
candidate status for this species, and described the reasons and data 
on which the finding was based, in a separate warranted-but-precluded 
12-month petition finding published on February 23, 2011 (76 FR 10166).

[[Page 66374]]

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 immediacy of the 
threats. 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.

Birds

    Kittlitz's murrelet (Brachyramphus brevirostris)--The following 
summary is based on information contained in our files and the petition 
we received on May 9, 2001. Kittlitz's murrelet is a small diving 
seabird that inhabits Alaskan coastal waters discontinuously, from 
Point Lay south to northern portions of southeast Alaska, west to the 
tip of the Aleutian Islands, and the eastern coastline of Russia. 
During the breeding season, most Kittlitz's murrelets are associated 
with tidewater glaciers, but breeding has also been documented 
throughout their range in areas where glaciers no longer exist. We 
concluded in the past that the loss of tidewater glaciers was a threat 
to the species and the magnitude of that threat was high because of the 
rate of change in the glaciers. There is no doubt that tidewater 
glaciers are receding most likely due to climate change. It is also 
clear that in one part of their range, Kittlitz's murrelets are 
associated with glacially influenced waters during the summer breeding 
period. What is unclear is the nature of the association and if these 
areas are more important to the Kittlitz's murrelet's population 
viability than other areas. Nests have been documented throughout their 
range; what is unknown is if nest survival is better near glaciers. 
Although we know that Kittlitz's murrelet habitat will continue to be 
modified as glaciers continue to recede, we currently do not have 
evidence that this modification will lead to conditions that will lead 
to a population-level decline.
    In the past we had a high level of concern over the population 
decline and its magnitude. Although we still conclude that the 
population has declined, based on ongoing analyses, the magnitude of 
the decline is much less certain. Work is currently underway to 
evaluate past surveys and the status and trend of Kittlitz's murrelet 
across its range. We anticipate that our ability to evaluate trends and 
population size will be greatly improved when these projects are 
completed and published.
    Based on new information, the focus of our concern has shifted to 
the low reproductive success of Kittlitz's murrelet. Our concern is 
based on three lines of reasoning: at the locations where we have the 
most complete information, Agattu and Kodiak Islands, nest success is 
very low (less than 10 percent); few juvenile birds have been 
documented; and there are indications that few females (approximately 
10 percent) are breeding in spite of the fact (based on blood 
chemistry) that approximately 90 percent appear to be physiologically 
prepared to breed. Although the implications of these results are 
serious, we must temper our concern with the knowledge that the results 
are limited to small parts of the murrelet's range and for a long-lived 
bird, we have data for relatively few years. Consequently, we conclude 
that the magnitude of this threat is moderate.
    For a K-selected species such as Kittlitz's murrelet, loss of the 
adults is particularly important, and we have identified several 
sources of adult mortality such as hydrocarbon contamination, 
entanglement in gillnets, and predation. Although none of these sources 
of mortality alone rises to the level of a threat, in total, the 
chronic, low-level loss of adults, in combination with evidence that a 
small proportion of the population is breeding, and the low 
reproductive success lead us to conclude that it will be difficult for 
this species to maintain a stable population level or rebound from a 
stochastic event that causes population loss. The magnitude of threat 
from these sources is low to moderate, depending on events that occur 
in a given year (number and location of oil spills/ship wrecks, number 
and location of gillnets).
    For these reasons, this year, our focus shifted from the loss of 
glaciers to poor reproductive success. Poor nest success (as opposed to 
adult mortality) could be the underlying reason for the population 
decline, and if it is occurring rangewide, the population would be 
expected to continue to decline. Currently, our most detailed nest 
information comes from Agattu and Kodiak Islands. Whether these 
locations and the timeframe observed are representative of the 
rangewide situation is unknown; therefore, we have determined that 
threat magnitude is moderate, not high. Because the identified threats 
are currently occurring, they are imminent. Thus, we are changing the 
LPN from a 2 to an 8.
    Sprague's pipit (Anthus spragueii)--The following summary is based 
on information contained in our files and in the petition we received 
on October 15, 2008. This species occurs in Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, 
Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, 
Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Canada, and Mexico. The Sprague's pipit 
is a small grassland bird characterized by its high flight display and 
otherwise very secretive behavior. Sprague's pipits are strongly tied 
to native prairie (land which has never been plowed) throughout their 
life cycle.
    Threats to this species include: Habitat loss and conversion, 
habitat fragmentation on the breeding grounds, energy development, 
roads, and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Only 15 to 18 
percent of the historical breeding habitat in the United States remains 
due to prairie habitat loss and fragmentation. The Breeding Bird Survey 
and Christmas Bird Count both show a 40-year decline of 73 to 79 
percent (3.23 to 4.1 percent annually). We anticipate that prairie 
habitat will continue to be converted and fragmented. Most of the 
breeding range, including those areas where grassland habitat still 
remains, has been identified as a prime area for wind energy 
development, and an oil and gas boom is occurring in the central part 
of the breeding range in the United States and Canada. On the wintering 
range, conversion of grassland to agriculture and other uses appears to 
be accelerating. We recently announced candidate status for Sprague's 
pipit in a warranted-but-precluded 12-month petition finding published 
on September 15, 2010 (75 FR 56028). Because of an error in our 
original GIS analysis of the magnitude of the threats (as presented in 
our 12-month finding), we have now determined that the magnitude of 
threats is moderate as a smaller area of the range is affected by the 
threats, thereby reducing the effect of the threats to a lower level. 
Thus, we are changing the LPN of the Sprague's pipit from a 2 to an 8.

Reptiles

    Eastern massasauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus)--Until 2011, 
the eastern massasauga was considered one of three recognized 
subspecies of massasauga. Recent information indicates that the eastern 
massasauga represents a distinct species, and we recognize it as such 
beginning in 2011. It is a small, thick-bodied rattlesnake that 
occupies shallow wetlands and adjacent upland habitat in portions of 
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, 
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ontario. Populations in Missouri, formerly 
included within the previously recognized subspecies of eastern

[[Page 66375]]

massasauga, are now considered to be the western massasauga, Sistrurus 
tergeminus tergeminus.
    Although the current range of S. catenatus resembles the species' 
historical range, the geographic distribution has been restricted by 
the loss of the species from much of the area within the boundaries of 
that range. Approximately 40 percent of the counties that were 
historically occupied by S. catenatus no longer support the species. 
Sistrurus catenatus is currently listed as endangered in every State 
and province in which it occurs, except for Michigan where it is 
designated as a species of special concern. Each State and Canadian 
province across the range of S. catenatus has lost more than 30 
percent, and for the majority more than 50 percent, of their historical 
populations. Furthermore, less than 35 percent of the remaining 
populations are considered secure. Approximately 59 percent of the 
remaining S. catenatus populations occur wholly or in part on public 
land, and Statewide and site-specific Candidate Conservation Agreements 
with Assurances (CCAAs) are currently being developed for many of these 
areas in Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin. In 2004, a Candidate 
Conservation Agreement (CCA) with the Lake County Forest Preserve 
District in Illinois was completed. In 2005, a CCA with the Forest 
Preserve District of Cook County in Illinois was completed. In 2006, a 
CCAA with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Natural 
Areas and Preserves was completed for Rome State Nature Preserve in 
Ashtabula County.
    The magnitude of threats is moderate at this time. However, a 
recently completed extinction risk model, and information provided by 
species experts, indicates that other populations are likely to suffer 
additional losses in abundance and genetic diversity and some will 
likely be extirpated unless threats are removed in the near future. 
Declines have continued or may be accelerating in several States. Thus, 
we are monitoring the status of this species to determine if a change 
in listing priority is warranted. Threats of habitat modification, 
habitat succession, incompatible land management practices, illegal 
collection for the pet trade, and human persecution are ongoing and 
imminent threats to many remaining populations, particularly those 
inhabiting private lands. We do not believe emergency listing is 
warranted. We are changing the LPN from a 9 to an 8, reflecting the 
recent information indicating that this snake should be recognized as a 
species rather than a subspecies.

Amphibians

    Relict leopard frog (Lithobates onca) (formerly in Rana)--The 
following summary is based on information contained in our files. 
Natural relict leopard frog populations occur in two general areas in 
Nevada: near the Overton Arm area of Lake Mead and Black Canyon below 
Lake Mead. These two areas include a small fraction of the historical 
distribution of the species. Its historical range included springs, 
streams, and wetlands within the Virgin River drainage downstream from 
the vicinity of Hurricane, Utah; along the Muddy River, Nevada; and 
along the Colorado River from its confluence with the Virgin River 
downstream to Black Canyon below Lake Mead, Nevada and Arizona.
    Factors contributing to the decline of the species include 
alteration, loss, and degradation of aquatic habitat due to water 
developments and impoundments, and scouring and erosion; changes in 
plant communities that result in dense growth and the prevalence of 
vegetation; introduced predators; climate change; and stochastic 
events. The presence of chytrid fungus in relict leopard frogs at Lower 
Blue Point Spring in 2010 warrants further evaluation of the threat of 
disease to the relict leopard frog. The size of natural and 
translocated populations is small, and therefore these populations are 
vulnerable to stochastic events, such as floods and wildfire. Climate 
change that results in reduced spring flow, habitat loss, and increased 
prevalence of wildfire would adversely affect relict leopard frog 
populations.
    In 2005, the National Park Service, in cooperation with the Fish 
and Wildlife Service and other Federal, State, and local partners, 
developed a conservation agreement and strategy intended to improve the 
status of the species through prescribed management actions and 
protection. Conservation actions identified in the agreement and 
strategy include captive rearing of tadpoles for translocation and 
refugium populations, habitat and natural history studies, habitat 
enhancement, population and habitat monitoring, and translocation. New 
sites within the historical range of the species have been successfully 
established with captive-reared frogs. Conservation is proceeding under 
the agreement and strategy; however, additional time is needed to 
determine whether or not the agreement and strategy will be effective 
in eliminating or reducing the threats to the point that the relict 
leopard frog can be removed from candidate status. In consideration of 
these conservation efforts and the overall threat level to the species, 
we determined the magnitude of existing threats is moderate to low. 
However, because water development and other habitat effects, presence 
of introduced predators, presence of chytrid fungus, limited 
distribution, small population size, and climate change are ongoing or 
will occur in the near future, the threats are imminent. The discovery 
of chytrid fungus in relict leopard frogs in 2010 is a new and 
potentially serious threat. Therefore, we changed the LPN from an 11 to 
an 8 for this species.

Snails

    Huachuca springsnail (Pyrgulopsis thompsoni)--The following is 
based on information contained in our files. No new information was 
provided in the petition received on May 11, 2004. The Huachuca 
springsnail inhabits approximately 19 springs in southeastern Arizona 
and two springs in Sonora, Mexico. The springsnail is typically found 
in shallow water habitats, often in rocky seeps at the spring source. 
Potential threats include habitat modification and destruction through 
catastrophic wildfire and unmanaged grazing. Overall, the threats are 
low in magnitude because threats are not occurring throughout the range 
of the species uniformly and not all populations would likely be 
affected simultaneously by the known threats. The available information 
indicates that threats are not currently ongoing in or adjacent to 
occupied habitats. Accordingly, threats are nonimminent. Therefore, we 
are reducing the LPN from an 8 to an 11 for this species.

Insects

    Meltwater lednian stonefly (Lednia tumana)--The following summary 
is based on information contained in our files and in the petition we 
received on July 30, 2007. This species is an aquatic insect in the 
order Plecoptera (stoneflies). Stoneflies are primarily associated with 
clean, cool streams and rivers. Eggs and nymphs (juveniles) of the 
meltwater lednian stonefly are found in high-elevation, alpine, and 
subalpine streams, most typically in locations closely linked to 
glacial runoff. The species is generally restricted to streams with 
mean summer water temperature less than 10 [deg]C (50 [deg]F). Adults 
emerge from the nymph stage and mate in streamside vegetation. The only 
known meltwater lednian stonefly occurrences are within Glacier 
National Park (NP), Montana. Climate change, and the associated effects 
of glacier loss (with glaciers predicted to

[[Page 66376]]

be gone by 2030), reduced streamflows, and increased water 
temperatures, is expected to significantly reduce the occurrence of 
populations and extent of suitable habitat for the species in Glacier 
NP. In addition, the existing regulatory mechanisms do not address 
environmental changes due to global climate change. We recently 
announced candidate status for the meltwater lednian stonefly in a 
warranted-but-precluded 12-month petition finding published on April 5, 
2011 (76 FR 18684). We originally assigned the species an LPN of 4 
based on three criteria: (1) The high magnitude of threat, which is 
projected to substantially reduce the amount of suitable habitat 
relative to the species' current range; (2) the low imminence of the 
threat based on the lack of documented evidence that populations are 
being affected by climate change now; and (3) the taxonomic status of 
the species, which was the only described member of its genus 
(monotypic taxon). Recently, stonefly specimens discovered in Mount 
Rainier NP, North Cascades NP, and in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of 
California have been formally described as two additional species in 
the Lednia genus--L. borealis and L. sierra--which indicates that the 
meltwater lednian stonefly is no longer in a monotypic genus. Based on 
this new taxonomic information, we are changing the LPN of this species 
from a 4 to a 5.

Arachnids

    Warton's cave meshweaver (Cicurina wartoni)--The following summary 
is based on information contained in our files. No new information was 
provided in the petition received on May 11, 2004. Warton's Cave 
meshweaver is an eyeless, cave-dwelling, unpigmented, 0.23-inch-long 
invertebrate known only from female specimens. This meshweaver is known 
to occur in only one cave (Pickle Pit) in Travis County, Texas. Primary 
threats to the species and its habitat are predation and competition 
from red-imported fire ants, surface and subsurface effects from 
polluted runoff from an adjacent subdivision, unauthorized entry into 
the area surrounding the cave, and trash dumping that may include toxic 
materials near the feature. The magnitude of threats is low to moderate 
based on observations made during an April 5, 2011, site visit. In 
addition, Pickle Pit occurs in a preserve established for mitigation 
for the endangered golden-cheeked warbler; hence the meshweaver 
receives some protection. Due to a reduction in the magnitude of 
threats, we changed the LPN for this species from a 2 to an 8.

Candidate Removals

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

Snails

    Gila springsnail (Pyrgulopsis gilae)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files and the petition we 
received on November 20, 1985. Also see our 12-month petition finding 
published in the Federal Register on October 4, 1988 (53 FR 38969). The 
Gila springsnail is an aquatic species previously known from 13 
populations in New Mexico. Surveys conducted in 2008 and 2009 located 
37 additional populations, bringing the known total to 50.
    The long-term persistence of the Gila springsnail is contingent 
upon protection of the riparian corridor and maintenance of flow to 
ensure continuous, oxygenated, flowing water within the species' 
required thermal range. Based on new information, we now foresee no 
threats to the habitat of the Gila springsnail. Disturbance to the 
species from recreational activity is occurring rarely, with minimal 
effects to the species, and is not likely to become a threat in the 
foreseeable future due to the inaccessibility of the springsnail 
populations. Livestock grazing may have affected Gila springsnails in 
the past, but exclusion of livestock from the riparian habitat has 
removed this threat. Current springsnail populations are located in 
areas with minimal fire or flood risk. Groundwater use for geothermal 
development is unlikely to occur within Gila springsnail habitat. 
Additionally, the discovery of additional populations in 2008 and 2009 
reveals the species is secure from stochastic, habitat-modifying 
events.
    The distribution of the species and variance in the location of its 
habitat reduces the risk of the loss of the species from stochastic, 
habitat-modifying events. We have no indication that collection of the 
species is occurring, other than rarely by researchers confirming its 
discovery at new springs. Also, as the Gila springsnail occurs on 
Forest Service land with limited access, we do not anticipate any 
future collections for other purposes. There are no known diseases that 
affect Gila springsnails, and no native or nonnative predators occur at 
these springs. Additionally, we are not aware of any introduced species 
at the springs that would affect the springsnails.
    The effects of future climate change may serve to exacerbate 
habitat loss from other factors. However, as we have determined that 
the Gila springsnail is not threatened with habitat loss, we cannot 
predict with any certainty that the effects of climate change will 
exacerbate any future habitat concerns sufficiently to consider climate 
change, on its own, a threat to the species. Therefore, we have 
determined that climate change is not currently a threat to the Gila 
springsnail now or in the foreseeable future. In conclusion, due to the 
lack of threats to the continued existence of the Gila springsnail 
under any of the five factors now or in the foreseeable future, we find 
that the Gila springsnail does not meet the definition of a threatened 
or endangered species and no longer warrants listing throughout all or 
a significant portion of its range, and we removed it from the 
candidate list.
    New Mexico springsnail (Pyrgulopsis thermalis)--The following 
summary is based on information contained in our files and the petition 
received on November 20, 1985. Also see our 12-month petition finding 
published on October 4, 1988 (53 FR 38969). The New Mexico springsnail 
is an aquatic species that was previously known from only two separate 
populations associated with a series of spring-brook systems along the 
Gila River in the Gila National Forest in Grant County, New Mexico. 
Subsequent surveys in 2008 and 2009 discovered 12 additional 
populations, for a total of 14 separate populations.
    The long-term persistence of the New Mexico springsnail is 
contingent upon protection of the riparian corridor and maintenance of 
flow to ensure

[[Page 66377]]

continuous, oxygenated, flowing water within the species' required 
thermal range. Based on new information, we now foresee no threats to 
the habitat of the New Mexico springsnail. Disturbance to the species 
from recreational activity is occurring rarely, with minimal impacts to 
the species, and is not likely to become a threat in the foreseeable 
future due to the inaccessibility of the springsnail populations. 
Livestock grazing may have affected New Mexico springsnails in the 
past, but exclusion of livestock from the riparian habitat has removed 
this threat. Current springsnail populations are located in areas with 
minimal fire or flood risk. Groundwater use for geothermal development 
is unlikely to occur within New Mexico springsnail habitat. 
Additionally, the discovery of additional populations in 2008 and 2009 
reveals the species is secure from stochastic, habitat-modifying 
events.
    The distribution of the species and variance in the location of its 
habitat reduces the risk of the loss of the species from stochastic, 
habitat-modifying events. We have no indication that collection of the 
species is occurring, other than rarely by researchers confirming its 
discovery at new springs. Also, as the New Mexico springsnail occurs on 
Forest Service land with limited access, we do not anticipate any 
future collections for other purposes. There are no known diseases that 
affect New Mexico springsnails, and no native or nonnative predators 
occur at these springs. Additionally, we are not aware of any 
introduced species at the springs that would affect the springsnails.
    The effects of future climate change may serve to exacerbate 
habitat loss from other factors. However, as we have determined that 
the New Mexico springsnail is not threatened with habitat loss, we 
cannot predict with any certainty that the effects of climate change 
will exacerbate any future habitat concerns sufficiently to consider 
climate change, on its own, a threat to the species. Therefore, we have 
determined that climate change is not currently a threat to the New 
Mexico springsnail now or in the foreseeable future.
    In conclusion, due to the lack of threats to the continued 
existence of the New Mexico springsnail under any of the five factors 
now or in the foreseeable future, we find that the New Mexico 
springsnail does not meet the definition of a threatened or endangered 
species and no longer warrants listing throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range. As a result, we have removed it from the 
candidate list.

Insects

    Wekiu bug (Nysius wekiuicola)--The following summary is based on 
information contained in our files. No new information was provided in 
the petition we received on May 11, 2004. The wekiu bug belongs to the 
true bug family, Lygaeidae, and occurs only on the summit of Mauna Kea 
on the island of Hawaii. The wekiu bug was believed to be limited in 
range to six pu'us (cinder cones) in the summit area and was threatened 
by loss of habitat on Mauna Kea due to development of observatory 
facilities, which was believed to be causing a severe decline in its 
numbers. Surveys and other studies carried out over the last 11 years 
suggest the wekiu bug has a broader distribution on Mauna Kea than 
previously known. Surveys now indicate that the wekiu bug is currently 
found on 16 pu'us. Two of these 16 pu'us occur in an area that has 
undergone development of astronomy observatory facilities. The previous 
trend toward loss of habitat due to observatory construction has been 
curtailed, and no new construction, including the currently planned 
Thirty-meter Telescope project, will occur on any pu'u occupied by the 
species. Management of the Mauna Kea summit area by the Office of Mauna 
Kea Management includes continued monitoring of the wekiu bug and its 
habitat, and scientific studies to assist in managing and protecting 
wekiu bug populations and habitat. The 2000 Mauna Kea Science Reserve 
Management Plan, the Mauna Kea Comprehensive Management Plan, the four 
subplans (natural resources management plan, cultural resources 
management plan, decommissioning plan, and public access plan), and a 
procedure for formal review of new projects on Mauna Kea all contribute 
to the protection and conservation of the wekiu bug.
    Studies over the last 11 years also indicate the wekiu bug has a 
stable population, and demonstrate that this species exhibits extreme 
variability in terms of annual densities at any given site, such that 
the normal bounds of natural population variance for this species are 
much wider than previously understood. Based on our review of the best 
available information we no longer conclude that threats across the 
wekiu bug's expanded range put the species in danger of extinction. In 
summary, because the wekiu bug is likely stable in numbers, the wekiu 
bug is more widespread than previously believed, current threats are 
minimized and restricted within the larger range of the species, and 
future potential threats are monitored, we find the wekiu bug does not 
meet the definition of a threatened or endangered species and no longer 
warrants listing throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 
Thus, we have removed it from candidate status.

Petition Findings

    The ESA 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. The CNOR serves several 
purposes as part of the petition process: (1) In some instances (in 
particular, for petitions to list species that the Service has already 
identified as candidates on its own initiative), it serves as the 
petition finding; (2) it serves as a ``resubmitted'' petition finding 
that the ESA requires the Service to make each year; and (3) it 
documents the Service's compliance with the statutory requirement to 
monitor the status of species for which listing is warranted-but-
precluded to ascertain if they need emergency listing.
    First, the CNOR serves as a petition finding in some instances. 
Under section 4(b)(3)(A), when we receive a listing petition, we must 
determine within 90 days, to the maximum extent practicable, whether 
the petition presents substantial information indicating that listing 
may be warranted (a ``90-day finding''). If we make a positive 90-day 
finding, we must promptly commence a status review of the species under 
section 4(b)(3)(A); we must then make and publish one of three possible 
findings within 12 months of the receipt of the petition (a ``12-month 
finding''):
    (1) The petitioned action is not warranted;
    (2) The petitioned action is warranted (in which case we are 
required to promptly publish a proposed regulation to implement the 
petitioned action; once we publish a proposed rule for a species, 
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 a regulation 
implementing the petitioned action is precluded by pending proposals to 
determine whether any species is endangered or threatened, and

[[Page 66378]]

(b) expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to the 
Lists of Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants. (We refer to 
this third option as a ``warranted-but-precluded finding.'').
    We define ``candidate species'' to mean those species for which the 
Service has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability 
and threat(s) to support issuance of a proposed rule to list, but for 
which issuance of the proposed rule is precluded (61 FR 64481; December 
5, 1996). This standard for making a species a candidate through our 
own initiative is identical to the standard for making a warranted-but-
precluded 12-month petition finding on a petition to list, and we add 
all petitioned species for which we have made a warranted-but-precluded 
12-month finding to the candidate list.
    Therefore, all candidate species identified through our own 
initiative already have received the equivalent of substantial 90-day 
and warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings. Nevertheless, we review 
the status of the newly petitioned candidate species and through this 
CNOR publish specific section 4(b)(3) findings (i.e., substantial 90-
day and warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings) in response to the 
petitions to list these candidate species. We publish these findings as 
part of the first CNOR following receipt of the petition. On April 20, 
2010, we received a petition to list the magnificent ramshorn (see 
summary above under New Candidates) after we had initiated our 
assessment of this species for candidate status. In addition, the 
following species that were already on our candidate list were also 
included in this petition: Black Warrior waterdog, sicklefin redhorse, 
rabbitsfoot, black mudalia, Coleman cave beetle, and Solidago plumosa 
(Yadkin River goldenrod). The petition did not provide any new 
information on these species. We published a separate substantial 90-
day finding for all of the above species on September 27, 2011 (76 FR 
59836). As part of this notice, we are making the warranted-but-
precluded 12-month finding for these species. We have identified the 
candidate species for which we received petitions by the code ``C*'' in 
the category column on the left side of Table 1 below.
    Second, the CNOR serves as a ``resubmitted'' petition finding. 
Section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the ESA requires that when we make a 
warranted-but-precluded finding on a petition, we are to treat such a 
petition as one that is resubmitted on the date of such a finding. 
Thus, we must make a 12-month petition finding in compliance with 
section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA at least once a year, until we publish a 
proposal to list the species or make a final not-warranted finding. We 
make these annual findings for petitioned candidate species through the 
CNOR.
    Third, through undertaking the analysis required to complete the 
CNOR, the Service determines if any candidate species needs emergency 
listing. Section 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the ESA requires us to ``implement 
a system to monitor effectively the status of all species'' for which 
we have made a warranted-but-precluded 12-month finding, and to ``make 
prompt use of the [emergency listing] authority [under section 4(b)(7)] 
to prevent a significant risk to the well being of any such species.'' 
The CNOR plays a crucial role in the monitoring system that we have 
implemented for all candidate species by providing notice that we are 
actively seeking information regarding the status of those species. We 
review all new information on candidate species as it becomes 
available, prepare an annual species assessment form that reflects 
monitoring results and other new information, and identify any species 
for which emergency listing may be appropriate. If we determine that 
emergency listing is appropriate for any candidate we will make prompt 
use of the emergency listing authority under section 4(b)(7). For 
example, on August 10, 2011, we emergency listed the Miami blue 
butterfly (76 FR 49542)