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]
Download as PDF
66370
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of review.
AGENCY:
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
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
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 priorityranking 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
66371
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/48fr4309843105.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
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
66372
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
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 12month 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-butprecluded 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 12month 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 post1900 and are from manmade millponds
constructed in the 1700s to provide a
freshwater source for rice agriculture.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
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 12month 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-butprecluded 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-butprecluded 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 12month 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-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
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 onequarter 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 12month 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 12month 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 12month 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-butprecluded 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
66373
surveys and monitoring data, seedcollection 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-butprecluded 12-month petition finding
published on February 23, 2011 (76 FR
10166).
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
66374
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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 sitespecific 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
66375
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 °C (50
°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
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
66376
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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-butprecluded 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.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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, habitatmodifying 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 12month 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
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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, habitatmodifying 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, habitatmodifying 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
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 Thirtymeter 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
66377
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
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
66378
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
(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 12month petition finding on a petition to
list, and we add all petitioned species
for which we have made a warrantedbut-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-butprecluded 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 12month 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 90day 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-butprecluded 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 12month petition finding in compliance
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA at
least once a year, until we publish a
proposal to list the species or make a
final not-warranted finding. We make
these annual findings for petitioned
candidate species through the CNOR.
Third, through undertaking the
analysis required to complete the
CNOR, the Service determines if any
candidate species needs emergency
listing. Section 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the ESA
requires us to ‘‘implement a system to
monitor effectively the status of all
species’’ for which we have made a
warranted-but-precluded 12-month
finding, and to ‘‘make prompt use of the
[emergency listing] authority [under
section 4(b)(7)] to prevent a significant
risk to the well being of any such
species.’’ The CNOR plays a crucial role
in the monitoring system that we have
implemented for all candidate species
by providing notice that we are actively
seeking information regarding the status
of those species. We review all new
information on candidate species as it
becomes available, prepare an annual
species assessment form that reflects
monitoring results and other new
information, and identify any species
for which emergency listing may be
appropriate. If we determine that
emergency listing is appropriate for any
candidate we will make prompt use of
the emergency listing authority under
section 4(b)(7). For example, on August
10, 2011, we emergency listed the
Miami blue butterfly (76 FR 49542). We
have been reviewing and will continue
to review, at least annually, the status of
every candidate, whether or not we have
received a petition to list it. Thus, the
CNOR and accompanying species
assessment forms constitute the
Service’s annual finding on the status of
petitioned species under section
4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the ESA.
A number of court decisions have
elaborated on the nature and specificity
of information that must be considered
in making and describing the petition
findings in the CNOR. The CNOR
published on November 9, 2009 (74 FR
57804), describes these court decisions
in further detail. As with previous
CNORs, we continue to incorporate
information of the nature and specificity
required by the courts. For example, we
include a description of the reasons why
the listing of every petitioned candidate
species is both warranted and precluded
at this time. We make our
determinations of preclusion on a
nationwide basis to ensure that the
species most in need of listing will be
addressed first and also because we
allocate our listing budget on a
nationwide basis (see below). Regional
priorities can also be discerned from
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Table 1, below, which includes the lead
region and the LPN for each species.
Our preclusion determinations are
further based upon our budget for listing
activities for unlisted species only, and
we explain the priority system and why
the work we have accomplished does
preclude action on listing candidate
species.
In preparing this CNOR, we reviewed
the current status of, and threats to, the
204 candidates and 5 listed species for
which we have received a petition and
for which we have found listing or
reclassification from threatened to
endangered to be warranted but
precluded. Included in this work is our
review of the current status of, and
threats to, the Canada lynx in New
Mexico for which we received a petition
to add that State to the listed range. We
find that the immediate issuance of a
proposed rule and timely promulgation
of a final rule for each of these species
has been, for the preceding months, and
continues to be, precluded by higher
priority listing actions. Additional
information that is the basis for this
finding is found in the species
assessments and our administrative
record for each species.
Our review included updating the
status of, and threats to, petitioned
candidate or listed species for which we
published findings, under section
4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA, in the previous
CNOR. We have incorporated new
information we gathered since the prior
finding and, as a result of this review,
we are making continued warrantedbut-precluded 12-month findings on the
petitions for these species.
The immediate publication of
proposed rules to list these species was
precluded by our work on higher
priority listing actions, listed below,
during the period from October 1, 2010,
through September 30, 2011. We will
continue to monitor the status of all
candidate species, including petitioned
species, as new information becomes
available to determine if a change in
status is warranted, including the need
to emergency-list a species under
section 4(b)(7) of the ESA.
In addition to identifying petitioned
candidate species in Table 1 below, we
also present brief summaries of why
each of these candidates warrants
listing. More complete information,
including references, is found in the
species assessment forms. You may
obtain a copy of these forms from the
Regional Office having the lead for the
species, or from the Fish and Wildlife
Service’s Internet Web site: https://ecos.
fws.gov/tess_public/pub/Species
Report.do?listingType=C&mapstatus=1.
As described above, under section 4 of
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
the ESA, we may identify and propose
species for listing based on the factors
identified in section 4(a)(1), and section
4 also provides a mechanism for the
public to petition us to add species to
the Lists of Endangered or Threatened
Wildlife and Plants under the ESA.
Below we describe the actions that
continue to preclude the immediate
proposal and final promulgation of a
regulation implementing each of the
petitioned actions for which we have
made a warranted-but-precluded
finding, and we describe the
expeditious progress we are making to
add qualified species to, and remove
species from, the Lists of Endangered or
Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
Preclusion and Expeditious Progress
Preclusion is a function of the listing
priority of a species in relation to the
resources that are available and the cost
and relative priority of competing
demands for those resources. Thus, in
any given fiscal year (FY), multiple
factors dictate whether it will be
possible to undertake work on a listing
proposal regulation or whether
promulgation of such a proposal is
precluded by higher priority listing
actions.
The resources available for listing
actions are determined through the
annual Congressional appropriations
process. The appropriation for the
Listing Program is available to support
work involving the following listing
actions: Proposed and final listing rules;
90-day and 12-month findings on
petitions to add species to the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants (Lists) or to change the status
of a species from threatened to
endangered; annual ‘‘resubmitted’’
petition findings on prior warrantedbut-precluded petition findings as
required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of
the ESA; critical habitat petition
findings; proposed and final rules
designating critical habitat; and
litigation-related, administrative, and
program-management functions
(including preparing and allocating
budgets, responding to Congressional
and public inquiries, and conducting
public outreach regarding listing and
critical habitat). The work involved in
preparing various listing documents can
be extensive, and may include, but is
not limited to: Gathering and assessing
the best scientific and commercial data
available and conducting analyses used
as the basis for our decisions; writing
and publishing documents; and
obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating
public comments and peer-review
comments on proposed rules and
incorporating relevant information into
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
final rules. The number of listing
actions that we can undertake in a given
year also is influenced by the
complexity of those listing actions; that
is, more complex actions generally are
more costly. The median cost for
preparing and publishing a 90-day
finding is $39,276; for a 12-month
finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule
with critical habitat, $345,000; and for
a final listing rule with critical habitat,
$305,000.
We cannot spend more than is
appropriated for the Listing Program
without violating the Anti-Deficiency
Act (see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In
addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal
year since then, Congress has placed a
statutory cap on funds which may be
expended for the Listing Program, equal
to the amount expressly appropriated
for that purpose in that fiscal year. This
cap was designed to prevent funds
appropriated for other functions under
the ESA (for example, recovery funds
for removing species from the Lists), or
for other Service programs, from being
used for Listing Program actions (see
House Report 105–163, 105th Congress,
1st Session, July 1, 1997).
Since FY 2002, the Service’s budget
has included a critical habitat subcap to
ensure that some funds are available for
other work in the Listing Program (‘‘The
critical habitat designation subcap will
ensure that some funding is available to
address other listing activities’’ (House
Report No. 107–103, 107th Congress, 1st
Session, June 19, 2001)). In FY 2002 and
each year until FY 2006, the Service has
had to use virtually the entire critical
habitat subcap to address courtmandated designations of critical
habitat, and consequently none of the
critical habitat subcap funds have been
available for other listing activities. In
some FYs since 2006, we have been able
to use some of the critical habitat
subcap funds to fund proposed listing
determinations for high-priority
candidate species. In other FYs, while
we were unable to use any of the critical
habitat subcap funds to fund proposed
listing determinations, we did use some
of this money to fund the critical habitat
portion of some proposed listing
determinations so that the proposed
listing determination and proposed
critical habitat designation could be
combined into one rule, thereby being
more efficient in our work. For FY 2011,
we were again able to use some of the
critical habitat subcap funds to fund
proposed listing determination.
We make our determinations of
preclusion on a nationwide basis to
ensure that the species most in need of
listing will be addressed first and also
because we allocate our listing budget
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
66379
on a nationwide basis. Through the
listing cap, the critical habitat subcap,
and the amount of funds needed to
address court-mandated critical habitat
designations, Congress and the courts
have in effect determined the amount of
money available for other listing
activities nationwide. Therefore, the
funds in the listing cap, other than those
needed to address court-mandated
critical habitat for already listed species,
represent the resources we must take
into consideration when we make our
determinations of preclusion and
expeditious progress.
Congress identified the availability of
resources as the only basis for deferring
the initiation of a rulemaking that is
warranted. The Conference Report
accompanying Public Law 97–304,
which established the current statutory
deadlines and the warranted-butprecluded finding, states that the
amendments were ‘‘not intended to
allow the Secretary to delay
commencing the rulemaking process for
any reason other than that the existence
of pending or imminent proposals to list
species subject to a greater degree of
threat would make allocation of
resources to such a petition [that is, for
a lower-ranking species] unwise.’’
Although that statement appeared to
refer specifically to the ‘‘to the
maximum extent practicable’’ limitation
on the 90-day deadline for making a
‘‘substantial information’’ finding, that
finding is made at the point when the
Service is deciding whether or not to
commence a status review that will
determine the degree of threats facing
the species, and therefore the analysis
underlying the statement is more
relevant to the use of the warranted-butprecluded finding, which is made when
the Service has already determined the
degree of threats facing the species and
is deciding whether or not to commence
a rulemaking.
In FY 2011, on April 15, 2011,
Congress passed the Full-Year
Continuing Appropriations Act (Pub. L.
112–10), which provided funding
through September 30, 2011. The
Service was provided $20,902,000 for
the listing program. Of that, the Service
used $9,472,000 for determinations of
critical habitat for already listed species.
Also $500,000 was appropriated for
foreign species listings under the ESA.
The Service thus had $10,930,000
available to fund work in the following
categories: Compliance with court
orders and court-approved settlement
agreements requiring that petition
findings or listing determinations be
completed by a specific date; section 4
(of the ESA) listing actions with
absolute statutory deadlines; essential
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
66380
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
litigation-related, administrative, and
listing program-management functions;
and high-priority listing actions for
some of our candidate species. In FY
2010, the Service received many new
petitions and a single petition to list 404
species. The receipt of petitions for a
large number of species is consuming
the Service’s listing funding that is not
dedicated to meeting court-ordered
commitments. Absent some ability to
balance effort among listing duties
under existing funding levels, the
Service was only able to initiate a few
new listing determinations for candidate
species in FY 2011.
In 2009, the responsibility for listing
foreign species under the ESA was
transferred from the Division of
Scientific Authority, International
Affairs Program, to the Endangered
Species Program. Therefore, starting in
FY 2010, we used a portion of our
funding to work on the actions
described above for listing actions
related to foreign species. In FY 2011,
we allocated $500,000 for work on
listing actions for foreign species, which
reduced funding available for domestic
listing actions. Although there are no
foreign species issues included in our
high-priority listing actions (these are
accounted for separately in the Annual
Notice of Review for foreign species
published on May 3, 2011 (76 FR
25150)), many actions had statutory or
court-approved settlement deadlines,
thus increasing their priority. The
budget allocations for each specific
listing action are identified in the
Service’s FY 2011 Allocation Table (part
of our record).
Because of the large number of highpriority species, we further ranked the
candidate species with an LPN of 2 by
using the following extinction-risk type
criteria: International Union for the
Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank,
Heritage rank (provided by
NatureServe), Heritage threat rank
(provided by NatureServe), and species
currently with fewer than 50
individuals, or 4 or fewer populations.
Those species with the highest IUCN
rank (critically endangered), the highest
Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage
threat rank (substantial, imminent
threats), and currently with fewer than
50 individuals, or fewer than 4
populations, originally comprised a
group of approximately 40 candidate
species (‘‘Top 40’’). These 40 candidate
species have had the highest priority to
receive funding to work on a proposed
listing determination. As we work on
proposed and final listing rules for those
40 candidates, we apply the ranking
criteria to the next group of candidates
with an LPN of 2 and 3 to determine the
next set of highest priority candidate
species. Finally, proposed rules for
reclassification of threatened species to
endangered are lower priority, because
as listed species, they are already
afforded the protections of the ESA and
implementing regulations. However, for
efficiency reasons, we may choose to
work on a proposed rule to reclassify a
species to endangered if we can
combine this with work that is subject
to a court-determined deadline.
With our workload so much bigger
than the amount of funds we have to
accomplish it, it is important that we be
as efficient as possible in our listing
process. Therefore, as we work on
proposed rules for the highest priority
species in the next several years, we are
preparing multi-species proposals when
appropriate, and these may include
species with lower priority if they
overlap geographically or have the same
threats as a species with an LPN of 2.
In addition, we take into consideration
the availability of staff resources when
we determine which high-priority
species will receive funding to
minimize the amount of time and
resources required to complete each
listing action.
Based on these prioritization factors,
we continue to find that proposals to list
the petitioned candidate species
included in Table 1 are all precluded by
higher priority listing actions including
those with court-ordered and courtapproved settlement agreements, listing
actions with absolute statutory
deadlines, and work on proposed listing
determinations for candidate species
with higher listing priorities.
As explained above, a determination
that listing is warranted but precluded
must also demonstrate that expeditious
progress is being made to add and
remove qualified species to and from
the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. As with our
‘‘precluded’’ finding, the evaluation of
whether progress in adding qualified
species to the Lists has been expeditious
is a function of the resources available
for listing and the competing demands
for those funds. (Although we do not
discuss it in detail here, we are also
making expeditious progress in
removing species from the list under the
Recovery program in light of the
resource available for delisting, which is
funded by a separate line item in the
budget of the Endangered Species
Program. During FY 2011, we have
completed delisting rules for three
species.) Given the limited resources
available for listing, we find that we
made expeditious progress in FY 2011
in the Listing Program. This progress
included preparing and publishing the
following determinations:
FY 2011 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS
Publication date
Title
Actions
10/6/2010 .............................
Endangered Status for the Altamaha
Spinymussel and Designation of Critical
Habitat.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to list the
Sacramento Splittail as Endangered or
Threatened.
Endangered Status and Designation of
Critical Habitat for Spikedace and Loach
Minnow.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the
Bay Springs Salamander as Endangered.
Determination of Endangered Status for
the Georgia Pigtoe Mussel, Interrupted
Rocksnail, and Rough Hornsnail and
Designation of Critical Habitat.
Listing the Rayed Bean and Snuffbox as
Endangered.
Proposed Listing Endangered ....................
75 FR 61664–61690
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not
warranted.
75 FR 62070–62095
Proposed Listing Endangered (uplisting) ...
75 FR 66481–66552
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial.
75 FR 67341–67343
Final Listing Endangered ...........................
75 FR 67511–67550
Proposed Listing Endangered ....................
75 FR 67551–67583
10/7/2010 .............................
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10/28/2010 ...........................
11/2/2010 .............................
11/2/2010 .............................
11/2/2010 .............................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
FR pages
26OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
66381
FY 2011 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued
Publication date
Title
Actions
11/4/2010 .............................
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List
Cirsium wrightii (Wright’s Marsh Thistle)
as Endangered or Threatened.
Endangered Status for Dunes Sagebrush
Lizard.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the
North American Wolverine as Endangered or Threatened.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the
Sonoran Population of the Desert Tortoise as Endangered or Threatened.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Astragalus microcymbus and Astragalus
schmolliae as Endangered or Threatened.
Listing Seven Brazilian Bird Species as
Endangered Throughout Their Range.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the
Red Knot subspecies Calidris canutus
roselaari as Endangered.
Endangered Status for the Sheepnose
and Spectaclecase Mussels.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the
Pacific Walrus as Endangered or
Threatened.
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the
Sand Verbena Moth as Endangered or
Threatened.
Determination of Threatened Status for
the New Zealand-Australia Distinct Population Segment of the Southern
Rockhopper Penguin.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List
Solanum conocarpum (marron bacora)
as Endangered.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List
Thorne’s Hairstreak Butterfly as Endangered.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Astragalus hamiltonii, Penstemon flowersii,
Eriogonum soredium, Lepidium ostleri,
and Trifolium friscanum as Endangered
or Threatened.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the
Wild Plains Bison or Each of Four Distinct Population Segments as Threatened.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the
Unsilvered Fritillary Butterfly as Threatened or Endangered.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the
Mt. Charleston Blue Butterfly as Endangered or Threatened.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the
Texas Kangaroo Rat as Endangered or
Threatened.
Initiation of Status Review for Longfin
Smelt.
Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List the
Flat-tailed Horned Lizard as Threatened.
Proposed Threatened Status for the Chiricahua Leopard Frog and Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the
Berry Cave Salamander as Endangered.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the
Spring Pygmy Sunfish as Endangered.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the
Bearmouth Mountainsnail, Byrne Resort
Mountainsnail, and Meltwater Lednian
Stonefly as Endangered or Threatened.
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.
75 FR 67925–67944
Proposed Listing Endangered ....................
75 FR 77801–77817
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.
75 FR 78029–78061
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.
75 FR 78093–78146
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.
75 FR 78513–78556
Final Listing Endangered ...........................
75 FR 81793–81815
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial.
76 FR 304–311
Proposed Listing Endangered ....................
76 FR 3392–3420
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.
76 FR 7634–7679
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial.
76 FR 9309–9318
Final Listing Threatened ............................
76 FR 9681–9692
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.
76 FR 9722–9733
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not
warranted.
76 FR 9991–10003
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Warranted but precluded & Not Warranted.
76 FR 10166–10203
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial.
76 FR 10299–10310
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial.
76 FR 10310–10319
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.
76 FR 12667–12683
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial.
76 FR 12683–12690
Notice of Status Review .............................
76 FR 13121–13122
Proposed rule withdrawal ...........................
76 FR 14210–14268
Proposed Listing Threatened; Proposed
Designation of Critical Habitat.
76 FR 14126–14207
12/14/2010 ...........................
12/14/2010 ...........................
12/14/2010 ...........................
12/15/2010 ...........................
12/28/2010 ...........................
1/4/2011 ...............................
1/19/2011 .............................
2/10/2011 .............................
2/17/2011 .............................
2/22/2011 .............................
2/22/2011 .............................
2/23/2011 .............................
2/23/2011 .............................
2/24/2011 .............................
2/24/2011 .............................
3/8/2011 ...............................
3/8/2011 ...............................
3/10/2011 .............................
3/15/2011 .............................
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
3/15/2011 .............................
3/22/2011 .............................
4/1/2011 ...............................
4/5/2011 ...............................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
FR pages
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, War- 76 FR 15919–15932
ranted but precluded.
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Sub- 76 FR 18138–18143
stantial.
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not 76 FR 18684–18701
Warranted and Warranted but precluded.
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
66382
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
FY 2011 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued
Publication date
Title
Actions
4/5/2011 ...............................
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the
Peary Caribou and Dolphin and Union
population of the Barren-ground Caribou
as Endangered or Threatened.
Proposed Endangered Status for the
Three Forks Springsnail and San
Bernardino Springsnail, and Proposed
Designation of Critical Habitat.
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List
Spring Mountains Acastus Checkerspot
Butterfly as Endangered.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the
Prairie Chub as Threatened or Endangered.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Hermes Copper Butterfly as Endangered or
Threatened.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the
Arapahoe Snowfly as Endangered or
Threatened.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the
Smooth-Billed Ani as Threatened or Endangered.
Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule to List
the Mountain Plover as Threatened.
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the
Spot-tailed Earless Lizard as Endangered or Threatened.
Listing the Salmon-Crested Cockatoo as
Threatened Throughout its Range with
Special Rule.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List
Puerto Rican Harlequin Butterfly as Endangered.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to Reclassify
the Straight-Horned Markhor (Capra
falconeri jerdoni) of Torghar Hills as
Threatened.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the
Golden-winged Warbler as Endangered
or Threatened.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the
Striped Newt as Threatened.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List
Abronia ammophila, Agrostis rossiae,
Astragalus
proimanthus,
Boechera
(Arabis)
pusilla,
and
Penstemon
gibbensii as Threatened or Endangered.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the
Utah Population of the Gila Monster as
an Endangered or a Threatened Distinct
Population Segment.
Revised 90-Day Finding on a Petition To
Reclassify the Utah Prairie Dog From
Threatened to Endangered.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List
Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis as
Threatened or Endangered.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the
Eastern Small-Footed Bat and the
Northern Long-Eared Bat as Threatened
or Endangered.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List a
Distinct Population Segment of the Fisher in Its United States Northern Rocky
Mountain Range as Endangered or
Threatened with Critical Habitat.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the
Bay Skipper as Threatened or Endangered.
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial.
76 FR 18701–18706
Proposed Listing Endangered; Proposed
Designation of Critical Habitat.
76 FR 20464–20488
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial.
76 FR 20613–20622
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial.
76 FR 20911–20918
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.
76 FR 20918–20939
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial.
76 FR 23256–23265
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Not
substantial.
76 FR 23265–23271
Proposed Rule, Withdrawal .......................
76 FR 27756–27799
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial.
76 FR 30082–30087
Final Listing Threatened ............................
76 FR 30758–30780
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.
76 FR 31282–31294
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial.
76 FR 31903–31906
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial.
76 FR 31920–31926
4/12/2011 .............................
4/13/2011 .............................
4/14/2011 .............................
4/14/2011 .............................
4/26/2011 .............................
4/26/2011 .............................
5/12/2011 .............................
5/25/2011 .............................
5/26/2011 .............................
5/31/2011 .............................
6/2/2011 ...............................
6/2/2011 ...............................
6/7/2011 ...............................
6/9/2011 ...............................
6/21/2011 .............................
6/21/2011 .............................
6/28/2011 .............................
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6/29/2011 .............................
6/30/2011 .............................
7/12/2011 .............................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
FR pages
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, War- 76 FR 32911–32929
ranted but precluded.
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not 76 FR 33924–33965
Warranted and Warranted but precluded.
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Not
substantial.
76 FR 36049–36053
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial.
76 FR 36053–36068
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not
warranted.
76 FR 37706–37716
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial.
76 FR 38095–38106
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not
warranted.
76 FR 38504–38532
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial.
76 FR 40868–40871
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
66383
FY 2011 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued
Publication date
Title
Actions
7/19/2011 .............................
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List
Pinus albicaulis as Endangered or
Threatened with Critical Habitat.
Petition To List Grand Canyon Cave
Pseudoscorpion.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the
Giant Palouse Earthworm (Drilolerius
americanus) as Threatened or Endangered.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the
Frigid Ambersnail as Endangered.
Determination of Endangered Status for
Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket) and Threatened Status for
Penstemon
debilis
(Parachute
Beardtongue) and Phacelia submutica
(DeBeque Phacelia).
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the
Gopher Tortoise as Threatened in the
Eastern Portion of its Range.
Proposed Endangered Status for the
Chupadera Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis
chupaderae) and Proposed Designation
of Critical Habitat.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the
Straight Snowfly and Idaho Snowfly as
Endangered.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the
Redrock Stonefly as Endangered or
Threatened.
Listing 23 Species on Oahu as Endangered and Designating Critical Habitat
for 124 Species.
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Six
Sand Dune Beetles as Endangered or
Threatened.
Endangered Status for the Cumberland
Darter, Rush Darter, Yellowcheek Darter, Chucky Madtom, and Laurel Dace.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the
Nueces River and Plateau Shiners as
Threatened or Endangered.
Four Foreign Parrot Species [crimson
shining parrot, white cockatoo, Philippine
cockatoo,
yellow-crested
cockatoo].
Proposed Listing of the Miami Blue Butterfly as Endangered, and Proposed
Listing of the Cassius Blue, Ceraunus
Blue, and Nickerbean Blue Butterflies as
Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance to the Miami Blue Butterfly.
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the
Saltmarsh Topminnow as Threatened or
Endangered Under the Endangered
Species Act.
Emergency Listing of the Miami Blue Butterfly as Endangered, and Emergency
Listing of the Cassius Blue, Ceraunus
Blue, and Nickerbean Blue Butterflies as
Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance to the Miami Blue Butterfly.
Listing Six Foreign Birds as Endangered
Throughout Their Range.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the
Leona’s Little Blue Butterfly as Endangered or Threatened.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List All
Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) as Endangered.
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.
76 FR 42631–42654
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not
warranted.
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not
warranted.
76 FR 42654–42658
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not
warranted.
Final Listing Endangered, Threatened .......
76 FR 44566–44569
7/19/2011 .............................
7/26/2011 .............................
7/26/2011 .............................
7/27/2011 .............................
7/27/2011 .............................
8/2/2011 ...............................
8/2/2011 ...............................
8/2/2011 ...............................
8/2/2011 ...............................
8/4/2011 ...............................
8/9/2011 ...............................
8/9/2011 ...............................
8/9/2011 ...............................
8/10/2011 .............................
8/10/2011 .............................
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8/10/2011 .............................
8/11/2011 .............................
8/17/2011 .............................
9/01/2011 .............................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
FR pages
76 FR 44547–44564
76 FR 45054–45075
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.
76 FR 45130–45162
Proposed Listing Endangered ....................
76 FR 46218–46234
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Not
substantial.
76 FR 46238–46251
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not
warranted.
76 FR 46251–46266
Proposed Listing Endangered ....................
76 FR 46362–46594
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Not
substantial and substantial.
76 FR 47123–47133
Final Listing Endangered ...........................
76 FR 48722–48741
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not
warranted.
76 FR 48777–48788
Proposed Listing Endangered and Threatened; Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not warranted.
76 FR 49202–49236
Proposed Listing Endangered Similarity of
Appearance.
76 FR 49408–49412
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial.
76 FR 49412–49417
Emergency Listing Endangered and Similarity of Appearance.
76 FR 49542–49567
Final Listing Endangered ...........................
76 FR 50052–50080
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial.
76 FR 50971–50979
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial.
76 FR 54423–54425
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
66384
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
FY 2011 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued
Publication date
Title
Actions
9/6/2011 ...............................
12-Month Finding on Five Petitions to List
Seven Species of Hawaiian Yellowfaced Bees as Endangered.
12-Month Petition Finding and Proposed
Listing of Arctostaphylos franciscana as
Endangered.
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the
Snowy Plover and Reclassify the Wintering Population of Piping Plover.
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the
Franklin’s Bumble Bee as Endangered.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 42
Great Basin and Mojave Desert
Springsnails as Threatened or Endangered with Critical Habitat.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Van
Rossem’s Gull-billed Tern as Endangered or Threatened.
Determination of Endangered Status for
Casey’s June Beetle and Designation of
Critical Habitat.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the
Tamaulipan Agapema, Sphingicampa
blanchardi (no common name), and
Ursia furtiva (no common name) as Endangered or Threatened.
Partial 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List
404 Species in the Southeastern United
States as Endangered or Threatened
With Critical Habitat.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the
American Eel as Threatened.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the
Lake Sammamish Kokanee Population
of Oncorhynchus nerka as an Endangered or Threatened Distinct Population
Segment.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List
Calopogon oklahomensis as Threatened
or Endangered.
12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the
Amargosa River Population of the Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard as an Endangered or Threatened Distinct Population
Segment.
Endangered Status for the Alabama
Pearlshell, Round Ebonyshell, Southern
Sandshell, Southern Kidneyshell, and
Choctaw Bean, and Threatened Status
for the Tapered Pigtoe, Narrow Pigtoe,
and Fuzzy Pigtoe; with Critical Habitat.
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 10
Subspecies of Great Basin Butterflies as
Threatened or Endangered with Critical
Habitat.
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Warranted but precluded.
76 FR 55170–55203
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Warranted; Proposed Listing Endangered.
76 FR 55623–55638
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Not
substantial.
76 FR 55638–55641
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial.
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial and Not substantial.
76 FR 56381–56391
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not
warranted.
76 FR 58650–58680
Final Listing Endangered ...........................
76 FR 58954–58998
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not
warranted.
76 FR 59623–59634
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial.
76 FR 59836–59862
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial.
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not
warranted.
76 FR 60431–60444
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not
warranted.
76 FR 61307–61321
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not
warranted.
76 FR 61321–61330
Proposed Listing Endangered ....................
76 FR 61482–61529
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial and Not substantial.
76 FR 61532–61554
9/8/2011 ...............................
9/8/2011 ...............................
9/13/2011 .............................
9/13/2011 .............................
9/21/2011 .............................
9/22/2011 .............................
9/27/2011 .............................
9/27/2011 .............................
9/29/2011 .............................
10/4/2011 .............................
10/4/2011 .............................
10/4/2011 .............................
10/4/2011 .............................
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
10/4/2011 .............................
Our expeditious progress also
included work on listing actions that we
funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 but
have not yet been completed to date.
These actions are listed below. Actions
in the top section of the table are being
conducted under a deadline set by a
court. Actions in the middle section of
the table are being conducted to meet
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
statutory timelines, that is, timelines
required under the ESA. Actions in the
bottom section of the table are highpriority listing actions. These actions
include work primarily on species with
an LPN of 2, and, as discussed above,
selection of these species is partially
based on available staff resources, and
when appropriate, include species with
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
FR pages
76 FR 56608–56630
76 FR 61298–61307
a lower priority if they overlap
geographically or have the same threats
as the species with the high priority.
Including these species together in the
same proposed rule results in
considerable savings in time and
funding, compared to preparing separate
proposed rules for each of them in the
future.
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
66385
ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 AND FY 2011 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED
Species
Action
Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
4 parrot species (military macaw, yellow-billed parrot, red-crowned parrot, scarlet macaw) 5 .................
4 parrot species (blue-headed macaw, great green macaw, grey-cheeked parakeet, hyacinth
macaw) 5.
Longfin smelt ..............................................................................................................................................
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
Actions With Statutory Deadlines
5 Bird species from Colombia and Ecuador ..............................................................................................
Queen Charlotte goshawk .........................................................................................................................
Ozark hellbender 4 ......................................................................................................................................
Altamaha spinymussel 3 .............................................................................................................................
6 Birds from Peru & Bolivia .......................................................................................................................
Loggerhead sea turtle (assist National Marine Fisheries Service) 5 .........................................................
2 mussels (rayed bean (LPN = 2), snuffbox No LPN) 5 ............................................................................
CA golden trout 4 ........................................................................................................................................
Black-footed albatross ...............................................................................................................................
Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl 1 ................................................................................................................
Northern leopard frog .................................................................................................................................
Tehachapi slender salamander .................................................................................................................
Coqui Llanero .............................................................................................................................................
Dusky tree vole ..........................................................................................................................................
Leatherside chub (from 206 species petition) ...........................................................................................
Platte River caddisfly (from 206 species petition) 5 ...................................................................................
3 South Arizona plants (Erigeron piscaticus, Astragalus hypoxylus, Amoreuxia gonzalezii) (from 475
species petition).
5 Central Texas mussel species (3 from 475 species petition) ................................................................
14 parrots (foreign species) .......................................................................................................................
Mohave Ground Squirrel 1 ..........................................................................................................................
Ashy storm-petrel 5 .....................................................................................................................................
Honduran emerald .....................................................................................................................................
Eagle Lake trout 1 .......................................................................................................................................
32 Pacific Northwest mollusks species (snails and slugs) 1 ......................................................................
Spring Mountains checkerspot butterfly ....................................................................................................
11 of 404 Southeast species .....................................................................................................................
Aztec gilia 5 .................................................................................................................................................
White-tailed ptarmigan 5 .............................................................................................................................
San Bernardino flying squirrel 5 .................................................................................................................
Bicknell’s thrush 5 .......................................................................................................................................
Sonoran talussnail 5 ...................................................................................................................................
2 AZ Sky Island plants (Graptopetalum bartrami & Pectis imberbis) 5 .....................................................
I’iwi 5 ...........................................................................................................................................................
Humboldt marten .......................................................................................................................................
Desert massasauga ...................................................................................................................................
Western glacier stonefly (Zapada glacier) .................................................................................................
Thermophilic ostracod (Potamocypris hunteri) ..........................................................................................
Sierra Nevada red fox 5 ..............................................................................................................................
Boreal toad (eastern or southern Rocky Mtn population) 5 .......................................................................
Alexander Archipelago wolf 5 .....................................................................................................................
Final listing determination.
Final listing determination.
Final listing determination.
Final listing determination.
Final listing determination.
Final listing determination.
Final listing determination.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding/Proposed listing.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
12-month petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
90-day petition finding.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
High-Priority Listing Actions
20 Maui-Nui candidate species 2 (17 plants, 3 tree snails) (14 with LPN = 2, 2 with LPN = 3, 3 with
LPN = 8).
Umtanum buckwheat (LPN = 2) and white bluffs bladderpod (LPN = 9) 4 ...............................................
Grotto sculpin (LPN = 2) 4 ..........................................................................................................................
2 Arkansas mussels (Neosho mucket (LPN = 2) & Rabbitsfoot (LPN = 9)) 4 ...........................................
Diamond darter (LPN = 2) 4 .......................................................................................................................
Gunnison sage-grouse (LPN = 2) 4 ...........................................................................................................
Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Beetle (LPN = 2) 5 .....................................................................................
Lesser prairie chicken (LPN = 2) ...............................................................................................................
4 Texas salamanders (Austin blind salamander (LPN = 2), Salado salamander (LPN = 2), Georgetown salamander (LPN = 8), Jollyville Plateau (LPN = 8)) 3.
5 West Texas aquatics (Gonzales Spring Snail (LPN = 2), Diamond Y springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom
springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom Cave snail (LPN = 2), Diminutive amphipod (LPN = 2)) 3.
2 Texas plants (Texas golden gladecress (Leavenworthia texana) (LPN = 2), Neches River rose-mallow (Hibiscus dasycalyx) (LPN = 2)) 3.
4 AZ plants (Acuna cactus (Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis) (LPN = 3), Fickeisen plains
cactus (Pediocactus peeblesianus fickeiseniae) (LPN = 3), Lemmon fleabane (Erigeron lemmonii)
(LPN = 8), Gierisch mallow (Sphaeralcea gierischii) (LPN = 2)) 5.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
Proposed listing.
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
listing.
listing.
listing.
listing.
listing.
listing.
listing.
listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
26OCP2
66386
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 AND FY 2011 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued
Species
Action
FL bonneted bat (LPN = 2) 3 .....................................................................................................................
3 Southern FL plants (Florida semaphore cactus (Consolea corallicola) (LPN = 2), shellmound
applecactus (Harrisia (=Cereus) aboriginum (=gracilis)) (LPN = 2), Cape Sable thoroughwort
(Chromolaena frustrata) (LPN = 2)) 5.
21 Big Island (HI) species 5 (includes 8 candidate species—6 plants & 2 animals; 4 with LPN = 2, 1
with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN = 4, 2 with LPN = 8).
12 Puget Sound prairie species (9 subspecies of pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama ssp.) (LPN = 3),
streaked horned lark (LPN = 3), Taylor’s checkerspot (LPN = 3), Mardon skipper (LPN = 8)) 3.
2 TN River mussels (fluted kidneyshell (LPN = 2), slabside pearlymussel (LPN = 2)) 5 ..........................
Jemez Mountain salamander (LPN = 2) 5 .................................................................................................
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
1 Funds
for listing actions for these species were provided in previous FYs.
funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided in FY 2008 or 2009, due to the complexity of these actions and competing
priorities, these actions are still being developed.
3 Partially funded with FY 2010 funds and FY 2011 funds.
4 Funded with FY 2010 funds.
5 Funded with FY 2011 funds.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2 Although
We also funded work on resubmitted
petitions findings for 204 candidate
species (species petitioned prior to the
last CNOR). We did not include new
information in our resubmitted petition
finding for the Columbia Basin
population of the greater sage-grouse in
this notice, as the significance of the
Columbia Basin DPS to the greater sagegrouse will require further review and
we will update our finding at a later
date (see 75 FR 13910; March 23, 2010).
We also did not include new
information in our resubmitted petition
findings for the 64 candidate species for
which we are preparing proposed listing
determinations; see summaries below
regarding publication of these
determinations (these species will
remain on the candidate list until a
proposed listing rule is published). We
also funded revised 12-month petition
findings for the candidate species that
we are removing from candidate status,
which are being published as part of
this CNOR (see Candidate Removals).
Because the majority of these species
were already candidate species prior to
our receipt of a petition to list them, we
had already assessed their status using
funds from our Candidate Conservation
Program. We also continue to monitor
the status of these species through our
Candidate Conservation Program. The
cost of updating the species assessment
forms and publishing the joint
publication of the CNOR and
resubmitted petition findings is shared
between the Listing Program and the
Candidate Conservation Program.
During FY 2011, we also funded work
on resubmitted petition findings for
uplisting two listed species, for which
petitions were previously received.
Given the limited resources available
for listing, we find that we are making
expeditious progress to add qualified
species to the lists of threatened and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
endangered species. First, as the tables
above show, we are making expeditious
progress by listing qualified species. In
FY 2011, we resolved the status of 29
species that we determined, or had
previously determined, qualified for
listing; for 27 of those 29 species, the
resolution was to add them to the lists
of threatened and endangered species.
We also proposed to list an additional
45 qualified species.
Second, we are making expeditious
progress by working on adding qualified
species to the lists. In FY 2011, we
worked on developing final listing
determinations for an additional 17
species, and proposed listing rules for
another 85 species. Although we have
not yet completed those actions, we are
making expeditious progress towards
doing so.
Third, we are making expeditious
progress to add qualified species to the
lists by identifying additional species
that qualify for listing. In FY 2011, we
completed 90-day petition findings for
480 species, and 12-month petition
findings for 52 species. Of those 52
species, we determined that listing of 26
of the species was warranted but
precluded. In FY 2011 we also worked
on 90-day findings for an additional 50
species and 12-month findings for an
additional 43 species.
Finally, the Service is making
expeditious progress to add qualified
species to the list by developing and
beginning to implement a work plan
that establishes a framework and
schedule for resolving by September 30,
2016, the status of all of the species that
the Service had determined to be
qualified as of the 2010 Candidate
Notice of Review. The Service
submitted such a work plan to the U.S.
District Court for the District of
Columbia in In re Endangered Species
Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
10–377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.
DC May 10, 2011), and obtained the
court’s approval. The Service has
already begun to implement that work
plan, because we completed most of the
work identified in the above tables in
accordance with the schedule set out in
that work plan.
We have endeavored to make our
listing actions as efficient and timely as
possible, given the requirements of the
relevant law and regulations, and
constraints relating to workload and
personnel. We are continually
considering ways to streamline
processes or achieve economies of scale,
such as by batching related actions
together. Given our limited budget for
implementing section 4 of the ESA, the
actions described above collectively
constitute expeditious progress.
Although we have not been able to
resolve the listing status of many of the
candidates, several programs in the
Service contribute to the conservation of
these species. In particular, the
Candidate Conservation program, which
is separately budgeted, focuses on
providing technical expertise for
developing conservation strategies and
agreements to guide voluntary on-theground conservation work for candidate
and other at-risk species. The main goal
of this program is to address the threats
facing candidate species. Through this
program, we work with our partners
(other Federal agencies, State agencies,
Tribes, local governments, private
landowners, and private conservation
organizations) to address the threats to
candidate species and other species atrisk. We are currently working with our
partners to implement voluntary
conservation agreements for more than
140 species covering 5 million acres of
habitat. In some instances, the sustained
implementation of strategically
designed conservation efforts
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
culminates in making listing
unnecessary for species that are
candidates for listing or for which
listing has been proposed.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Findings for Petitioned Candidate
Species
Below are updated summaries for
petitioned candidates for which we
published findings, under section
4(b)(3)(B). We are making continued
warranted-but-precluded 12-month
findings on the petitions for these
species (for our revised 12-month
petition findings for species we are
removing from candidate status, see
summaries above under ‘‘Candidate
Removals’’).
Mammals
Florida bonneted bat (Eumops
floridanus)—The following summary is
based on information in our files. No
new information was presented in the
petition received on January 29, 2010.
Endemic to south Florida, this species
has been found at 12 locations, 5 on
private land and 7 on public land. The
entire population may number less than
a few hundred individuals. Results from
a rangewide acoustical survey found a
small number of locations where calls
were recorded, and low numbers of calls
were recorded at each location. Few
active roost sites are known; all are
artificial (i.e., bat houses). Prolonged
cold temperatures in January and
February 2010 affected one active roost.
Additional cold temperatures occurred
in south Florida in December 2010. In
the short term, severe and prolonged
cold events resulted in mortality of at
least several adult Florida bonneted
bats. The long-term effects of prolonged
and repeated cold events on the species
are not known. Efforts are underway to
confirm presence at all previously
documented sites. Additionally, a study
to determine the northern and southern
extent of the species’ range and estimate
overall abundance was initiated in 2011.
Occurrences are threatened by loss
and conversion of habitat to other uses
and habitat alteration (e.g., removal of
old trees with cavities, removal of
manmade structures with suitable
roosting sites); this threat is expected to
continue and increase. Although
occurrences on conservation lands are
inherently more protected than those on
private lands, habitat alteration during
management practices may affect
natural roosting sites even on
conservation lands if Florida bonneted
bats are present but undetected.
Therefore, occupied and potential
habitat on forested or wooded lands,
both private and public, continues to be
at risk. The species is vulnerable to a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
wide array of natural and human
factors: low population size, restricted
range, low fecundity, large distances
between occupied locations, and small
number of occupied locations. Such
factors may make recolonization
unlikely if any site is extirpated, and
may make the species vulnerable to
extinction due to genetic drift,
inbreeding depression, extreme weather
events, and random or chance changes
to the environment. Where the species
occurs in or near human dwellings or
structures, it is at risk to persecution,
removal, and disturbance. Disturbance
from humans, either intentional or
inadvertent, can take place at any of the
occurrences of this bat on either private
or conservation lands. Disturbance of
maternity roosts is of particular concern
due to the low fecundity and small
population of this species. Pesticide
applications may be affecting its
foraging base, especially in coastal
areas.
Due to its overall vulnerability,
intense hurricanes are a significant
threat; this threat is expected to
continue or increase in the future.
Intense storms can cause mortality
during the storm, exposure to predation
immediately following the storm, loss of
roost sites, impacts on foraging areas
and insect abundance, and disruption of
the maternal period. Prolonged and
repeated periods of cold temperatures
may have severe impacts on the
population and increase risks from other
threats by weakening individuals,
extirpating colonies, or further reducing
colony sizes. Although disease is a
significant threat for other bat species, it
is not known to be a threat for the
Florida bonneted bat at this time. The
protection currently afforded the Florida
bonneted bat is limited, provides little
protection to the species’ occupied
habitat, and includes no provisions to
protect suitable but unoccupied habitat
within the vicinity of known colony
sites. Overall, we find the magnitude of
threats is high due to the severity of the
threats to this species. We find that most
of the threats are currently occurring
and, consequently, overall, threats are
imminent. Therefore, we assigned an
LPN of 2 to this species.
Pacific sheath-tailed bat, American
Samoa DPS (Emballonura semicaudata
semicaudata)—The following summary
is based on information contained in
our files. No new information was
provided in the petition we received on
May 11, 2004. This small bat is a
member of the Emballonuridae, an Old
World bat family that has an extensive
distribution, primarily in the tropics.
The Pacific sheath-tailed bat was once
common and widespread in Polynesia
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
66387
and Micronesia, and it is the only
insectivorous bat recorded from a large
part of this area. The species as a whole
(E. semicaudata) occurred on several of
the Caroline Islands (Palau, Chuuk, and
Pohnpei), Samoa (Independent and
American), the Mariana Islands (Guam
and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (CNMI)), Tonga, Fiji,
and Vanuatu. While populations appear
to be healthy in some locations, mainly
in the Caroline Islands, they have
declined substantially in other areas,
including Independent and American
Samoa, the Mariana Islands, Fiji, and
possibly Tonga. Scientists recognize
four subspecies: E. s. rotensis, endemic
to the Mariana Islands (Guam and
CNMI); E. s. sulcata, occurring in Chuuk
and Pohnpei; E. s. palauensis, found in
Palau; and E. s. semicaudata, occurring
in American and Independent Samoa,
Tonga, Fiji, and Vanuatu. This
candidate assessment addresses the
distinct population segment (DPS) of E.
s. semicaudata that occurs in American
Samoa.
E. s. semicaudata historically
occurred in American and Independent
Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, and Vanuatu. It is
extant in Fiji and Tonga, but may be
extirpated from Vanuatu and
Independent Samoa. There is some
concern that it is also extirpated from
American Samoa, the location of this
DPS, where surveys are currently
ongoing to ascertain its status. The
factors that led to the decline of this
subspecies and the DPS are poorly
understood; however, current threats to
this subspecies and the DPS include
habitat loss, predation by introduced
species, and its small population size
and distribution, which make the taxon
extremely vulnerable to extinction due
to typhoons and similar natural
catastrophes. Thus, since the threats
affect the entire DPS, and would likely
be permanent, the threats are high in
magnitude. The Pacific sheath-tailed bat
may also be susceptible to disturbance
to roosting caves. The LPN for E. s.
semicaudata is 3 because the magnitude
of the threats is high; the threats are
ongoing, and therefore imminent; and
the taxon is a distinct population
segment of a subspecies.
Pacific sheath-tailed bat (Emballonura
semicaudata rotensis), Guam and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands (CNMI)—The following
summary is based on information
contained in our files. No new
information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
This small bat is a member of the
Emballonuridae, an Old World bat
family that has an extensive
distribution, primarily in the tropics.
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
66388
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
The Pacific sheath-tailed bat was once
common and widespread in Polynesia
and Micronesia, and it is the only
insectivorous bat recorded from a large
part of this area. E. s. rotensis is
historically known from the Mariana
Islands and formerly occurred on Guam
and in the CNMI on Rota, Aguiguan,
Tinian (known from prehistoric records
only), Saipan, and possibly Anatahan
and Maug. Currently, E. s. rotensis
appears to be extirpated from all but one
island in the Mariana archipelago. The
single remaining population of this
subspecies occurs on Aguiguan, CNMI.
Threats to this subspecies have not
changed over the past year. The primary
threats to the subspecies are ongoing
habitat loss and degradation as a result
of feral goat (Capra hircus) activity on
the island of Aguiguan and the taxon’s
small population size and limited
distribution. Predation by nonnative
species and human disturbance are also
potential threats to the subspecies. The
subspecies is believed near the point
where stochastic events, such as
typhoons, are increasingly likely to
affect its continued survival. The
disappearance of the remaining
population on Aguiguan would result in
the extinction of the subspecies. Thus,
since the threats affect the entire
subspecies, and would likely be
permanent, the threats are high in
magnitude. The LPN for E. s. rotensis
remains at 3 because the magnitude of
the threats is high; the threats are
ongoing, and therefore imminent; and
the taxon is a subspecies.
New England cottontail (Sylvilagus
transitionalis)—The following summary
is based on information contained in
our files and information received in
response to our notice published on
June 30, 2004, when we announced our
90-day petition finding and initiation of
a status review (69 FR 39395). We
received the petition on August 30,
2000.
The New England cottontail (NEC) is
a medium- to large-sized cottontail
rabbit that may reach 1,000 grams in
weight, and is one of two species within
the genus Sylvilagus occurring in New
England. NEC is considered a habitat
specialist, in so far as it is dependent
upon early-successional habitats
typically described as thickets. The
species is the only endemic cottontail in
New England. Historically, the NEC
occurred in seven States and ranged
from southeastern New York (east of the
Hudson River) north through the
Champlain Valley, southern Vermont,
the southern half of New Hampshire,
and southern Maine and south
throughout Massachusetts, Connecticut,
and Rhode Island. The current range of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
the NEC has declined substantially, and
occurrences have become increasingly
separated. The species’ distribution is
fragmented into five apparently isolated
metapopulations. The area occupied by
the cottontail has contracted from
approximately 90,000 sq km to 12,180
sq km. Surveys indicate that the longterm decline in NEC continues. For
example, surveys for the species in 2009
documented the presence of NEC in
only 7 of the 23 New Hampshire
locations that were known to be
occupied in 2002 and 2003. Similarly,
surveys in Maine found the species no
longer present in 9 of the 19 towns
identified in an extensive survey that
spanned the years 2000 to 2004. Similar
surveys were conducted during the
winter of 2010–2011 in Rhode Island,
but the results are not yet available.
Rangewide, it is estimated that less than
one third of the occupied sites occur on
lands in conservation status and fewer
than 10 percent are being managed for
early-successional forest species.
The primary threat to the NEC is loss
of habitat through succession and
alteration. Isolation of occupied patches
by areas of unsuitable habitat and high
predation rates are resulting in local
extirpation of NECs from small patches.
The range of the NEC has contracted by
75 percent or more since 1960, and
current land uses in the region indicate
that the rate of change, about 2 percent
range loss per year, will continue.
Additional threats include competition
for food and habitat with introduced
eastern cottontails and large numbers of
native white-tailed deer, inadequate
regulatory mechanisms to protect
habitat, and mortality from predation.
The magnitude of the threats continues
to be high, because they occur
rangewide and have a negative effect on
the survival of the species. The threats
are imminent because they are ongoing.
Thus, we retained an LPN of 2 for this
species. Conservation measures that
address the threats to the species are
being developed.
Fisher, West Coast DPS (Martes
pennanti)—The following summary is
based on information in our files and in
the Service’s initial warranted-butprecluded finding published in the
Federal Register on April 8, 2004 (69 FR
18770). The fisher is a carnivore in the
family Mustelidae, and is the largest
member of the genus Martes.
Historically, the West Coast population
of the fisher extended south from British
Columbia into western Washington and
Oregon, and in the North Coast Ranges,
Klamath-Siskiyou Mountains, and
Sierra Nevada in California. Because of
a lack of detections with standardized
survey efforts over much of the fisher’s
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
historical range, the fisher is believed to
be extirpated or reduced to scattered
individuals from the lower mainland of
British Columbia through Washington
and northern Oregon and in the central
and northern Sierra Nevada in
California. Native extant populations of
fisher are isolated to the North Coast of
California, the Klamath-Siskiyou
Mountains of northern California and
southern Oregon, and the southern
Sierra Nevada in California.
Descendents of a fisher reintroduction
effort also occur in the southern
Cascades in Oregon. The Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife in
conjunction with the Olympic National
Park has completed the third year of a
reintroduction effort as the State’s first
step in implementing their recovery
goals for fisher. The California
Department of Fish and Game and other
collaborators are in the second year of
their translocation efforts into the
northern Sierra Nevada. Both of the
reintroduction efforts still need several
years to determine if populations are
successfully established. Estimates of
fisher numbers in native populations of
the West Coast DPS vary widely. A
rigorous monitoring program is lacking
for the northern California-southwestern
Oregon and southern Oregon Cascades
populations, making estimates of fisher
numbers for these two populations
difficult. The fisher monitoring program
in the southern Sierra Nevada
population has provided preliminary
estimates indicating no decline in the
index of abundance within the
monitored portion of the population.
The two populations of native fisher in
the northern California southern Oregon
and southern Sierra Nevada are
separated by four times the species’
maximum dispersal distance. The extant
fisher populations are either small
(southern Sierra Nevada and southern
Oregon Cascades) or isolated from one
another or both.
Major threats that fragment or remove
key elements of fisher habitat include
various forest vegetation management
practices such as timber harvest and
fuels reduction treatments. Other
potential major threats in portions of the
range include: Large stand-replacing
wildfires, changes in forest composition
and structure related to the effects of
climate change, forest and fuels
management, and urban and rural
development. Threats to fishers that
lead to direct mortality and injury
include: Collisions with vehicles;
predation; rodenticides; and viral borne
diseases such as rabies, parvovirus, and
canine distemper. Existing regulatory
mechanisms on Federal, State, and
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
private lands do not provide sufficient
protection for the key elements of fisher
habitat, or the certainty that
conservation efforts will be effective or
implemented. The magnitude of threats
is high as they occur across the range of
the DPS resulting in negative impacts on
fisher distribution and abundance.
However, the threats are nonimminent
as the greatest long-term risks to the
fisher in its west coast range are the
subsequent ramifications of the isolation
of small populations and their
interactions with the listed threats.
Therefore, we assigned an LPN of 6 to
this DPS.
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
(Zapus hudsonius luteus)—The
following summary is based on
information contained in our files and
the petition we received on October 15,
2008. The New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse (jumping mouse) is
endemic to New Mexico, Arizona, and
a small area of southern Colorado. The
jumping mouse nests in dry soils but
uses moist, streamside, dense, riparian/
wetland vegetation. Recent genetic
studies confirm that the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse is a distinct
subspecies from other Zapus hudsonius
subspecies, confirming the currently
accepted subspecies designation.
The threats that have been identified
are excessive grazing pressure, water
use and management, highway
reconstruction, development, recreation,
and beaver removal.
Since the early to mid-1990s, over 100
historical localities have been surveyed.
Currently only 25 are believed to be
extant including 1 in Colorado, 11 in
New Mexico (including one that is
contiguous with another Colorado
locality), and 13 in Arizona. Moreover,
the highly fragmented nature of its
distribution is also a major contributor
to the vulnerability of this species and
increases the likelihood of very small,
isolated populations being extirpated.
The insufficient number of secure
populations, and the destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat, continue to pose the most
immediate threats to this species.
Because the threats affect the jumping
mouse in all but two of the extant
localities, and the populations are small
and fragmented, the impact of the
threats on the species is of high severity.
Thus, the threats are of a high
magnitude. These threats are currently
occurring and, therefore, are imminent.
Thus, we continue to assign an LPN of
3 to this subspecies.
Mazama pocket gopher (Thomomys
mazama ssp. couchi, douglasii,
glacialis, louiei, melanops, pugetensis,
tacomensis, tumuli, yelmensis) — We
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
continue to find that listing this species
is warranted but precluded as of the
date of publication of this notice.
However, we are working on a proposed
listing rule that we expect to publish
prior to making the next annual
resubmitted petition 12-month finding.
Canada lynx, within the State of New
Mexico (Lynx canadensis)—In our
finding of December 17, 2009 (74 FR
66937), we determined that adding the
lynx in New Mexico to the listing of the
lynx DPS was warranted, because the
lynx is now present in the state as a
result of the Colorado reintroduction
effort, and we assigned an LPN of 12 to
amending the listing of lynx to include
New Mexico. We reconfirm that
assigning an LPN of 12 is appropriate
based on nonimminent threats of a low
magnitude. The threats to the lynx in
New Mexico from human-caused
mortality are low in magnitude, because
they do not occur at a level that creates
a significant threat to the lynx DPS in
the contiguous United States. We do not
consider lynx in New Mexico, or its
habitat in New Mexico, to be essential
to the survival or recovery of the DPS;
as a result, neither human-caused
mortality nor habitat modification in
New Mexico occurs at a level such that
it creates a significant threat to the lynx
DPS in the contiguous United States.
Potential impacts to the habitat in New
Mexico have not been documented to
threaten lynx, either in New Mexico or
outside of it. The amount of suitable
habitat for lynx in New Mexico is
considered negligible relative to the
amount of habitat within the listed
range, and the majority of lynx habitats
within the contiguous United States are
already protected by the Act. The
threats are also nonimminent, because
they occur infrequently. Because lynx in
the lower 48 are already listed as a DPS
and conditions affecting the lynx in
New Mexico are neither imminent nor
of sufficient magnitude to pose a threat
to the lynx DPS throughout the
contiguous United States, the
appropriate LPN for this level of
magnitude and immediacy of threats is
12.
Gunnison’s prairie dog (Cynomys
gunnisoni)—Gunnison’s prairie dogs
occur in Arizona, Colorado, New
Mexico, and Utah. In our February 5,
2008, 12-month finding (73 FR 6660),
we determined that listing the Gunnison
prairie dog was warranted but
precluded, with an LPN of 6, due to
threats in a significant portion of its
range—the montane portion of the
species’ range within Colorado and New
Mexico—where the effects from plague
and other factors threaten those
populations. This finding was
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
66389
challenged by WildEarth Guardians in
September of 2008. On September 30,
2010, the Court set aside our 2008
finding and remanded the matter back
to us for further action. The Court found
that we arbitrarily and capriciously
‘‘determined that something other than
a species was an endangered or
threatened species which warranted
listing.’’
In response to the decision of the
Court, we will reevaluate the status of
the Gunnison’s prairie dog and deliver
a revised 12-month finding to the
Federal Register. However, we are
currently unable to complete a status
review due to budget and workload
limitations. Furthermore, initiating a
revised status review for the species
would be premature at this time because
of a significant ongoing genetics study
initiated by the Colorado Division of
Wildlife (CDOW) addressing Gunnison’s
prairie dog taxonomy. CDOW indicates
preliminarily that this work strongly
supports the existence of genetic
differences between Gunnison’s prairie
dogs in the montane and prairie
portions of its range indicating that they
may constitute two putative subspecies.
We anticipate the analysis of these data
will likely be completed by the fall of
2011 and we will evaluate the
information thereafter. It is critical for
us to consider this potentially
significant taxonomic revision in our
revised status review after the CDOW
releases its final genetics report.
Gunnison’s prairie dogs will remain a
candidate within the montane portion of
their range until we complete this
analysis.
Southern Idaho ground squirrel
(Spermophilus brunneus endemicus)—
The following summary is based on
information contained in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
The southern Idaho ground squirrel is
endemic to four counties in southwest
Idaho; its total known range is
approximately 426,000 hectares
(1,050,000 acres). Threats to southern
Idaho ground squirrels include: Habitat
degradation and fragmentation; direct
killing from shooting, trapping, or
poisoning; predation; competition with
Columbian ground squirrels; and
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms. Habitat degradation and
fragmentation appear to be the primary
threats to the species. Nonnative
annuals now dominate much of this
species’ range, have changed the species
composition of vegetation used as forage
for the southern Idaho ground squirrel,
and have altered the fire regime by
accelerating the frequency of wildfire.
Nonnative annuals do not provide
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
66390
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
consistent forage quality for southern
Idaho ground squirrels as compared to
the native vegetation. Habitat
deterioration, destruction, and
fragmentation contribute to the current
patchy distribution of southern Idaho
ground squirrels. However, some
human-altered landscapes, such as golf
courses and row crops of alfalfa, seem
to provide habitat sufficient to maintain
high densities of southern Idaho ground
squirrels.
Two candidate conservation
agreements with assurances (CCAAs)
have been completed for this species.
Both CCAAs include conservation
measures that minimize grounddisturbing activities, allow for the
investigation of methods to restore
currently degraded habitat, provide
additional protection to southern Idaho
ground squirrels from recreational
shooting and other direct killing on
enrolled lands, and also allow for the
translocation of squirrels to or from
enrolled lands, if necessary. The acreage
enrolled through these two CCAAs is
38,000 ha (94,000 ac), or approximately
9 percent of the approximate known
range. While the ongoing conservation
efforts have helped to reduce the
magnitude of threats to moderate,
habitat degradation remains the primary
threat to the species throughout most of
its range. This threat is imminent due to
the ongoing and increasing prevalence
of nonnative vegetation, and the current
patchy distribution of the species. Thus,
we assign an LPN of 9 to this
subspecies.
Washington ground squirrel
(Spermophilus washingtoni)—The
following summary is based on
information contained in our files and
in the petition we received on March 2,
2000. The Washington ground squirrel
is endemic to the Deschutes-Columbia
Plateau sagebrush-steppe and grassland
communities in eastern Oregon and
south-central Washington. Although
widely abundant historically, recent
surveys suggest that its current range
has contracted toward the center of its
historical range. Approximately twothirds of the Washington ground
squirrel’s total historical range has been
converted to agricultural and residential
uses. The most contiguous, leastdisturbed expanse of suitable habitat
within the species’ range occurs on a
site owned by Boeing, Inc., and on the
Naval Weapons Systems Training
Facility near Boardman, Oregon. In
Washington, the largest expanse of
known suitable habitat occurs on State
and Federal lands.
Agricultural, residential, and wind
power development, among other forms
of development, continue to eliminate
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
Washington ground squirrel habitat in
portions of its range. Throughout much
of its range, Washington ground
squirrels are threatened by the
establishment and spread of invasive
plant species, particularly cheatgrass,
which alter available cover and food
quantity and quality, and increase fire
intervals. Additional threats include
habitat fragmentation, recreational
shooting, genetic isolation and drift, and
predation. Potential threats include
disease, drought, and possible
competition with related species in
disturbed habitat at the periphery of
their range. In Oregon, some threats are
being addressed as a result of the State
listing of this species, and by
implementation of the Threemile
Canyon Farms Multi-Species CCAA. In
Washington, there are currently no
formal agreements with private
landowners or with State or Federal
agencies to protect the Washington
ground squirrel. Additionally, no State
or Federal management plans have been
developed that specifically address the
needs of the species or its habitat. Since
current and potential threats are
widespread, and, in some areas, severe,
we conclude the magnitude of threats
remains high. The Washington ground
squirrel has both imminent and
nonimminent threats. At a range-wide
scale, we conclude the threats are
nonimminent based largely on the
following: The CCAA addressed the
imminent loss of a large portion of
habitat to agriculture; there are no other
large-scale efforts to convert suitable
habitat to agriculture; and wind power
project impacts can be minimized
through compliance with the Oregon
State Endangered Species Act (OESA)
and/or the Columbia Basin Ecoregion
wind energy siting and permitting
guidelines. We also consider the
potential development of shooting
ranges on the Naval Weapons Systems
Training Facility as nonimminent,
because the proposed action is still
being developed, making us unable to
assess its timing and impact, which
could be minimized through
compliance with the OESA. We,
therefore, have retained an LPN of 5 for
this species.
North American wolverine,
contiguous U.S. DPS (Gulo gulo
luscus)—The following summary is
based on information contained in our
files, in the petition received July 13,
2000 and in our initial warranted-butprecluded finding published in the
Federal Register on December 14, 2010
(75 FR 78030). The wolverine is a
terrestrial mammal that occurs in a wide
variety of alpine, boreal, and arctic
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
habitats. Wolverines naturally occur at
low densities, and require cold areas
that maintain deep, persistent snow
cover into the warm season for
successful denning. Within the
contiguous United States, which
constitutes a DPS, wolverine habitat is
restricted to high-elevation areas in the
West. Their current distribution
includes functioning populations in the
North Cascades Mountains and the
northern Rocky Mountains, as well as
populations that have not yet
reestablished in the southern Rocky
Mountains and the Sierra Nevada. The
primary threat to this DPS is from
habitat and range loss due to climate
warming. Climate changes are predicted
to reduce wolverine habitat and range
by 23 percent over the next 30 years,
and 63 percent over the next 75 years,
rendering remaining habitat
significantly smaller and more
fragmented. This increased
fragmentation and isolation of
subpopulations is expected to limit the
regular dispersal of wolverines that is
necessary to maintain genetic exchange
and metapopulation dynamics. Other
secondary threats to the wolverine that
could work in concert with climate
change include harvest, disturbance,
infrastructure, transportation corridors,
and small effective population sizes.
The primary threat of habitat and range
loss due to climate change would affect
wolverine habitat across the entire DPS
and, therefore, the magnitude of threats
to the wolverine is high. However
climate change has not yet had a
detectable effect on the DPS to this
point in time; the threat is
nonimminent. Therefore, we have
assigned the wolverine contiguous U.S.
DPS an LPN of 6.
Birds
Spotless crake, American Samoa DPS
(Porzana tabuensis)—The following
summary is based on information
contained in our files. No new
information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
Porzana tabuensis is a small, dark,
cryptic rail found in wetlands and rank
scrub or forest in the Philippines,
Australia, Fiji, Tonga, Society Islands,
Marquesas, Independent Samoa, and
American Samoa (Ofu, Tau). The genus
Porzana is widespread in the Pacific,
where it is represented by numerous
island-endemic and flightless species
(many of which are extinct as a result
of anthropogenic disturbances) as well
as several more cosmopolitan species,
including P. tabuensis. No subspecies of
P. tabuensis are recognized.
The American Samoa population is
the only population of spotless crakes
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
under U.S. jurisdiction. The available
information indicates that distinct
populations of the spotless crake, a
species not noted for long-distance
dispersal, are definable. The population
of spotless crakes in American Samoa is
discrete in relation to the remainder of
the species as a whole, which is
distributed in widely separated
locations. Although the spotless crake
(and other rails) have dispersed widely
in the Pacific, island rails have tended
to reduce or lose their power of flight
over evolutionary time and so become
isolated (and vulnerable to terrestrial
predators such as rats). The population
of this species in American Samoa is
therefore distinct based on geographic
and distributional isolation from
spotless crake populations on other
islands in the oceanic Pacific, the
Philippines, and Australia. The
American Samoa population of the
spotless crake links the Central and
Eastern Pacific portions of the species’
range. The loss of this population would
result in an increase of roughly 500
miles (805 kilometers) in the distance
between the central and eastern
Polynesian portions of the spotless
crake’s range, and could result in the
isolation of the Marquesas and Society
Islands populations by further limiting
the potential for even rare genetic
exchange. Based on the discreteness and
significance of the American Samoa
population of the spotless crake, we
consider this population to be a distinct
vertebrate population segment.
Threats to this population have not
changed over the past year. The
population in American Samoa is
threatened by small population size,
limited distribution, predation by
nonnative and native animals,
continued development of wetland
habitat, and natural catastrophes such as
hurricanes. The co-occurrence of a
known predator of ground-nesting birds,
the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), and
native predators, including the Pacific
boa (Candoia bibroni) and the purple
swamphen (Porphyrio porphyrio), along
with the extremely restricted observed
distribution and low numbers, indicate
that the magnitude of the threats to the
American Samoa DPS of the spotless
crake continues to be high, because the
threats have a significant likelihood of
bringing about extinction on a short
time frame. The threats are ongoing, and
therefore imminent. Based on this
assessment of existing information
about the imminence and high
magnitude of these threats, we assigned
the spotless crake an LPN of 3.
Yellow-billed cuckoo, western U.S.
DPS (Coccyzus americanus)—We
continue to find that listing this species
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
is warranted, but precluded as of the
date of publication of this notice.
However, we are working on a proposed
listing rule that we expect to publish
prior to making the next annual
resubmitted petition 12-month finding.
Friendly ground-dove, American
Samoa DPS (Gallicolumba stairi)—The
following summary is based on
information contained in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
The genus Gallicolumba is distributed
throughout the Pacific and Southeast
Asia. The genus is represented in the
oceanic Pacific by six species: Three are
endemic to Micronesian islands or
archipelagos, two are endemic to island
groups in French Polynesia; and G.
stairi is endemic to Samoa, Tonga, and
Fiji. Some authors recognize two
subspecies of the friendly ground-dove,
one, slightly smaller, in the Samoan
archipelago (G. s. stairi); and one in
Tonga and Fiji (G. s. vitiensis). However,
because morphological differences
between the two are minimal, we are
not recognizing separate subspecies at
this time.
In American Samoa, the friendly
ground-dove has been found on the
islands of Ofu and Olosega (Manua
Group). Threats to this subspecies have
not changed over the past year.
Predation by nonnative species and
natural catastrophes such as hurricanes
are the primary threats to the
subspecies. Of these, predation by
nonnative species is thought to be
occurring now and likely has been
occurring for several decades. This
predation may be an important
impediment to increasing the
population. Predation by introduced
species has played a significant role in
reducing, limiting, and extirpating
populations of island birds, especially
ground-nesters like the friendly grounddove, in the Pacific and other locations
worldwide. Nonnative predators known
or thought to occur in the range of the
friendly ground-dove in American
Samoa are feral cats (Felis catus),
Polynesian rats (Rattus exulans), black
rats (R. rattus), and Norway rats (R.
norvegicus).
In January 2004 and February 2005,
hurricanes virtually destroyed the
habitat of G. stairi in the area on Olosega
Island where the species had been most
frequently recorded. Although this
species has coexisted with severe storms
for millennia, this example illustrates
the potential for natural disturbance to
exacerbate the effects of anthropogenic
disturbance on small populations.
Consistent monitoring using a variety of
methods over the last 5 years yielded
few observations and no change in the
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
66391
relative abundance of this taxon in
American Samoa. The total population
size is poorly known, but is unlikely to
number more than a few hundred pairs.
The distribution of the friendly grounddove is limited to steep, forested slopes
with an open understory and a substrate
of fine scree or exposed earth; this
habitat is not common in American
Samoa. The threats are ongoing, and
therefore imminent, and the magnitude
is moderate because the relative
abundance has remained the same for
several years. Thus, we assign this
subspecies an LPN of 9.
Streaked horned lark (Eremophila
alpestris strigata)—We continue to find
that listing this species is warranted, but
precluded as of the date of publication
of this notice. However, we are working
on a proposed listing rule that we
expect to publish prior to making the
next annual resubmitted petition 12month finding.
Red knot (Calidris canutus rufa)—The
following summary is based on
information contained 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 most recent 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. 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
red knot could dependably eat enough
in 2 to 3 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
Bay area, peak counts between 1982 and
1998 were as high as 95,360 individuals.
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
66392
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Counts may vary considerably between
years. Some of the fluctuations can be
attributed to predator-prey cycles on the
breeding grounds, and counts show that
knots rebound from such reductions.
Peak counts of red knots observed
during aerial surveys flown in Delaware
Bay from 2004 to 2008 were consistently
below 16,000 birds, with an all time low
of only 12,375 red knots found in 2007.
In recent years, the highest
concentrations of red knots at the
Delaware Bay stopover have been
within Mispillion Harbor, Delaware, an
area that has likely been undercounted
during past aerial surveys.
Beginning in 2009, a new survey
methodology was implemented for the
Delaware Bay stopover area to include
ground counts that more accurately
reflect concentrations of red knots using
Mispillion Harbor and to include aerial
surveys of red knots using Atlantic
coastal marshes near Stone Harbor, New
Jersey. The highest count using the new
methodology showed 27,187 red knots
in Delaware and 900 in New Jersey, for
a total count of 28,087 birds. Poor
weather conditions in 2009 prevented
aerial surveys during the period when
red knots were thought to be at a peak,
so no comparison with the past aerial
survey peak count method was possible.
While the number of red knots using
Delaware Bay likely increased in 2009,
much of the increase is attributed to
improved survey methods and an
expanded area of coverage. In 2010, the
peak aerial count of red knots was
14,475; however, flight delays and
scheduling issues prevented
simultaneous aerial and ground counts,
so aerial counts could not be calibrated.
Further analysis is needed to correlate
peak counts using the new methodology
with the past aerial-survey-only counts.
Counts in recent years in South
America also are substantially lower
than in the past. In the mid-1980s, an
estimated 67,500 red knots were
observed from Tierra del Fuego, Chile,
and along the coast of Argentina to
northern Patagonia. Since 2003, the
largest concentrations of red knots have
occurred at the principal wintering
areas in Bahia Lomas and other portions
of Tierra del Fuego and southern
Patagonia, with few birds found farther
north along the coast of Argentina. More
than 50,000 red knots were counted in
the principal winter areas in 1985 and
2000. Since 2005, fewer than 18,000
have been counted within the same
area, with only 16,260 red knots
observed in 2010.
The primary threat to the red knot has
been attributed to destruction and
modification of its habitat, particularly
the reduction in key food resources
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
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. 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 and reduced reproductive
success. Since 1999, to protect the
Atlantic coast population of the
horseshoe crab and to increase
availability of horseshoe crab eggs in
Delaware Bay for hemispheric migratory
shorebird populations, a series of timing
restrictions and substantially lower
harvest quotas have been adopted by the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission, as well as by the States of
New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. In
March 2008, New Jersey passed
legislation imposing a moratorium on
horseshoe crab harvest or landing
within the State until the red knot has
fully recovered.
The reductions in commercial
horseshoe crab harvest by Atlantic
coastal States since 1999 are substantial.
From 2004 to 2009, annual landings of
horseshoe crabs have been reduced by
over 70 percent from the reference
period landings of the mid to late 1990s.
For Delaware and New Jersey, horseshoe
crab landings for bait have decreased
from 726,660 reported in 1999, to a
preliminary number of 102,659 in
Delaware and none in New Jersey in
2009. No horseshoe crabs have been
landed for bait in New Jersey since
2007, as a result of the State-imposed
harvest moratorium. In the Delaware
Bay area, continued recruitment of
small horseshoe crabs has been
observed, with a substantial increase in
numbers of the smallest sizes of
immature males and females in 2009
over previous years. The continued
increase in immature males and females
would be expected in a recovering
population and suggests recent harvest
restrictions may be having the desired
effect, but it may be several more years
until this increase is realized in
spawning age adults, as horseshoe crabs
need 8 to 10 years to reach sexual
maturity.
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 largescale events such as oil spills or severe
weather. Overall, we conclude that the
threats, in particular the modification of
habitat through the effects, particularly
of the past, harvesting of horseshoe
crabs, are severe enough to put the
viability of the red knot at substantial
risk and are therefore of a high
magnitude. The threats are currently
occurring and therefore imminent
because of continuing suppressed
horseshoe-crab-egg forage conditions for
the red knot within the Delaware Bay
stopover. Based on imminent threats of
a high magnitude, we retain an LPN of
3 for this species.
Yellow-billed loon (Gavia adamsii)—
The following summary is based on
information contained in our files and
the petition we received on April 5,
2004. The yellow-billed loon is a
migratory bird. Solitary pairs breed on
lakes in the arctic tundra of the United
States, Russia, and Canada from June to
September. During the remainder of the
year, the species winters in more
southern coastal waters of the Pacific
Ocean and the Norway and North Seas.
During most of the year, individual
yellow-billed loons are so widely
dispersed that high adult mortality from
any single factor is unlikely. However,
during migration, yellow-billed loons
are more concentrated, and hundreds
are likely subject to subsistence harvest,
based on the best available information;
the population could decline
substantially if such harvest continues.
Future subsistence harvest in Alaska, by
itself, constitutes a threat to the species
rangewide. This subsistence harvest is
occurring despite the species being
closed to hunting under the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703–712). In
addition, up to several hundred yellowbilled loons may be taken annually on
Russian breeding grounds, and small
numbers of yellow-billed loons may be
taken in Canada. Other risk factors
evaluated were found to be threats to
the species; these included oil and gas
development (i.e., disturbance, changes
in freshwater chemistry and pollutant
loads, and changes in freshwater
hydrology); pollution; overfishing;
climate change; vessel traffic;
commercial- and subsistence-fishery
bycatch; and contaminants other than
those associated with oil and gas.
Although these other risk factors may
not rise to the level of a threat
individually, when taken collectively
with the effects of subsistence hunting
in other areas, they may reduce the
rangewide population even further. The
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
primary threat of subsistence harvest is
currently occurring and one or more of
the threats discussed above is occurring
throughout the range of the yellowbilled loon, either in its breeding or
wintering grounds, or during migration;
therefore, the threats are imminent. The
magnitude of the primary threat to the
species, subsistence harvest, is
moderate. Although subsistence harvest
is ongoing, the numbers taken have
varied substantially between years;
however, we have concerns about the
accuracy and precision of the numbers
reported in harvest surveys. Thus, we
assigned the yellow-billed loon an LPN
of 8.
Kittlitz’s murrelet (Brachyramphus
brevirostris)—See above in ‘‘Listing
Priority Changes in Candidates.’’ The
above summary is based on information
contained in our files.
Xantus’s murrelet (Synthliboramphus
hypoleucus)—The following summary is
based on information contained in our
files and the petition we received on
April 16, 2002. The Xantus’s murrelet is
a small seabird in the family Alcidae
that occurs along the west coast of North
America in the United States, Mexico,
and Canada. The species has a limited
breeding distribution, only nesting on
the Channel Islands in southern
California and on islands off the west
coast of Baja California, Mexico.
Although data on population trends are
scarce, the population is suspected to
have declined greatly over the last
century, mainly due to predators such
as rats (Rattus sp.) and feral cats (Felis
catus) introduced to nesting islands,
with possible extirpations on three
islands in Mexico. A dramatic decline
(up to 70 percent) from 1977 to 1991
was detected at the largest nesting
colony in southern California, possibly
due to high levels of predation on eggs
by the endemic deer mouse (Peromyscus
maniculatus elusus). Identified threats
include introduced predators at nesting
colonies, oil spills and oil pollution,
reduced prey availability, human
disturbance, and artificial light
pollution.
Although substantial declines in the
Xantus’s murrelet population likely
occurred over the last century, some of
the largest threats are being addressed,
and, to some degree, ameliorated.
Declines and possible extirpations at
several nesting colonies were thought to
have been caused by nonnative
predators, which have been removed
from many of the islands where they
once occurred. Most notably, since
1994, Island Conservation and Ecology
Group has systematically removed rats,
cats, and dogs from every murrelet
nesting colony in Mexico, with the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
exception of cats and dogs on
Guadalupe Island. In 2002, rats were
eradicated from Anacapa Island in
southern California, which has resulted
in improvements in reproductive
success at that island. In southern
California, efforts to restore nesting
habitat on Santa Barbara Island through
the Montrose Settlements Restoration
Project may benefit the Xantus’s
murrelet population at that island.
Artificial lighting from squid fishing
and other vessels, or lights on islands,
remains a potential threat to the species.
Bright lights make Xantus’s murrelets
more susceptible to predation, and they
can also become disoriented and
exhausted from continual attraction to
bright lights. Chicks can become
disoriented and separated from their
parents at sea, which could result in
death of the dependent chicks. Highwattage lights on commercial market
squid (Loligo opalescens) fishing vessels
used at night to attract squid to the
surface of the water in the Channel
Islands was the suspected cause of
unusually high predation on Xantus’s
murrelets by western gulls (Larus
occidentalis) and barn owls (Tyto alba)
at Santa Barbara Island in 1999. To
address this threat, in 2000, the
California Fish and Game Commission
required light shields and a limit of
30,000 watts per boat; it is unknown if
this is sufficient to reduce impacts.
Since 1999, no significant squid fishing
has occurred near any of the colonies in
the Channel Islands; however, this
remains a potential future threat.
A proposal to build three liquid
natural gas facilities near the Channel
Islands could affect the nesting colonies
due to bright lights at night from the
facility and visiting tanker vessels, noise
from the facilities or from helicopters
visiting the facilities, and the threat of
oil spills associated with visiting tanker
vessels. However, these facilities are
early in the complex and long-term
planning processes, and it is possible
that none of these facilities will be built.
In addition, none of them is directly
adjacent to nesting colonies, where the
impacts would be expected to be more
significant. The remaining threats to the
species are of a high magnitude, because
they have the potential to compromise
the only nesting areas for the species.
However, because the liquid natural gas
facilities are early in the planning
process and may not be completed and
currently, little squid fishing vessels
occurs near the nesting colonies, the
threats are nonimminent. Therefore, we
retained a LPN of 5 for this species.
Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii)
—See above in ‘‘Listing Priority Changes
in Candidates.’’ The above summary is
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
66393
based on information contained in our
files.
Lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus
pallidicinctus)—We continue to find
that listing this species is warranted, but
precluded as of the date of publication
of this notice. However, we are working
on a proposed listing rule that we
expect to publish prior to making the
next annual resubmitted petition 12month finding.
Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus
minimus)—We continue to find that
listing this species is warranted, but
precluded as of the date of publication
of this notice. However, we are working
on a proposed listing rule that we
expect to publish prior to making the
next annual resubmitted petition 12month finding.
Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus
urophasianus)—The following summary
is based on information in our files and
in the petition we received on January
30, 2002. Currently, greater sage-grouse
occur in 11 States (Washington, Oregon,
California, Nevada, Idaho, Montana,
Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, South
Dakota, and North Dakota), and 2
Canadian provinces (Alberta and
Saskatchewan), occupying
approximately 56 percent of their
historical range. Greater sage-grouse
depend on a variety of shrub-steppe
habitats throughout their life cycle, and
are considered obligate users of several
species of sagebrush. The primary threat
to greater sage-grouse is ongoing
fragmentation and loss of shrub-steppe
habitats through a variety of
mechanisms. Most importantly,
increasing fire cycles and invasive
plants (and the interaction between
them) in more westerly parts of the
range, along with energy development
and related infrastructure in more
easterly areas are negatively affecting
species’ persistence. In addition, direct
loss of habitat and fragmentation is
occurring due to agriculture,
urbanization, and infrastructure such as
roads and power lines built in support
of several activities. We also have
determined that existing regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to protect
the species from these ongoing threats.
However, many of these habitat impacts
are being actively addressed through
conservation actions taken by local
working groups, and State and Federal
agencies. Notably, the National
Resource Conservation Service has
committed significant financial and
technical resources to address threats to
this species on private lands through
their Sage-grouse Initiative. These
efforts, when fully implemented, will
potentially provide important
conservation benefits to the greater sage-
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
66394
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
grouse and its habitats. We consider the
threats to the greater sage-grouse to be
of moderate magnitude, because the
threats are not occurring with uniform
intensity or distribution across the wide
range of the species at this time, and
substantial habitat still remains to
support the species in many areas. The
threats are imminent because the
species is currently facing them in many
portions of its range. Therefore, we
assigned the greater sage-grouse an LPN
of 8.
Greater sage-grouse, Bi-State DPS
(Centrocercus urophasianus) — We
continue to find that listing this species
is warranted, but precluded as of the
date of publication of this notice.
However, we are working on a proposed
listing rule that we expect to publish
prior to making the next annual
resubmitted petition 12-month finding.
Greater sage-grouse, Columbia Basin
DPS (Centrocercus urophasianus)—The
following summary is based on
information in our files and a petition,
dated May 14, 1999, requesting the
listing of the Washington population of
the western sage-grouse (C. u. phaios).
On May 7, 2001, we concluded that
listing the Columbia Basin DPS of the
western sage-grouse was warranted, but
precluded by higher priority listing
actions (66 FR 22984); this population
was historically found in northern
Oregon and central Washington.
Following our May 7, 2001, finding, the
Service received additional petitions
requesting listing actions for various
other greater sage-grouse populations,
including one for the nominal western
subspecies, dated January 24, 2002, and
three for the entire species, dated June
18, 2002, and March 19 and December
22, 2003. The Service subsequently
found that the petition for the western
subspecies did not present substantial
information (68 FR 6500; February 7,
2003), and that listing the greater sagegrouse throughout its historical range
was not warranted (70 FR 2244; January
12, 2005). These two findings were
challenged, and remanded to the
Service for further consideration. In
response, we initiated a new rangewide
status review for the entire species (73
FR 10218; February 26, 2008). On March
5, 2010, we found that listing of the
greater sage-grouse was warranted but
precluded by higher priority listing
actions (75 FR 13910; March 23, 2010),
and it was added to the list of
candidates. We also found that the
western subspecies of the greater sagegrouse, the taxonomic entity on which
we based our DPS analysis for the
Columbia Basin population, was no
longer considered a valid subspecies. In
light of our conclusions regarding the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
invalidity of the western sage-grouse
subspecies, we will now need to analyze
the significance of the Columbia Basin
DPS to the greater sage-grouse. As
priorities allow, the Service intends to
complete an analysis to determine if this
population continues to warrant
recognition as a DPS in accordance with
our Policy Regarding the Recognition of
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments
(61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). Until
that time, the Columbia Basin DPS will
remain a candidate for listing as a
separate population of sage-grouse. Even
if this population does not meet our
DPS policy, the sage-grouse population
in the Columbia Basin will remain a
candidate for listing as part of the
process for listing the greater sagegrouse entity.
Band-rumped storm-petrel, Hawaii
DPS (Oceanodroma castro)—The
following summary is based on
information contained in our files and
the petition we received on May 8,
1989. No new information was provided
in the second petition received on May
11, 2004. The band-rumped storm-petrel
is a small seabird that is found in
several areas of the subtropical Pacific
and Atlantic Oceans. In the Pacific,
there are three widely separated
breeding populations: one in Japan, one
in Hawaii, and one in the Galapagos.
Populations in Japan and the Galapagos
are comparatively large and number in
the thousands, while the Hawaiian birds
represent a small, remnant population
of possibly only a few hundred pairs.
Band-rumped storm-petrels are most
commonly found in close proximity to
breeding islands. The three populations
in the Pacific are separated by long
distances across the ocean where birds
are not found. Extensive at-sea surveys
of the Pacific have revealed a broad gap
in distribution of the band-rumped
storm-petrel to the east and west of the
Hawaiian Islands, indicating that the
distribution of birds in the central
Pacific around Hawaii is disjunct from
other nesting areas. The available
information indicates that distinct
populations of band-rumped stormpetrels are definable and that the
Hawaiian population is distinct based
on geographic and distributional
isolation from other band-rumped
storm-petrel populations in Japan, the
Galapagos, and the Atlantic Ocean. A
population also can be considered
discrete if it is delimited by
international boundaries that have
differences in management control of
the species. The Hawaiian population of
the band-rumped storm-petrel is the
only population within U.S. borders or
under U.S. jurisdiction. Loss of the
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Hawaiian population would cause a
significant gap in the distribution of the
band-rumped storm-petrel in the
Pacific, and could result in the complete
isolation of the Galapagos and Japan
populations without even occasional
genetic exchanges. Therefore, the
population is both discrete and
significant, and constitutes a DPS.
The band-rumped storm-petrel
probably was common on all of the
main Hawaiian Islands when
Polynesians arrived about 1,500 years
ago, based on storm-petrel bones found
in middens on the island of Hawaii and
in excavation sites on Oahu and
Molokai. Nesting colonies of this
species in the Hawaiian Islands
currently are restricted to remote cliffs
on Kauai and Lehua Island and highelevation lava fields on Hawaii.
Vocalizations of the species were heard
in Haleakala Crater on Maui as recently
as 2006; however, no nesting sites have
been located on the island to date. The
significant reduction in numbers and
range of the band-rumped storm-petrel
is due primarily to predation by
nonnative predators introduced by
humans, including the domestic cat
(Felis catus), small Indian mongoose
(Herpestes auropunctatus), common
barn owl (Tyto alba), black rat (Rattus
rattus), Polynesian rat (R. exulans), and
Norway rat (R. norvegicus), which occur
throughout the main Hawaiian Islands,
with the exception of the mongoose,
which is not established on Kauai.
Attraction of fledglings to artificial
lights, which disrupts their night-time
navigation, resulting in collisions with
building and other objects, and
collisions with artificial structures such
as communication towers and utility
lines are also threats. Erosion of nest
sites caused by the actions of nonnative
ungulates is a potential threat in some
locations. Efforts are under way in some
areas to reduce light pollution and
mitigate the threat of collisions, but
there are no large-scale efforts to control
nonnative predators in the Hawaiian
Islands. The threats are imminent
because they are ongoing, and they are
of a high magnitude because they can
severely affect the survival of this DPS
throughout its range, leading to a
relatively high likelihood of extinction.
Therefore, we assign this distinct
population segment an LPN of 3.
Elfin-woods warbler (Dendroica
angelae)—The following summary is
based on information contained in our
files. No new information was provided
in the petition we received on May 11,
2004. Dendroica angelae, or elfin-woods
warbler, is a small, entirely black and
white warbler, distinguished by its
white eyebrow stripe, white patches on
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
ear covers and neck, incomplete eye
ring, and black crown. The elfin-woods
warbler was at first thought to occur
only in high elevations at dwarf or elfin
forests, but it has since been found at
lower elevations including shade coffee
plantations and secondary forests. These
birds build a compact cup nest, usually
close to the trunk and well hidden
among the epiphytes of small trees. Its
breeding season extends from March to
June. Elfin-woods warblers forage in the
middle part of trees, gleaning insects
from leaves in the outer portion of tree
crowns. The species has been
documented from four locations in
Puerto Rico: Luquillo Mountains, Sierra
de Cayey, and the Commonwealth
forests of Maricao and Toro Negro.
However, it has not been recorded again
in Toro Negro and Sierra de Cayey,
following the passing of Hurricane Hugo
in 1989. In 2003 and 2004, surveys were
conducted for the elfin-woods warbler
in the Carite Commonwealth Forest,
Toro Negro Forest, Guilarte Forest,
Bosque del Pueblo, Maricao Forest and
the El Yunque National Forest. These
surveys only reported sightings at
Maricao Commonwealth Forest (778
individuals), and El Yunque National
Forest (196 individuals).
The elfin-woods warbler is potentially
threatened by habitat modification.
Elfin-woods warblers have been
historically common in the elfin
woodland of El Yunque National Forest
and the Podocarpus forest type of
Maricao Commonwealth Forest.
Removal and replacement of this forest
vegetation with infrastructure (e.g.,
telecommunication towers, recreational
facilities) may have impacted the
species in the past. Although this loss
of habitat has been permanent and
restoration process would take a few
decades, present regulatory process at
both the Commonwealth and Federal
levels have reduced this threat.
Unrestricted development within the El
Yunque buffer zone needs to be
addressed to determine the impact on
the migratory behavior of the species.
Conversion of elfin-woods warbler
habitat (e.g., mature secondary forests,
young secondary forests, and shadedcoffee plantations) along the periphery
of the Maricao Commonwealth Forest to
marginal habitat (e.g., pastures, dry
slope forests, residential rural forests,
gallery forests, and unshaded coffee
plantations), has affected potential
corridors for the elfin-woods warbler,
resulting in a reduced dispersal and
expansion capability of the species.
These threats are not imminent because
most of the range of the species is
within protected lands. The magnitude
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
of threat to Dendroica angelae is low to
moderate because there is no indication
that the two populations of the elfinwoods warbler are declining in
numbers. The species can thrive in
disturbed and plantation habitats,
although abundance of the species on
these habitats is lower than in primary
habitats. Moreover, elfin-woods
warblers appear to recover well, and in
a relatively short time, from damaging
effects of hurricanes to the forest
structure. Therefore, we assign a listing
priority number of 11 to Dendroica
angelae.
Reptiles
Northern Mexican Gartersnake
(Thamnophis eques megalops)—The
following summary is based on
information contained in our files. The
northern Mexican gartersnake generally
occurs in three types of habitat: (1)
Ponds and cienegas; (2) lowland river
riparian forests and woodlands; and (3)
upland stream gallery forests. Within
the United States, the distribution of the
northern Mexican gartersnake has been
reduced by close to 90 percent, and it
occurs in fragmented populations
within the middle and upper Verde
River drainage, middle and lower Tonto
Creek, and the upper Santa Cruz River,
as well as in a small number of isolated
wetland habitats in southeastern
Arizona; its status in New Mexico is
uncertain. Within Mexico, the northern
Mexican gartersnake is distributed along
the Sierra Madre Occidental and the
Mexican Plateau in the Mexican States
of Sonora, Chihuahua, Durango,
Coahila, Zacatecas, Guanajuato, Nayarit,
´
Hidalgo, Jalisco, San Luis Potosı,
Aguascalientes, Tlaxacala, Puebla,
´
´
Mexico, Michoacan, Oaxaca, Veracruz,
´
and Queretaro. The primary threat to the
northern Mexican gartersnake is
competition and predation from
nonnative species such as sportfish,
bullfrogs, and crayfish. Degradation and
elimination of its habitat and native
prey base are also significant threats,
most notably in areas where nonnative
species co-occur. Threats, particularly
competition and predation by nonnative
species, are high in magnitude because
they result in direct mortality or
reduced reproductive capacity and may
be irreversible in complex habitat. The
threats are ongoing and, therefore,
imminent. Thus, we retained an LPN of
3 for this subspecies.
Eastern massasauga rattlesnake
(Sistrurus catenatus)—See above in
‘‘Listing Priority Changes in
Candidates.’’ The above summary is
based on information contained in our
files.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
66395
Black pine snake (Pituophis
melanoleucus lodingi)—The following
summary is based on information
contained in our files. No new
information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
There are historical records for the black
pine snake from one parish in
Louisiana, 14 counties in Mississippi,
and 3 counties in Alabama west of the
Mobile River Delta. Black pine snake
surveys and trapping indicate that this
species has been extirpated from
Louisiana and from four counties in
Mississippi. Moreover, the distribution
of remaining populations has become
highly restricted due to the destruction
and fragmentation of the remaining
longleaf pine habitat within the range of
the subspecies. Most of the known
Mississippi populations are
concentrated on the DeSoto National
Forest. In Alabama, populations
occurring on properties managed by
State and other governmental agencies,
as gopher tortoise mitigation banks or
wildlife sanctuaries, represent the best
opportunities for long-term survival of
the subspecies there. Other factors
affecting the black pine snake include
vehicular mortality and low
reproductive rates, which magnify the
threats from destruction and
fragmentation of longleaf pine habitat
and increase the likelihood of local
extinctions. Due to the imminent threats
of high magnitude caused by the past
destruction of most of the longleaf pine
habitat of the black pine snake, and the
continuing persistent degradation of the
habitat that remains, we assigned an
LPN of 3 to this subspecies.
Louisiana pine snake (Pituophis
ruthveni)—The following summary is
based on information contained in our
files and the petition we received on
July 20, 2000, and updated through
April 30, 2011. The Louisiana pine
snake historically occurred in the firemaintained longleaf pine ecosystem
within west-central Louisiana and
extreme east-central Texas. The historic
and ongoing loss of potential habitat
(via fire suppression, conversion to pine
plantations, increases in the number
and width of roads, and urbanization)
on private lands in the matrix between
these extant populations reduces the
potential for dispersal among remnant
populations and the potential for
natural re-colonization of vacant
suitable habitat patches. The primary
threats coupled with the disruption of
natural fire regimes have reduced the
Louisiana pine snake to seven isolated
populations. Several of these remnant
populations may be vulnerable to
factors associated with low population
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
66396
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
sizes and demographic isolation such as
reduced genetic heterozygosity. Because
it is unlikely that corridors linking
extant populations will be established,
the loss of any extant population is
likely to be permanent. Additional
threats that may occur even within
quality Louisiana pine snake habitat
include mortality from on- and off-road
mortality, entanglement in erosion
control devices installed in rights-ofway, and intentional killing. Finally, the
Louisiana pine snake has an extremely
low reproductive rate, thereby
magnifying the effects of the above
listed threats. Currently occupied
habitat in Louisiana and Texas is
estimated to be approximately 163,000
acres, with 53 percent occurring on
public lands and 47 percent in private
ownership.
Louisiana pine snake populations on
Federal lands have received increased
management attention (via prescribed
burning and thinning) in recent years,
and as a result, the successional
degradation of occupied and potential
habitat within these populations has
been stabilized or reversed.
Nonetheless, not all areas of occupied
habitat on Federal lands have received
recent prescribed burning, and in the
absence of adequate burning, Louisiana
pine snake habitat becomes degraded
via vegetative succession. The largest
and perhaps most important extant
Louisiana pine snake population exists
on private industrial timberland.
Although two conservation areas are
managed to benefit Louisiana pine
snakes on this property, the majority of
the occupied habitat between the
conservation areas is threatened by land
management activities (habitat
conversion to short-rotation pine
plantations) that are expected to
decrease habitat quality. The candidate
conservation agreement (CCA) for the
Louisiana pine snake which includes
the Service, U.S. Forest Service,
Department of Defense, Texas Parks and
Wildlife, and Louisiana Department of
Wildlife was completed in 2003, and is
currently being implemented. The CCA
is designed to identify and establish
management for the Louisiana pine
snake on Federal lands in Louisiana and
Texas, and provides a means for the
partnering agencies to work
cooperatively on projects that avoid and
minimize impacts to the snake. It also
sets up a mechanism to exchange
information on successful management
practices and coordinate research
efforts.
In 2001, the Service provided funds,
through the Private Stewardship Grant
Program, to a private landowner for
habitat restoration and prescribed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
burning on several tracts of their
Bienville Parish property containing a
known Louisiana pine snake
population. A habitat management plan
for those sites was developed, and in
August of 2005, that landowner was
awarded a grant for continued habitat
improvement on that same property.
Subsequently, that property has been
transferred to a new landowner.
Through the use of those grant funds
and voluntary investment, those private
landowners have converted lands to
longleaf pine within those Core
Management Areas and completed
prescribed burning.
The Louisiana Pine Snake
Conservation Group consists of
representatives from a variety of
organizations having an interest in
Louisiana pine snake conservation and
includes approximately 90 individuals
representing State and Federal
government, non-profit and private
organizations, zoos, academia, and
private landowners. This group has
been holding annual stakeholder
meetings since 2003. At those meetings,
stakeholders discuss issues and threats
to the Louisiana pine snake, identify
possible strategies to deal with those
threats, report on land management
activities beneficial to stability or
recovery, and discuss and share
successful results. Five significant
actions have resulted from cooperative
efforts of this group’s members: (1)
Completion of a threats assessment; (2)
development and completion of a
landscape—scaled resources selection
function model; (3) training and
experimental testing of a scent dog to
assist in survey efforts; (4) initiation of
an experimental captive breeding and
reintroduction program; and (5)
initiation of a DNA microsatellite study
that will help define genetic structure
among populations.
While the extent of Louisiana pine
snake habitat loss has been great in the
past and much of the remaining habitat
has been degraded, habitat loss does not
represent an imminent threat, primarily
because the rate of habitat loss appears
to be declining on public lands.
However, all populations require active
habitat management, and the lack of
adequate habitat remains a threat for
several populations. The potential
threats to a large percentage of extant
Louisiana pine snake populations,
coupled with the likely permanence of
these effects and the species’ low
fecundity and low population sizes,
lead us to conclude that the threats have
significant effects on the survival of the
species and therefore remain high in
magnitude. Thus, based on
nonimminent, high-magnitude threats,
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
we assign a LPN of 5 to this species. We
find that listing this species is
warranted throughout all its range.
Tucson shovel-nosed snake
(Chionactis occipitalis klauberi)—The
Tucson shovel-nosed snake is a small,
burrowing snake in the Colubridae
family that occupied a roughly 35-milewide swath running along the PhoenixTucson corridor in northeastern Pima,
southwestern Pinal, and eastern
Maricopa Counties, Arizona. No
systematic surveys have been conducted
to assess the status of the subspecies
throughout its range, but it has
apparently disappeared from some
areas.
Threats to the Tucson shovel-nosed
snake include urban and rural
development; road construction, use,
and maintenance; concentration of solar
power facilities and transmission
corridors; agriculture; wildfires; and
lack of adequate management and
regulation. Comprehensive plans
encompassing the entire range of the
snake encourage large growth areas in
the next 20 years and beyond. These
plans also call for an increase in roads
and transportation corridors, which
have been documented to affect the
snake through direct mortality.
Additionally, development of solar
energy facilities and transmission
corridors throughout the State is being
pursued, and demand for these facilities
will likely increase. Some of these
facilities are being considered within
the range of the Tucson shovel-nosed
snake. Wildfires due to infestations of
nonnative grasses in the snake’s habitat,
dominated by native plants not adapted
to survive wildfires, are likely to
increase in frequency and magnitude in
the future as these invasive grasses
continue to spread rapidly. Regulations
are not in place to minimize or mitigate
these threats to the Tucson shovel-nosed
snake and its habitat, and, therefore,
they are likely to put the snake at risk
of local extirpation or extinction. These
threats, particularly those that lead to a
loss of habitat, are likely to reduce the
population of the Tucson shovel-nosed
snake across its entire range. Given the
limited geographic distribution of this
snake and the fact that its entire range
lies within the path of development in
the foreseeable future, these threats are
of high magnitude and are imminent.
Accordingly, we have assigned an LPN
of 3 for the Tucson shovel-nosed snake.
Desert tortoise, Sonoran DPS
(Gopherus agassizii)—The following
summary is based on information
contained in our files. Sonoran desert
tortoises are most closely associated
with Sonoran and Mojave desertscrub
vegetation types, but may also be found
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
in other habitat types within their
distribution and elevation range. They
occur most commonly on rocky, steep
slopes and bajadas in paloverde-mixed
cacti associations. Washes and valley
bottoms may be used in dispersal and,
in some areas, as all or part of home
ranges. Most Sonoran desert tortoises in
Arizona occur between 904 to 4,198 feet
(275 to 1280 meters) in elevation. The
Sonoran desert tortoise is distributed
south and east of the Colorado River in
Arizona in all counties except for
Navajo, Apache, Coconino, and
Greenlee Counties, south to the Rio
Yaqui in southern Sonora, Mexico. A
recently published paper on the genetics
of desert tortoise indicates this
population should be treated as a
separate species. We will be analyzing
this new information, and will make
any necessary changes to the
nomenclature and LPN in the next
candidate notice.
Threats include nonnative plant
species invasions and altered fire
regimes; urban and agricultural
development, and human population
growth; barriers to dispersal and genetic
exchange; off-highway vehicles; roads
and highways; historical ironwood and
mesquite tree harvest in Mexico;
improper livestock grazing
(predominantly in Mexico);
undocumented human immigration and
interdiction activities; illegal collection;
predation from feral dogs; human
depredation and vandalism; drought;
and climate change. Threats to the
Sonoran desert tortoise differ
geographically and are highly
synergistic in their effects on the
population. The threats identified to
affect the Sonoran desert tortoise
currently or in the foreseeable future are
of high magnitude but, overall, are
nonimminent. Therefore, we assigned
an LPN of 6 to this population of desert
tortoise.
Sonoyta mud turtle (Kinosternon
sonoriense longifemorale)—The
following summary is based on
information contained in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
The Sonoyta mud turtle occurs in a
spring and pond at Quitobaquito
Springs on Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument in Arizona, and in the Rio
Sonoyta and Quitovac Spring of Sonora,
Mexico. Loss and degradation of stream
habitat from water diversion and
groundwater pumping, along with its
very limited distribution, are the
primary threats to the Sonoyta mud
turtle. Sonoyta mud turtles are highly
aquatic and depend on permanent water
for survival. The area of southwest
Arizona and northern Sonora where the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
Sonoyta mud turtle occurs is one of the
driest regions in the Southwest. Due to
continued drought, irrigated agriculture,
and development in the region, surface
water in the Rio Sonoyta can be
expected to dwindle further and
therefore have a significant impact on
the survival of this subspecies, which
may also be vulnerable to aerial
spraying of pesticides on nearby
agricultural fields. We retained an LPN
of 3 for this subspecies because threats
are of a high magnitude and continue to
date, and therefore are imminent.
Amphibians
Columbia spotted frog, Great Basin
DPS (Rana luteiventris)—The following
summary is based on information
contained in our files and the petition
we received on May 1, 1989. Currently,
Columbia spotted frogs appear to be
widely distributed throughout
southwestern Idaho, southeastern
Oregon, and northeastern and central
Nevada, but local populations within
this general area appear to be small and
isolated from each other. Recent work
by researchers in Idaho and Nevada
have documented the loss of historically
known sites, reduced numbers of
individuals within local populations,
and declines in the reproduction of
those individuals.
Small, highly fragmented populations,
characteristic of the majority of existing
populations of Columbia spotted frogs
in the Great Basin, are highly
susceptible to extinction processes.
Threats to Columbia spotted frog
include poor management of habitat
including water development, improper
grazing, mining activities, and
nonnative species, all of which have
contributed, and continue to contribute,
to the degradation and fragmentation of
habitat. Emerging fungal diseases, such
as chytridiomycosis, and the spread of
parasites may be contributing factors to
Columbia spotted frog’s population
declines throughout portions of its
range. Effects of climate change, such as
drought, and stochastic events, such as
fire, often have detrimental effects to
small, isolated populations and can
often exacerbate existing threats. A 10year conservation agreement and
strategy was signed in September 2003
for both the Northeast and the Toiyabe
subpopulations in Nevada. The goals of
the conservation agreements are to
reduce threats to Columbia spotted frogs
and their habitat to the extent necessary
to prevent populations from becoming
extirpated throughout all or a portion of
their historical range and to maintain,
enhance, and restore a sufficient
number of populations of Columbia
spotted frogs and their habitat to ensure
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
66397
their continued existence throughout
their historical range. Additionally, a
candidate conservation agreement with
assurances was completed in 2006, for
the Owyhee subpopulation at Sam
Noble Springs, Idaho. Several habitat
enhancement projects have been
conducted throughout the range that
have benefitted these populations. We
conclude that the threats are of
moderate magnitude, because the DPS is
still widely distributed, and several
regulatory mechanisms are benefitting
the populations and working to reduce
threats. Based on imminent threats of
moderate magnitude, we assigned an
LPN of 9 to this DPS of the Columbia
spotted frog.
Mountain yellow-legged frog, Sierra
Nevada DPS (Rana muscosa)—The
following summary is based on
information contained in our files and
the petition received on February 8,
2000. Also see our 12-month petition
finding published on January 16, 2003
(68 FR 2283) and our amended 12month petition finding published on
June 25, 2007 (72 FR 34657). The
mountain yellow-legged frog inhabits
the high elevation lakes, ponds, and
streams in the Sierra Nevada Mountains
of California, from near 4,500 feet (ft)
(1,370 meters (m)) to 12,000 ft (3,650 m).
The distribution of the mountain
yellow-legged frog is from Butte and
Plumas Counties in the north to Tulare
and Inyo Counties in the south. A
separate population in southern
California is already listed as
endangered (67 FR 44382; July 2, 2002).
Based on mitochondrial DNA,
morphological, and acoustic studies,
Vredenburg et al. recently recognized
two distinct species of mountain
yellow-legged frog in the Sierra Nevada,
R. muscosa and R. sierrae. This
taxonomic distinction has been recently
adopted by the American Society of
Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, the
Herpetologists’ League, and the Society
for the Study of Amphibians and
Reptiles. The Vredenburg study
determined that two species exist, as
described by Camp in 1917, but have
different geographical ranges than first
described. Camp described R. muscosa
as only occurring in southern California.
A recent study determined that R.
muscosa also occurs in the southern
portion of the Sierra Nevada and that R.
sierrae occurs both in the southern and
northern portions of the Sierra Nevada
with no range overlap. We accept the
taxonomic distinction of two species,
and the taxonomic split between the
mountain yellow-legged frogs in the
northern and central Sierra Nevada
Mountains of California (Rana sierrae)
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
66398
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
and the mountain yellow-legged frogs in
the southern Sierra Nevada and the
mountains of southern California (R.
muscosa) and we intend to propose this
taxonomic change in a proposed rule. In
the interim, we continue to recognize all
mountain yellow-legged frogs in the
Sierra Nevada Mountains of California
as R. muscosa and as the candidate
entity.
Predation by introduced trout is the
best-documented cause of the decline of
the Sierra Nevada mountain yellowlegged frog, because it has been
repeatedly observed that fishes and
mountain yellow-legged frogs rarely coexist. Mountain yellow-legged frogs and
trout (native and nonnative) do co-occur
at some sites, but these co-occurrences
probably are mountain yellow-legged
frog populations with negative
population growth rates in the absence
of immigration. To help reverse the
decline of the mountain yellow-legged
frog, the Sequoia and Kings Canyon
National Parks have been removing
introduced trout since 2001. Over
18,000 introduced trout have been
removed from 11 lakes since the project
started in 2001. The lakes are
completely, to mostly, fish-free, and
substantial mountain yellow-legged frog
population increases have resulted. The
California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG) has also removed or is in the
process of removing nonnative trout
from a total of between 10 and 20 water
bodies in the Inyo, Humboldt-Toiyabe,
Sierra, and El Dorado National Forests.
In the El Dorado National Forest, golden
trout were removed from Leland Lake,
and attempts have been made to remove
trout from two sites near Gertrude Lake,
three lakes in the Pyramid Creek
watershed, and a tributary of Cole
Creek; no data showing increase in
mountain yellow-legged frogs at these
sites were available.
In California, chytridiomycosis, more
commonly known as chytrid fungus
(Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) or
Bd, has been detected in many
amphibian species, including the
mountain yellow-legged frog within the
Sierra Nevada. Recent research has
shown that this pathogenic fungus has
become widely distributed throughout
the Sierra Nevada, and that infected
mountain yellow-legged frogs often die
soon after metamorphosis. Several
infected and uninfected populations
were monitored in Sequoia and Kings
Canyon National Parks over multiple
years, documenting dramatic declines
and extirpations in infected but not in
uninfected populations. In the summer
of 2005, 39 of 43 populations assayed in
Yosemite National Park were positive
for chytrid fungus.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
The current distribution of the Sierra
Nevada mountain yellow-legged frog is
restricted primarily to public lands at
high elevations, including streams,
lakes, ponds, and meadow wetlands
located on national forests, including
wilderness and non-wilderness on the
forests, and national parks. In several
areas where detailed studies of the
effects of chytrid fungus on the
mountain yellow-legged frog are
ongoing, substantial declines have been
observed over the past several years. For
example, in 2007 surveys in Yosemite
National Park, mountain yellow-legged
frogs were not detectable at 37 percent
of 285 sites where they had been
observed in 2000–2002; in 2005 in
Sequoia and Kings Canyon National
Parks, mountain yellow-legged frogs
were not detected at 54 percent of sites
where they had been recorded 3 to 8
years earlier. A compounding effect of
disease-caused extinctions of mountain
yellow-legged frogs is that
recolonization may never occur because
streams connecting extirpated sites to
extant populations now contain
introduced fishes, which act as barriers
to frog movement within
metapopulations. The most recent
assessment of the species status in the
Sierra Nevada indicates that mountainyellow legged frogs occur at less than 8
percent of the sites from which they
were historically observed. A group of
prominent scientists further suggest a
10-percent decline per year in the
number of remaining Rana mucosa.
Based on threats that are imminent
(because they are ongoing) and highmagnitude (because they significantly
affect the survival of the DPS
throughout its range), we continue to
assign the population of mountain
yellow-legged frog in the Sierra Nevada
an LPN of 3.
Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa)—
The following summary is based on
information contained in our files and
the petition we received on May 4,
1989. Historically, the Oregon spotted
frog ranged from British Columbia to the
Pit River drainage in northeastern
California. Based on surveys of
historical sites, the Oregon spotted frog
is now absent from at least 76 percent
of its former range. The majority of the
remaining Oregon spotted frog
populations are small and isolated.
The threats to the species’ habitat
include development, livestock grazing,
introduction of nonnative plant species,
vegetation succession, changes in
hydrology due to construction of dams
and alterations to seasonal flooding,
lack of management of exotic vegetation,
predators, and poor water quality.
Additional threats to the species are
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
predation by nonnative fish and
introduced bullfrogs; competition with
bullfrogs and nonnative fish for habitat;
and diseases, such as oomycete water
mold Saprolegnia and chytrid fungus
infections. The magnitude of threat is
high for this species because this wide
range of threats to both individuals and
their habitats could seriously reduce or
eliminate any of these isolated
populations and further reduce the
species’ range and potential survival.
Habitat restoration and management
actions have not prevented population
declines. The threats are imminent
because each population is faced with
multiple ongoing and potential threats
as identified above. Therefore, we retain
an LPN of 2 for the Oregon spotted frog.
Relict leopard frog (Lithobates
onca)—See above in ‘‘Listing Priority
Changes in Candidates.’’ The above
summary is based on information
contained in our files.
Austin blind salamander (Eurycea
waterlooensis)—We continue to find
that listing this species is warranted, but
precluded as of the date of publication
of this notice. However, we are working
on a proposed listing rule that we
expect to publish prior to making the
next annual resubmitted petition 12month finding.
Berry Cave salamander (Gyrinophilus
gulolineatus)—The following summary
is based on information in our files. We
have no new information since this
species was afforded candidate status
through our 12-month warranted-butprecluded finding published on March
22, 2011 (76 FR 15919). The Berry Cave
salamander is recorded from Berry Cave
in Roane County; from Mud Flats,
Aycock Spring, Christian, Meades
Quarry, Meades River, and Fifth Caves
in Knox County; from Blythe Ferry Cave
in Meigs County; and from an unknown
cave in Athens, McMinn County,
Tennessee. These cave systems are all
located within the Upper Tennessee
River and Clinch River drainages. A
total of 113 caves in Middle and East
Tennessee were surveyed from the time
period of April 2004 through June 2007,
resulting in observations of 63 Berry
Cave salamanders. These surveys
concluded that Berry Cave salamander
populations are robust at Berry and
Mudflats Caves, where population
declines had been previously reported,
and documented two new populations
of Berry Cave salamanders at Aycock
Spring and Christian caves.
Ongoing threats to this species
include lye leaching in the Meades
Quarry Cave as a result of past quarrying
activities, a proposed roadway with
potential to impact the recharge area for
the Meades Quarry Cave system, urban
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
development in Knox County, water
quality impacts despite existing State
and Federal laws, and possibly
hybridization between spring
salamanders and Berry Cave
salamanders in Meades Quarry Cave.
These threats, coupled with confined
distribution of the species and apparent
low population densities, leave the
Berry Cave salamander vulnerable to
extirpation. We have determined that
the Berry Cave salamander faces
imminent threats, and that the threats
are of moderate magnitude, because
some populations appear to be robust
and new populations are emerging. We
have therefore assigned it an LPN of 8.
Georgetown salamander (Eurycea
naufragia)—We continue to find that
listing this species is warranted, but
precluded as of the date of publication
of this notice. However, we are working
on a proposed listing rule that we
expect to publish prior to making the
next annual resubmitted petition 12month finding.
Jollyville Plateau salamander (Eurycea
tonkawae)—We continue to find that
listing this species is warranted, but
precluded as of the date of publication
of this notice. However, we are working
on a proposed listing rule that we
expect to publish prior to making the
next annual resubmitted petition 12month finding.
Salado salamander (Eurycea
chisholmensis)—We continue to find
that listing this species is warranted, but
precluded as of the date of publication
of this notice. However, we are working
on a proposed listing rule that we
expect to publish prior to making the
next annual resubmitted petition 12month finding.
Yosemite toad (Anaxyrus canorus)—
The following summary is based on
information contained in our files and
the petition we received on April 3,
2000. See also our 12-month petition
finding published on December 10, 2002
(67 FR 75834). Yosemite toads are
moderately sized toads with females
having black spots that are edged with
white or cream, and set against a grey,
tan, or brown background. Males have a
nearly uniform coloration of yellowgreen to olive drab to greenish brown.
Yosemite toads have been grouped
within the genus ‘‘Bufo.’’ Recently,
Frost et al. divided the ‘‘Bufo’’ genus
into three separate genera, assigning the
North American toads to the genus
Anaxyrus. This taxonomic distinction
has been recently adopted by the
American Society of Ichthyologists and
Herpetologists, the Herpetologists’
League, and the Society for the Study of
Amphibians and Reptiles, and we are
acknowledging the change in genus
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
name, and referring to the Yosemite
toad accordingly in this document.
Yosemite toads are most likely to be
found in areas with thick meadow
vegetation or patches of low willows
near or in water, and use rodent
burrows for overwintering and
temporary refuge during the summer.
Breeding habitat includes the edges of
wet meadows, slow-flowing streams,
shallow ponds, and shallow areas of
lakes. The historic range of Yosemite
toads in the Sierra Nevada occurs from
the Blue Lakes region north of Ebbetts
Pass (Alpine County) to south of Kaiser
Pass in the Evolution Lake/Darwin
Canyon area (Fresno County). The
historic elevational range of Yosemite
toads is 1,460 to 3,630 m (4,790 to
11,910 ft).
The threats facing the Yosemite toad
include cattle grazing, timber
harvesting, recreation, disease, and
climate change. Inappropriate grazing
has been shown to cause loss in
vegetative cover and to destroy peat
layers in meadows, both of which lower
groundwater tables and summer flows
of surface water. This may increase the
stranding and mortality of tadpoles, or
make these areas completely unsuitable
for Yosemite toads. Grazing can also
degrade or destroy moist upland areas
used as non-breeding habitat by
Yosemite toads and collapse rodent
burrows used by Yosemite toads as
cover and hibernation sites. Timber
harvesting and associated road
construction could severely alter the
terrestrial environment and result in the
reduction and occasional extirpation of
amphibian populations in the Sierra
Nevada. Habitat gaps created by timber
harvest and road construction may act
as dispersal barriers and contribute to
the fragmentation of Yosemite toad
habitat and populations. Trails (foot,
horse, bicycle, or off-highway motor
vehicle) compact soil in riparian habitat,
which increases erosion, displaces
vegetation, and can lower the water
table. Trampling or the collapsing of
rodent burrows by recreationists, pets,
and vehicles could lead to direct
mortality of all life stages of the
Yosemite toad and disrupt the species’
behavior. Various diseases have been
confirmed in Yosemite toads. Mass dieoffs of amphibians have been attributed
to: Chytrid fungal infections of
metamorphs and adults; saprolegnia
fungal infections of eggs; iridovirus
infection of larvae, metamorphs, or
adults; and bacterial infections.
Yosemite toads probably are exposed to
a variety of pesticides and other
chemicals throughout their range.
Environmental contaminants could
negatively affect the species by causing
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
66399
direct mortality; suppressing the
immune system; disrupting breeding
behavior, fertilization, growth or
development of young; and disrupting
the ability to avoid predation.
There is no indication that any of
these threats are ongoing or planned;
therefore the threats are nonimminent.
In addition, as there are a number of
substantial populations and these
threats tend to have localized effects,
the threats are moderate to low in
magnitude. We therefore retained an
LPN of 11 for the Yosemite toad.
Black Warrior waterdog (Necturus
alabamensis)—The following summary
is based on information contained in
our files. No new information was
provided in the petition we received on
May 11, 2004. The Black Warrior
waterdog is a salamander that inhabits
streams above the Fall Line within the
Black Warrior River Basin in Alabama.
There is very little specific locality
information available on the historical
distribution of the Black Warrior
waterdog as little attention was given to
this species between its description in
1937 and the 1980s. At that time, there
were a total of only 11 known historical
records from four Alabama counties.
Two of these sites have now been
inundated by impoundments. Extensive
survey work was conducted in the
1990s to look for additional
populations. As a result of that work,
the species was documented at 14 sites
in five counties.
Water-quality degradation is the
biggest threat to the continued existence
of the Black Warrior waterdog. Most
streams that have been surveyed for the
waterdog showed evidence of pollution
and many appeared biologically
depauperate. Sources of point and
nonpoint pollution in the Black Warrior
River Basin have been numerous and
widespread. Pollution is generated from
inadequately treated effluent from
industrial plants, sanitary landfills,
sewage treatment plants, poultry
operations, and cattle feedlots. Surface
mining represents another threat to the
biological integrity of waterdog habitat.
Runoff from old, abandoned coal mines
generates pollution through
acidification, increased mineralization,
and sediment loading. The North River,
Locust Fork, and Mulberry Fork, all
streams that this species inhabits, are on
the Environmental Protection Agency’s
list of impaired waters. An additional
threat to the Black Warrior waterdog is
the creation of large impoundments that
have flooded thousands of square
hectares of its habitat. These
impoundments are likely marginal or
unsuitable habitat for the salamander.
Suitable habitat for the Black Warrior
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
66400
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
waterdog is limited, and available data
indicate extant populations are small
and their viability is questionable. This
situation is pervasive and problematic;
water-quality issues are persistent, and
regulatory mechanisms are not
ameliorating these threats, although we
have no indication of population
declines, at present. Therefore, the
overall magnitude of the threat is
moderate. Water-quality degradation in
the Black Warrior basin is ongoing.
Therefore, the threats are imminent.
Additional surveys, initiated in 2011,
may clarify the status of populations in
the face of existing threats. We assigned
an LPN of 8 to this species.
Fishes
Headwater chub (Gila nigra)—The
following summary is based on
information contained in our files, in
the 12-month finding published in the
Federal Register on May 3, 2006 (71 FR
26007), and in the petition received
November 9, 2009. The headwater chub
is a moderate-sized cyprinid fish. The
range of the headwater chub has been
reduced by approximately 60 percent.
Twenty-three streams (125 miles (200
kilometers) of stream) are thought to be
occupied out of 26 streams (312 miles
(500 kilometers) of stream) formerly
occupied in the Gila River Basin in
Arizona and New Mexico. All remaining
populations are fragmented and
isolated, and threatened by a
combination of factors.
Headwater chubs are threatened by
introduced, nonnative fish that prey on
them and compete with them for food.
Habitat destruction and modification
have occurred and continue to occur as
a result of dewatering, impoundment,
channelization, and channel changes
caused by alteration of riparian
vegetation and watershed degradation
from mining, grazing, roads, water
pollution, urban and suburban
development, groundwater pumping,
and other human actions. Existing
regulatory mechanisms do not appear to
be adequate for addressing the impact of
nonnative fish and also have not
removed or eliminated the threats that
continue to be posed through habitat
degradation. The fragmented nature and
rarity of existing populations makes
them vulnerable to other natural or
manmade factors, such as drought and
wildfire. Climate change is predicted to
worsen these threats through increased
aridity of the region, thus reducing
stream flows and warming aquatic
habitats, which makes the habitat more
suitable to nonnative species.
The Arizona Game and Fish
Department has finalized the Arizona
Statewide Conservation Agreement for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
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). The New Mexico Department
of Game and Fish has 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 Arizona’s agreement and
New Mexico’s recovery plan
recommend preservation and
enhancement of extant populations and
restoration of historical headwater-chub
populations. The recovery and
conservation actions prescribed by
Arizona’s and New Mexico’s plans,
which we predict will reduce and
remove threats to this species, will
require further discussions and
authorizations before they can be
implemented. The recently completed
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Sportfish Stocking Program’s
Conservation and Mitigation Program
contains significant conservation
actions for the headwater chub that will
be implemented over the next 10 years.
Although threats are ongoing, existing
information indicates long-term
persistence and stability of existing
populations. Currently 7 of the 23 extant
stream populations are considered
stable based on abundance and evidence
of recruitment. We evaluated
information provided in the 2009
petition relating to our 2008 change in
LPN for the headwater chub from 2 to
8 as part of our annual analysis. In
making that 2008 decision, we recognize
that we inadvertently relied on some
information and did not consider other
available information. Additional
information will be available on
population status and threats later in
2011 that we will use to reassess the
LPN for the headwater chub next year.
We have retained an LPN of 8 for this
species at this time.
Least Chub (Iotichthys
phlegethontis)—The following summary
is based on information contained in
our files and in the petition received
June 25, 2007. The least chub is a small,
colorful fish species in Utah that follows
thermal patterns for habitat use. Least
chub use flooded, warmer, vegetated
marsh areas to spawn in the spring, and
retreat to spring heads to overwinter as
the water recedes in the late summer
and fall. Historically, many least chub
occurrences were reported across the
State of Utah, but the current
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
distribution of the species is highly
reduced from its historic range.
Currently, only six known wild
populations remain, but one of these is
considered functionally extirpated.
Least chub also currently exist at several
genetic refuge sites. The species faces
threats from the effects of livestock
grazing, which affects most least chub
sites despite efforts to protect least chub
habitat with grazing enclosures and
management plans. Least chub habitat
also is affected by current and proposed
future groundwater withdrawals,
especially when combined with the
threat of drought. These threats also act
cumulatively with climate change to put
the least chub at further risk. Existing
regulatory mechanisms are currently
inadequate to regulate groundwater
withdrawals and ameliorate their effects
on least chub habitat. Nonnative
species, particularly mosquitofish, also
are a continuing threat to least chub.
There is no known means of controlling
mosquitofish, and they have already
caused the functional extirpation of one
wild least chub population.
In 1998, several State and Federal
agencies including the Service and the
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
developed a Least Chub Conservation
Agreement and Strategy, and formed the
Least Chub Conservation Team. Their
objectives are to eliminate or
significantly reduce threats to the least
chub and its habitat, and to ensure the
continued existence of the species by
restoring and maintaining a minimum
number of least chub populations
throughout its historic range. Recent
State-led least chub conservation
actions have included restoration of
habitat affected by grazing,
reintroduction and range expansion,
nonnative removal, population
monitoring, and working cooperatively
with landowners to conserve water and
aquatic habitat. This group also has
recently begun a structured decision
making modeling process that will
provide additional guidance for
conservation activities.
Although grazing, groundwater
withdrawal, and predation by nonnative
species are high magnitude threats to
some populations, they are of low
magnitude or nonexistent in other
populations. Therefore the threats to the
least chub are of moderate magnitude
overall. The threats are imminent
because they are identifiable and the
species is currently facing them in many
portions of its range. Therefore, we have
assigned the least chub an LPN of 7.
Roundtail chub (Gila robusta), Lower
Colorado River DPS—The following
summary is based on information
contained in our files and the 12-month
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
finding published in the Federal
Register on July 7, 2009 (74 FR 32352).
The roundtail chub is a moderate to
large cyprinid fish. The range of the
roundtail chub has been reduced by
approximately 68 to 82 percent. Thirtytwo streams are currently occupied,
representing approximately 18 to 32
percent of the species’ former range, or
800 km (500 miles) to 1,350 km (840 mi)
of 3,050 km (1,895 mi) of formerly
occupied streams in the Gila River Basin
in Arizona and New Mexico. Most of the
remaining populations are fragmented
and isolated, and all are threatened by
a combination of factors.
Roundtail chub are threatened by
introduced, nonnative fish that prey on
them and compete with them for food.
Habitat destruction and modification
have occurred and continue to occur as
a result of dewatering, impoundment,
channelization, and channel changes
caused by alteration of riparian
vegetation and watershed degradation
from mining, grazing, roads, water
pollution, urban and suburban
development, groundwater pumping,
and other human actions. Existing
regulatory mechanisms do not appear to
be adequate for addressing the impact of
nonnative fish and also have not
removed or eliminated the threats that
continue to be posed through habitat
destruction or modification. The
fragmented nature and rarity of existing
populations makes them vulnerable to
other natural or manmade factors, such
as drought and wildfire. Climate change
is predicted to worsen these threats
through increased aridity of the region,
thus reducing stream flows and
warming aquatic habitats, which makes
the habitat more suitable to nonnative
species.
The Arizona Game and Fish
Department has finalized the Arizona
Statewide Conservation Agreement for
Roundtail Chub, Headwater Chub (G.
nigra), Flannelmouth Sucker
(Catostomus latipinnis), Little Colorado
River Sucker (Catostomus spp.),
Bluehead Sucker (C. discobolus), and
Zuni Bluehead Sucker (C. discobolus
yarrowi). The New Mexico Department
of Game and Fish lists the roundtail
chub as endangered and has 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 roundtail chub
populations. The recovery and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
conservation actions prescribed by the
Arizona and New Mexico plans, which
we predict will reduce and remove
threats to this species, will require
further discussions and authorizations
before they can be implemented,
although some actions have been
completed and several are planned for
the immediate future. The recently
completed Arizona Game and Fish
Department Sportfish Stocking
Program’s Conservation and Mitigation
Program contains significant
conservation actions for the roundtail
chub that will be implemented over the
next 10 years.
Although threats are ongoing, existing
information indicates long-term
persistence and stability of existing
populations. Currently, 9 of the 32
extant stream populations are
considered stable, based on abundance
and evidence of recruitment. Based on
our assessment, threats (primarily
nonnative species and habitat loss from
land uses) remain imminent and are of
a moderate magnitude. Thus, we have
retained an LPN of 9 for this distinct
population segment.
Arkansas darter (Etheostoma
cragini)—The following summary is
based on information contained in our
files. No new information was provided
in the petition we received on May 11,
2004. This fish species occurs in
Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri,
and Oklahoma. The species is found
most often in sand- or pebble-bottomed
pools of small, spring-fed streams and
marshes, with cool water and
broadleaved aquatic vegetation. Its
current distribution is indicative of a
species that once was widely dispersed
throughout its range, but has been
relegated to isolated areas surrounded
by unsuitable habitat that prevents
dispersal. Factors influencing the
current distribution include: Surface
and groundwater irrigation resulting in
decreased flows or stream dewatering;
the dewatering of long reaches of
riverine habitat necessary for species
movement when surface flows do occur;
conversion of prairie to cropland, which
influences groundwater recharge and
spring flows; water quality degradation
from a variety of sources; and the
construction of dams, which act as
barriers preventing emigration upstream
and downstream through the reservoir
pool. The magnitude of threats facing
this species is moderate to low, given
the number of different locations where
the species occurs and the fact that no
single threat or combination of threats
affects more than a portion of the
widespread population occurrences.
Overall, the threats are nonimminent as
groundwater pumping is declining and
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
66401
development, spills, and runoff are not
currently affecting the species
rangewide. Thus, we are retaining an
LPN of 11 for the Arkansas darter.
Pearl darter (Percina aurora)—The
following summary is based on
information contained in our files. Little
is known about the specific habitat
requirements or natural history of the
Pearl darter. Pearl darters have been
collected from a variety of river/stream
attributes, mainly over gravel bottom
substrate. This species is historically
known only from localized sites within
the Pascagoula and Pearl River
drainages in Mississippi and Louisiana.
Currently, the Pearl darter is considered
extirpated from the Pearl River drainage
and rare in the Pascagoula River
drainage. Since 1983, the range of the
Pearl darter has decreased by 55
percent.
The Pearl darter is vulnerable to
nonpoint source pollution caused by
urbanization and other land use
activities; gravel mining and resultant
changes in river geomorphology,
especially head cutting; and the
possibility of water quantity decline
from the proposed Department of
Energy Strategic Petroleum Reserve
project and a proposed dam on the
Bouie River. Additional threats are
posed by the apparent lack of adequate
State and Federal water quality
regulations due to the continuing
degradation of water quality within the
species’ habitat. The Pearl darter’s
localized distribution and apparent low
population numbers may indicate a
species with lower genetic diversity,
and this would also make the species
more vulnerable to catastrophic events.
Threats affecting the Pearl darter are
localized in nature, affecting portions of
the population within the drainage;
thus, a threat magnitude of moderate to
low is assigned for this species. In
addition, the threats are imminent
because the identified threats are
currently affecting this species in some
portions of its range. Therefore, we have
assigned an LPN of 8 for this species.
Arctic grayling, Upper Missouri River
DPS (Thymallus arcticus)—The
following summary is based on
information contained in our files. This
fish species has a broad, nearly
circumpolar distribution, occurring in a
variety of cold-water habitats including
small streams, large rivers, lakes, and
even bogs. We determined in our
September 8, 2010, status review (75 FR
54708) that the upper Missouri River
population of arctic grayling in Montana
and Wyoming represents a DPS because
it is discrete due to geographic
separation and genetic differences, and
it is significant to the taxon as a whole.
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
66402
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
The historical range of Arctic grayling in
the upper Missouri River basin has
declined dramatically in the past
century. The five remaining indigenous
populations are isolated from one
another by dams or other factors.
All populations face potential threats
from competition with and predation by
nonnative trout, and most populations
face threats resulting from the alteration
of their habitats, such as habitat
fragmentation from dams or irrigation
diversion structures, stream dewatering,
high summer water temperatures, loss of
riparian habitats, and entrainment in
irrigation ditches. Severe drought likely
also affects all populations by reducing
water availability and reducing the
extent of thermally suitable habitat.
Projected climate changes will likely
influence the severity and scope of these
threats in the future. As applied,
existing regulatory mechanisms do not
appear to be adequate to address the
primary threats to arctic grayling. In
addition, four of five populations are at
risk from random environmental
fluctuations and genetic drift due to
their low abundance and isolation. The
magnitude of these threats is high
because one or more of these threats
occurs in each known population in the
Missouri River basin. The threats are
imminent because they are currently
occurring and expected to continue in
the foreseeable future. Therefore, we
have assigned the upper Missouri River
DPS of arctic grayling an LPN of 3.
Sicklefin redhorse (Moxostoma sp.)—
The following summary is based on
information contained in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on April 20, 2010.
The sicklefin redhorse, a freshwater
fish, occupies cool to warm, moderate
gradient creeks and rivers; during parts
of its early life stages, it also occupies
the near-shore areas in large reservoirs.
It feeds and spawns in gravel, cobble,
and boulder substrates with no, or very
little, silt overlay. There are only two
metapopulations of the species known
to survive: one in the Hiwassee River
system in North Carolina and Georgia,
and one in the Little Tennessee River
system in North Carolina.
All of the surviving occurrences of the
sicklefin redhorse continue to be
restricted to relatively short reaches of
the streams they occupy and expansion
of the populations is to a large degree
prohibited by existing hydropower
dams and in several cases cold-water
discharges from hydroelectric dam
operations. Other impacts and threats to
the species and its habitat include:
Siltation resulting from inadequate
erosion/sedimentation control during
agricultural, timbering, and construction
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
activities; run-off and discharge of
organic and inorganic pollutants from
industrial, municipal, agricultural, and
other point and nonpoint sources;
habitat alterations associated with
channelization and instream dredging/
mining activities; and other natural and
human-related factors that adversely
modify the aquatic environment (e.g.,
illegal dumping, introduction of
invasive predators, drought, flooding).
The sicklefin redhorse’s limited
distribution make the species extremely
vulnerable to the effects from single
catastrophic events (such as toxic
chemical spills, major sedimentation
events, channel modification, etc.) and
the cumulative effects of lesser impacts
to the species habitat and numbers.
Although the majority of the streams
still occupied by the species occur in
areas that are presently primarily rural,
many of the communities within the
watersheds of these streams are
experiencing increasing development
pressure, both commercial and
residential, and continue to develop and
implement plans for upgrading and
improving their infrastructure (e.g.,
roads, water supplies, sewer/wastewater
treatment systems, etc.) to provide for
increased densities of development.
Because of the effects this development
can have on water quality and habitat
suitability for the sicklefin, along with
its restricted distribution, the magnitude
of the threat to the species is high;
however, although the threats faced by
the sicklefin redhorse are significant, it
is not anticipated that the species will
be subjected to these threats in the
immediate future (within the next 1 to
2 years) and the immediacy of the
threats thus remains nonimminent.
Accordingly, we have assigned an LPN
of 5 to this species.
Grotto sculpin (Cottus sp., sp. nov.)—
We continue to find that listing this
species is warranted, but precluded as
of the date of publication of this notice.
However, we are working on a proposed
listing rule that we expect to publish
prior to making the next annual
resubmitted petition 12-month finding.
Sharpnose shiner (Notropis
oxyrhynchus)—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 sharpnose shiner is
a small, slender minnow, endemic to
the Brazos River Basin in Texas.
Historically, the sharpnose shiner
existed throughout the Brazos River and
several of its major tributaries. It has
also been found in the Wichita River
(within the Red River Basin) where it
may have once naturally occurred, but
has since been extirpated. Current
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
information indicates that the
population upstream of Possum
Kingdom Reservoir is apparently stable,
while the downstream population may
be extirpated, representing a 69-percent
reduction of its historical range.
The most significant threat to the
existence of the sharpnose shiner is
reservoir development within its current
range. The current water plan for Texas
provides several reservoir options that
could be implemented within the
Brazos River drainage. Additional
threats include irrigation and water
diversion, sedimentation, desalination,
industrial and municipal discharges,
agricultural activities, instream sand
and gravel mining, and the spread of
invasive saltcedar. The current limited
distribution of the sharpnose shiner
within the Upper Brazos River Basin
makes it vulnerable to catastrophic
events such as the introduction of
competitive species or prolonged
drought. The magnitude of threat is
considered high as reservoir
development within the species’ current
range may render remaining habitat
unsuitable. The immediacy of threat is
nonimminent because the most
significant threat—major reservoir
construction—is not likely to occur in
the near future, and there is potential for
implementing other water supply
options that could preclude reservoir
development. For these reasons, we
assigned an LPN of 5 to this species.
Smalleye shiner (Notropis buccula)—
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 smalleye shiner is a small, pallid
minnow endemic to the Brazos River
Basin in Texas. Smalleye shiners were
historically known to occur downstream
of the three major reservoirs occurring
on the Brazos River. Currently, the
species is found upstream of Possum
Kingdom Reservoir (Upper Brazos River
drainage) and may be extirpated from
the downstream reach, representing a
54-percent reduction of its historical
range.
The most significant threat to the
existence of the smalleye shiner is
reservoir development within its current
range. The current water plan for Texas
provides several reservoir options that
could be implemented within the
Brazos River drainage. Additional
threats include irrigation and water
diversion, sedimentation, desalination,
industrial and municipal discharges,
agricultural activities, instream sand
and gravel mining, and the spread of
invasive saltcedar. The current limited
distribution of the smalleye shiner
within the Upper Brazos River drainage
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
makes it vulnerable to catastrophic
events such as the introduction of
competitive species or prolonged
drought. State law does not provide
protection for the smalleye shiner. The
magnitude of threat is considered high,
as reservoir development within the
species’ current range may render
remaining habitat unsuitable. The
immediacy of threat is nonimminent
because the most significant threat—
major reservoir construction—is not
likely to occur in the near future, and
there is potential for implementing
other water supply options that could
preclude reservoir development. For
these reasons, we assigned a LPN of 5
to this species.
Zuni bluehead sucker (Catostomus
discobolus yarrowi)—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 Zuni bluehead sucker is a colorful
fish less than 20 centimeters (8 inches)
long. The range of the Zuni bluehead
sucker has been reduced by over 95
percent. The Zuni bluehead sucker
currently occupies 4.8 river kilometers
(3 miles) in three headwater streams of
the Rio Nutria in New Mexico, and
potentially occurs in 44 river kilometers
(27.5 miles) in the Kinlichee drainage of
Arizona. However, the number of
occupied miles in Arizona is unknown,
and the genetic composition of these
fish is still under investigation.
Zuni bluehead sucker’s range
reduction and fragmentation is caused
by discontinuous surface-water flow,
introduced species, and habitat
degradation from fine sediment
deposition. The Zuni bluehead sucker
persists in very small creeks that are
subject to very low flows and drying
during periods of drought. Because of
climate change (warmer air
temperatures), streamflow is predicted
to decrease in the Southwest. Warmer
winter and spring temperatures cause an
increased fraction of precipitation to fall
as rain, resulting in a reduced snow
pack, an earlier snow melt, and a longer
dry season leading to decreased
streamflow in the summer and a longer
fire season. These changes would have
a negative effect on Zuni bluehead
sucker. Another major impact to
populations of Zuni bluehead sucker
was the application of fish toxicants
through at least two dozen treatments in
the Rio Nutria and Rio Pescado between
1960 and 1975. Large numbers of Zuni
bluehead suckers were killed during
these treatments. The Zuni bluehead
sucker is most likely extirpated from Rio
Pescado, as not one has been collected
from that river since 1993.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
The New Mexico Department of Game
and Fish developed a recovery plan for
Zuni bluehead sucker, which was
approved by the New Mexico State
Game Commission on December 15,
2004. The recovery plan recommends
preservation and enhancement of extant
populations and restoration of historical
Zuni bluehead sucker populations. We
predict that the recovery actions
prescribed by the recovery plan will
reduce and remove threats to this
subspecies, but these actions will
require further development and
authorization before they can be
implemented and threats are reduced.
Because of the ongoing (imminent)
threats of high magnitude, including
loss of habitat (historical and current
from beaver activity), degradation of
remaining habitat (nonnative species
and land development), drought, fire,
and climate change, we maintained an
LPN of 3 for this subspecies.
Rio Grande cutthroat trout
(Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis)—The
following summary is based on
information contained in our files and
our status review published on May 14,
2008 (73 FR 27900). Rio Grande
cutthroat trout is one of 14 subspecies
of cutthroat trout found in the western
United States. Populations of this
subspecies are in New Mexico and
Colorado in drainages of the Rio Grande,
Pecos, and Canadian Rivers. Although
once widely distributed in connected
stream networks, Rio Grande cutthroat
trout populations now occupy about 10
percent of historical habitat, and the
populations are fragmented and isolated
from one another. The majority of
populations occur in high-elevation
streams.
Major threats include the loss of
suitable habitat that has occurred and is
likely to continue occurring due to
water diversions, dams, stream drying,
habitat quality degradation, and,
changes in hydrology; introduction of
nonnative trout and ensuing
competition, predation, and
hybridization; and whirling disease. In
addition, average air temperatures in the
Southwest have increased about 1 °C
(2.5 °F) in the past 30 years, and they
are projected to increase by another 1.2
to 2.8 °C (3 to 7 °F) by 2050. Because
trout require cold water, and water
temperatures depend in large part on air
temperature, there is concern that the
habitat of Rio Grande cutthroat trout
will further decrease in response to
warmer water temperatures caused by
climate change. Wildfire and drought
(stream drying) are additional threats to
Rio Grande cutthroat trout populations
that are likely to increase in magnitude
in response to climate change. Research
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
66403
is occurring to assess the effects of
climate change on this subspecies, and
agencies are working to restore
historically occupied streams and
develop a conservation plan to direct
conservation. The threats are of
moderate magnitude because there is
good distribution and a comparatively
large number of populations across the
landscape, some populations have few
threats present, and in other areas
management actions are being taken to
help control the threat of nonnative
trout. Overall, the threats are ongoing
and, therefore, imminent. Based on
imminent threats of moderate
magnitude, we assigned an LPN of 9 to
this subspecies.
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. The Texas hornshell is a
freshwater mussel found in the Black
River in New Mexico, and in the Rio
Grande and the Devils River in Texas.
Until March 2008, the only known
extant populations were in New
Mexico’s Black River and one locality in
the Rio Grande near Laredo, Texas. In
March 2008, two new localities were
confirmed in Texas: one in the Devils
River, and one in the mainstem Rio
Grande in the Rio Grande Wild and
Scenic River segment downstream of
Big Bend National Park. In 2011, the Rio
Grande population near Laredo was
resurveyed and found to be large and
robust.
The primary threats to this species are
habitat alterations such as streambank
channelization, impoundments, and
diversions for agriculture and flood
control, including a proposed low-water
diversion dam just downstream of the
Rio Grande population near Laredo;
contamination of water by oil and gas
activity; alterations in the natural
riverine hydrology; and increased
sedimentation and flood pulses from
prolonged overgrazing and loss of native
vegetation. Although riverine habitats
throughout the species’ known occupied
range are under constant threat from
these ongoing or potential activities,
numerous conservation actions that will
benefit the species are under way 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
on the Big Bend reach of the Rio
Grande. Due to these ongoing
conservation efforts, and because at
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
66404
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
least one of the populations appears to
be robust, the magnitude of the threats
is moderate. However, the threats to the
species are ongoing, and remain
imminent. Thus, we maintained the
LPN of 8 for this species.
Fluted kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus
subtentum)—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 fluted kidneyshell 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.
This species has been extirpated from
numerous regional streams and is no
longer found in the State of Alabama.
Habitat destruction and alteration (e.g.,
impoundments, sedimentation, and
pollutants) are the chief factors that
contributed to its decline. The fluted
kidneyshell was historically known
from at least 37 streams but is currently
restricted to no more than 12 isolated
populations. Current status information
for most of the 12 populations deemed
to be extant is available from recent
periodic sampling efforts (sometimes
annually) and other field studies,
particularly in the upper Tennessee
River system. Some populations in the
Cumberland River system have had
recent surveys as well (e.g., Wolf, Little
Rivers; Little South Fork; Horse Lick,
Buck Creeks). Populations in Buck
Creek, Little South Fork, Horse Lick
Creek, Powell River, and North Fork
Holston River have clearly declined
over the past two decades. Based on
recent information, the overall
population of the fluted kidneyshell is
declining rangewide. At this time, there
is only one population—the Clinch
River/Copper Creek –where the species
remains in large numbers and is viable,
although smaller, viable populations
remain (e.g., Wolf, Little, North Fork
Holston Rivers; Rock Creek). Most other
populations are of questionable or
limited viability, with some on the verge
of extirpation (e.g., Powell River; Little
South Fork; Horse Lick, Buck, and
Indian Creeks). Newly reintroduced
populations in the Little Tennessee,
Nolichucky, and Duck Rivers will
hopefully begin to reverse the
downward population trend of this
species. The threats are high in
magnitude, as the majority of
populations of this species are severely
affected by numerous threats
(impoundments, sedimentation, small
population size, isolation of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
populations, gravel mining, municipal
pollutants, agricultural runoff, nutrient
enrichment, and coal processing
pollution) that result in mortality or
reduced reproductive output. As the
threats are ongoing, they are imminent.
We assigned an LPN of 2 to this mussel
species.
Neosho mucket (Lampsilis
rafinesqueana)—We continue to find
that listing this species is warranted, but
precluded as of the date of publication
of this notice. However, we are working
on a proposed listing rule that we
expect to publish prior to making the
next annual resubmitted petition 12month finding.
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 11 isolated
stream segments. Current status
information for most of the 11
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 of the 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
(i.e., Clinch, North and Middle Forks of
the Holston River, Paint Rock River, and
Duck River), 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 (i.e., 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,
as all populations of this species are
severely affected in numerous ways
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(impoundments, sedimentation, small
population size, isolation of
populations, gravel mining, municipal
pollutants, agricultural runoff, nutrient
enrichment, and coal processing
pollution) that result in mortality or
reduced reproductive output. As the
threats are ongoing, they are imminent.
We assigned an LPN of 2 to this mussel
species.
Rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica
cylindrica)—We continue to find that
listing this species is warranted, but
precluded as of the date of publication
of this notice. However, we are working
on a proposed listing rule that we
expect to publish prior to making the
next annual resubmitted petition 12month finding.
Snails
Black mudalia (Elimia melanoides)—
The following summary is based on
information contained in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on April 20, 2010.
The black mudalia is a small snail that
is found clinging to clean gravel, cobble,
boulders and/or logs in flowing water
on shoals and riffles. The historical
distribution of the black mudalia
encompassed over 250 miles of stream
channel in the upper the Black Warrior
River drainage in Alabama. The species
has been extirpated from more than 80
percent of that range by the construction
of two major dams on the main stem
Black Warrior River and another dam on
the lower Sipsey Fork. Other historical
causes of range curtailment in the undammed river and stream channels of
the upper Black Warrior River drainage
include coal mine drainage, industrial
and municipal pollution events, and
agricultural runoff. The mudalia is
currently known from 10 shoal
populations in five streams.
Water quality and habitat degradation
are the biggest threats to the continued
existence of the black mudalia. Sources
of point and nonpoint pollution in the
Black Warrior River Basin have been
numerous and widespread. Pollution is
generated from inadequately treated
effluent from industrial plants, sanitary
landfills, sewage treatment plants,
poultry operations, and cattle feedlots.
Surface mining represents another
threat to the biological integrity of
stream habitats. Runoff from old,
abandoned coal mines generates
pollution through acidification,
increased mineralization, and sediment
loading. Most of the stream segments
draining into black mudalia habitat
currently support their water quality
classification standards. However, the
reach of the Locust Fork where the
species is found is identified on the
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Alabama 303(d) List (a list of water
bodies failing to meet their designated
water-use classifications) as impaired by
siltation, nutrients, or other habitat
alterations. Additional surveys that
were initiated in 2011, will clarify the
extent and status of black mudalia
populations. Because most of the stream
segments currently occupied by black
mudalia have sufficient water quality,
we conclude that the threats to the
species are moderate. Based on ongoing
threats of moderate magnitude, we
assigned an LPN of 8 to this species.
Phantom Cave snail (Cochliopa
texana) and Phantom springsnail
(Tryonia cheatumi)—We continue to
find that listing these species is
warranted, but precluded as of the date
of publication of this notice. However,
we are working on a proposed listing
rule that we expect to publish prior to
making the next annual resubmitted
petition 12-month finding.
Sisi snail (Ostodes strigatus)—The
following summary is based on
information contained in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
The sisi snail is a ground-dwelling
species in the Potaridae family, and is
endemic to American Samoa. The
species is now known from a single
population on the island of Tutuila,
American Samoa.
This species is currently threatened
by habitat loss and modification and by
predation from nonnative predatory
snails. The decline of the sisi snail in
American Samoa has resulted, in part,
from loss of habitat to forestry and
agriculture, and loss of forest structure
to hurricanes and alien weeds that
establish after these storms. All live sisi
snails have been found in the leaf litter
beneath remaining intact forest canopy.
No snails were found in areas bordering
agricultural plots or in forest areas that
were severely damaged by three
hurricanes (1987, 1990, and 1991).
Under natural historical conditions, loss
of forest canopy to storms did not pose
a great threat to the long-term survival
of these snails; enough intact forest with
healthy populations of snails would
support dispersal back into newly
regrown canopy forest. However, the
presence of alien weeds such as mile-aminute vine (Mikania micrantha) may
reduce the likelihood that native forest
will re-establish in areas damaged by
the hurricanes. This loss of habitat to
storms is greatly exacerbated by
expanding agriculture. Agricultural
plots on Tutuila have spread from low
elevations up to middle and some high
elevations, greatly reducing the forest
area and thus reducing the resilience of
native forests and Tutuila’s populations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
of native snails. These reductions also
increase the likelihood that future
storms will lead to the extinction of
populations or species that rely on the
remaining canopy forest. In an effort to
eradicate the giant African snail
(Achatina fulica), the alien rosy
carnivore snail (Euglandia rosea) was
introduced in 1980. The rosy carnivore
snail has spread throughout the main
island of Tutuila. Numerous studies
show that the rosy carnivore snail feeds
on endemic island snails including the
sisi, and is a major agent in their
declines and extirpations. At present,
the major threat to long-term survival of
the native snail fauna in American
Samoa is predation by nonnative
predatory snails. These threats are
ongoing and are therefore imminent. As
the threats occur throughout the entire
range of the species and have a severe
effect on the survival of the snails,
leading to a relatively high likelihood of
extinction, they are of a high magnitude.
Therefore we assigned this species an
LPN of 2.
Diamond Y Spring snail
(Pseudotryonia adamantina) and
Gonzales springsnail (Tryonia
circumstriata)—We continue to find that
listing these species is warranted but
precluded as of the date of publication
of this notice. However, we are working
on a proposed listing rule that we
expect to publish prior to making the
next annual resubmitted petition 12month finding.
Rosemont talussnail (Sonorella
rosemontensis)—the following summary
is based on information in our files. The
petition we received on June 24, 2010,
provided no new information beyond
what we had already included in our
assessment of this species. The
Rosemont talussnail, a land snail in the
family Helminthoglyptidae, is known
from three talus slopes in the Santa Rita
Mountains, Pima County, Arizona. The
primary threat to Rosemont talussnail is
hard rock mining. The entire range of
the species is located on patented
mining claims and can reasonably be
expected to be subjected to mining
activities in the foreseeable future. Hard
rock mining typically involves the
blasting of hillsides and the crushing of
ore-laden rock. Such activities would
kill talussnails and render their habitats
unsuitable for occupation. Because
mining may occur across the entire
range of the species within the
foreseeable future, potentially resulting
in rangewide habitat destruction and
population losses, the threats are of a
high magnitude. However, mining on
patented mining claims, although a
reasonably anticipated action, is neither
currently ongoing nor imminent.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
66405
Although the Rosemont Copper Mine is
scheduled to commence operations in
the near future, there exists uncertainty
regarding its scope, and therefore its
potential effect on habitat of the
Rosemont talussnail. Accordingly, we
find that overall threats to the Rosemont
talussnail are nonimminent, and we
retain an LPN of 5 for this species.
Fragile tree snail (Samoana fragilis)—
The following summary is based on
information contained in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
A tree-dwelling species, the fragile tree
snail is a member of the Partulidae
family of snails, and is endemic to the
islands of Guam and Rota (Mariana
Islands). Requiring cool and shaded
native forest habitat, the species is now
known from one population on Guam
and from one population on Rota.
This species is currently threatened
by habitat loss and modification and by
predation from nonnative predatory
snails and flatworms. Large numbers of
Philippine deer (Cervus mariannus)
(Guam and Rota), pigs (Sus scrofra)
(Guam), water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis)
(Guam), and cattle (Bos taurus) (Rota)
directly alter the understory plant
community and overall forest
microclimate, making it unsuitable for
snails. Predation by the alien rosy
carnivore snail (Euglandina rosea), the
Manokwar flatworm (Platydemus
manokwari), and possibly rats (Rattus
spp.) is a serious threat to the survival
of the fragile tree snail. Field
observations have established that the
rosy carnivore snail and the Manokwar
flatworm will readily feed on native
Pacific island tree snails, including the
Partulidae, such as those of the Mariana
Islands. The rosy carnivore snail has
caused the extirpation of many
populations and species of native snails
throughout the Pacific islands. The
Manokwar flatworm has also
contributed to the decline of native tree
snails, in part due to its ability to ascend
into trees and bushes that support
native snails. Areas with populations of
the flatworm usually lack partulid tree
snails or have declining numbers of
snails. In addition, predation by rats
may be a serious and ongoing threat to
the fragile tree snail. Because all of the
threats occur rangewide and have a
significant effect on the survival of this
snail species, leading to a relatively high
likelihood of extinction, they are high in
magnitude. The threats are also ongoing
and thus are imminent. Therefore, we
assigned this species an LPN of 2.
Guam tree snail (Partula radiolata)—
The following summary is based on
information contained in our files. No
new information was provided in the
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
66406
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
A tree-dwelling species, the Guam tree
snail is a member of the Partulidae
family of snails and is endemic to the
island of Guam. Requiring cool and
shaded native forest habitat, the species
is now known from 22 populations on
Guam.
This species is primarily threatened
by predation from nonnative predatory
snails, flatworms, and possibly rats
(Rattus spp.). In addition, the species is
also threatened by habitat loss and
degradation. Predation by the alien rosy
carnivore snail (Euglandina rosea) and
the alien Manokwar flatworm
(Platydemus manokwari) is a serious
threat to the survival of the Guam tree
snail (see summary for the fragile tree
snail, above). In addition, predation by
rats may be a serious and ongoing threat
to the Guam tree snail. On Guam, open
agricultural fields and other areas prone
to erosion were seeded with
tangantangan (Leucaena leucocephala)
by the U.S. military. Tangantangan
grows as a single species stand with no
substantial understory. The
microclimatic condition is dry with
little accumulation of leaf litter humus
and is particularly unsuitable as Guam
tree snail habitat. In addition, native
forest cannot reestablish and grow
where this alien weed has become
established. Because all of the threats
occur rangewide and have a significant
effect on the survival of this snail
species, leading to a relatively high
likelihood of extinction, they are high in
magnitude. The threats are also ongoing
and thus are imminent. Therefore, we
assigned this species an LPN of 2.
Humped tree snail (Partula gibba)—
The following summary is based on
information contained in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
A tree-dwelling species, the humped
tree snail is a member of the Partulidae
family of snails, and was originally
known from the island of Guam and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands (islands of Rota, Aguiguan,
Tinian, Saipan, Anatahan, Sarigan,
Alamagan, and Pagan). Most recent
surveys revealed a total of 14
populations on the islands of Guam,
Rota, Aguiguan, Sarigan, Saipan,
Alamagan, and Pagan. Although still the
most widely distributed tree snail
endemic in the Mariana Islands,
remaining population sizes are often
small.
This species is currently threatened
by habitat loss and modification and by
predation from nonnative predatory
snails, flat worms, and possibly rats
(Rattus spp.). Throughout the Mariana
Islands, feral ungulates (pigs (Sus
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
scrofa), Philippine deer (Cervus
mariannus), cattle (Bos taurus), water
buffalo (Bubalus bubalis), and goats
(Capra hircus)) have caused severe
damage to native forest vegetation by
browsing directly on plants, causing
erosion and retarding forest growth and
regeneration. This in turn reduces the
quantity and quality of forested habitat
for the humped tree snail. Currently,
populations of feral ungulates are found
on the islands of Guam (deer, pigs, and
water buffalo), Rota (deer and cattle),
Aguiguan (goats), Saipan (deer, pigs,
and cattle), Alamagan (goats, pigs, and
cattle), and Pagan (cattle, goats, and
pigs). Goats were eradicated from
Sarigan in 1998, and the humped tree
snail has increased in abundance on
that island, likely in response to the
removal of all the goats. However, the
population of humped tree snails on
Anatahan is likely extirpated due to the
massive volcanic explosions of the
island beginning in 2003 and still
continuing, and the resulting loss of up
to 95 percent of the vegetation on the
island. Predation by the alien rosy
carnivore snail (Euglandina rosea) and
the alien Manokwar flatworm
(Platydemus manokwari) is a serious
threat to the survival of the humped tree
snail (see summary for the fragile tree
snail, above). In addition, predation by
rats (Rattus spp.) may be a serious and
ongoing threat to the humped tree snail.
The magnitude of threats is high
because these alien predators cause
significant population declines to the
humped tree snail rangewide. These
threats are ongoing and thus are
imminent. Therefore, we assigned this
species an LPN of 2.
Lanai tree snail (Partulina
semicarinata)—We continue to find that
listing this species is warranted, but
precluded as of the date of publication
of this notice. However, we are working
on a proposed listing rule that we
expect to publish prior to making the
next annual resubmitted petition 12month finding.
Lanai tree snail (Partulina
variabilis)—We continue to find that
listing this species is warranted, but
precluded as of the date of publication
of this notice. However, we are working
on a proposed listing rule that we
expect to publish prior to making the
next annual resubmitted petition 12month finding.
Langford’s tree snail (Partula
langfordi)—The following summary is
based on information contained in our
files. No new information was provided
in the petition we received on May 11,
2004. A tree-dwelling species,
Langford’s tree snail is a member of the
Partulidae family of snails, and is
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
known from one population on the
island of Aguiguan.
This species is currently threatened
by habitat loss and modification and by
predation from nonnative predatory
snails. In the 1930s, the island of
Aguiguan was mostly cleared of native
forest to support sugar cane and
pineapple production. The abandoned
fields and airstrip are now overgrown
with alien weeds. The remaining native
forest understory has greatly suffered
from large and uncontrolled populations
of alien goats and the invasion of weeds.
Goats (Capra hircus) have caused severe
damage to native forest vegetation by
browsing directly on plants, causing
erosion and retarding forest growth and
regeneration. This in turn reduces the
quantity and quality of forested habitat
for Langford’s tree snail. Predation by
the alien rosy carnivore snail
(Euglandina rosea) and by the
Manokwar flatworm (Platydemus
manokwari) (see summary for the fragile
tree snail, above) is also a serious threat
to the survival of Langford’s tree snail.
In addition, predation by rats (Rattus
spp.) may be a serious and ongoing
threat to Langford’s tree snail. All of the
threats are occurring rangewide, and no
efforts to control or eradicate the
nonnative predatory snail species or
rats, or to reduce habitat loss, are being
undertaken. The magnitude of threats is
high because they result in direct
mortality or significant population
declines to Langford’s tree snail
rangewide. A survey of Aguiguan in
November 2006 failed to find any live
Langford’s tree snails. These threats are
also ongoing and thus are imminent.
Therefore, we assigned this species an
LPN of 2.
Newcomb’s tree snail (Newcombia
cumingi)—We continue to find that
listing this species is warranted, but
precluded as of the date of publication
of this notice. However, we are working
on a proposed listing rule that we
expect to publish prior to making the
next annual resubmitted petition 12month finding.
Tutuila tree snail (Eua zebrina)—The
following summary is based on
information contained in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
A tree-dwelling species, the Tutuila tree
snail is a member of the Partulidae
family of snails, and is endemic to
American Samoa. The species is known
from 32 populations on the islands of
Tutuila, Nuusetoga, and Ofu.
This species is currently threatened
by habitat loss and modification and by
predation from nonnative predatory
snails and rats. All live Tutuila tree
snails were found on understory
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
vegetation beneath remaining intact
forest canopy. No snails were found in
areas bordering agricultural plots or in
forest areas that were severely damaged
by three hurricanes (1987, 1990, and
1991). (See summary for the sisi snail,
above, regarding impacts of alien weeds
and of the rosy carnivore snail.) Rats
(Rattus spp.) have also been shown to
devastate snail populations, and ratchewed snail shells have been found at
sites where the Tutuila snail occurs. At
present, the major threat to the longterm survival of the native snail fauna
in American Samoa is predation by
nonnative predatory snails and rats. The
magnitude of threats is high because
they result in direct mortality or
significant population declines to the
Tutuila tree snail rangewide. The threats
are also ongoing and thus are imminent.
Therefore, we assigned this species an
LPN of 2.
Elongate mud meadows springsnail
(Pyrgulopsis notidicola)—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
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 four separate stretches of
thermal (between 45° and 32 °C, 113°
and 90 °F) aquatic habitat. The first
stretch is the largest at approximately
600 m (1,968 ft) long and 2 m (6.7 ft)
wide. The other stretches where P.
notidicola occurs are less than 6 m (19.7
ft) long and 0.5 m (1.6 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 the
ongoing impacts of past water
diversions and livestock grazing and
current off-highway vehicle travel.
Conservation measures implemented by
the Bureau of Land Management
include installing fencing to exclude
livestock, wild horses, burros and other
large mammals; closing access roads to
spring, riparian, and wetland areas and
the limiting vehicles to designated
routes; establishing a designated
campground away from the habitats of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
sensitive species; installing educational
signage; and increasing staff presence,
including law enforcement and a
volunteer site steward during the 6month period of peak visitor use. These
conservation measures have reduced the
magnitude of threats to the species to
moderate to low; all remaining threats
are nonimminent and involve long-term
changes to the habitat for the species
resulting from past impacts. Until we
can get data from a monitoring program
that allows us to assess the long-term
trend of the species, we have assigned
a LPN of 11.
Gonzales springsnail (Tryonia
circumstriata)—See summary above
under Diamond Y Spring snail
(Pseudotryonia adamantina).
Huachuca springsnail (Pyrgulopsis
thompsoni)—See above in ‘‘Listing
Priority Changes in Candidates.’’ The
above summary is based on information
contained in our files.
Page springsnail (Pyrgulopsis
morrisoni)—The following summary is
based on information contained in our
files. The Page springsnail is known to
exist only within a complex of springs
located within an approximately 0.93mi (1.5-km) stretch along the west side
of Oak Creek around the community of
Page Springs, and within springs
located along Spring Creek, tributary to
Oak Creek, Yavapai County, Arizona.
The primary threat to the Page
springsnail is modification of habitat by
domestic use, agriculture, ranching, fish
hatchery operations, recreation, and
groundwater withdrawal. Many of the
springs where the species occurs have
been subjected to some level of
modification. Based on recent survey
data, it appears that the Page springsnail
is abundant within natural habitats and
persists in modified habitats, albeit at
reduced densities. Arizona Game and
Fish Department (AGFD) management
plans for the Bubbling Ponds and Page
Springs fish hatcheries include
commitments to replace lost habitat and
to monitor remaining populations of
invertebrates such as the Page
springsnail. The candidate conservation
agreement with assurances (CCAA) for
the Page springsnail calls for
implementation of conservation
measures such as restoration and
creation of natural springhead integrity,
including springs on AGFD properties.
In fact, several conservation measures
benefitting the species have already
been implemented. Additionally, the
National Park Service has expressed an
interest in restoring natural springhead
integrity to Shea Springs, a site
historically occupied by Page
springsnail. Accordingly, ongoing
implementation of the CCAA reduces
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
66407
the magnitude of threats to a moderate
level and greatly reduces the chances of
extirpation or extinction. The
immediacy of the threat of groundwater
withdrawal is uncertain, due to
conflicting information regarding
imminence. However, overall, the
threats are imminent, because
modification of the species’ habitat by
threats other than groundwater
withdrawal is currently occurring.
Therefore, we retain an LPN of 8 for the
Page springsnail.
Phantom springsnail (Tyronia
cheatumi)—See summary above under
Phantom Cave snail (Cochliopa texana).
Insects
Mariana eight spot butterfly
(Hypolimnas octucula mariannensis)—
The following summary is based on
information contained in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
The Mariana eight spot butterfly is a
nymphalid butterfly species that feeds
upon two host plants, Procris
pedunculata and Elatostema calcareum.
Endemic to the islands of Guam and
Saipan, the species is now known from
10 populations on Guam. This species is
currently threatened by predation and
parasitism. The Mariana eight spot
butterfly has extremely high mortality of
eggs and larvae due to predation by
alien ants and wasps. Because the threat
of parasitism and predation by
nonnative insects occur rangewide and
can cause significant population
declines to this species, they are high in
magnitude. The threats are imminent
because they are ongoing. Therefore, we
assigned an LPN of 3 for this subspecies.
Mariana wandering butterfly (Vagrans
egestina)—The following summary is
based on information contained in our
files. No new information was provided
in the petition we received on May 11,
2004. The Mariana wandering butterfly
is a nymphalid butterfly species that
feeds upon a single host plant species,
Maytenus thompsonii. Originally known
from and endemic to the islands of
Guam and Rota, the species is now
known from one population on Rota.
This species is currently threatened by
alien predation and parasitism. The
Mariana wandering butterfly is likely
predated by alien ants and parasitized
by native and nonnative parasitoids.
Because the threats of parasitism and
predation by nonnative insects occur
rangewide and can cause significant
population declines to this species,
leading to a relatively high likelihood of
extinction, they are high in magnitude.
These threats are imminent because
they are ongoing. Therefore, we
assigned an LPN of 2 for this species.
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
66408
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Sequatchie caddisfly (Glyphopsyche
sequatchie)—The following summary is
based on information in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
The Sequatchie caddisfly is known from
two spring runs that emerge from caves
in Marion County, Tennessee: Owen
Spring Branch (the type locality) and
Martin Spring run in the Battle Creek
system. In 1998, biologists estimated
population sizes at 500 to 5,000
individuals for Owen Spring Branch
and 2 to 10 times higher at Martin
Spring, due to the greater amount of
apparently suitable habitat. In spite of
greater amounts of suitable habitat at the
Martin Spring run, Sequatchie
caddisflies are more difficult to find at
this site, and in 2001 (the most recent
survey) the Sequatchie caddisfly was
relatively ‘‘abundant’’ at the Owen
Spring Branch location, while only two
individuals were observed at the Martin
Spring.
Threats to the Sequatchie caddisfly
include siltation, point and nonpoint
discharges from municipal and
industrial activities, and introduction of
toxicants during episodic events. These
threats, coupled with the extremely
limited distribution of the species, its
apparent small population size, the
limited amount of occupied habitat,
ease of accessibility, and the annual life
cycle of the species, are all factors that
leave the Sequatchie caddisfly
vulnerable to extirpation. Therefore, the
magnitude of the threat is high. These
threats are gradual, and there is no basis
to conclude that they are imminent.
Based on high-magnitude and
nonimminent threats, we assigned this
species an LPN of 5.
Clifton Cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus caecus)—The
following summary is based upon
information contained in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
Clifton Cave beetle is a small, eyeless,
reddish-brown, predatory insect that
feeds upon small cave invertebrates. It
is cave dependent, and is not found
outside the cave environment. Clifton
Cave beetle is only known from two
privately owned Kentucky caves. Soon
after the species was first collected in
1963 in one cave, the cave entrance was
enclosed due to road construction. We
do not know whether the species still
occurs at the original location or if it has
been extirpated from the site by the
closure of the cave entrance. Other
caves in the vicinity of this cave were
surveyed for the species during 1995
and 1996, and only one additional site
was found to support the Clifton Cave
beetle. The limestone caves in which
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
the Clifton Cave beetle is found provide
a unique and fragile environment that
supports a variety of species that have
evolved to survive and reproduce under
the demanding conditions found in cave
ecosystems. The limited distribution of
the species makes it vulnerable to
isolated events that would only have a
minimal effect on more wide-ranging
insects. Events such as toxic chemical
spills, discharges of large amounts of
polluted water or indirect impacts from
off-site construction activities, closure
of entrances, alteration of entrances, or
the creation of new entrances could
have serious adverse impacts on this
species. Therefore, the magnitude of
threat is high for this species. The
threats are nonimminent because there
are no known projects planned that
would affect the species in the near
future. We therefore have assigned an
LPN of 5 to this species.
Coleman cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus colemanensis)—
The following summary is based upon
information contained in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on April 20, 2010.
The Coleman cave beetle is a small,
eyeless, reddish-brown, predatory insect
that feeds upon small cave
invertebrates. It is cave dependent and
is not found outside the cave
environment. It is only known from
three Tennessee caves.
The limestone caves in which this
species is found provide a unique and
fragile environment that support a
variety of species that have evolved to
survive and reproduce under the
demanding conditions found in cave
ecosystems. Caves and the species that
are completely dependent upon them
receive the energy that forms the basis
of the cave food chain from outside the
cave. This energy can be in the form of
bat guano deposited by cave-dependent
bats, large or small woody debris
washed or blown into the cave, or tiny
bits of organic matter carried into the
cave by water through small cracks in
the rocks overlaying the cave.
The Coleman cave beetle was
originally known only from the
privately owned Coleman Cave in
Montgomery County. This cave formerly
supported a colony of endangered gray
bats. The bats have abandoned this cave
because of air flow changes in the cave
caused by closure of an upper entrance
to the cave. Although the cave is
protected by a cooperative management
agreement with the landowner, the
upper entrance has not been restored
and the bats have not returned to the
cave. A new location for the species was
discovered during a biological inventory
of Foster Cave (also known as Darnell
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Cave) when one specimen of the species
was found during that survey. Foster
Cave is on a preserve owned and
managed by the Tennessee Department
of Conservation. In 2006, specimens of
this species were discovered in Bellamy
Cave and in Darnell Spring Cave (part
of the same cave complex as Foster
Cave). All of these sites are in close
proximity to each other. Bellamy Cave
is owned and managed by the
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency
(TWRA). Both Foster Cave and Bellamy
Cave were first acquired and protected
by The Nature Conservancy and later
transferred to the State for long-term
protection and management.
The threats are nonimminent because
there are no known projects planned
that would affect the species in the next
few years. Because it occurs at three
locations and it receives some
protection under a cooperative
management agreement and protective
ownership, the magnitude of threats is
moderate to low. Thus, we have
assigned an LPN of 11 to this species.
Icebox Cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus frigidus)—The
following summary is based upon
information contained in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
Icebox Cave beetle is a small, eyeless,
reddish-brown, predatory insect that
feeds upon small cave invertebrates. It
is not found outside the cave
environment, and is only known from
one privately owned Kentucky cave.
The limestone cave in which this
species is found provides a unique and
fragile environment that supports a
variety of species that have evolved to
survive and reproduce under the
demanding conditions found in cave
ecosystems. The species has not been
observed since it was originally
collected, but species experts believe
that it may still exist in the cave in low
numbers. The limited distribution of the
species makes it vulnerable to isolated
events that would only have a minimal
effect on more wide-ranging insects.
Events such as toxic chemical spills or
discharges of large amounts of polluted
water, or indirect impacts from off-site
construction activities, closure of
entrances, alteration of entrances, or the
creation of new entrances, could have
serious adverse impacts on this species.
Therefore, the magnitude of threat is
high for this species because it is
limited in distribution and the threats
would result in a high level of mortality
or reduced reproductive capacity. The
threats are nonimminent because there
are no known projects planned that
would affect the species in the near
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
future. We therefore have assigned an
LPN of 5 to this species.
Inquirer Cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus inquisitor)—The
following summary is based upon
information contained in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
The Inquirer Cave beetle is a fairly
small, eyeless, reddish-brown, predatory
insect that feeds upon small cave
invertebrates. It is not found outside the
cave environment, and is only known
from one privately owned Tennessee
cave.
The limestone cave in which this
species is found provides a unique and
fragile environment that supports a
variety of species that have evolved to
survive and reproduce under the
demanding conditions found in cave
ecosystems. The species was last
observed in 2006. The limited
distribution of the species makes it
vulnerable to isolated events that would
only have a minimal effect on more
wide-ranging insects. The area around
the only known site for the species is in
a rapidly expanding urban area. The
entrance to the cave is protected by the
landowner through a cooperative
management agreement with the
Service, The Nature Conservancy, and
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency;
however, a sinkhole that drains into the
cave system is located away from the
protected entrance and is near a
highway. Events such as toxic chemical
spills, discharges of large amounts of
polluted water, or indirect impacts from
off-site construction activities could
adversely affect the species and the cave
habitat.
The magnitude of threat is high for
this species because it is limited in
distribution and the threats would have
negative impacts on its continued
existence. The threats are nonimminent
because there are no known projects
planned that would affect the species in
the near future and the species receives
some protection under a cooperative
management agreement. We therefore
have assigned an LPN of 5 to this
species.
Louisville Cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus troglodytes)—The
following summary is based upon
information contained in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
The Louisville cave beetle is a small,
eyeless, reddish-brown, predatory insect
that feeds upon cave invertebrates. It is
not found outside the cave environment,
and is only known from two privately
owned Kentucky caves.
The limestone caves in which this
species is found provide a unique and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
fragile environment that supports a
variety of species that have evolved to
survive and reproduce under the
demanding conditions found in cave
ecosystems. The limited distribution of
the species makes it vulnerable to
isolated events that would only have a
minimal effect on more wide-ranging
insects. Events such as toxic chemical
spills, discharges of large amounts of
polluted water, or indirect impacts from
off-site construction activities, closure
of entrances, alteration of entrances, or
the creation of new entrances could
have serious adverse impacts on this
species. The magnitude of threat is high
for this species, because it is limited in
distribution and the threats would have
severe negative impacts on the species.
The threats are nonimminent because
there are no known projects planned
that would affect the species in the near
future. We therefore have assigned an
LPN of 5 to this species.
Tatum Cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus parvus) — The
following summary is based upon
information contained in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
Tatum Cave beetle is a small, eyeless,
reddish-brown, predatory insect that
feeds upon cave invertebrates. It is not
found outside the cave environment,
and is only known from one privately
owned Kentucky cave.
The limestone cave in which this
species is found provides a unique and
fragile environment that supports a
variety of species that have evolved to
survive and reproduce under the
demanding conditions found in cave
ecosystems. The species has not been
observed since 1965, but species experts
believe that it still exists in low
numbers. The limited distribution of the
species makes it vulnerable to isolated
events that would only have a minimal
effect on more wide-ranging insects.
Events such as toxic chemical spills,
discharges of large amounts of polluted
water, or indirect impacts from off-site
construction activities, closure of
entrances, alteration of entrances, or the
creation of new entrances could have
serious adverse impacts on this species.
The magnitude of threat is high for this
species, because its limited numbers
mean that any threats could severely
affect its continued existence. The
threats are nonimminent because there
are no known projects planned that
would affect the species in the near
future. We therefore have assigned an
LPN of 5 to this species.
Taylor’s (Whulge, Edith’s)
checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas
editha taylori)—We continue to find
that listing this species is warranted, but
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
66409
precluded as of the date of publication
of this notice. However, we are working
on a proposed listing rule that we
expect to publish prior to making the
next annual resubmitted petition 12month finding.
Orangeblack Hawaiian damselfly
(Megalagrion xanthomelas)—The
following summary is based on
information contained in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
The orangeblack Hawaiian damselfly is
a stream-dwelling species endemic to
the Hawaiian Islands of Kauai, Oahu,
Molokai, Maui, Lanai, and Hawaii. The
species no longer is found on Kauai, and
is now restricted to 16 populations on
the islands of Oahu, Maui, Molokai,
Lanai, and Hawaii. This species is
threatened by predation from alien
aquatic species such as fish and
predacious insects, and habitat loss
through dewatering of streams and
invasion by nonnative plants. Nonnative
fish and insects prey on the naiads of
the damselfly, and loss of water reduces
the amount of suitable naiad habitat
available. Invasive plants (e.g.,
California grass (Brachiaria mutica))
also contribute to loss of habitat by
forming dense, monotypic stands that
completely eliminate any open water.
Nonnative fish and plants are found in
all the streams the orangeblack
damselfly occur in, except the Oahu
location, where there are no nonnative
fish. We assigned this species an LPN of
8 because, although the threats are
ongoing and therefore imminent, they
affect the survival of the species in
varying degrees throughout the range of
the species and are therefore of
moderate magnitude.
Picture-wing fly (Drosophila
digressa)—We continue to find that
listing this species is warranted but
precluded as of the date of publication
of this notice. However, we are working
on a proposed listing rule that we
expect to publish prior to making the
next annual resubmitted petition 12month finding.
Stephan’s riffle beetle (Heterelmis
stephani)—The following summary is
based on information contained in our
files. No new information was provided
in the petition received on May 11,
2004. The Stephan’s riffle beetle is an
endemic riffle beetle found in limited
spring environments within the Santa
Rita Mountains, Pima County, Arizona.
The beetle is known from Sylvester
Spring in Madera Canyon, within the
Coronado National Forest. Threats to
that spring are largely from habitat
modification, recreational activities in
the springs, and potential changes in
water quality and quantity due to
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
66410
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
catastrophic natural events and climate
change. The threats are of low to
moderate magnitude based on our
current knowledge of the permanence of
threats and the likelihood that the
species will persist in areas that are
unaffected by the threats. Although the
threats from climate change are
expected to occur over many years, the
threats from recreational use are
ongoing. Therefore, the threats are
imminent. Thus, we retain an LPN of 8
for the Stephan’s riffle beetle.
Dakota skipper (Hesperia dacotae)—
The following summary is based on
information contained in our files,
including information from the petition
received on May 12, 2003. The Dakota
skipper is a small- to mid-sized butterfly
that inhabits high-quality tallgrass and
mixed-grass prairie in Minnesota, North
Dakota and South Dakota in the United
States, and the provinces of Manitoba
and Saskatchewan in Canada. The
species is presumed to be extirpated
from Iowa and Illinois and from many
sites within occupied U.S. States.
The Dakota skipper 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 and other Federal agencies,
State agencies, the Sisseton-Wahpeton
Sioux Tribe, and some private
organizations (e.g., The Nature
Conservancy) protect and manage some
Dakota skipper sites. Careful and
considered management is always
necessary to ensure the species’
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 Dakota skipper, but
approximately half 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 Dakota skipper
warrants listing. The threats are
moderate in magnitude because some
sites are protected through careful and
considered management, and therefore
they do not affect the species uniformly
throughout its range. The threats are
ongoing, and therefore imminent. We
assigned this species an LPN of 8 to
reflect the immediacy of threats to
remnant habitat, particularly on private
lands.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
Mardon skipper (Polites mardon)—
We continue to find that listing this
species is warranted, but precluded as
of the date of publication of this notice.
However, we are working on a proposed
listing rule that we expect to publish
prior to making the next annual
resubmitted petition 12-month finding.
Meltwater lednian stonefly (Lednia
tumana)—See above in ‘‘Listing Priority
Changes in Candidates.’’ The above
summary is based on information
contained in our files.
Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle
(Cicindela limbata albissima)—We
continue to find that listing this species
is warranted but precluded as of the
date of publication of this notice.
However, we are working on a proposed
listing rule that we expect to publish
prior to making the next annual
resubmitted 12-month petition finding.
Highlands tiger beetle (Cicindela
highlandensis)—The following
summary is based on information
contained in our files. No new
information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
The Highlands tiger beetle is narrowly
distributed and restricted to areas of
bare sand within scrub and sandhill on
ancient sand dunes of the Lake Wales
Ridge in Polk and Highlands Counties,
Florida. Adult tiger beetles have been
most recently found at 40 sites at the
core of the Lake Wales Ridge. In 2004–
2005 surveys, a total of 1,574 adults
were found at 40 sites, compared with
643 adults at 31 sites in 1996, 928 adults
at 31 sites in 1995, and 742 adults at 21
sites in 1993. Of the 40 sites in the
2004–2005 surveys with one or more
adults, results ranged from 3 sites with
large populations of over 100 adults, to
13 sites with fewer than 10 adults.
Results from a limited removal study at
four sites and similar studies suggest
that the actual population size at some
survey sites can be as much as two
times as high as indicated by the visual
index counts. If assumptions are correct
and unsurveyed habitat is included,
then the total number of adults at all
survey sites might be 3,000 to 4,000.
Habitat loss and fragmentation and
lack of fire and disturbances to create
open habitat conditions are serious
threats; remaining patches of suitable
habitat are disjunct and isolated.
Populations occupy relatively small
patches of habitat and are small and
isolated; individuals have difficulty
dispersing between suitable habitats.
These factors pose serious threats to the
species. Although significant progress in
implementing prescribed fire has
occurred over the last 10 years through
collaborative partnerships and the Lake
Wales Ridge Prescribed Fire Team, a
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
backlog of long-unburned habitat within
conservation areas remains.
Overcollection and pesticide use are
additional concerns. Because this
species is narrowly distributed with
specific habitat requirements and small
populations, any of the threats could
have a significant impact on the survival
of the species. Therefore, the magnitude
of threats is high. Although the majority
of its historical range has been lost,
degraded, and fragmented, numerous
sites are protected and land managers
are implementing prescribed fire at
some sites; these actions are expected to
restore habitat and help reduce threats
and have already helped stabilize and
improve the populations. Therefore,
overall, the threats are nonimminent,
and we assigned the Highlands tiger
beetle an LPN of 5.
Arachnids
Warton’s cave meshweaver (Cicurina
wartoni)—See above in ‘‘Listing Priority
Changes in Candidates.’’ The above
summary is based on information
contained in our files.
Crustaceans
Anchialine pool shrimp (Metabetaeus
lohena)—The following summary is
based on information contained in our
files. No new information was provided
in the petition we received on May 11,
2004. Metabetaeus lohena is an
anchialine pool-inhabiting species of
shrimp belonging to the family
Alpheidae. This species is endemic to
the Hawaiian Islands and is currently
known from populations on the islands
of Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii. The
primary threats to this species are
predation by fish (which do not
naturally occur in the pools inhabited
by this species) and habitat loss from
degradation (primarily from illegal trash
dumping). The pools where this species
occurs on the islands of Maui and
Hawaii are located within State Natural
Area Reserves (NAR) and in a National
Park. Both the State NARs and the
National Park prohibit the collection of
the species and the disturbance of the
pools. However, enforcement of
collection and disturbance prohibitions
is difficult, and the negative effects from
the introduction of fish are extensive
and happen quickly. On Oahu, one pool
is located in a National Wildlife Refuge,
and is protected from collection and
disturbance to the pool. However, on
State-owned land where the species
occurs, there is no protection from
collection or disturbance of the pools.
Therefore, threats to this species could
have a significant adverse effect on the
survival of the species, leading to a
relatively high likelihood of extinction,
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
and are of a high magnitude. However,
the primary threats of predation from
fish and loss of habitat due to
degradation are nonimminent overall,
because on the islands of Maui and
Hawaii no fish were observed in any of
the pools where this species occurs and
there has been no documented trash
dumping in these pools. Only one site
on Oahu had a trash dumping instance,
and in that case the trash was cleaned
up immediately and the species
subsequently observed. No additional
dumping events are known to have
occurred. Therefore, we assigned this
species an LPN of 5.
Anchialine pool shrimp
(Palaemonella burnsi)—The following
summary is based on information
contained in our files. No new
information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
Palaemonella burnsi is an anchialine
pool-inhabiting species of shrimp
belonging to the family Palaemonidae.
This species is endemic to the Hawaiian
Islands and is currently known from 3
pools on the island of Maui and 22
pools on the island of Hawaii. The
primary threats to this species are
predation by fish (which do not
naturally occur in the pools inhabited
by this species) and habitat loss due to
degradation (primarily from illegal trash
dumping). The pools where this species
occurs on Maui are located within a
State Natural Area Reserve (NAR).
Hawaii’s State statutes prohibit the
collection of the species and the
disturbance of the pools in State NARs.
On the island of Hawaii, the species
occurs within a State NAR and a
National Park, and collection and
disturbance are also prohibited.
However, enforcement of these
prohibitions is difficult, and the
negative effects from the introduction of
fish are extensive and happen quickly.
Therefore, threats to this species could
have a significant adverse effect on the
survival of the species, leading to a
relatively high likelihood of extinction,
and are of a high magnitude. However,
the threats are nonimminent, because
surveys in 2004 and 2007 did not find
fish in the pools where these shrimp
occur on Maui or the island of Hawaii.
Also, there was no evidence of recent
habitat degradation at those pools. We
assigned this species an LPN of 5.
Anchialine pool shrimp (Procaris
hawaiana)—The following summary is
based on information contained in our
files. No new information was provided
in the petition we received on May 11,
2004. Procaris hawaiana is an
anchialine pool-inhabiting species of
shrimp belonging to the family
Procarididae. This species is endemic to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
the Hawaiian Islands, and is currently
known from 2 pools on the island of
Maui and 13 pools on the island of
Hawaii. The primary threats to this
species are predation from fish (which
do not naturally occur in the pools
inhabited by this species) and habitat
loss due to degradation (primarily from
illegal trash dumping). The pools where
this species occurs on Maui are located
within a State Natural Area Reserve
(NAR). Twelve of the pools on the
island of Hawaii are located within a
State NAR. Hawaii’s State statutes
prohibit the collection of the species
and the disturbance of the pools in State
NARs. However, enforcement of these
prohibitions is difficult, and the
negative effects from the introduction of
fish are extensive and happen quickly.
In addition, there are no prohibitions for
either removal of the species or
disturbance to the pool for the one pool
located outside a NAR on the island of
Hawaii. Therefore, threats to this
species could have a significant adverse
effect on the survival of the species,
leading to a relatively high likelihood of
extinction, and thus remain at a high
magnitude. However, the threats to the
species are nonimminent because,
during 2004 and 2007 surveys, no fish
were observed in the pools where these
shrimp occur on Maui, and no fish were
observed in the one pool on the island
of Hawaii during a site visit in 2005. In
addition, there were no signs of trash
dumping or fill in any of the pools
where the species occurs. Therefore, we
assigned this species an LPN of 5.
Anchialine pool shrimp (Vetericaris
chaceorum)—We continue to find that
listing this species is warranted, but
precluded as of the date of publication
of this notice. However, we are working
on a proposed listing rule that we
expect to publish prior to making the
next annual resubmitted 12-month
petition finding.
Flowering Plants
Abronia alpina (Ramshaw Meadows
sand-verbena)—The following summary
is based on information contained in
our files. No new information was
provided in the petition we received on
May 11, 2004. Abronia alpina is a small
perennial herb, 2.5 to 15.2 centimeters
(1 to 6 inches) across, forming compact
mats with lavender-pink, trumpetshaped, and generally fragrant flowers.
Abronia alpina is known from one main
population center at Ramshaw Meadow
and a smaller population at the adjacent
Templeton Meadow. The meadows are
located on the Kern River Plateau in the
Sierra Nevada, on lands administered by
the Inyo National Forest, in Tulare
County, California. The total estimated
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
66411
area occupied is approximately 6
hectares (15 acres). The population
fluctuates from year to year without any
clear trends. Population estimates for
the years from 1985 through 2009,
ranged from a high of approximately
130,000 plants in 1997, to a low of
approximately 40,000 plants in 2003. In
2009, when the population was last
monitored, the estimated total
population increased again to just over
120,000 plants.
The factors currently threatening
Abronia alpina include natural and
human habitat alteration, lowering of
the water table due to erosion within the
meadow system, and recreational use
within meadow habitats. Lodgepole
pines are encroaching upon meadow
habitat with trees germinating within A.
alpina habitat, occupying up to 20
percent of two A. alpina
subpopulations. Lodgepole pine
encroachment may alter soil
characteristics by increasing organic
matter levels, decreasing porosity, and
moderating diurnal temperature
fluctuations, thus reducing the
competitive ability of A. alpina to
persist in an environment more
hospitable to other plant species.
The habitat occupied by Abronia
alpina directly borders the meadow
system, which is supported by the
South Fork of the Kern River. The river
flows through the meadow, at times
coming within 15 m (50 ft) of Abronia
alpina habitat, particularly in the
vicinity of five subpopulations.
Livestock trampling, along with the
removal of bank stabilizing vegetation
by grazing livestock, has contributed to
downcutting of the river channel
through the meadow, leaving the
meadow subject to potential alteration
by lowering of the water table. In 2001,
the U.S. Forest Service began resting the
grazing allotment for 10 years,
eliminating cattle use up through the
present time. The U.S. Forest Service is
currently assessing the data collected on
the rested allotment and, if the data
indicate that sufficient watershed
recovery has occurred, may conduct an
environmental analysis to consider
resumption of grazing.
Established hiker, packstock, and
cattle trails pass through A. alpina
subpopulations. Two main hiker trails
pass through Ramshaw Meadow, but in
1988 and 1997, they were rerouted out
of A. alpina subpopulations where
feasible. Occasional incidental use by
horses and hikers sometimes occurs on
the remnants of cattle trails that pass
through subpopulations in several
places. The Service has funded studies
to determine appropriate conservation
measures for the species, and is working
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
66412
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
with the U.S. Forest Service on
developing a conservation strategy for
the species. The threats are of a low
magnitude and nonimminent because of
the conservation actions already
implemented. The LPN for A. alpina
remains an 11, with nonimminent
threats of moderate to low magnitude.
Arabis georgiana (Georgia
rockcress)—The following summary is
based on information in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
The Georgia rockcress grows in a variety
of dry situations, including shallow soil
accumulations on rocky bluffs, ecotones
of gently sloping rock outcrops, and
sandy loam along eroding river banks. It
is occasionally found in adjacent mesic
woods, but it will not persist in heavily
shaded conditions. Currently, 16 natural
populations are known from the Gulf
Coastal Plain, Piedmont, and Ridge and
Valley physiographic provinces of
Alabama and Georgia. Populations of
this species typically have a limited
number of individuals over a small area.
Habitat degradation, more than
outright habitat destruction, is the most
serious threat to the continued existence
of this species. Disturbance, associated
with timber harvesting, road building,
and grazing, has created favorable
conditions for the invasion of exotic
weeds, especially Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), in this species’
habitat. A large number of the
populations are currently or potentially
threatened by the presence of exotics.
The heritage programs in Alabama and
Georgia have initiated plans for exotic
control at several populations. The
magnitude of threats to this species is
moderate to low due to the number of
populations (16) across multiple
counties in two States and due to the
fact that several sites are protected.
However, as a number of the
populations are currently being affected
by nonnative plants, the threat is
imminent. Thus, we assigned an LPN of
8 to this species.
Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett’s
silverbush)—The following summary is
based on information in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
Blodgett’s silverbush occurs in Florida
and is found in open, sunny areas in
pine rockland, edges of rockland
hammock, edges of coastal berm, and
sometimes disturbed areas at the edges
of natural areas. Plants can be found
growing from crevices on limestone, or
on sand. The pine-rockland habitat
where the species occurs in Miami-Dade
County and the Florida Keys requires
periodic fires to maintain habitat with a
minimum amount of hardwoods. There
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
are approximately 22 extant
occurrences, 12 in Monroe County and
10 in Miami-Dade County; many
occurrences are on conservation lands.
However, 4 to 5 sites are recently
thought to be extirpated. The estimated
population size of Blodgett’s silverbush
in the Florida Keys, excluding Big Pine
Key, is roughly 11,000; the estimated
population in Miami-Dade County is
375 to 13,650 plants.
Blodgett’s silverbush is threatened by
habitat loss, which is exacerbated by
habitat degradation due to fire
suppression, the difficulty of applying
prescribed fire to pine rocklands, and
threats from exotic plants. Remaining
habitats are fragmented. Threats such as
road maintenance and enhancement,
infrastructure, and illegal dumping
threaten some occurrences. Blodgett’s
silverbush is vulnerable to natural
disturbances, such as hurricanes,
tropical storms, and storm surges.
Climatic changes, including sea-level
rise, are long-term threats that are
expected to continue to affect pine
rocklands and ultimately substantially
reduce the extent of available habitat,
especially in the Keys. Overall, the
magnitude of threats is moderate
because not all of the occurrences are
affected by the threats. In addition, land
managers are aware of the threats from
exotic plants and lack of fire, and are,
to some extent, working to reduce these
threats where possible. While a number
of threats are occurring in some areas,
the threat from development is
nonimminent as most occurrences are
on public land, and sea level rise is not
currently affecting this species. Overall,
the threats are nonimminent. Thus, we
assigned an LPN of 11 to this species.
Artemisia borealis var. wormskioldii
(Northern wormwood)—The following
summary is based on information
contained in our files. No new
information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
Historically known from eight sites,
northern wormwood is currently known
from two populations in Klickitat and
Grant Counties, Washington. This plant
is restricted to exposed basalt, cobblysandy terraces, and sand habitat along
the shore and on islands in the
Columbia River. The two populations
are separated by 200 miles (322
kilometers) of the Columbia River and
three large hydroelectric dams. The
Klickitat County population is
declining; the status is unclear for the
Grant County population; however, both
are vulnerable to environmental
variability. Numerous surveys have not
detected additional plants.
Threats to northern wormwood
include direct loss of habitat through
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
regulation of water levels in the
Columbia River and placement of riprap
along the river bank; human trampling
of plants from recreation; competition
with nonnative, invasive species; burial
by wind- and water-borne sediments;
small population sizes; susceptibility to
genetic drift and inbreeding; and the
potential for hybridization with two
other species of Artemisia. Ongoing
conservation actions have reduced
trampling, but have not eliminated or
reduced the other threats at the Grant
County site. Active conservation
measures are not currently in place at
the Miller Island site. The magnitude of
threat is high for this subspecies
because, although the two remaining
populations are widely separated and
distributed, one or both populations
could be eliminated by a single
disturbance. The threats are imminent
because recreational use is ongoing;
invasive nonnative species occur at both
sites; windblown erosion and
deposition of the substrate is ongoing at
the Klickitat County site; and high water
flows may occur unpredictably in any
year. Therefore, we have retained an
LPN of 3 for this subspecies.
Astragalus anserinus (Goose Creek
milkvetch)—The following summary is
based on information in our files and in
the petition received on February 3,
2004. The majority (over 80 percent) of
Astragalus anserinus sites in Idaho,
Utah, and Nevada occur on Federal
lands managed by the Bureau of Land
Management. The rest of the sites occur
as small populations on private and
State lands in Utah and on private land
in Idaho and Nevada. A. anserinus
occurs in a variety of habitats, but is
typically associated with dry, tuffaceous
(made up of rock consisting of smaller
kinds of volcanic detritus) soils from the
Salt Lake Formation. The species grows
on steep or flat sites, with soil textures
ranging from silty to sandy to somewhat
gravelly. The species tolerates some
level of disturbance, based on its
occurrence on steep slopes where
downhill movement of soil is common.
The primary threats to remaining A.
anserinus individuals consist of habitat
degradation and modifications to the
ecosystem in which it occurs resulting
from an altered wildfire regime, and
associated activities to control wildfires
and rehabilitate burned-over areas.
Other factors that also appear to
threaten A. anserinus include livestock
use, invasive nonnative species, and the
inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms.
Climate change effects to Goose Creek
drainage habitats are possible, but we
are unable to predict the specific
impacts of this change to A. anserinus
at this time. Threats are high in
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
magnitude, as these threats have the
potential to destroy whole populations.
The threats are nonimminent because
they are not currently ongoing. Thus, we
have assigned A. anserinus an LPN of 5.
Astragalus microcymbus (Skiff
milkvetch)—The following summary is
based on information contained in our
files and in the petition we received on
July 30, 2007. Astragalus microcymbus
is a perennial forb that dies back to the
ground every year. It has a very limited
range and a spotty distribution within
Gunnison and Saguache Counties in
Colorado, where it is found in open,
park-like landscapes in the sagebrush
steppe ecosystem on rocky or cobbly,
moderate to steep slopes of hills and
draws. The most significant threats to A.
microcymbus are recreation, roads,
trails, the overall inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms, and habitat
fragmentation and degradation.
Recreational impacts are likely to
increase given the close proximity of A.
microcymbus to the town of Gunnison
and the increasing popularity of
mountain biking, motorcycling, and allterrain vehicles. Furthermore, the
Hartman Rocks Recreation Area draws
users and contains over 40 percent of
the A. microcymbus units. Other threats
to the species include residential and
urban development; livestock, deer, and
elk use; climate change; and increasing
periodic drought, nonnative invasive
cheatgrass, and wildfire. We consider
the threats to A. microcymbus to be
moderate in magnitude because while
serious and occurring rangewide, they
do not collectively result in having a
greater likelihood of bringing about
extinction on a short time scale. The
threats are imminent because the
species is currently facing them in many
portions of its range. Therefore we have
assigned A. microcymbus an LPN of 8.
Astragalus schmolliae (Schmoll
milkvetch)—The following summary is
based on information contained in our
files and in the petition we received on
July 30, 2007. Astragalus schmolliae is
a narrow endemic perennial plant that
grows in the mature pinyon-juniper
woodland of mesa tops in the Mesa
Verde National Park area and in the Ute
Mountain Ute Tribal Park in Colorado.
The most significant threats to the
species are degradation of habitat by
fire, followed by invasion by nonnative
cheatgrass and subsequent increase in
fire frequency. These threats currently
affect about 40 percent of the species’
entire known range, and cheatgrass is
likely to increase given its rapid spread
and persistence in habitat disturbed by
wildfires, fire and fuels management
and development of infrastructure, and
the inability of land managers to control
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
it on a landscape scale. Other threats to
A. schmolliae include fires, fire break
clearings, drought, and inadequate
regulatory mechanisms. The threats to
the species overall are imminent and
moderate in magnitude, because the
species is currently facing them in many
portions of its range, but the threats do
not collectively result in having a
greater likelihood of bringing about
extinction on a short time scale.
Therefore we have assigned A.
schmolliae an LPN of 8.
Astragalus tortipes (Sleeping Ute
milkvetch)—The following summary is
based on information contained in our
files. No new information was provided
in the petition we received on May 11,
2004. Astragalus tortipes is a perennial
plant that grows only on the Smokey
Hills layer of the Mancos Shale
Formation on the Ute Mountain Ute
Indian Reservation in Montezuma
County, Colorado. In 2000, 3,744 plants
were recorded at 24 locations covering
500 acres within an overall range of
6,400 acres. Available information from
2000 indicates that the species remains
stable.
Previous and ongoing threats from
borrow pit excavation, off-highway
vehicles, irrigation canal construction,
and a prairie dog colony have had minor
impacts that reduced the range and
number of plants by small amounts. Offhighway vehicle use of the habitat has
reportedly been controlled by fencing.
Oil and gas development is active in the
general area, but the Service has
received no information to indicate that
there is development within plant
habitat. The Tribe reported that the
status of the species remains
unchanged, the population is healthy,
and a management plan for the species
is currently in draft form. Despite these
positive indications, we have no
documentation concerning the current
status of the plants, condition of habitat,
and terms of the species management
plan being drafted by the Tribe. Thus,
at this time, we cannot accurately assess
whether populations are being
adequately protected from previously
existing threats. The threats are
moderate in magnitude, because they
have had minor impacts. Based on
information we have, the population
appears to be stable. Until the
management plan is completed and
made available, there are no regulatory
mechanisms in place to protect the
species. Overall, we conclude threats
are nonimminent. Therefore, we
assigned an LPN of 11 to this species.
Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera
(Kookoolau)—We continue to find that
listing this species is warranted, but
precluded as of the date of publication
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
66413
of this notice. However, we are working
on a proposed listing rule that we
expect to publish prior to making the
next annual resubmitted 12-month
petition finding.
Bidens campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis
(Kookoolau)—We continue to find that
listing this species is warranted, but
precluded as of the date of publication
of this notice. However, we are working
on a proposed listing rule that we
expect to publish prior to making the
next annual resubmitted 12-month
petition finding.
Bidens conjuncta (Kookoolau)—We
continue to find that listing this species
is warranted, but precluded as of the
date of publication of this notice.
However, we are working on a proposed
listing rule that we expect to publish
prior to making the next annual
resubmitted 12-month petition finding.
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla
(Kookoolau)—We continue to find that
listing this species is warranted, but
precluded as of the date of publication
of this notice. However, we are working
on a proposed listing rule that we
expect to publish prior to making the
next annual resubmitted petition 12month finding.
Brickellia mosieri (Florida brickellbush)—The following summary is based
on information contained in our files.
No new information was provided in
the petition we received on May 11,
2004. This species is restricted to pine
rocklands of Miami-Dade County,
Florida. This habitat requires periodic
prescribed fires to maintain the low
understory and prevent encroachment
by native tropical hardwoods and exotic
plants, such as Brazilian pepper. Only
one large occurrence is known to exist;
15 other occurrences contain less than
100 individuals. Eleven occurrences are
on conservation lands, while the rest of
the extant populations are on private
land and are currently vulnerable to
habitat loss and degradation.
Climatic changes, including sea-level
rise, are long-term threats that will
reduce the extent of habitat. This
species is threatened by habitat loss,
which is exacerbated by habitat
degradation due to fire suppression, the
difficulty of applying prescribed fire to
pine rocklands, and threats from exotic
plants. Remaining habitats are
fragmented. The species is vulnerable to
natural disturbances, such as
hurricanes, tropical storms, and storm
surges. Due to its restricted range and
the small sizes of most isolated
occurrences, this species is vulnerable
to environmental (catastrophic
hurricanes), demographic (potential
episodes of poor reproduction), and
genetic (potential inbreeding
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
66414
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
depression) threats. Ongoing
conservation efforts include projects
aimed at facilitating restoration and
management of public and private lands
in Miami-Dade County and projects to
reintroduce and establish new
populations at suitable sites within the
species’ historical range. The Service is
also pursuing additional habitat
restoration projects, which could help
further improve the status of the
species. Because of these efforts, the
overall magnitude of threats is
moderate. The threats are ongoing and
thus imminent. We assigned this species
an LPN of 8.
Calamagrostis expansa (Maui
reedgrass)—The following summary is
based on information contained in our
files. No new information was provided
in the petition we received on May 11,
2004. Calamagrostis expansa is a
perennial grass found in wet forest and
bogs, and in bog margins, on the islands
of Maui and Hawaii, Hawaii. This
species is known from 13 populations
totaling fewer than 750 individuals.
Calamagrostis expansa is threatened
by habitat degradation and loss by feral
pigs, and by competition with nonnative
plants. Predation by feral pigs is a
potential threat to this species. All of
the known populations of C. expansa on
Maui occur in managed areas. Pig
exclusion fences have been constructed
and control of nonnative plants is
ongoing within the exclosures. On the
island of Hawaii, fencing is planned for
the population in the Upper Waiakea
Forest Reserve. This species is
represented in an ex situ collection.
Predation is a nonimminent threat.
However, threats to this species from
feral pigs and nonnative plants are
ongoing, or imminent, and of high
magnitude because they significantly
affect the species throughout its range,
leading to a relatively high likelihood of
extinction. Therefore, we retained an
LPN of 2 for this species.
Calamagrostis hillebrandii
(Hillebrand’s reedgrass)—We continue
to find that listing this species is
warranted, but precluded as of the date
of publication of this notice. However,
we are working on a proposed listing
rule that we expect to publish prior to
making the next annual resubmitted 12month petition finding.
Calochortus persistens (Siskiyou
mariposa lily)—The following summary
is based on information contained in
our files and the petition we received on
September 10, 2001. The Siskiyou
mariposa lily is a narrow endemic that
is restricted to three disjunct ridge tops
in the Klamath-Siskiyou Range on the
California-Oregon border. The
southernmost occurrence of this species
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
is composed of nine separate sites on
approximately 10 hectares (ha) (24.7
acres (ac)) of Klamath National Forest
and privately owned lands that stretch
for 6 kilometers (km) (3.7 miles (mi))
along the Gunsight-Humbug Ridge,
Siskiyou County, California. In 2007, a
new occurrence was confirmed in the
locality of Cottonwood Peak and Little
Cottonwood Peak, Siskiyou County,
where several populations are
distributed over 164 ha (405 ac) on three
individual mountain peaks in the
Klamath National Forest and on private
lands. The northernmost occurrence
consists of not more than five Siskiyou
mariposa lily plants that were
discovered in 1998, on Bald Mountain,
west of Ashland, Jackson County,
Oregon.
Major threats include competition and
shading by native and nonnative species
fostered by suppression of wildfire;
increased fuel loading and subsequent
risk of wildfire; fragmentation by roads,
fire breaks, tree plantations, and radiotower facilities; maintenance and
construction around radio towers and
telephone relay stations located on
Gunsight Peak and Mahogany Point; and
soil disturbance, direct damage, and
exotic weed and grass species
introduction as a result of heavy
recreational use and construction of fire
breaks. Dyer’s woad (Isatis tinctoria), an
invasive, nonnative plant that may
prevent germination of Siskiyou
mariposa lily seedlings, is now found
throughout the southernmost California
occurrence, affecting 75 percent of the
known lily habitat on Gunsight-Humbug
Ridge. Forest Service staff and the
Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center cite
competition with dyer’s woad as a
significant and chronic threat to the
survival of Siskiyou mariposa lily.
The combination of restricted range,
extremely low numbers (five plants) in
one of three disjunct populations, poor
competitive ability, short seed dispersal
distance, slow growth rates, low seed
production, apparently poor survival
rates in some years, herbivory, habitat
disturbance, and competition from
exotic plants threaten the continued
existence of this species. These threats
are of high magnitude because of their
potential to affect the overall survival of
the species negatively. Because the
threats of competition from exotic
plants are being addressed, they are not
anticipated to overwhelm a large
portion of the species’ range in the
immediate future; in additions the
threats from low seed production and
survival are longer-term threats. Thus,
overall the threats are nonimminent. As
such, we assigned an LPN of 5 to this
species.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Canavalia pubescens (Awikiwiki)—
We continue to find that listing this
species is warranted, but precluded as
of the date of publication of this notice.
However, we are working on a proposed
listing rule that we expect to publish
prior to making the next annual
resubmitted 12-month petition finding.
Castilleja christii (Christ’s
paintbrush)—The following summary is
based on information contained in our
files and the petition we received on
January 2, 2001. Castilleja christii is
found in one population covering
approximately 85 ha (220 ac) on the
summit of Mount Harrison in Cassia
County, Idaho. This endemic species is
considered a hemiparasite (dependent
on the health of their surrounding
native plant community), and it grows
in association with subalpine-meadow
and sagebrush habitats. The population
may be large (greater than 10,000
individual plants); however, the species
is considered to be subject to large
variations in annual abundance and an
accurate current population estimate is
not available. Monitoring indicates that
reproductive stems per plant and plant
density declined between 1995 and
2007. Fluctuations have occurred since
2007, with slight increases in
reproductive output and density in 2008
and decreases in 2009. Population
monitoring did not occur in 2010.
The primary threat to the species is
the nonnative, invasive plant smooth
brome (Bromus inermis). Despite
cooperative Forest Service and Service
efforts to control smooth brome in 2007,
2008, 2009, and 2010, it still persists in
C. christii habitats. Other threats to C.
christii from recreational use and
livestock trespass appear to be mostly
seasonal and affect only a small portion
of the population, and may not occur
every year. The magnitude of the threats
to this species is moderate at this time
because, although the smooth brome
control efforts have not eliminated the
invasive plant, the Service and Forest
Service are continuing their efforts in
order to conserve this species. The
threat from smooth brome is imminent
because the threat still persists at a level
that affects the native plant
communities that provide habitat for C.
christii. Thus, we assign an LPN of 8 to
this species.
Chamaecrista lineata var. keyensis
(Big Pine partridge pea)—The following
summary is based on information
contained in our files. No new
information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
This pea is endemic to the lower Florida
Keys, and restricted to pine rocklands,
hardwood hammock edges, and
roadsides and firebreaks within these
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
ecosystems. Historically, it was known
from Big Pine, Cudjoe, No Name,
Ramrod, and Little Pine Keys (Monroe
County, Florida). In 2005, a small
population was detected on lower
Sugarloaf Key, but this population was
not located after Hurricane Wilma;
plants were likely killed by the tidal
surge from this storm. It presently
occurs on Big Pine Key, with a very
small population on Cudjoe Key. It is
fairly well distributed in Big Pine Key
pine rocklands, which encompass
approximately 580 hectares (1,433
acres), approximately 360 hectares (890
acres) of which are within the Service’s
National Key Deer Refuge (NKDR). Over
80 percent of the population probably
exists on NKDR, with the remainder
distributed among State, County, and
private properties. Hurricane Wilma
(October 2005) resulted in a storm surge
that covered most of Big Pine Key with
sea water. The surge reduced the
population by as much as 95 percent in
some areas.
Pine rockland communities are
maintained by relatively frequent fires.
In the absence of fire, shrubs and trees
encroach on pine rockland, and this
subspecies is eventually shaded out.
NKDR has a prescribed fire program,
although with many constraints on
implementation. Habitat loss due to
development was historically the
greatest threat to the pea. Much of the
remaining habitat is now protected on
public lands. Absence of fire now
appears to be the greatest of the
deterministic threats. Given the recent
increase in hurricane activity, storm
surges are the greatest of the stochastic
threats. The small range and patchy
distribution of the subspecies increase
risk from stochastic events. Climatic
changes, including sea-level rise, are
serious long-term threats. Models
indicate that even under the best of
circumstances, a significant proportion
of upland habitat will be lost on Big
Pine Key by 2100. Additional threats
include restricted range, invasive exotic
plants, roadside dumping, loss of
pollinators, seed predators, and
development.
We maintain the previous assessment
that hurricanes, storm surges, lack of
fire, and limited distribution result in a
moderate magnitude of threat because a
large part of the range is on conservation
lands where threats are being addressed,
although fire management is at much
slower rate than is required. The
immediacy of hurricane threats is
difficult to characterize, but imminence
is considered high given that hurricanes
(and storm surges) of various
magnitudes are frequent and recurrent
events in the area. Sea-level rise remains
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
uncontrolled but, overall, is
nonimminent. Overall, the threats from
limited distribution and inadequate fire
management are imminent because they
are ongoing. In addition, the most
consequential threats (hurricanes, storm
surges) are frequent, recurrent, and
imminent. Therefore, we retained an
LPN of 9 for Big Pine partridge pea.
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum
(Pineland sandmat)—The following
summary is based on information
contained in our files. No new
information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
The pineland sandmat is only known
from Miami-Dade County, Florida. The
largest occurrence, estimated at more
than 10,000 plants, is located on Long
Pine Key within Everglades National
Park. All other occurrences are smaller
and are in isolated pine rockland
fragments in heavily urbanized MiamiDade County.
Occurrences on private (nonconservation) lands and on one Countyowned parcel are at risk from
development and habitat degradation
and fragmentation. Conditions related to
climate change, particularly sea-level
rise, will be a factor over the long term.
All occurrences of the species are
threatened by habitat loss and
degradation due to fire suppression, the
difficulty of applying prescribed fire,
and exotic plants. These threats are
severe within small and unmanaged
fragments in urban areas. However, the
threats of fire suppression and exotics
are reduced on lands managed by the
National Park Service. Hydrologic
changes are considered to be another
threat. Hydrology has been altered
within Long Pine Key due to artificial
drainage, which lowered ground water,
and by the construction of roads, which
either impounded or diverted water.
Regional water management intended to
restore the Everglades could negatively
affect the pinelands of Long Pine Key in
the future. At this time, we do not know
whether the proposed restoration and
associated hydrological modifications
will have a positive or negative effect on
pineland sandmat. This narrow endemic
may be vulnerable to catastrophic
events and natural disturbances, such as
hurricanes. Overall, the magnitude of
threats to this species is moderate; by
applying regular prescribed fire, the
National Park Service has kept Long
Pine Key’s pineland vegetation intact
and relatively free of exotic plants, and
partnerships are in place to help address
the continuing threat of exotics on other
pine rockland fragments. Overall, the
threats are nonimminent because fire
management at the largest occurrence is
regularly conducted and sea-level rise
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
66415
and hurricanes are more long-term
threats. Therefore, we assigned an LPN
of 12 to this subspecies. We will
continue to monitor any changes in
hydrological management that may
affect the magnitude of threats to the
species.
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. serpyllum
(Wedge spurge)—The following
summary is based on information
contained in our files. No new
information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
Systematic surveys of publicly owned
pine rockland throughout this plant’s
range were conducted during 2005–
2006 and 2007–2008 to determine
population size and distribution. Wedge
spurge is a small prostrate herb. It was
historically, and remains, restricted to
pine rocklands on Big Pine Key in
Monroe County, Florida. Pine rocklands
encompass approximately 580 hectares
(1,433 acres) on Big Pine Key,
approximately 360 hectares (890 acres)
of which are within the Service’s
National Key Deer Refuge (NKDR). Most
of the species’ range falls within the
NKDR, with the remainder on State,
County, and private properties. It is not
widely dispersed within the limited
range. Occurrences are sparser in the
southern portion of Big Pine Key, which
contains smaller areas of NKDR lands
than does the northern portion. Wedge
spurge inhabits sites with low woody
cover (e.g., low palm and hardwood
densities) and usually with exposed
rock or gravel.
Pine rockland communities are
maintained by relatively frequent fires.
In the absence of fire, shrubs and trees
encroach on pine rockland, and the
subspecies is eventually shaded out.
NKDR has a prescribed fire program,
although with many constraints on
implementation. Habitat loss due to
development was historically the
greatest threat to the wedge spurge.
Much of the remaining habitat is now
protected on public lands. Absence of
fire now appears to be the greatest of the
deterministic threats. Given the recent
increase in hurricane activity, storm
surges are the greatest of the stochastic
threats. The small range and patchy
distribution of the subspecies increases
risk from stochastic events. Climatic
changes, including sea-level rise, are
serious long-term threats. Models
indicate that even under the best of
circumstances, a significant proportion
of upland habitat will be lost on Big
Pine Key by 2100. Additional threats
include restricted range, invasive exotic
plants, roadside dumping, loss of
pollinators, seed predators, and
development.
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
66416
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
We maintain the previous assessment
that low fire-return intervals plus
hurricane-related storm surges, in
combination with a limited, fragmented
distribution and threats from sea-level
rise, result in a moderate magnitude of
threat, in part, because a large part of
the range is on conservation lands,
where some threats can be substantially
controlled. The immediacy of hurricane
threats is difficult to categorize, but in
this case threats are imminent given that
hurricanes (and storm surges) of various
magnitudes are frequent and recurrent
events in the area. Sea-level rise remains
uncontrolled, but over much of the
range is nonimminent compared to
other prominent threats. Threats
resulting from limited fire occurrences
are imminent. As some of the major
threats are ongoing, overall, the threats
are imminent. Therefore, we retained an
LPN of 9 for this subspecies.
Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina
(San Fernando Valley spineflower)—
The following summary is based on
information contained in our files and
the petition we received on December
14, 1999. Chorizanthe parryi var.
fernandina is a low-growing
herbaceous, annual plant in the
buckwheat family. Germination occurs
following the onset of late-fall and
winter rains and typically represents
different cohorts from the seed bank.
Flowering occurs in the spring,
generally between April and June.
Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina
grows up to 30 centimeters in height
and 5 to 40 centimeters across. The
plant currently is known from two
disjunct localities: the first is in the
southeastern portion of Ventura County
on a site within the Upper Las Virgenes
Canyon Open Space Preserve, formerly
known as Ahmanson Ranch, and the
second is in an area of southwestern Los
Angeles County known as Newhall
Ranch. Investigations of historical
locations and seemingly suitable habitat
within the range of the species have not
revealed any other occurrences.
The threats currently facing
Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina
include threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range, inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms, and other
natural or manmade factors. The threats
to Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina
from habitat destruction or modification
are slightly less than they were 7 years
ago. One of the two populations (Upper
Las Virgenes Canyon Open Space
Preserve) is in permanent, public
ownership and is being managed by an
agency that is working to conserve the
plant; however, the use of adjacent
habitat for Hollywood film productions
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
was brought to our attention 2 years ago,
and the potential impacts to
Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina have
not yet been evaluated. We will be
working with the landowners to manage
the site for the benefit of Chorizanthe
parryi var. fernandina. The other
population (Newhall Ranch) is under
the threat of development; however, a
candidate conservation agreement
(CCA) is being developed with the
landowner, and it is possible that the
remaining plants can also be conserved.
Until such an agreement is finalized, the
threat of development and the potential
damage to the Newhall Ranch
population still exists, as shown by the
destruction of some plants during
installation of an agave farm.
Furthermore, cattle grazing on Newhall
Ranch may be a threat. Cattle grazing
may harm Chorizanthe parryi var.
fernandina by trampling and soil
compaction. Grazing activity could also
alter the nutrient (e.g., elevated organic
material levels) content of the soils for
Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina
habitat through fecal inputs, which in
turn may favor the growth of other plant
species that would otherwise not grow
so readily on the mineral-based soils.
Over time, changes in species
composition may render the sites less
favorable for the persistence of
Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina.
Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina may
be threatened by invasive, nonnative
plants, including grasses, which could
potentially displace it from available
habitat; compete for light, water, and
nutrients; and reduce survival and
establishment.
Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina is
particularly vulnerable to extinction due
to its concentration in two isolated
areas. The existence of only two areas of
occurrence, and a relatively small range,
makes the variety highly susceptible to
extinction or extirpation from a
significant portion of its range due to
random events such as fire, drought,
and erosion. We retained an LPN of 6
for Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina
due to high-magnitude, nonimminent
threats.
Chromolaena frustrata (Cape Sable
thoroughwort)—The following summary
is based on information contained in
our files. No new information was
provided in the petition we received on
May 11, 2004. This species is found
most commonly in open sun to partial
shade at the edges of rockland tropical
hammock and in coastal rock barrens.
There are nine extant occurrences
located on five islands in the Florida
Keys and one small area in Everglades
National Park (ENP). In the Keys, the
plant has been extirpated from half of
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the islands where it occurred. Prior to
Hurricane Wilma in 2005, the
population was estimated at roughly
5,000 individuals, with all but 500
occurring on one privately owned
island. An estimated 1,500 plants occur
on the mainland within ENP.
This species is threatened by habitat
loss and modification, even on public
lands, and habitat loss and degradation
due to threats from exotic plants at
almost all sites. The species is
vulnerable to natural disturbances, such
as hurricanes, tropical storms, and
storm surges. While these factors may
also work to maintain coastal rock
barren habitat in the long term,
Hurricane Wilma affected occurrences
and habitat, at least in the short term.
Occurrences probably initially declined
due to inundation of its coastal barren
and rockland hammock habitats; longterm effects on this species are
unknown. Cape Sable thoroughwort
appears to be vulnerable to cold
temperatures. It is not known to what
extent cold temperatures in January and
December 2010 affected the species at
most locations, or what, if any, longterm effect this may have on the
population. Sea-level rise is considered
a major threat over the long term.
Potential effects from other changes in
freshwater deliveries and the
construction of the Buttonwood Canal
are unknown. Problems associated with
small population size and isolation are
likely major factors, as occurrences may
not be large enough to be viable; this
narrowly endemic plant has uncertain
viability at most locations. Thus, these
factors constitute a high magnitude of
threat. The threats of small population
size, isolation, and uncertain viability
are imminent because they are ongoing.
As a result, we assigned an LPN of 2 to
this species.
Consolea corallicola (Florida
semaphore cactus)—The following
summary is based on information in our
files. No new information was provided
in the petition we received on May 11,
2004. The Florida semaphore cactus is
endemic to the Florida Keys, and was
discovered on Big Pine Key in 1919, but
that population was extirpated as a
result of road building and poaching.
This cactus grows close to salt water on
bare rock with a minimum of humus
soil cover in or along the edges of
hammocks near sea level. The species is
known to occur naturally only in two
areas, Swan Key within Biscayne
National Park and Little Torch Key.
Outplantings have been attempted in
several locations in the upper and lower
Keys; however, success has been low.
Few plants remain in the population at
The Nature Conservancy’s Torchwood
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Hammock Preserve on Little Torch Key.
During monitoring work conducted in
2005, a total of 655 plants were
documented at the Swan Key
population. In 2008–2010, the
population was estimated by Biscayne
National Park staff to consist of
approximately 600 individuals. Asexual
reproduction is the main life-history
strategy of this species. Recent genetic
studies have shown no variation within
populations and very limited variation
between populations. Findings support
the conclusion that the Swan Key
(upper Keys) and Little Torch Key
(lower Keys) populations and an
individual plant from Big Pine Key
(single plant in ex situ collection; lower
Keys) are clonally derived. Studies
examining the reproductive biology of
the species indicate that all extant wild
and cultivated plants are male.
The causes for the population decline
of this species include destruction or
modification of habitat, predation from
nonnative Cactoblastis cactorum moths
and disease, poaching and vandalism,
hurricanes, and climatic changes,
including sea-level rise. Sea-level rise is
considered a serious threat to the
species and its habitat; all extant
populations are located in low-lying
areas. All remaining populations are
under threat of predation from the
exotic moth, and are susceptible to rootrot disease. Competition from invasive
exotic plants is a threat at Swan Key;
however, efforts by Biscayne National
Park are underway to address this
threat. This species is inherently
vulnerable to stochastic losses,
especially at its smaller populations. A
lack of variation and limited sexual
reproduction makes the remaining small
population even more susceptible to
natural or manmade factors. Overall, the
magnitude of threats is high. The
numerous threats are ongoing and,
therefore, are imminent. Thus, we
assigned this species an LPN of 2.
Cordia rupicola (no common name)—
The following summary is based on
information contained in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
Cordia rupicola is a small shrub that has
been described from southwestern
Puerto Rico, Vieques Island, and
Anegada Island (British Virgin Islands).
All these sites lay within the subtropical
dry forest life zone overlying a
limestone substrate. Cordia rupicola has
a restricted distribution. Currently,
approximately 227 individuals are
˜
known from 4 locations: Penuelas,
´
Yauco, Guanica Commonwealth Forests,
and Vieques National Wildlife Refuge.
Additionally, the species is reported as
common in Anegada.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
This species is threatened by
maintenance of trails and power line
´
rights-of-way in the Guanica
Commonwealth Forest, and residential
and commercial development in
˜
Penuelas, Yauco, and Anegada Island.
Cordia rupicola is also vulnerable to
natural (e.g., hurricanes) or manmade
(e.g., human-induced fires) threats.
Furthermore, the population on
Anegada Island, which is considered the
healthiest population, is expected to be
affected sea-level rise as most of the
suitable habitat for the species is below
3 meters above sea level. For these
reasons, we believe that the magnitude
of the current threats should be
considered high. About 60 percent of
known adult plants are located in
protected lands managed for
conservation by the Puerto Rico
Department of Natural and
Environmental Resources or the Service.
For these reasons, threats to Cordia
rupicola on the whole are high
magnitude and nonimminent, and
therefore we have assigned a listing
priority number of 5. However, the
threats faced by the species are expected
to increase in the future, and therefore
may become imminent, if conservation
measures are not implemented and
long-term impacts are not averted.
Cyanea asplenifolia (Haha)—We
continue to find that listing this species
is warranted, but precluded as of the
date of publication of this notice.
However, we are working on a proposed
listing rule that we expect to publish
prior to making the next annual
resubmitted 12-month petition finding.
Cyanea kunthiana (Haha)—We
continue to find that listing this species
is warranted, but precluded as of the
date of publication of this notice.
However, we are working on a proposed
listing rule that we expect to publish
prior to making the next annual
resubmitted 12-month petition finding.
Cyanea obtusa (Haha)—We continue
to find that listing this species is
warranted but precluded as of the date
of publication of this notice. However,
we are working on a proposed listing
rule that we expect to publish prior to
making the next annual resubmitted 12month petition finding.
Cyanea tritomantha (‘Aku)—We
continue to find that listing this species
is warranted, but precluded as of the
date of publication of this notice.
However, we are working on a proposed
listing rule that we expect to publish
prior to making the next annual
resubmitted 12-month petition finding.
Cyrtandra filipes (Haiwale)—We
continue to find that listing this species
is warranted, but precluded as of the
date of publication of this notice.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
66417
However, we are working on a proposed
listing rule that we expect to publish
prior to making the next annual
resubmitted 12-month petition finding.
Cyrtandra oxybapha (Haiwale)—We
continue to find that listing this species
is warranted, but precluded as of the
date of publication of this notice.
However, we are working on a proposed
listing rule that we expect to publish
prior to making the next annual
resubmitted 12-month petition finding.
Dalea carthagenensis ssp. floridana
(Florida prairie-clover)—The following
summary is based on information
contained in our files. No new
information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana
occurs in Big Cypress National Preserve
(BCNP) in Monroe and Collier Counties
and at six locations within Miami-Dade
County, Florida, albeit mostly in limited
numbers. There are a total of nine extant
occurrences, seven of which are on
conservation lands. In addition, plants
were reintroduced to a park in MiamiDade County in 2006, but only four
remained after 8 months.
Existing occurrences are extremely
small and may not be viable, especially
some of the occurrences in Miami-Dade
County. Remaining habitats are
fragmented. Climatic changes, including
sea-level rise, are long-term threats that
are expected to reduce the extent of
habitat. This plant is threatened by
habitat loss and degradation due to fire
suppression, the difficulty of applying
prescribed fire to pine rocklands, and
competition from exotic plants. Damage
to plants by off-road vehicles is a
serious threat within the BCNP; damage
attributed to illegal mountain biking at
the R. Hardy Matheson Preserve has
been reduced. One location within
BCNP is threatened by changes in
mowing practices; this threat is low in
magnitude. This species is being
parasitized by the introduced insect
lobate lac scale (Paratachardina
pseudolobata) at some localities (e.g., R.
Hardy Matheson Preserve), but we do
not know the extent of this threat. This
plant is vulnerable to natural
disturbances, such as hurricanes,
tropical storms, and storm surges. Due
to its restricted range and the small sizes
of most isolated occurrences, this
species is vulnerable to environmental
(catastrophic hurricanes), demographic
(potential episodes of poor
reproduction), and genetic (potential
inbreeding depression) threats. The
magnitude of threats is high because of
the limited number of occurrences and
the small number of individual plants at
each occurrence. The threats are
imminent; even though many sites are
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
66418
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
on conservation lands, these plants still
face significant ongoing threats.
Therefore, we have assigned an LPN of
3 to Florida prairie-clover.
Dichanthelium hirstii (Hirst Brothers’
panic grass)—The following summary is
based on information contained in our
files. No new information was provided
in the petition we received on May 11,
2004. Dichanthelium hirstii is a
perennial grass that produces erect,
leafy, flowering stems from May to
October. Dichanthelium hirstii occurs in
coastal plain intermittent ponds, usually
in wet savanna or pine barren habitats,
and is found at only two sites in New
Jersey, one site in Delaware, and one
site in North Carolina. While all four
extant D. hirstii populations are located
on public land or privately owned
conservation lands, natural threats to
the species from encroaching vegetation
and fluctuations in climatic conditions
remain of concern, and may be
exacerbated by anthropogenic factors
occurring adjacent to the species’
wetland habitat. Given the low number
of plants found at each site, even minor
changes in the species’ habitat could
result in local extirpation. Loss of any
known sites could result in a serious
contraction of the species’ range.
However, the most immediate and
severe threats to this species (i.e.,
ditching of the Labounsky Pond site and
encroachment of aggressive vegetative
competitors) have been curtailed or are
being actively managed by The Nature
Conservancy at one New Jersey site and
by the Delaware Division of Fish and
Wildlife and Delaware Natural Heritage
Program at the Assawoman Pond,
Delaware site. Based on nonimminent
threats of a high magnitude, we retain
an LPN of 5 for this species.
Digitaria pauciflora (Florida pineland
crabgrass)—The following summary is
based on information contained in our
files. No new information was provided
in the petition we received on May 11,
2004. Pine rocklands in Miami-Dade
County have largely been destroyed by
residential, commercial, and urban
development and by agriculture. With
most remaining habitat having been
negatively altered, this species has been
extirpated from much of its historical
range, including extirpation from all
areas outside of National Parks. Two
large occurrences remain within
Everglades National Park and Big
Cypress National Preserve; plants on
Federal lands are protected from the
threat of habitat loss due to
development. However, any unknown
plants, indefinite occurrences, and
suitable habitat remaining on private or
non-conservation land are threatened by
development. Continued development
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
of suitable habitat diminishes the
potential for reintroduction into its
historical range. Extant occurrences are
in low-lying areas and will be affected
by climate change and rising sea level.
Fire suppression, the difficulty of
applying prescribed fire to pine
rocklands, and threats from exotic
plants are ongoing threats. As the only
known remaining occurrences are on
lands managed by the National Park
Service, the threats of fire suppression
and exotics are somewhat reduced. The
presence of the exotic Old World
climbing fern is of particular concern
due to its ability to spread rapidly. In
Big Cypress National Preserve, plants
are threatened by off-road vehicle use.
Changes to hydrology are a potential
threat. Hydrology has been altered
within Long Pine Key due to artificial
drainage, which lowered ground water,
and construction of roads, which either
impounded or diverted water. Regional
water management intended to restore
the Everglades has the potential to affect
the pinelands of Long Pine Key, where
a large population occurs. At this time,
it is not known whether Everglades
restoration will have a positive or
negative effect. This narrow endemic
may be vulnerable to catastrophic
events and natural disturbances, such as
hurricanes. Overall, the magnitude of
threats is high. Only two known
occurrences remain and the likelihood
of establishing a sizable population on
other lands is diminished due to
continuing habitat loss. Impacts from
climate change and sea-level rise are
currently low, but expected to be severe
in the future. The majority of threats are
nonimminent, as they are long-term in
nature (water management, hurricanes,
and sea-level rise). Therefore, we
assigned an LPN of 5 for this species.
Echinomastus erectocentrus var.
acunensis (Acuna cactus)—We continue
to find that listing this species is
warranted, but precluded as of the date
of publication of this notice. However,
we are working on a proposed listing
rule that we expect to publish prior to
making the next annual resubmitted
petition 12-month finding.
Erigeron lemmonii (Lemmon
fleabane)—We continue to find that
listing this species is warranted, but
precluded as of the date of publication
of this notice. However, we are working
on a proposed listing rule that we
expect to publish prior to making the
next annual resubmitted petition 12month finding.
Eriogonum codium (Umtanum Desert
buckwheat)—We continue to find that
listing this species is warranted, but
precluded as of the date of publication
of this notice. However, we are working
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
on a proposed listing rule that we
expect to publish prior to making the
next annual resubmitted petition 12month finding.
Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii
(Las Vegas buckwheat)—The following
summary is based on information
contained in our files and the petition
we received on April 23, 2008.
Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii is a
woody perennial shrub up to 4 feet high
with a mounding shape. The flowers of
this plant are numerous, small, and
yellow with small, bract-like leaves at
the base of each flower. Eriogonum
corymbosum var. nilesii is very
conspicuous when flowering in late
September and early October. It is
restricted to sparsely vegetated, gypsum
soil outcroppings and is found
historically only in Clark County,
Nevada. In 2004, morphometrics were
used to classify this plant as the unique
variety nilesii, and its unique taxonomy
was verified using molecular genetic
analyses in 2007. Recent surveys have
expanded E. corymbosum var. nilesii’s
range to Lincoln County, Nevada, and
Washington County, Utah.
Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii
was added to the candidate list in
December 2007 due to continued loss of
habitat from development of over 95
percent of its core historical range and
potential habitat. In addition, offhighway vehicle activity and other
public land uses (casual public use,
mining, and illegal dumping) directly
threaten over 95 percent of the
remaining habitat. It was petitioned for
listing in April 2008 and a warrantedbut-precluded determination was made
in December 2008 (73 FR 75176;
December 10, 2008). To date, regulatory
mechanisms to protect E. corymbosum
var. nilesii are inadequate. Its
designation as a Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) special status
species has not provided adequate
protection on lands managed by BLM.
Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii is
not protected by the State of Nevada or
Utah or by any other regulatory
mechanisms on other Federal lands. We
have determined that candidate status is
warranted for this variety as a result of
threats to the remaining habitat and
inadequate regulatory mechanisms.
Conservation measures are being
developed that could reduce the risks to
occupied habitat, but these measures are
not sufficiently complete as to remove
these threats. The magnitude of threats
is high because the more significant
threats (urban development and surface
mining) would result in direct mortality
of the plants in over half of the known
habitat. While both development and
mining are very likely to occur in the
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
future, they are not expected to happen
in the immediate future due to
economic decline, and thus, the threats
are nonimminent. Accordingly, we
assigned E. corymbosum var. nilesii an
LPN of 6.
Eriogonum kelloggii (Red Mountain
buckwheat)—The following summary is
based on information contained in our
files and information provided by the
California Department of Fish and
Game. No new information was
provided in the petition we received on
May 11, 2004. Red Mountain buckwheat
is a perennial herb endemic to
serpentine habitat of lower montane
forests found between 1,900 and 4,100
feet. Its distribution is limited to the Red
Mountain and Little Red Mountain areas
of Mendocino County, California, where
it occupies in excess of 81 acres, and
900 square feet, respectively. The
known species distribution by
ownership is described as follows:
Federal (Bureau of Land Management),
83 percent; private, 17 percent; State of
California, less than 1 percent.
Occupied habitat at Red Mountain is
scattered over 4 square miles. Total
population size has not been
determined, but a preliminary estimate
suggests the population may be in
excess of 63,000 plants, occupying more
than 44 discrete habitat polygons.
Intensive monitoring of permanent plots
on three study sites in Red Mountain
suggests considerable annual variation
in plant density and reproduction, but
no discernable population trend was
evident in two of three study sites. One
study site showed a 65 percent decline
in plant density over 11 years.
The primary threat to this species is
the potential for surface mining for
chromium and nickel. Virtually the
entire distribution of Red Mountain
buckwheat is either owned by mining
interests, or is covered by existing
mining claims, none of which are
currently active. Surface mining would
destroy habitat suitability for this
species. The species is also believed
threatened by tree and shrub
encroachment into its habitat, in
absence of fire. Some 42 percent of its
known distribution occurred within the
boundary of the Red Mountain Fire of
June 2008. However, the extent and
manner in which Eriogonum kelloggii
and its habitat were affected by that fire
is not yet known. The single population
located at Little Red Mountain appears
to have been affected, and perhaps
eliminated by fire-control efforts. Given
the magnitude (high) and immediacy
(nonimminent) of the threat to the
small, scattered populations, and given
its taxonomy (species), we assigned an
LPN of 5 to this species.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
Festuca hawaiiensis (no common
name)—The following summary is
based on information contained in our
files. No new information was provided
in the petition we received on May 11,
2004. This species is a cespitose
(growing in dense, low tufts) annual
found in dry forest on the island of
Hawaii, Hawaii. Festuca hawaiiensis is
known from 4 populations totaling
approximately 1,000 individuals in and
around the Pohakuloa Training Area.
Historically, this species was also found
on Hualalai and Puu Huluhulu, but it no
longer occurs at these sites. Festuca
hawaiiensis possibly occurred on Maui.
This species is threatened by pigs,
goats, mouflon, and sheep that degrade
and destroy habitat; fire; military
training activities; and nonnative plants
that outcompete and displace it. Feral
pigs, goats, mouflon, and sheep have
been fenced out of a portion of the
populations of F. hawaiiensis, and
nonnative plants have been reduced in
the fenced area, but the majority of the
populations are still affected by threats
from ungulates. The threats are
imminent because they are not
controlled and are ongoing in the
remaining, unfenced populations.
Firebreaks have been established at two
populations, but fire is an imminent
threat to the remaining populations that
have no firebreaks. The threats are of a
high magnitude because they could
adversely affect the majority of F.
hawaiiensis populations resulting in
direct mortality or reduced reproductive
capacity. Therefore, we retained an LPN
of 2 for this species.
Festuca ligulata (Guadalupe fescue)—
The following summary is based on
information obtained from the original
species petition, received in 1975, and
from our files, on-line herbarium
databases, and scientific publications.
Six small populations of Guadalupe
fescue, a member of the Poaceae (grass
family), have been documented in
mountains of the Chihuahuan desert in
Texas and in Coahuila, Mexico. Only
two extant populations have been
confirmed in the last 5 years, in the
Chisos Mountains, Big Bend National
Park, Texas, and in the privately owned
´
Area de Proteccion de Flora y Fauna
(Protected Area for Flora and Fauna—
APFF) Maderas del Carmen in northern
Coahuila. Despite intensive searches, a
population known from Guadalupe
Mountains National Park, Texas, has not
been found since 1952 and is presumed
extirpated. In 2009, Mexican botanists
confirmed Guadalupe fescue at one site
in APFF Maderas del Carmen, but could
not find the species at the original site,
´
known as Sierra El Jardın, which was
first reported in 1973. Two additional
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
66419
Mexican populations, near Fraile in
southern Coahuila, and the Sierra de la
Madera in central Coahuila, have not
been monitored since 1941 and 1977,
respectively. A great amount of
potentially suitable habitat in Coahuila
has never been surveyed.
The potential threats to Guadalupe
fescue include changes in the wildfire
cycle and vegetation structure,
trampling from humans and pack
animals, grazing, trail runoff, fungal
infection of seeds, small sizes and
isolation of populations, and limited
genetic diversity. The Service and the
National Park Service established a
candidate conservation agreement
(CCA) in 2008 to provide additional
protection for the Chisos Mountains
population, and to promote cooperative
conservation efforts with U.S. and
Mexican partners. The threats to
Guadalupe fescue are of moderate
magnitude, and are nonimminent, due
to the provisions of the CCA and other
conservation efforts, as well as the
likelihood that other populations exist
in mountains of Coahuila that have not
been surveyed. Thus, we maintained the
LPN of 11 for this species.
Gardenia remyi (Nanu)—The
following summary is based on
information contained in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
Gardenia remyi is a tree found in mesic
to wet forest on the islands of Kauai,
Molokai, Maui, and Hawaii, Hawaii.
Gardenia remyi is known from 19
populations totaling between 85 and 87
individuals.
This species is threatened by pigs,
goats, and deer that degrade and destroy
habitat and possibly prey upon the
species, and by nonnative plants that
outcompete and displace it. Gardenia
remyi is also threatened by landslides
and reduced reproductive vigor on the
island of Hawaii. This species is
represented in ex situ collections. On
Kauai, G. remyi individuals have been
outplanted within ungulate-proof
exclosures in two locations. Feral pigs
have been fenced out of the west Maui
populations of G. remyi, and nonnative
plants have been reduced in those areas.
However, these threats are not
controlled and are ongoing in the
remaining, unfenced populations, and
are, therefore, imminent. In addition,
the threat from goats and deer is
ongoing and imminent throughout the
range of the species, because no goat or
deer control measures have been
undertaken for any of the populations of
G. remyi. All of the threats are of a high
magnitude because habitat destruction,
predation, and landslides could
significantly affect the entire species,
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
66420
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
resulting in direct mortality or reduced
reproductive capacity, leading to a
relatively high likelihood of extinction.
Therefore, we retained an LPN of 2 for
this species.
Geranium hanaense (Nohoanu)—We
continue to find that listing this species
is warranted, but precluded as of the
date of publication of this notice.
However, we are working on a proposed
listing rule that we expect to publish
prior to making the next annual
resubmitted 12-month petition finding.
Geranium hillebrandii (Nohoanu)—
We continue to find that listing this
species is warranted, but precluded as
of the date of publication of this notice.
However, we are working on a proposed
listing rule that we expect to publish
prior to making the next annual
resubmitted 12-month petition finding.
Gonocalyx concolor (no common
name)—The following summary is
based on information contained in our
files. No new information was provided
in the petition we received on May 11,
2004. Gonocalyx concolor is a small,
evergreen, epiphytic or terrestrial shrub.
This species is currently known from
two populations: one at Cerro La Santa
and the other at Charco Azul, both in
the Carite Commonwealth Forest. This
forest is located in the Sierra de Cayey
and extends through the municipalities
of Guayama, Cayey, Caguas, San
Lorenzo, and Patillas in southeastern
Puerto Rico. The population previously
reported in the Caribbean National
Forest apparently no longer exists. In
1996, approximately 172 plants were
reported at Cerro La Santa. However, in
2006, only 25 individuals were reported
at this site, and four were located in
Charco Azul. At Cerro La Santa, the
species is found growing on trees
located close to communication towers,
roads, plantations, and trails.
The Gonocalyx concolor population
found at Cerro La Santa is threatened by
habitat destruction and modification
caused by vegetation clearing around
telecommunication towers. Although
the species is located within a
Commonwealth forest, which is
protected by Law No. 133 (‘‘Ley de
Bosques de Puerto Rico’’ or The Puerto
Rico Forest Law), unauthorized
maintenance of existing communication
facilities continue to result in loss of
individuals. Gonocalyx concolor is not
currently listed in the Commonwealth
Regulation No. 6766 (‘‘Reglamento para
Regir las Especies Vulnerables y en
´
Peligro de Extincion en el Estado Libre
Asociado de Puerto Rico’’), which
provides protection for endangered and
threatened species. However, the
Natural Heritage Program of the Puerto
Rico Department of Natural and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
Environmental Resources recognizes
Gonocalyx concolor as a critical
element. In addition, the Carite
Commonwealth Forest is designated as
a Critical Wildlife Area by the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Despite
these conservation efforts, damages to
the species still occur due to its
restricted distribution and location near
telecommunication facilities, which
renders the species vulnerable to both
natural (e.g., hurricanes, landslides) and
manmade impacts. Thus, we consider
that existing laws and regulations have
not been effectively enforced to protect
these populations. Moreover, we believe
that inadequacy of regulatory
mechanisms is a current threat to the
species. Overall, we consider current
threats to Gonocalyx concolor to be high
in magnitude but nonimminent, as there
are no known projects within the
Commonwealth protected area. Habitat
modification of this species has been
only observed in one site at Cerro La
Santa area. Therefore, we have assigned
an LPN of 5 to Gonocalyx concolor.
Hazardia orcuttii (Orcutt’s
hazardia)—The following summary is
based on information contained in our
files and the petition we received on
March 8, 2001. Hazardia orcuttii is an
evergreen shrubby species in the
Asteraceae (sunflower) family. The erect
shrubs are 50 to 100 centimeters (20 to
40 inches) high. The only known extant
native occurrence of this species in the
United States occupies 2 ha (5 ac) in the
Manchester Conservation Area in
northwestern San Diego County,
California. This site is managed by
Center for Natural Lands Management
(CNLM). Using material derived from
the native population, the CNLM
facilitated the establishment of test
populations at four additional sites in
northwest San Diego County, California,
including a second site in the
Manchester Conservation Area, Kelly
Ranch Habitat Conservation Area,
Rancho La Costa Habitat Conservation
Area, and San Elijo Lagoon. Hazardia
orcuttii also occurs at a few coastal sites
in Mexico, where it recently became
listed as endangered under Mexican
environmental law. The total number of
plants at the only native site in the
United States is approximately 669
adults, and it is unknown if
reproduction is occurring. The five
additional test populations collectively
support approximately 483 adults, 17
juveniles, and 322 seedlings, and
reproduction is occurring in three test
populations. The population in Mexico
is estimated to be 1,100 plants. The
occurrences in Mexico are threatened by
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
coastal development from Tijuana to
Ensenada.
The native population in the United
States is within an area that receives
public use; however, management at
this site has minimized impacts
associated with habitat degradation.
This species has a very low
reproductive output, although the
causes are as yet unknown. Competition
from invasive, nonnative plants may
pose a threat to the reproductive
potential of this species. In one study,
95 percent of the flowers examined were
damaged by insects or fungal agents or
aborted prematurely, and insects or
fungal agents damaged 50 percent of the
seeds produced. All of the populations
in the United States are small and one
test population is declining. Small
populations are considered subject to
random events and reductions in fitness
due to low genetic variability. Threats
associated with small population size
are further exacerbated by the limited
range and low reproductive output of
this species. However, if low seed
production is because of ecosystem
disruptions, such as loss of effective
pollinators, there could be additional
threats that need to be addressed. Due
to low abundance and a very small area
of occupancy, any regional fire would
be a rangewide threat. Furthermore,
because the soil seed bank is poor and
seed viability is low, recovery from a
fire may be especially challenging. The
response mechanism of this species to
fire is unknown. Overall, the threats to
H. orcuttii are of a high magnitude
because they have the potential to
significantly reduce the reproductive
potential of this species. The threats are
nonimminent overall because the most
significant threats (invasive, nonnative
plants and low reproductive output) are
long-term in nature. This species faces
high-magnitude nonimminent threats;
therefore, we assigned this species an
LPN of 5.
Hedyotis fluviatilis (Kamapuaa)—The
following summary is based on
information contained in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
Hedyotis fluviatilis is a scandent shrub
found in mixed shrubland to wet
lowland forest on the islands of Oahu
and Kauai, Hawaii. This species is
known from 11 populations totaling
between 400 and 900 individuals.
Hedyotis fluviatilis is threatened by pigs
and goats that degrade and destroy
habitat, and by nonnative plants that
outcompete and displace it. Landslides
and hurricanes are a potential threat to
populations on Kauai. Predation by pigs
and goats is a likely threat. This species
is represented in an ex situ collection;
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
however, there are no other
conservation actions implemented for
this species. We retained an LPN of 2
because the severity of the threats to the
species is high and the threats are
ongoing and, therefore, imminent.
Helianthus verticillatus (Whorled
sunflower)—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 whorled sunflower is found
in moist, prairie-like openings in
woodlands and along adjacent creeks.
Despite extensive surveys throughout its
range, only five populations are known
for this species; two populations in
Cherokee County, Alabama; one
population in Floyd County, Georgia;
and one population each in Madison
and McNairy Counties, Tennessee. This
species appears to have restricted
ecological requirements and is
dependent upon the maintenance of
prairie-like openings for its survival.
Active management of habitat is needed
to keep competition and shading under
control. Much of its habitat has been
degraded or destroyed for agricultural,
silvicultural, and residential purposes.
Populations near roadsides or
powerlines are threatened by herbicide
usage in association with right-of-way
maintenance. The majority of the
Georgia population is protected due to
its location within a conservation
easement; however, only 15 to 20 plants
are estimated to occur at this site. The
remaining four sites are not formally
protected, but efforts have been taken to
abate threats associated with highway
right-of-way maintenance at one
Alabama population. In addition,
despite past concerns about threats from
timber removal degrading H.
verticillatus habitat, the other Alabama
population has responded favorably to
canopy removal that took place circa
2001. Therefore, threats are of moderate
magnitude, although imminent because
they are ongoing. Thus, we assigned this
species an LPN of 8.
Hibiscus dasycalyx (Neches River
rose-mallow)—We continue to find that
listing this species is warranted but
precluded as of the date of publication
of this notice. However, we are working
on a proposed listing rule that we
expect to publish prior to making the
next annual resubmitted petition 12month finding.
Ivesia webberi (Webber ivesia)—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.
Ivesia webberi is a low, spreading,
perennial herb with grayish-green
foliage; dark red, wiry stems; and yellow
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
flowers arranged in capitate cymes.
Ivesia webberi occurs very infrequently
in Lassen, Plumas, and Sierra Counties
in California, and in Douglas and
Washoe Counties, Nevada. The species
is restricted to sites with sparse
vegetation and shallow, rocky soils
composed of volcanic ash or derived
from andesitic rock. Occupied sites
generally occur on mid-elevation flats,
benches, or terraces on mountain slopes
above large valleys along the transition
zone between the eastern edge of the
northern Sierra Nevada and the
northwestern edge of the Great Basin.
Currently, the global population is
estimated at approximately 5 million
individuals at 16 known sites. The
Nevada sites support nearly 98 percent
of the total number of individuals (4.9
million) on about 25 acres (10 hectares)
of occupied habitat. The California sites
are larger in area, totaling about 157
acres (63 hectares), but support fewer
individuals (approximately 120,000).
The primary threats to I. webberi
include urban and commercial
development, authorized and
unauthorized roads, off-highway vehicle
(OHV) activities, livestock grazing and
trampling, wildfire and fire suppression
activities, and displacement by invasive
species. Despite the high numbers of
individuals, direct and indirect impacts
to the species and its habitat,
specifically from urban development
and OHV activity, remain high and are
likely to increase. In addition, these
threats have a significant likelihood of
bringing about extinction on a relative
short time scale, and we therefore
conclude that the threats are of high
magnitude. However, the U.S. Forest
Service has developed a conservation
strategy that commits to management,
monitoring, and research to protect this
species on National Forest lands where
most populations are found, and the
State of Nevada has listed the species as
critically endangered, which provides a
mechanism to track future impacts on
private lands. In addition, both the U.S.
Forest Service and State of Nevada have
agreed to coordinate closely with the
Fish and Wildlife Service on all
activities that may affect this species.
For these reasons, we have determined
that the threats to I. webberi are
nonimminent and we are maintaining
an LPN of 5.
Joinvillea ascendens ssp. ascendens
(Ohe)—The following summary is based
on information contained in our files.
No new information was provided in
the petition we received on May 11,
2004. Joinvillea ascendens ssp.
ascendens is an erect herb found in wet
to mesic Metrosideros polymorphaAcacia koa (ohia-koa) lowland and
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
66421
montane forest on the islands of Kauai,
Oahu, Molokai, Maui, and Hawaii,
Hawaii. This subspecies is known from
44 widely scattered populations totaling
approximately 200 individuals. Plants
are typically found as only one or two
individuals, with miles between
populations.
This subspecies is threatened by
destruction or modification of habitat by
pigs, goats, and deer, and by nonnative
plants that outcompete and displace
native plants. Predation by pigs, goats,
deer, and rats is a likely threat to this
species. Landslides are a potential threat
to populations on Kauai and Molokai.
Seedlings have rarely been observed in
the wild. Seeds germinate in cultivation,
but most die soon thereafter. It is
uncertain if this rarity of reproduction is
typical of this subspecies, or if it is
related to habitat disturbance. Feral pigs
have been fenced out of a few of the
populations of this subspecies, and
nonnative plants have been reduced in
those populations that are fenced.
However, these threats are not
controlled and are ongoing in the
remaining, unfenced populations. This
species is represented in ex situ
collections. The threats are of high
magnitude because habitat degradation,
nonnative plants, and predation result
in mortality or severely affect the
reproductive capacity of the majority of
populations of this species, leading to a
relatively high probability of extinction.
The threats are ongoing, and thus are
imminent. Therefore, we retained an
LPN of 3 for this subspecies.
Leavenworthia crassa (Gladecress)—
The following information is based on
information contained in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
This species of gladecress is a
component of glade flora, occurring in
association with limestone
outcroppings. Leavenworthia crassa is
endemic to a 13-mile radius area in
north central Alabama in Lawrence and
Morgan Counties, where only six
populations of this species are
documented. Glade habitats today have
been reduced to remnants fragmented
by agriculture and development.
Populations of this species are now
located in glade-like areas exhibiting
various degrees of disturbance including
pastureland, roadside rights-of-way, and
cultivated or plowed fields. The most
vigorous populations of this species are
located in areas which receive full, or
near full, sunlight with limited
herbaceous competition. The magnitude
of threat is high for this species, because
with the limited number of populations,
the threats could result in direct
mortality or reduced reproductive
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
66422
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
capacity of the species. This species
appears to be able to adjust to periodic
disturbances and the potential impacts
to populations from competition,
exotics, and herbicide use are
nonimminent. Thus, we assigned an
LPN of 5 to this species.
Leavenworthia texana (Texas golden
gladecress)—We continue to find that
listing this species is warranted, but
precluded as of the date of publication
of this notice. However, we are working
on a proposed listing rule that we
expect to publish prior to making the
next annual resubmitted petition 12month finding.
Linum arenicola (Sand flax)—The
following summary is based on
information contained in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
Sand flax is found in pine rockland and
marl prairie habitats which require
periodic wildfires in order to maintain
an open, shrub free subcanopy and
reduce leaf litter levels. Based upon
available data, there are 11 extant
occurrences of sand flax; 11 others have
been extirpated or destroyed. For the
most part, only small and isolated
occurrences remain in low-lying areas
in a restricted range of southern Florida
and the Florida Keys.
Habitat loss and degradation due to
development is a major threat and most
of the remaining occurrences are on
private land or non-conservation public
land. However, a survey conducted in
2009 showed approximately 74,000
plants on a non-conservation, public
site in Miami-Dade County; this is far
more plants than was previously
known. Although a portion of the plants
will be affected by development,
approximately 60,000 are anticipated to
be protected and managed through a
conservation easement. Consequently,
the majority of the largest occurrence in
Miami-Dade County is expected to be
conserved and managed. In addition,
much of the pine rockland on Big Pine
Key, the location of the largest
occurrence in the Keys, is protected
from development. Climatic changes
and sea-level rise are long-term threats
that are expected to affect the species
and ultimately substantially reduce the
extent of available habitat. Nearly all
remaining populations are threatened by
fire suppression, difficulty in applying
prescribed fire, road maintenance
activities, exotic species, or illegal
dumping. However, some efforts are
underway to use prescribed fire to
control exotics on conservation lands
where this species occurs. In general,
viability is uncertain for 9 of 11
occurrences. Sand flax is vulnerable to
natural disturbances, such as
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
hurricanes, tropical storms, and storm
surges. Hurricane Wilma inundated
most of its habitat on Big Pine Key in
2005, and plants were not found 8 to 9
weeks post-storm; the density of sand
flax declined to zero in all management
units at The Nature Conservancy’s
preserve in 2006. In a 2007 posthurricane assessment, sand flax was
found in northern plots, but not in any
of the southern plots on Big Pine Key.
More current data are not available. Due
to the small and fragmented nature of
the current population, stochastic
events, disease, or genetic bottlenecks
may strongly affect this species in the
Florida Keys. Reduced pollinator
activity and suppression of pollinator
populations from pesticides used in
mosquito control and decreased seed
production due to increased seed
predation in a fragmented wildland
urban interface may also affect sand
flax; however, not enough information
is known on this species’ reproductive
biology or life history to assess these
potential threats.
Overall, the magnitude of threats is
high. Because development is not
immediate for the majority of the largest
population in Miami-Dade County, the
threat of habitat loss at this location is
nonimminent. In addition, the finding
of a larger population than previously
known, combined with its location on
the mainland, tempers the immediacy of
threats of hurricanes and other natural
disturbances and catastrophic events.
The new sizable, presumably viable
population on the mainland provides
some assurance that the species could
withstand such threats due to the
number of individuals and presence at
a different geographic location (i.e.,
mainland versus Keys). Therefore, based
on threats that are overall nonimminent
but high in magnitude, we assigned this
species an LPN of 5.
Linum carteri var. carteri (Carter’s
small-flowered flax)—The following
summary is based on information
contained in our files. No new
information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
This plant occupies open and disturbed
sites in pinelands of Miami-Dade
County, Florida. Currently, there are
nine known occurrences. Occurrences
with fewer than 100 individuals are
located on three county-owned
preserves. A site with more than 100
plants is owned by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture, but the site is not
managed for conservation.
Climatic changes, including sea-level
rise, are long-term threats that will
likely reduce the extent of habitat. The
nine existing occurrences are small and
vulnerable to habitat loss, which is
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
exacerbated by habitat degradation due
to fire suppression, the difficulty of
applying prescribed fire to pine
rocklands, and threats from exotic
plants. Remaining habitats are
fragmented. Non-compatible
management practices are also a threat
at most protected sites; several sites are
mowed during the flowering and
fruiting season. In the absence of fire,
periodic mowing can, in some cases,
help maintain open, shrub-free
understory and provide benefits to this
plant. However, mowing can also
eliminate reproduction entirely in very
young plants, delay reproductive
maturation, and kill adult plants. With
flexibility in timing and proper
management, threats from mowing
practices can be reduced or negated.
Carter’s small-flowered flax is
vulnerable to natural disturbances, such
as hurricanes, tropical storms, and
storm surges. This species exists in such
small numbers at so few sites, that it
may be difficult to develop and
maintain viable occurrences on the
available conservation lands. Although
no population viability analysis has
been conducted for this plant,
indications are that existing occurrences
are at best marginal, and it is possible
that none are truly viable. As a result,
the magnitude of threats is high. The
threats are ongoing, and thus are
imminent. Therefore, we assigned an
LPN of 3 to this plant variety.
Myrsine fosbergii (Kolea)—The
following summary is based on
information contained in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
Myrsine fosbergii is a branched shrub or
small tree found in lowland mesic and
wet forest, on watercourses or stream
banks, on the islands of Kauai and
Oahu, Hawaii. This species is currently
known from 14 populations totaling a
little more than 100 individuals.
Myrsine fosbergii is threatened by feral
pigs and goats that degrade and destroy
habitat and may prey upon the plant,
and by nonnative plants that compete
for light and nutrients. This species is
represented in an ex situ collection.
Although there are plans to fence and
remove ungulates from the Helemano
area of Oahu, which may benefit this
species, no conservation measures have
been taken to date to alleviate these
threats for this species. Feral pigs and
goats are found throughout the known
range of M. fosbergii, as are nonnative
plants. The threats from feral pigs, goats,
and nonnative plants are of a high
magnitude because they pose a severe
threat throughout the limited range of
this species, and they are ongoing and
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
therefore imminent. We retained an LPN
of 2 for this species.
Myrsine vaccinioides (Kolea)—We
continue to find that listing this species
is warranted but precluded as of the
date of publication of this notice.
However, we are working on a proposed
listing rule that we expect to publish
prior to making the next annual
resubmitted 12-month petition finding.
Narthecium americanum (Bog
asphodel)—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. Bog asphodel is a perennial herb
that is found in savanna areas, usually
with water moving through the
substrate, as well as in sandy bogs along
streams and rivers. The historical range
of bog asphodel included New Jersey,
Delaware, North Carolina, and South
Carolina, although the taxonomic
identity of the historic North Carolina
specimens is now in question. Previous
reports of bog asphodel from New York
are now believed erroneous. Extant
populations of bog asphodel are now
found only within the Pine Barrens
region of New Jersey.
Bog asphodel has experienced a clear
and apparently ongoing curtailment of
its geographic range, which leaves it
vulnerable to localized and populationlevel threats. The Pine Barrens savannas
that support bog asphodel provide a
scarce, specialized habitat that has
declined from several thousand acres
around 1900 to only a thousand acres in
recent decades. This species has been
lost from at least 2 States, and now
occurs on less than 80 acres of land
confined to an area only about 30 miles
in diameter. Eight of 26 delineated bog
asphodel Element Occurrences in New
Jersey are extirpated. The extirpated
occurrences are distributed around the
periphery of the range, representing a
contraction. Many of the remaining
occurrences around the periphery of the
range are very small and subject to
identified threats, making the species
vulnerable to further range contractions.
Significant threats include
unauthorized use of off-road vehicles,
deer, beaver, natural succession, and the
risk of lowered water tables. Lesser
threats include localized indirect effects
of upland development, impacts from
non-motorized recreational activities,
collection, and herbivores other than
deer. Because the range of bog asphodel
is currently limited to New Jersey’s
Pinelands Area and Coastal Zone,
regulatory protections are generally
adequate. More than 95 percent of bog
asphodel occurs on protected lands,
although enforcement of illegal activity
can be lacking, and little active habitat
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
management is taking place. Outright
habitat destruction from wetland filling,
draining, flooding, and conversion to
commercial cranberry bogs likely
contributed to the curtailment of this
species’ range, but these are generally
historic not current threats to bog
asphodel.
Current threats to bog asphodel are
low to moderate in magnitude because
regulatory protections appear to be
adequate so that the threats are not
expected to bring about extinction on a
relatively short time scale. Several
threats are imminent because they are
ongoing and expected to continue.
Overall, based on these imminent,
moderate threats, we retain an LPN of 8
for this species.
Nothocestrum latifolium (‘Aiea)—The
following summary is based on
information contained in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
Nothocestrum latifolium is a small tree
found in dry to mesic forest on the
islands of Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Molokai,
and Lanai, Hawaii. Nothocestrum
latifolium is known from 17 steadily
declining populations totaling fewer
than 1,200 individuals.
This species is threatened by feral
pigs, goats, and axis deer that degrade
and destroy habitat and may prey upon
it; by nonnative plants that compete for
light and nutrients; and by the loss of
pollinators that negatively affect the
reproductive viability of the species.
This species is represented in an ex situ
collection. Ungulates have been fenced
out of four areas where N. latifolium
currently occurs, hundreds of N.
latifolium individuals have been
outplanted in fenced areas, and
nonnative plants have been reduced in
some populations that are fenced.
However, these ongoing conservation
efforts for this species benefit only a few
of the known populations. The threats
are not controlled and are ongoing in
the remaining unfenced populations. In
addition, little regeneration is observed
in this species. The threats are of a high
magnitude, because they are severe
enough to affect the continued existence
of the species, leading to a relatively
high likelihood of extinction. The
threats are imminent, as they are
ongoing. Therefore, we retained an LPN
of 2 for this species.
Ochrosia haleakalae (Holei)—The
following summary is based on
information contained in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
Ochrosia haleakalae is a tree found in
dry to mesic forest, often on lava, on the
islands of Hawaii and Maui, Hawaii.
This species is currently known from 8
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
66423
populations totaling between 64 and 76
individuals.
Ochrosia haleakalae is threatened by
fire; by feral pigs, goats, and cattle that
degrade and destroy habitat and may
directly prey upon it; and by nonnative
plants that compete for light and
nutrients. This species is represented in
ex situ collections. Feral pigs, goats, and
cattle have been fenced out of one wild
and one outplanted population on
private lands on the island of Maui and
out of one outplanted population in
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park on the
island of Hawaii. Nonnative plants have
been reduced in the fenced areas. The
threat from fire is of a high magnitude
and imminent because no control
measures have been undertaken to
address this threat that could adversely
affect O. haleakalae as a whole. The
threats from feral pigs, goats, and cattle
are ongoing to the unfenced populations
of O. haleakalae. The threat from
nonnative plants is ongoing and
imminent and of a high magnitude to
the wild populations on both islands as
this threat adversely affects the survival
and reproductive capacity of the
majority of the species, leading to a
relatively high likelihood of extinction.
Therefore, we retained an LPN of 2 for
this species.
Pediocactus peeblesianus var.
fickeiseniae (Fickeisen plains cactus)—
We continue to find that listing this
species is warranted, but precluded as
of the date of publication of this notice.
However, we are working on a proposed
listing rule that we expect to publish
prior to making the next annual
resubmitted petition 12-month finding.
Penstemon scariosus var. albifluvis
(White River beardtongue)—The
following summary is based on
information contained in our files and
the petition we received on October 27,
1983. This species is restricted to
calcareous soils derived from oil shale
barrens of the Green River Formation in
the Uinta Basin of northeastern Utah
and adjacent Colorado. There are 20
occurrences known in Utah and 1 in
Colorado. Most of the occupied habitat
of the White River beardtongue is
within developed and expanding oil
and gas fields. The location of the
species’ habitat exposes it to destruction
from road, pipeline, and well site
construction in connection with oil and
gas development. Grazing by wildlife
and livestock is an additional threat. A
future threat (and potentially the
greatest threat) to the species is oil shale
development. Traditional oil and gas
energy development is currently
occurring and expected to increase
within habitat areas for this species, and
therefore the threat is imminent.
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
66424
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
However, the BLM has adopted a
Special Status Species policy and has
included in its current Resource
Management Plan commitments to
protect this species. These protections
lessen the extent of traditional oil and
gas development impacts to this species,
so that although oil and gas
development will continue to increase
within this species’ range, the threat is
of moderate magnitude. The threats are
ongoing and therefore imminent. Thus,
we assigned an LPN of 9 to this plant
variety.
Peperomia subpetiolata (‘Ala ‘ala wai
nui)—We continue to find that listing
this species is warranted, but precluded
as of the date of publication of this
notice. However, we are working on a
proposed listing rule that we expect to
publish prior to making the next annual
resubmitted 12-month petition finding.
Phyllostegia bracteata (no common
name)—We continue to find that listing
this species is warranted, but precluded
as of the date of publication of this
notice. However, we are working on a
proposed listing rule that we expect to
publish prior to making the next annual
resubmitted 12-month petition finding.
Phyllostegia floribunda (no common
name)—We continue to find that listing
this species is warranted, but precluded
as of the date of publication of this
notice. However, we are working on a
proposed listing rule that we expect to
publish prior to making the next annual
resubmitted 12-month petition finding.
Physaria douglasii ssp. tuplashensis
(White Bluffs bladder-pod)—We
continue to find that listing this species
is warranted, but precluded as of the
date of publication of this notice.
However, we are working on a proposed
listing rule that we expect to publish
prior to making the next annual
resubmitted petition 12-month finding.
Physaria globosa (Desvaux) O’Kane &
Al-Shehbaz (Short’s bladderpod)—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.
With this publication of this document,
we recognize the proposed reunion of
the genus Lesquerella with Physaria
(O’Kane and Al-Shehbaz 2002 entire)
and now refer to Short’s bladderpod by
the scientific name Physaria globosa.
Short’s bladderpod is a perennial
member of the mustard family that
occurs in Indiana (1 location), Kentucky
(6 locations), and Tennessee (22
locations). It grows on steep, rocky,
wooded slopes; on talus areas; along
cliff tops and bases; and on cliff ledges.
It is usually associated with south-to
west-facing calcareous outcrops
adjacent to rivers or streams.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
Road construction and road
maintenance have played a significant
role in the decline of P. globosa.
Specific activities that have affected the
species in the past and may continue to
threaten it include bank stabilization,
herbicide use, mowing during the
growing season, grading of road
shoulders, and road widening or
repaving. Sediment deposition during
road maintenance or from other
activities also potentially threatens the
species. Because the natural processes
that maintained habitat suitability and
competition from invasive, nonnative
vegetation have been interrupted at
many locations, active habitat
management is necessary at those sites.
While threats associated with roadside
maintenance activities and habitat
alterations by invasive plant
encroachment are imminent because
they are ongoing, these threats are of
moderate magnitude as they are not
affecting all locations of this species at
this time. Therefore, we assigned an
LPN of 8 to this species.
Platanthera integrilabia (Correll) Leur
(White fringeless orchid)—The
following summary is based on
information contained in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
Platanthera integrilabia is a perennial
herb that grows in partially, but not
fully, shaded, wet, boggy areas at the
head of streams and on seepage slopes
in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky,
Mississippi, South Carolina, and
Tennessee. Historically, there were at
least 90 populations of P. integrilabia. It
is presumed extirpated from North
Carolina and Virginia. Currently there
are about 60 extant sites supporting the
species.
Several populations have been
destroyed due to road, residential, and
commercial construction, and to
projects that altered soil and site
hydrology such that suitability for the
species was reduced. Several of the
known populations are in or adjacent to
powerline rights-of-way. Mechanical
clearing of these areas may benefit the
species by maintaining adequate light
levels, but can promote development of
dense, shrubby vegetation due to
extensive suckering of woody species;
however, the indiscriminant use of
herbicides in these areas could pose a
significant threat to the species. Allterrain vehicles have damaged several
sites and pose a threat at most sites.
Some of the known sites for the species
occur in areas that are managed
specifically for timber production.
Timber management is not necessarily
incompatible with the protection and
management of the species, but care
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
must be taken during timber
management to ensure the hydrology of
bogs supporting the species is not
altered. Natural succession can result in
decreased light levels. Because of the
species dependence upon moderate-tohigh light levels, some type of active
management to prevent complete
canopy closure is required at most
locations. Collecting for commercial and
other purposes is a potential threat.
Herbivory (primarily deer) threatens the
species at several sites. Due to the
alteration of habitat and changes in
natural conditions, protection and
recovery of this species is dependent
upon active management rather than
just preservation of habitat. Invasive,
nonnative plants such as Japanese
honeysuckle and kudzu also threaten
several sites. The threats are
widespread; however, the impact of
those threats on the survival of the
species is moderate in magnitude.
Several of the sites are protected to
some degree from the threats by being
within State parks, national forests,
wildlife management areas, or other
protected land. The threats are,
however, imminent because they are
ongoing, and we have therefore assigned
an LPN of 8 to this species.
Platydesma remyi (no common
name)—We continue to find that listing
this species is warranted, but precluded
as of the date of publication of this
notice. However, we are working on a
proposed listing rule that we expect to
publish prior to making the next annual
resubmitted 12-month petition finding.
Potentilla basaltica (Soldier Meadow
cinquefoil or basalt cinquefoil)—The
following summary is based on
information contained in our files; the
petition we received on May 11, 2004,
provided no additional information on
the species. Potentilla basaltica is a lowgrowing, rhizomatous, herbaceous
perennial that forms a basal rosette and
has bright yellow flowers. Potentilla
basaltica is associated with alkali
meadows, seeps, and occasionally
marsh habitats bordering perennial
thermal springs, outflows, and meadow
depressions. In Nevada, the species is
known only from Soldier Meadow in
Humboldt County. In northeastern
California, a single population occurs in
Lassen County. At Soldier Meadow,
there are 11 discrete known occurrences
(10 on public and 1 on private land)
within an area of about 24 acres (9.6
hectares) that support about 130,000
individuals. The California population
occurs on private and public land and
supports fewer than 1,000 plants. The
public land in both California and
Nevada has been designated as an Area
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
of Critical Environmental Concern by
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
The species and its habitat are
threatened by recreational use in the
areas where it occurs as well as the
ongoing impacts of past water
diversions, livestock grazing, and offroad vehicle (OHV) travel. Conservation
measures implemented recently by the
BLM in Nevada include the installation
of fencing to exclude livestock, wild
horses, and other large mammals; the
closure of access roads to spring,
riparian, and wetland areas and the
restriction of vehicles to designated
routes; the establishment of a designated
campground away from the habitats of
sensitive species; the installation of
educational signage; and, an increased
staff presence, including law
enforcement, a volunteer site steward
during the 6-month period of peak
visitor use, and noxious weed control.
In California, BLM management actions
include a proposed long-term
monitoring plot, limiting OHV travel to
designated routes, and excluding
livestock grazing by fencing. These
conservation measures have reduced the
magnitude of threat to the species to
moderate; all remaining threats are
nonimminent and involve long-term
changes to the habitat for the species
resulting from past impacts. Until we
can put in place a monitoring program
that allows us to assess the long-term
trend of the species, we have assigned
an LPN of 11.
Pseudognaphalium (Gnaphalium)
sandwicensium var. molokaiense
(Enaena)—The following summary is
based on information contained in our
files. No new information was provided
in the petition we received on May 11,
2004. Pseudognaphalium
sandwicensium var. molokaiense is a
perennial herb found in strand
vegetation in dry consolidated dunes on
the islands of Molokai and Maui,
Hawaii. Historically, this variety was
also found on Oahu and Lanai. This
variety is known from 5 populations
totaling approximately 200 to 20,000
individuals (depending upon rainfall) in
the Moomomi area on the island of
Molokai, and from 2 populations of a
few individuals at Waiehu dunes and at
Puu Kahulianapa on west Maui.
Pseudognaphalium sandwicensium
var. molokaiense is threatened by feral
goats and axis deer that degrade and
destroy habitat and possibly prey upon
it, and by nonnative plants that compete
for light and nutrients. Potential threats
also include collection for lei-making,
and off-road vehicles that directly
damage plants and degrade habitat.
Weed control protects one population
on Molokai; however, no conservation
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
efforts have been initiated to date for the
other populations on Molokai or for the
individuals on Maui. This species is
represented in an ex situ collection. The
ongoing (and therefore imminent)
threats from feral goats, axis deer,
nonnative plants, collection, and offroad vehicles are of a high magnitude
because no control measures have been
undertaken for the Maui population or
for the Molokai populations, and the
threats result in direct mortality or
significantly reduce reproductive
capacity for the majority of the
populations, leading to a relatively high
likelihood of extinction. Therefore, we
retained an LPN of 3 for this plant
variety.
Ranunculus hawaiensis (Makou)—
The following summary is based on
information contained in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
Ranunculus hawaiensis is an erect or
ascending perennial herb found in
mesic to wet forest dominated by
Metrosideros polymorpha (ohia) and
Acacia koa (koa) with scree substrate
(loose stones or rocky debris on a slope)
on the islands of Maui and Hawaii,
Hawaii. This species is currently known
from 14 individuals in 6 populations on
the island of Hawaii. One population on
Maui (Kukui planeze) was not relocated
on a survey conducted in 2006. In
addition, one wild population at
Waikamoi (also on Maui) has not been
observed since 1995. Ranunculus
hawaiensis is threatened by direct
predation by slugs, feral pigs, goats,
cattle, mouflon, and sheep; by pigs,
goats, cattle, mouflon, and sheep that
degrade and destroy habitat; and by
nonnative plants that compete for light
and nutrients. Three populations have
been outplanted into protected
exclosures; however, feral ungulates and
nonnative plants are not controlled in
the remaining, unfenced populations. In
addition, the threat from introduced
slugs is of a high magnitude because
slugs occur throughout the limited range
of this species and no effective measures
have been undertaken to control them or
prevent them from causing significant
adverse impacts to this species. Overall,
the threats from pigs, goats, cattle,
mouflon, sheep, slugs, and nonnative
plants are of a high magnitude, and
ongoing (imminent) for R. hawaiensis.
We retained an LPN of 2 for this species.
Ranunculus mauiensis (Makou)—The
following summary is based on
information contained in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
Ranunculus mauiensis is an erect to
weakly ascending perennial herb found
in open sites in mesic to wet forest and
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
66425
along streams on the islands of Maui,
Kauai, and Molokai, Hawaii. This
species is currently known from 14
populations totaling 198 individuals.
Ranunculus mauiensis is threatened by
feral pigs, goats, mule deer, axis deer,
and slugs that consume it; by habitat
degradation and destruction by feral
pigs, goats, and deer; and by nonnative
plants that compete for light and
nutrients. This species is represented in
ex situ collections. Feral pigs have been
fenced out of one Maui population of R.
mauiensis, and nonnative plants have
been reduced in the fenced area. One
individual occurs in the Kamakou
Preserve on Molokai, managed by The
Nature Conservancy. However, ongoing
conservation efforts benefit only two
populations. As a result, the threats
have the potential of bringing about
extinction in a relatively short time
scale, and are therefore are of high
magnitude. They are also imminent
because they are ongoing in the Kauai
and the majority of the Maui
populations. Therefore, we retained an
LPN of 2 for this species.
Rorippa subumbellata (Tahoe yellow
cress)—The following summary is based
on information contained in our files
and the petition we received on
December 27, 2000. Rorippa
subumbellata is a small, branching,
perennial herb with umbel-like
inflorescences and yellow flowers.
Rorippa subumbellata is known only
from the shores of Lake Tahoe in
California and Nevada. Data collected
over the last 25 years generally indicate
that occurrence of the species fluctuates
yearly as a function of both lake level
and the amount of exposed habitat.
Records kept since 1900 show a
preponderance of years with high lake
levels that would isolate and reduce R.
subumbellata occurrences at higher
beach elevations. From the standpoint
of the species, less favorable peak years
have occurred almost twice as often as
more favorable low-level years. Annual
surveys are conducted to determine
population numbers, site occupancy,
and general disturbance regime. During
the 2003 and 2004 annual survey
periods, the lake level was
approximately 6,224 feet (ft) (1,897.08
meters (m)); 2004 was the fourth
consecutive year of low water. Rorippa
subumbellata was present at 46 of the
60 sites surveyed, up from 31 occupied
sites in 2001 when the lake level was
higher at 6,225 ft (1,897.38 m).
Approximately 25,200 stems were
present in 2003, whereas during the
2001 annual survey, the estimated
number of stems was 6,136. Lake levels
rose again in 2006, and less habitat was
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
66426
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
available. Lake levels dropped again in
2008 through 2010, leading to an
increase in both occupied sites and
estimated stem counts. During very low
lake levels in 2009, an estimated 27,522
stems were observed at 46 sites, equal
to the highest number of occupied sites
previously recorded.
Many Rorippa subumbellata sites are
intensively used for commercial and
public purposes and are subject to
various activities such as erosion
control, marina developments, pier
construction, and recreation. The U.S.
Forest Service, California Tahoe
Conservancy, and California Department
of Parks and Recreation have
management programs for R.
subumbellata which include
monitoring, fenced enclosures, and
transplanting efforts when funds and
staff are available. Public agencies
(including the Service), private
landowners, and environmental groups
collaborated to develop a conservation
strategy coupled with a memorandum of
understanding-conservation agreement.
The conservation strategy, completed in
2003, contains goals and objectives for
recovery and survival, a research and
monitoring agenda, and serves as the
foundation for an adaptive management
program. Because of the continued
commitments to conservation
demonstrated by regulatory and land
management agencies participating in
the conservation strategy, we have
determined the threats to R.
subumbellata from various land uses
have been reduced to a moderate
magnitude. In high lake-level years such
as 2005, however, recreational use is
concentrated within R. subumbellata
habitat, and we consider this threat in
particular to be ongoing and imminent.
Therefore, we are maintaining an LPN of
8 for this species.
Schiedea pubescens (Maolioli)—The
following summary is based on
information contained in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
Schiedea pubescens is a reclining or
weakly climbing vine found in diverse
mesic to wet forest on the islands of
Maui, Molokai, and Hawaii, Hawaii. It
is presumed extirpated from Lanai.
Currently, this species is known from 8
populations totaling between 30 and 32
individuals on Maui, from 4
populations totaling between 21 and 22
individuals on Molokai, and from 1
population of 4 to 6 individuals on the
island of Hawaii.
Schiedea pubescens is threatened by
feral pigs and goats that consume it and
degrade and destroy habitat, and by
nonnative plants that compete for light
and nutrients. Feral ungulates have been
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
fenced out of the population of S.
pubescens on the island of Hawaii. Feral
goats have been fenced out of a few of
the west Maui populations of S.
pubescens. Nonnative plants have been
reduced in the populations that are
fenced on Maui. However, the threats
are not controlled and are ongoing in
the remaining unfenced populations on
Maui and the four populations on
Molokai. Additional fenced areas are
planned at Pohakuloa Training Area on
the island of Hawaii. Nonnative feral
ungulates and nonnative plants will be
controlled within these fenced areas.
Fire is a potential threat to the Hawaii
Island population. In light of the
extremely low number of individuals of
this species, the threats from goats and
nonnative plants are of a high
magnitude because they result in
mortality and reduced reproductive
capacity for the majority of the
populations, leading to a relatively high
likelihood of extinction. The threats are
imminent because they are ongoing with
respect to most of the populations.
Therefore, we retained an LPN of 2 for
this species.
Schiedea salicaria (no common
name)—We continue to find that listing
this species is warranted, but precluded
as of the date of publication of this
notice. However, we are working on a
proposed listing rule that we expect to
publish prior to making the next annual
resubmitted 12-month petition finding.
Sedum eastwoodiae (Red Mountain
stonecrop)—The following summary is
based on information contained in our
files and information provided by the
California Department of Fish and
Game. The petition we received on May
11, 2004, provided no new information
on the species. Red Mountain stonecrop
is a perennial succulent which occupies
relatively barren, rocky openings and
cliffs in lower montane coniferous
forests, between 1,900 and 4,000 feet
elevation. Its distribution is limited to
Red Mountain, Mendocino County,
California, where it occupies in excess
of 54 acres scattered over 4 square
miles. The species’ distribution by
ownership is described as follows:
Federal (Bureau of Land Management),
95 percent; private, 5 percent. Total
population size has not been
determined, but a preliminary estimate
suggests the population may be in
excess of 29,000 plants, occupying more
than 27 discrete habitat polygons.
Intensive monitoring suggests
considerable annual variation in plant
seedling success and inflorescence
production. The primary threat to the
species is the potential for surface
mining for chromium and nickel. The
entire distribution of Red Mountain
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
stonecrop is either owned by mining
interests, or is covered by mining
claims, none of which are currently
active. Surface mining would destroy
habitat suitability for this species. The
species is also believed threatened by
tree and shrub encroachment into its
habitat, in absence of fire.
Approximately 25 percent of its known
distribution occurred within the
boundary of the Red Mountain Fire of
June 2008. However, the extent and
manner in which Red Mountain
stonecrop and its habitat were affected
by that fire is not yet known. Given the
magnitude (high) and immediacy
(nonimminent) of the threat to the
small, scattered populations, and its
taxonomy (species), we assigned an LPN
of 5 to this species.
Sicyos macrophyllus (‘Anunu)—We
continue to find that listing this species
is warranted, but precluded as of the
date of publication of this notice.
However, we are working on a proposed
listing rule that we expect to publish
prior to making the next annual
resubmitted 12-month petition finding.
Solanum conocarpum (marron
bacora)—The following summary is
based on information in our files and in
the petition we received on November
21, 1996. Solanum conocarpum is a dryforest shrub in the island of St. John,
U.S. Virgin Islands. Its current
distribution includes eight localities in
the island of St. John, each ranging from
1 to 144 individuals. The species has
been reported to occur on dry, poor
soils. It can be locally abundant in
exposed topography on sites disturbed
by erosion, areas that have received
moderate grazing, and around ridgelines
as an understory component in diverse
woodland communities. A habitat
suitability model suggests that the vast
majority of Solanum conocarpum
habitat is found in the lower elevation
coastal scrub forest. Efforts have been
conducted to propagate the species to
enhance natural populations, and
planting of seedlings has been
conducted in the island of St. John.
Solanum conocarpum is threatened
by the lack of natural recruitment,
absence of dispersers, fragmented
distribution, lack of genetic variation,
climate change, and habitat destruction
or modification by exotic mammal
species. These threats are evidenced by
the reduced number of individuals, low
number of populations, and lack of
connectivity between populations.
Overall, we determined the magnitude
of the threats to be high as shown by the
poor quality of the populations. The
majority of threats are ongoing and,
therefore, imminent. We assigned an
LPN of 2 to this species.
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Solanum nelsonii (popolo)—The
following summary is based on
information contained in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on May 11, 2004.
Solanum nelsonii is a sprawling or
trailing shrub found in coral rubble or
sand in coastal sites. This species is
known from populations on Molokai
(approximately 300 plants), the island of
Hawaii (5 plants), and the northwestern
Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), Hawaii. The
current populations in the NWHI are
found on Kure (unknown number of
individuals), Midway (approximately
260 plants), Laysan (approximately 490
plants), Pearl and Hermes (unknown
number of individuals), and Nihoa
(8,000 to 15,000 adult plants). On
Molokai, S. nelsonii is moderately
threatened by ungulates that degrade
and destroy habitat, and may eat S.
nelsonii. On Molokai and the NWHI,
this species is threatened by nonnative
plants that outcompete and displace it.
Solanum nelsonii is threatened by
predation by a nonnative grasshopper in
the NWHI. On Kure, Midway, Laysan,
and Pearl and Hermes in the NWHI,
tsunamis are also a potential threat to S.
nelsonii. This species is represented in
ex situ collections. Ungulate exclusion
fences, routine fence monitoring and
maintenance, and weed control protect
the population of S. nelsonii on
Molokai. Limited weed control is
conducted in the NWHI. These threats
are of moderate magnitude because of
the relatively large number of plants,
and the fact that this species is found on
more than one island. The threats are
imminent for the majority of the
populations because they are ongoing
and are not being controlled. We
therefore retained an LPN of 8 for this
species.
Solidago plumosa (Yadkin River
goldenrod)—The following information
is based on information in our files. No
new information was provided in the
petition we received on April 20, 2010.
The global distribution of Solidago
plumosa consists of a single population
that occurs in two discrete locations
along a 2.5-mile stretch of the Yadkin
River in North Carolina. The availability
of suitable habitat and the fate of the
single known population of this species
are primarily determined by the manner
in which two hydroelectric projects (the
Yadkin River and Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Projects) are operated.
Any detrimental effects to S. plumosa
resulting from the construction of these
reservoirs occurred decades ago when
these projects were built (during the
years of 1917 to 1928), and the Service
is not aware of any plans to construct
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
additional reservoirs within the current
range of this species. However, S.
plumosa continues to be subject to
threats from the continued operation of
these reservoirs (which has reduced the
frequency and severity of scouring
floods that help to prevent the
establishment of other species within
the species’ limited habitat) and the
encroachment of nonnative, invasive
species. Because the species’ global
distribution consists of a single
population, its entire range is affected
by these threats. However, because
scouring floods (prior to reservoir
construction) likely only occurred
episodically, and in light of the
relatively slow progression of nonnative
species into areas of occupied habitat,
the magnitude of these threats is
moderate to low. However, because
these threats (especially those presented
by nonnative, invasive plant species) are
currently occurring, they are imminent.
Thus, we assigned this species an LPN
of 8.
Sphaeralcea gierischii (Gierisch
mallow)—We continue to find that
listing this species is warranted, but
precluded as of the date of publication
of this notice. However, we are working
on a proposed listing rule that we
expect to publish prior to making the
next annual resubmitted petition 12month finding.
Stenogyne cranwelliae (no common
name)—We continue to find that listing
this species is warranted, but precluded
as of the date of publication of this
notice. However, we are working on a
proposed listing rule that we expect to
publish prior to making the next annual
resubmitted 12-month petition finding.
Symphyotrichum georgianum
(Georgia aster)—The following summary
is based on information contained in
our files. No new information was
provided in the petition we received on
May 11, 2004. Georgia aster is a relict
species of post oak savanna/prairie
communities that existed in the
Southeast prior to widespread fire
suppression and extirpation of large
native grazing animals. Georgia aster
currently occurs in the States of
Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and
South Carolina. The species is
presumed extant in 8 counties in
Alabama, 22 counties in Georgia, 9
counties in North Carolina, and 15
counties in South Carolina. The species
appears to have been eliminated from
Florida.
Most remaining populations survive
adjacent to roads, utility rights-of-way,
and other openings where current land
management mimics natural
disturbance regimes. Most populations
are small (10 to 100 stems), and because
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
66427
the species’ main mode of reproduction
is vegetative, each isolated population
may represent only a few genotypes.
Many populations are currently
threatened by one or more of the
following factors: woody succession due
to fire suppression, development,
highway expansion or improvement,
and herbicide application. However, the
species is still relatively widely
distributed, and recent information
indicates the species is more abundant
than when we initially identified it as
a candidate for listing. Taking into
account its distribution and abundance,
the magnitude of threats is moderate.
The threats are currently occurring and
therefore are imminent. Thus we
assigned an LPN of 8 for this species.
Ferns and Allies
Cyclosorus boydiae (no common
name)—The following summary is
based on information contained in our
files. No new information was provided
in the petition we received on May 11,
2004. This species is a small- to
medium-sized fern found in mesic to
wet forest along stream banks on the
islands of Oahu and Maui, Hawaii.
Historically, this species was also found
on the island of Hawaii, but it has been
extirpated there. Currently, this species
is known from 7 populations totaling
approximately 400 individuals. This
species is threatened by feral pigs that
degrade and destroy habitat and may eat
this plant, and by nonnative plants that
compete for light and nutrients. Feral
pigs have been fenced out of the largest
population on Maui, and nonnative
plants have been reduced in the fenced
area. No conservation efforts are under
way to alleviate threats to the other two
populations on Maui, or for the two
populations on Oahu. This species is
represented in an ex situ collection. The
magnitude of the threats acting upon the
currently extant populations is
moderate because the largest population
is protected from pigs, and nonnative
plants have been reduced in this area.
The threats are ongoing and therefore
imminent. Therefore, we retained an
LPN of 8 for this species.
Huperzia stemmermanniae
(Waewaeiole)—The following summary
is based on information contained in
our files. No new information was
provided in the petition we received on
May 11, 2004. This species is an
epiphytic pendant clubmoss found in
mesic-to-wet Metrosideros polymorphaAcacia koa (ohia-koa) forests on the
islands of Maui and Hawaii, Hawaii.
Only 3 populations are known, on Maui
and Hawaii, totaling approximately 30
individuals. The Maui population has
not been relocated since 1995. Huperzia
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
66428
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
stemmermanniae is threatened by feral
pigs, goats, cattle, and axis deer that
degrade and destroy habitat, and by
nonnative plants that compete for light,
space, and nutrients. Huperzia
stemmermanniae is also threatened by
randomly occurring natural events due
to its small population size. One
individual at Waikamoi Preserve may
benefit from fencing for axis deer and
pigs. This species is represented in ex
situ collections. The threats from pigs,
goats, cattle, axis deer, and nonnative
plants are of a high magnitude because
they are sufficiently severe to adversely
affect the species throughout its limited
range, resulting in direct mortality or
significantly reducing reproductive
capacity, leading to a relatively high
likelihood of extinction. The threats are
imminent because they are ongoing.
Therefore, we retained an LPN of 2 for
this species.
Microlepia strigosa var. mauiensis
(Palapalai)—The following summary is
based on information contained in our
files. No new information was provided
in the petition we received on May 11,
2004. Microlepia strigosa var. mauiensis
is a terrestrial fern found in mesic-towet forests. It is currently found in
Hawaii on the islands of Maui, Oahu,
and Hawaii, from at least 9 populations
totaling at least 50 individuals. There is
a possibility that the range of this plant
variety could be larger and include the
other main Hawaiian Islands.
Microlepia strigosa var. mauiensis is
threatened by feral pigs that degrade
and destroy habitat, and by nonnative
plants that compete for light and
nutrients. Pigs have been fenced out of
some areas on east and west Maui,
Oahu, and on Hawaii, where M. strigosa
var. mauiensis currently occurs, and
nonnative plants have been reduced in
the fenced areas. However, the threats
are not controlled and are ongoing in
the remaining unfenced populations on
Maui, Oahu, and Hawaii. Therefore, the
threats from feral pigs and nonnative
plants are imminent. The threats are of
a high magnitude because they are
sufficiently severe to adversely affect
the species throughout its range,
resulting in direct mortality or
significantly reducing reproductive
capacity, leading to a relatively high
likelihood of extinction. We therefore
retained an LPN of 3 for M. strigosa var.
mauiensis.
Petitions To Reclassify Species Already
Listed or To Add to the Listed Range
We previously made warranted-butprecluded findings on five petitions
seeking to reclassify threatened species
to endangered status. The taxa involved
in the reclassification petitions are three
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
populations of the grizzly bear (Ursus
arctos horribilis), delta smelt
(Hypomesus transpacificus), and
Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette
cactus). Because these species are
already listed under the ESA, they are
not candidates for listing and are not
included in Table 1. However, this
notice and associated species
assessment forms or 5-year review
documents also constitute the
resubmitted petition findings for these
species. For delta smelt, we have not
updated the information included in the
12-month finding (published April 7,
2010, at 75 FR 17667), which serves as
our assessment; we are currently
conducting a 5-year review, which will
provide updated information when we
complete it later this year. For the three
grizzly bear populations, our recently
completed 5-year review serves as our
assessment. For Sclerocactus
brevispinus, our updated assessment is
provided below. We find that
reclassification to endangered status for
the three grizzly bear populations, delta
smelt, and Sclerocactus brevispinus are
all currently warranted but precluded
by work identified above (see ‘‘Petition
Findings for Candidate Species’’). One
of the primary reasons that the work
identified above is considered higher
priority is that the grizzly bear
populations, delta smelt, and
Sclerocactus brevispinus are currently
listed as threatened, and therefore
already receive certain protections
under the ESA. We promulgated
regulations extending take prohibitions
for wildlife and plants under section 9
to threatened species (50 CFR 17.31 and
50 CFR 17.71, respectively). Prohibited
actions under section 9 for wildlife
include, but are not limited to, take (i.e.,
to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or
attempt to engage in such activity). For
plants, prohibited actions under section
9 include removing or reducing to
possession any listed plant from an area
under Federal jurisdiction (50 CFR
17.61). Other protections include those
under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA
whereby Federal agencies must insure
that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species.
Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis)
North Cascades ecosystem, CabinetYaak, and Selkirk populations (Region
6)—Between 1986 and 2007, we have
received and reviewed 10 petitions
requesting a change in status for
individual grizzly bear populations (51
FR 16363, May 2, 1986; 55 FR 32103,
August 7, 1990; 56 FR 33892, July 24,
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1991; 57 FR 14372, April 20, 1992; 58
FR 8250, February 12, 1993; 58 FR
38552, July 19, 1993; 58 FR 43856,
August 18, 1993; 58 FR 43857, August
18, 1993; 59 FR 46611, September 9,
1994; 64 FR 26725, May 17, 1999; 72 FR
14866, March 29, 2007). Through this
process, we determined the CabinetYaak, Selkirk, and North Cascade
ecosystems warrant endangered status.
On April 18, 2007, the Service initiated
a 5-year review to evaluate the current
status of grizzly bears in the lower 48
States (72 FR 19549–19551). This status
review, completed on August 29, 2011,
and available online at: https://
ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/
speciesProfile.action?spcode=A001,
recommended that the Cabinet-Yaak,
Selkirk, and North Cascades Ecosystems
remain warranted but precluded for
endangered status.
Delta smelt (Hypomesus
transpacificus) (Region 8) (see 75 FR
17667; April 7, 2010, for additional
information on why reclassification to
endangered is warranted but
precluded)—In March 2004, we
completed a 5-year review for delta
smelt in which we determined a change
in status from threatened to endangered
was not recommended. While none of
the threats, other than apparent
abundance, show significant differences
from 2004, we now have strong
evidence, not available at the time of
our 5-year review, that at least some of
those factors are endangering the
species. The primary evidence is the
continuing downward trend in delta
smelt abundance indices since a
significant decline that occurred in
2002. The most recent fall midwater
trawl abundance index is the lowest
ever recorded—less than one-tenth the
level it was in 2003. In addition, a 2005
population viability analysis calculated
a 50-percent likelihood that the species
could reach effective extinction (8,000
individuals) within 20 years.
There are many primary threats to the
species including: Direct entrainments
by State and Federal water export
facilities; summer and fall increases in
salinity and water clarity; and effects
from introduced species. Additional
threats are predation by striped and
largemouth bass and inland silversides,
entrainment into power plants,
contaminants, and small population
size. Existing regulatory mechanisms
have not proven adequate to halt the
decline of delta smelt since the time of
listing as a threatened species.
As a result of our analysis of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we have assigned uplisting
the delta smelt an LPN of 2, based on
high-magnitude, imminent threats. The
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
magnitude of the threats is high,
because they occur rangewide and result
in mortality or significantly reduce the
reproductive capacity of the species,
leading to a relatively high likelihood of
extinction. They are imminent because
these threats are ongoing and, in some
cases (e.g., nonnative species),
considered irreversible.
Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette
cactus) (Region 6) (see 72 FR 53211,
September 18, 2007, and the species
assessment form (see ADDRESSES) for
additional information on why
reclassification to endangered is
warranted but precluded)—Sclerocactus
brevispinus is restricted to clay
badlands of the Wagon Hound member
of the Uinta Formation in the Uinta
Basin of northeastern Utah. The species
is restricted to one population with an
overall range of approximately 10 miles
by 5 miles in extent. The species’ entire
population is within a developed and
expanding oil and gas field. The
location of the species’ habitat exposes
it to destruction from road, pipeline,
and well-site construction in connection
with oil and gas development. The
species may be collected as a specimen
plant for horticultural use. Recreational
off-road vehicle use and livestock
trampling are additional potential
threats. The species is currently
federally listed as threatened by its
previous inclusion within the species
Sclerocactus glaucus. Based on current
information, we are recommending an
LPN of 2 for reclassifying this species as
endangered, to reflect that: (1) The
threats are of a high magnitude because
any one of the threats has the potential
to severely affect this species, a narrow
endemic with a highly limited range
and distribution; and (2) threats are
ongoing and, therefore, are imminent.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Current Notice of Review
We gather data on plants and animals
native to the United States that appear
to merit consideration for addition to
the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants (Lists). This notice
identifies those species that we
currently regard as candidates for
addition to the Lists. These candidates
include species and subspecies of fish,
wildlife, or plants and DPSes of
vertebrate animals. This compilation
relies on information from status
surveys conducted for candidate
assessment and on information from
State Natural Heritage Programs, other
State and Federal agencies,
knowledgeable scientists, public and
private natural resource interests, and
comments received in response to
previous notices of review.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
Tables 1 and 2 list animals arranged
alphabetically by common names under
the major group headings, and list
plants alphabetically by names of
genera, species, and relevant subspecies
and varieties. Animals are grouped by
class or order. Plants are subdivided
into two groups: (1) Flowering plants
and (2) ferns and their allies. Useful
synonyms and subgeneric scientific
names appear in parentheses with the
synonyms preceded by an ‘‘equals’’
sign. Several species that have not yet
been formally described in the scientific
literature are included; such species are
identified by a generic or specific name
(in italics), followed by ‘‘sp.’’ or ‘‘ssp.’’
We incorporate standardized common
names in these notices as they become
available. We sort plants by scientific
name due to the inconsistencies in
common names, the inclusion of
vernacular and composite subspecific
names, and the fact that many plants
still lack a standardized common name.
Table 1 lists all candidate species,
plus species currently proposed for
listing under the ESA. We emphasize
that in this notice we are not proposing
to list any of the candidate species;
rather, we will develop and publish
proposed listing rules for these species
in the future. We encourage State
agencies, other Federal agencies, and
other parties to give consideration to
these species in environmental
planning.
In Table 1, the ‘‘category’’ column on
the left side of the table identifies the
status of each species according to the
following codes:
PE—Species proposed for listing as
endangered. Proposed species are those
species for which we have published a
proposed rule to list as endangered or
threatened in the Federal Register. This
category does not include species for
which we have withdrawn or finalized
the proposed rule.
PT—Species proposed for listing as
threatened.
PSAT—Species proposed for listing as
threatened due to similarity of
appearance.
C—Candidates: Species for which we
have on file sufficient information on
biological vulnerability and threats to
support proposals to list them as
endangered or threatened. Issuance of
proposed rules for these species is
precluded at present by other higher
priority listing actions. This category
includes species for which we made a
12-month warranted-but-precluded
finding on a petition to list. We made
new findings on all petitions for which
we previously made ‘‘warranted-butprecluded’’ findings. We identify the
species for which we made a continued
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
66429
warranted-but-precluded finding on a
resubmitted petition by the code ‘‘C*’’
in the category column (see ‘‘Findings
for Petitioned Candidate Species’’
section for additional information).
The ‘‘Priority’’ column indicates the
LPN for each candidate species, which
we use to determine the most
appropriate use of our available
resources. The lowest numbers have the
highest priority. We assign LPNs based
on the immediacy and magnitude of
threats, as well as on taxonomic status.
We published a complete description of
our listing priority system in the
Federal Register (48 FR 43098,
September 21, 1983).
The third column, ‘‘Lead Region,’’
identifies the Regional Office to which
you should direct information,
comments, or questions (see addresses
under Request for Information at the
end of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section).
Following the scientific name (fourth
column) and the family designation
(fifth column) is the common name
(sixth column). The seventh column
provides the known historical range for
the species or vertebrate population (for
vertebrate populations, this is the
historical range for the entire species or
subspecies and not just the historical
range for the distinct population
segment), indicated by postal code
abbreviations for States and U.S.
territories. Many species no longer
occur in all of the areas listed.
Species in Table 2 of this notice are
those we included either as proposed
species or as candidates in the previous
CNOR (published November 10, 2010 at
75 FR 69222) that are no longer
proposed species or candidates for
listing. Since November 10, 2010, we
listed nine species, emergency listed
one species, withdrew a proposed rule
for one species, and removed three
species from candidate status for the
reason indicated by the code. Also
included in this table are three species
that were not previously candidates or
proposed species but we emergency
listed due to similarity in appearance.
The first column indicates the present
status of each species, using the
following codes (not all of these codes
may have been used in this CNOR):
E—Species we listed as endangered.
T—Species we listed as threatened.
Rc—Species we removed from the
candidate list because currently
available information does not support
a proposed listing.
Rp—Species we removed from
because we have withdrawn the
proposed listing.
The second column indicates why we
no longer regard the species as a
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
66430
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
candidate or proposed species using the
following codes (not all of these codes
may have been used in this CNOR):
A—Species that are more abundant or
widespread than previously believed
and species that are not subject to the
degree of threats sufficient to warrant
continuing candidate status, or issuing a
proposed or final listing.
F—Species whose range no longer
includes a U.S. territory.
I—Species for which we have
insufficient information on biological
vulnerability and threats to support
issuance of a proposed rule to list.
L—Species we added to the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants.
M—Species we mistakenly included
as candidates or proposed species in the
last notice of review.
N—Species that are not listable
entities based on the ESA’s definition of
‘‘species’’ and current taxonomic
understanding.
U—Species that are not subject to the
degree of threats sufficient to warrant
issuance of a proposed listing or
continuance of candidate status due, in
part or totally, to conservation efforts
that remove or reduce the threats to the
species.
X—Species we believe to be extinct.
The columns describing lead region,
scientific name, family, common name,
and historical range include information
as previously described for Table 1.
Request for Information
We request you submit any further
information on the species named in
this notice as soon as possible or
whenever it becomes available. We are
particularly interested in any
information:
(1) Indicating that we should add a
species to the list of candidate species;
(2) Indicating that we should remove
a species from candidate status;
(3) Recommending areas that we
should designate as critical habitat for a
species, or indicating that designation of
critical habitat would not be prudent for
a species;
(4) Documenting threats to any of the
included species;
(5) Describing the immediacy or
magnitude of threats facing candidate
species;
(6) Pointing out taxonomic or
nomenclature changes for any of the
species;
(7) Suggesting appropriate common
names; and
(8) Noting any mistakes, such as
errors in the indicated historical ranges.
Submit information, materials, or
comments regarding a particular species
to the Regional Director of the Region
identified as having the lead
responsibility for that species. The
regional addresses follow:
Region 1. Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon,
Washington, American Samoa, Guam,
and Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands. Regional Director (TE),
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Eastside
Federal Complex, 911 N.E. 11th
Avenue, Portland, OR 97232–4181 (503/
231–6158).
Region 2. Arizona, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, and Texas. Regional Director
(TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 500
Gold Avenue SW., Room 4012,
Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505/248–
6920).
Region 3. Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio,
and Wisconsin. Regional Director (TE),
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5600
American Blvd. West, Suite 990,
Bloomington, MN 55437–1458 (612/
713–5334).
Region 4. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Puerto Rico, and
the U.S. Virgin Islands. Regional
Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite
200, Atlanta, GA 30345 (404/679–4156).
Region 5. Connecticut, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West
Virginia. Regional Director (TE), U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate
Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035–9589
(413/253–8615).
Region 6. Colorado, Kansas, Montana,
Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Utah, and Wyoming. Regional Director
(TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Center,
Denver, CO 80225–0486 (303/236–
7400).
Region 7. Alaska. Regional Director
(TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK
99503–6199 (907/786–3505).
Region 8. California and Nevada.
Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way,
Suite W2606, Sacramento, CA 95825
(916/414–6464).
We will provide information received
in response to the previous CNOR to the
Region having lead responsibility for
each candidate species mentioned in the
submission. We will likewise consider
all information provided in response to
this CNOR in deciding whether to
propose species for listing and when to
undertake necessary listing actions
(including whether emergency listing
under section 4(b)(7) of the ESA is
appropriate). Information and comments
we receive will become part of the
administrative record for the species,
which we maintain at the appropriate
Regional Office.
Before including your address, phone
number, e-mail address, or other
personal identifying information in your
submission, be advised that your entire
submission—including your personal
identifying information—may be made
publicly available at any time. Although
you can ask us in your submission to
withhold from public review your
personal indentifying information, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Authority
This notice is published under the
authority of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).
Dated: October 7, 2011.
Signed:
Gregory E. Siekaniec,
Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
TABLE 1—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)
[Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table]
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Status
Category
Priority
Lead
region
Scientific name
Family
Common name
Historical range
MAMMALS
C* ...........
C* ...........
2 .............
3 .............
VerDate Mar<15>2010
R4
R1
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Eumops floridanus .........
Emballonura
semicaudata rotensis.
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Molossidae .....................
Emballonuridae ..............
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Bat, Florida bonneted ....
Bat, Pacific sheath-tailed
(Mariana Islands subspecies).
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
U.S.A. (FL).
U.S.A. (GU, CNMI).
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
66431
TABLE 1—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued
[Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table]
Status
Lead
region
Scientific name
Family
Common name
Historical range
Emballonuridae ..............
R5
Emballonura
semicaudata
semicaudata.
Sylvilagus transitionalis ..
Leporidae .......................
Bat, Pacific sheath-tailed
(American Samoa
DPS).
Cottontail, New England
6 .............
R8
Martes pennanti .............
Mustelidae ......................
Fisher (west coast DPS)
C* ...........
3 .............
R2
Zapus hudsonius luteus
Zapodidae ......................
C* ...........
3 .............
R1
Geomyidae .....................
C* ...........
3 .............
R1
C* ...........
3 .............
R1
C* ...........
3 .............
R1
C* ...........
3 .............
R1
C* ...........
3 .............
R1
C* ...........
3 .............
R1
C* ...........
3 .............
R1
C* ...........
3 .............
R1
C* ...........
3 .............
R6
Thomomys mazama
couchi.
Thomomys mazama
douglasii.
Thomomys mazama
glacialis.
Thomomys mazama
louiei.
Thomomys mazama
melanops.
Thomomys mazama
pugetensis.
Thomomys mazama
tacomensis.
Thomomys mazama
tumuli.
Thomomys mazama
yelmensis.
Cynomys gunnisoni .......
Mouse, New Mexico
meadow jumping.
Pocket gopher, Shelton
U.S.A. (AS), Fiji, Independent Samoa,
Tonga, Vanuatu.
U.S.A. (CT, MA, ME,
NH, NY, RI, VT).
U.S.A. (CA, CT, IA, ID,
IL, IN, KY, MA, MD,
ME, MI, MN, MT, ND,
NH, NJ, NY, OH, OR,
PA, RI, TN, UT, VA,
VT, WA, WI, WV,
WY), Canada.
U.S.A. (AZ, CO, NM).
C* ...........
9 .............
R1
C* ...........
5 .............
R1
C* ...........
9 .............
R7
C* ...........
6 .............
R6
Category
Priority
C* ...........
3 .............
R1
C* ...........
2 .............
C* ...........
Spermophilus brunneus
endemicus.
Spermophilus
washingtoni.
Odobenus rosmarus
divergens.
Gulo gulo luscus ............
Geomyidae .....................
U.S.A. (WA).
Geomyidae .....................
Pocket gopher, Brush
Prairie.
Pocket gopher, Roy
Prairie.
Pocket gopher,
Cathlamet.
Pocket gopher, Olympic
U.S.A. (WA).
Geomyidae .....................
Pocket gopher, Olympia
U.S.A. (WA).
Geomyidae .....................
Pocket gopher, Tacoma
U.S.A. (WA).
Geomyidae .....................
Pocket gopher, Tenino ..
U.S.A. (WA).
Geomyidae .....................
Pocket gopher, Yelm .....
U.S.A. (WA).
Sciuridae ........................
Prairie dog, Gunnison’s
(populations in central
and south-central Colorado, north-central
New Mexico).
Squirrel, Southern Idaho
ground.
Squirrel, Washington
ground.
Walrus, Pacific ...............
U.S.A. (CO, NM).
Geomyidae .....................
Geomyidae .....................
Sciuridae ........................
Sciuridae ........................
Odobenidae ...................
Mustelidae ......................
Wolverine, North American (Contiguous U.S.
DPS).
U.S.A. (WA).
U.S.A. (WA).
U.S.A. (WA).
U.S.A. (ID).
U.S.A. (WA, OR).
U.S.A. (AK), Canada,
Russia.
U.S.A. (CA, CO, ID, MT,
OR, UT, WA, WY).
BIRDS
3 .............
R1
Porzana tabuensis .........
Rallidae ..........................
Crake, spotless (American Samoa DPS).
C* ...........
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
C* ...........
3 .............
R8
Coccyzus americanus ....
Cuculidae .......................
Cuckoo, yellow-billed
(Western U.S. DPS).
C* ...........
9 .............
R1
Gallicolumba stairi .........
Columbidae ....................
C* ...........
3 .............
R1
Alaudidae .......................
C* ...........
3 .............
R5
Eremophila alpestris
strigata.
Calidris canutus rufa ......
Ground-dove, friendly
(American Samoa
DPS).
Horned lark, streaked ....
Scolopacidae .................
Knot, red ........................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
U.S.A. (AS), Australia,
Fiji, Independent
Samoa, Marquesas,
Philippines, Society Islands, Tonga.
U.S.A. (Lower 48
States), Canada, Mexico, Central and South
America.
U.S.A. (AS), Independent Samoa.
U.S.A. (OR, WA), Canada (BC).
U.S.A. (Atlantic coast),
Canada, South America.
66432
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued
[Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table]
Status
Lead
region
Scientific name
Family
Common name
R7
Gavia adamsii ................
Gaviidae .........................
Loon, yellow-billed .........
8 .............
R7
Alcidae ...........................
Murrelet, Kittlitz’s ...........
C* ...........
5 .............
R8
Alcidae ...........................
Murrelet, Xantus’s ..........
U.S.A. (CA), Mexico.
C* ...........
8 .............
R6
Brachyramphus
brevirostris.
Synthliboramphus
hypoleucus.
Anthus spragueii ............
U.S.A. (AK), Canada,
Norway, Russia,
coastal waters of
southern Pacific and
North Sea.
U.S.A. (AK), Russia.
Motacillidae ....................
Pipit, Sprauge’s ..............
C* ...........
2 .............
R2
C* ...........
8 .............
C* ...........
Category
Priority
C* ...........
8 .............
C* ...........
Phasianidae ...................
R6
Tympanuchus
pallidicinctus.
Centrocercus
urophasianus.
3 .............
R8
Centrocercus
urophasianus.
Phasianidae ...................
C* ...........
6 .............
R1
Centrocercus
urophasianus.
Phasianidae ...................
C* ...........
2 .............
R6
Centrocercus minimus ...
Phasianidae ...................
C* ...........
3 .............
R1
Oceanodroma castro .....
Hydrobatidae ..................
C* ...........
11 ...........
R4
Dendroica angelae .........
Emberizidae ...................
Phasianidae ...................
Historical range
U.S.A. (AL, AR, AZ, CA,
GA, LA, MA, MI, MN,
MS, MT, ND, OH, OK,
SC, SD, TX), Canada,
Mexico.
Prairie-chicken, lesser ... U.S.A. (CO, KA, NM,
OK, TX).
Sage-grouse, greater ..... U.S.A. (AZ, CA, CO, ID,
MT, ND, NE, NV, OR,
SD, UT, WA, WY),
Canada (AB, BC, SK).
Sage-grouse, greater
U.S.A. (AZ, CA, CO, ID,
(Bi-State DPS).
MT, ND, NE, NV, OR,
SD, UT, WA, WY),
Canada (AB, BC, SK).
Sage-grouse, greater
U.S.A. (AZ, CA, CO, ID,
(Columbia Basin DPS).
MT, ND, NE, NV, OR,
SD, UT, WA, WY),
Canada (AB, BC, SK).
Sage-grouse, Gunnison
U.S.A. (AZ, CO, NM,
UT).
Storm-petrel, bandU.S.A. (HI), Atlantic
rumped (Hawaii DPS).
Ocean, Ecuador (Galapagos Islands),
Japan.
Warbler, elfin-woods ...... U.S.A. (PR).
REPTILES
C* ...........
3 .............
R2
PE ..........
C* ...........
2 .............
8 .............
R2
R3
C* ...........
3 .............
R4
C* ...........
C* ...........
5 .............
3 .............
R4
R2
C* ...........
6 .............
C* ...........
C* ...........
Thamnophis eques
megalops.
Sceloporus arenicolus ...
Sistrurus catenatus ........
Colubridae ......................
Iguanidae .......................
Viperidae ........................
Gartersnake, northern
Mexican.
Lizard, sand dune ..........
Massasauga (= rattlesnake), eastern.
U.S.A. (AZ, NM, NV),
Mexico.
U.S.A. (TX, NM).
U.S.A. (IA, IL, IN, MI,
MN, MO, NY, OH, PA,
WI), Canada.
U.S.A. (AL, LA, MS).
Colubridae ......................
Snake, black pine ..........
Colubridae ......................
Colubridae ......................
8 .............
R4
Gopherus polyphemus ...
Testudinidae ..................
3 .............
R2
Kinosternon sonoriense
longifemorale.
Kinosternidae .................
Snake, Louisiana pine ...
Snake, Tucson shovelnosed.
Tortoise, desert
(Sonoran DPS).
Tortoise, gopher (eastern population).
Turtle, Sonoyta mud ......
U.S.A. (LA, TX).
U.S.A. (AZ).
R2
Pituophis melanoleucus
lodingi.
Pituophis ruthveni ..........
Chionactis occipitalis
klauberi.
Gopherus agassizii ........
U.S.A. (AK, ID, MT, NV,
OR, UT, WA, WY),
Canada (BC).
U.S.A (CA, NV).
Testudinidae ..................
U.S.A. (AZ, CA, NV,
UT).
U.S.A. (AL, FL, GA, LA,
MS, SC).
U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico.
AMPHIBIANS
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
C* ...........
9 .............
R8
Rana luteiventris ............
Ranidae ..........................
Frog, Columbia spotted
(Great Basin DPS).
C* ...........
3 .............
R8
Rana muscosa ...............
Ranidae ..........................
C* ...........
2 .............
R1
Rana pretiosa ................
Ranidae ..........................
Frog, mountain yellowlegged (Sierra Nevada
DPS).
Frog, Oregon spotted ....
C* ...........
PE ..........
8 .............
3 .............
R8
R3
Lithobates onca .............
Cryptobranchus
alleganiensis bishopi.
Ranidae ..........................
Crytobranchidae .............
Frog, relict leopard .........
Hellbender, Ozark ..........
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
U.S.A. (CA, OR, WA),
Canada (BC).
U.S.A. (AZ, NV, UT).
U.S.A. (AR, MO).
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
66433
TABLE 1—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued
[Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table]
Status
Lead
region
Scientific name
Family
Common name
Salamandridae ...............
Newt, striped ..................
U.S.A. (FL, GA).
R2
R4
R2
Notophthalmus
perstriatus.
Eurycea waterlooensis ...
Gyrinophilus gulolineatus
Eurycea naufragia ..........
Plethodontidae ...............
Plethodontidae ...............
Plethodontidae ...............
U.S.A. (TX).
U.S.A. (TN).
U.S.A. (TX).
2 .............
R2
Plethodon neomexicanus
Plethodontidae ...............
C* ...........
8 .............
R2
Eurycea tonkawae .........
Plethodontidae ...............
C* ...........
C* ...........
C ............
2 .............
11 ...........
3 .............
R2
R8
R2
Eurycea chisholmensis ..
Anaxyrus canorus ..........
Hyla wrightorum .............
Plethodontidae ...............
Bufonidae .......................
Hylidae ...........................
C* ...........
8 .............
R4
Necturus alabamensis ...
Proteidae ........................
Salamander, Austin blind
Salamander, Berry Cave
Salamander, Georgetown.
Salamander, Jemez
Mountains.
Salamander, Jollyville
Plateau.
Salamander, Salado ......
Toad, Yosemite ..............
Treefrog, Arizona
(Huachuca/Canelo
DPS).
Waterdog, black warrior
(=Sipsey Fork).
Category
Priority
C* ...........
8 .............
R4
C* ...........
C* ...........
C* ...........
2 .............
8 .............
8 .............
C* ...........
Historical range
U.S. A. (NM).
U.S.A. (TX).
U.S.A. (TX).
U.S.A. (CA).
U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico (Sonora).
U.S.A. (AL).
FISHES
C* ...........
C* ...........
C* ...........
8 .............
7 .............
9 .............
R2
R6
R2
Gila nigra .......................
Iotichthys phlegethontis
Gila robusta ...................
Cyprinidae ......................
Cyprinidae ......................
Cyprinidae ......................
C* ...........
11 ...........
R6
Etheostoma cragini ........
Percidae .........................
Chub, headwater ...........
Chub, least .....................
Chub, roundtail (Lower
Colorado River Basin
DPS).
Darter, Arkansas ............
C ............
2 .............
R5
Crystallaria cincotta .......
Percidae .........................
Darter, diamond .............
C ............
3 .............
R4
Percidae .........................
Darter, Kentucky arrow ..
C* ...........
C* ...........
8 .............
3 .............
R4
R6
Etheostoma sagitta
spilotum.
Percina aurora ...............
Thymallus arcticus .........
Percidae .........................
Salmonidae ....................
Darter, Pearl ..................
Grayling, Arctic (upper
Missouri River DPS).
C*
C*
C*
C*
C*
5
2
5
5
3
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
R4
R3
R2
R2
R2
Catostomidae .................
Cottidae ..........................
Cyprinidae ......................
Cyprinidae ......................
Catostomidae .................
Redhorse, sicklefin ........
Sculpin, grotto ................
Shiner, sharpnose ..........
Shiner, smalleye ............
Sucker, Zuni bluehead ...
PSAT .....
N/A .........
R1
Moxostoma sp. ..............
Cottus sp. .......................
Notropis oxyrhynchus ....
Notropis buccula ............
Catostomus discobolus
yarrowi.
Salvelinus malma ...........
Salmonidae ....................
Trout, Dolly Varden ........
C* ...........
9 .............
R2
Oncorhynchus clarki
virginalis.
Salmonidae ....................
Trout, Rio Grande cutthroat.
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
U.S.A. (AZ, NM).
U.S.A. (UT).
U.S.A. (AZ, CO, NM,
UT, WY).
U.S.A. (AR, CO, KS,
MO, OK).
U.S.A. (KY, OH, TN,
WV).
U.S.A. (KY).
U.S.A. (LA, MS).
U.S.A. (AK, MI, MT,
WY), Canada, northern Asia, northern Europe.
U.S.A. (GA, NC, TN).
U.S.A. (MO).
U.S.A. (TX).
U.S.A. (TX).
U.S.A. (AZ, NM).
U.S.A. (AK, WA), Canada, East Asia.
U.S.A. (CO, NM).
CLAMS
5 .............
2 .............
R4
R3
Villosa choctawensis ......
Villosa fabalis .................
Unionidae .......................
Unionidae .......................
Bean, Choctaw ..............
Bean, rayed ...................
PE ..........
C* ...........
2 .............
8 .............
R4
R2
Fusconaia rotulata .........
Popenaias popei ............
Unionidae .......................
Unionidae .......................
Ebonyshell, round ..........
Hornshell, Texas ............
C* ...........
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
PE ..........
PE ..........
2 .............
R4
Unionidae .......................
Kidneyshell, fluted ..........
PE ..........
C* ...........
2 .............
2 .............
R4
R4
Ptychobranchus
subtentum.
Ptychobranchus jonesi ...
Lampsilis rafinesqueana
Unionidae .......................
Unionidae .......................
Kidneyshell, southern ....
Mucket, Neosho .............
PE ..........
2 .............
R3
Plethobasus cyphyus .....
Unionidae .......................
Mussel, sheepnose ........
PE ..........
C* ...........
PT ..........
PT ..........
2
2
5
5
R4
R4
R4
R4
Margaritifera marrianae
Lexingtonia dolabelloides
Pleurobema strodeanum
Fusconaia escambia ......
Margaritiferidae ..............
Unionidae .......................
Unionidae .......................
Unionidae .......................
Pearlshell, Alabama .......
Pearlymussel, slabside ..
Pigtoe, fuzzy ..................
Pigtoe, narrow ................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
.............
.............
.............
.............
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
U.S.A. (AL, FL).
U.S.A. (IL, IN, KY, MI,
NY, OH, TN, PA, VA,
WV), Canada (ON).
U.S.A. (AL, FL).
U.S.A. (NM, TX), Mexico.
U.S.A. (AL, KY, TN, VA).
U.S.A. (AL, FL).
U.S.A. (AR, KS, MO,
OK).
U.S.A. (AL, IA, IL, IN,
KY, MN, MO, MS, OH,
PA, TN, VA, WI, WV).
U.S.A. (AL).
U.S.A. (AL, KY, TN, VA).
U.S.A. (AL, FL).
U.S.A. (AL, FL).
66434
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued
[Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table]
Status
Lead
region
Category
Priority
PT ..........
11 ...........
R4
C* ...........
9 .............
R4
PE ..........
5 .............
R4
PE ..........
................
R3
PE ..........
4 .............
R3
PE ..........
2 .............
R4
Scientific name
Family
Common name
Historical range
Fusconaia
(=Quincuncina) burkei.
Quadrula cylindrica
cylindrica.
Unionidae .......................
Pigtoe, tapered ..............
U.S.A. (AL, FL).
Unionidae .......................
Rabbitsfoot .....................
Hamiota (=Lampsilis)
australis.
Epioblasma triquetra ......
Unionidae .......................
Sandshell, southern .......
U.S.A. (AL, AR, GA, IN,
IL, KS, KY, LA, MS,
MO, OK, OH, PA, TN,
WV).
U.S.A. (AL, FL).
Unionidae .......................
Snuffbox .........................
Cumberlandia
monodonta.
Margaritiferidae ..............
Spectaclecase ................
Elliptio spinosa ...............
Unionidae .......................
Spinymussel, Altamaha
U.S.A. (IN, MI, NY, OH,
PA, WV), Canada
(ON).
U.S.A. (AL, AR, IA, IN,
IL, KS, KY, MO, MN,
NE, OH, TN, VA, WI,
WV).
U.S.A. (GA).
Pleuroceridae .................
Planorbidae ....................
Potaridae ........................
Hydrobiidae ....................
Mudalia, black ................
Ramshorn, magnificent ..
Sisi snail .........................
Snail, Diamond Y Spring
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
(AL).
(NC).
(AS).
(TX).
Partulidae .......................
Partulidae .......................
Partulidae .......................
Achatinellidae .................
Achatinellidae .................
Partulidae .......................
Hydrobiidae ....................
Achatinellidae .................
Partulidae .......................
Hydrobiidae ....................
Hydrobiidae ....................
Snail, fragile tree ............
Snail, Guam tree ............
Snail, Humped tree ........
Snail, Lanai tree .............
Snail, Lanai tree .............
Snail, Langford’s tree .....
Snail, Phantom cave ......
Snail, Newcomb’s tree ...
Snail, Tutuila tree ...........
Springsnail, Chupadera
Springsnail, elongate
mud meadows.
Springsnail, Gonzales ....
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
(GU, MP).
(GU).
(GU, MP).
(HI).
(HI).
(MP).
(TX).
(Hl).
(AS).
(NM).
(NV).
Springsnail, Huachuca ...
Springsnail, Page ...........
Springsnail (=Tryonia),
Phantom.
Springsnail, San
Bernardino.
Springsnail, Three Forks
Talussnail, Rosemont ....
U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico.
U.S.A. (AZ).
U.S.A. (TX).
SNAILS
C*
C*
C*
C*
...........
...........
...........
...........
8
2
2
2
.............
.............
.............
.............
R4
R4
R1
R2
C* ...........
C* ...........
C* ...........
C* ...........
C* ...........
C* ...........
C* ...........
C* ...........
C* ...........
PE ..........
C* ...........
2 .............
2 .............
2 .............
2 .............
2 .............
2 .............
2 .............
2 .............
2 .............
2 .............
11 ...........
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R2
R1
R1
R2
R8
C* ...........
2 .............
R2
C* ...........
C* ...........
C* ...........
11 ...........
8 .............
2 .............
PE ..........
PE ..........
C* ...........
Elimia melanoides ..........
Planorbella magnifica ....
Ostodes strigatus ...........
Pseudotryonia
adamantina.
Samoana fragilis ............
Partula radiolata .............
Partula gibba ..................
Partulina semicarinata ...
Partulina variabilis ..........
Partula langfordi .............
Cochliopa texana ...........
Newcombia cumingi .......
Eua zebrina ....................
Pyrgulopsis chupaderae
Pyrgulopsis notidicola ....
R2
R2
R2
Tryonia circumstriata
(=stocktonensis).
Pyrgulopsis thompsoni ...
Pyrgulopsis morrisoni ....
Tryonia cheatumi ...........
Hydrobiidae ....................
Hydrobiidae ....................
Hydrobiidae ....................
Hydrobiidae ....................
2 .............
R2
Pyrgulopsis bernardina ..
Hydrobiidae ....................
2 .............
5 .............
R2
R2
Pyrgulopsis trivialis ........
Sonorella rosemontensis
Hydrobiidae ....................
Helminthoglyptidae ........
U.S.A. (TX).
U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico (Sonora).
U.S.A. (AZ).
U.S.A. (AZ).
INSECTS
2 .............
R1
Hylaeus anthracinus ......
Colletidae .......................
C* ...........
2 .............
R1
Hylaeus assimulans .......
Colletidae .......................
C* ...........
2 .............
R1
Hylaeus facilis ................
Colletidae .......................
C* ...........
2 .............
R1
Hylaeus hilaris ...............
Colletidae .......................
C* ...........
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
C* ...........
2 .............
R1
Hylaeus kuakea .............
Colletidae .......................
C* ...........
2 .............
R1
Hylaeus longiceps ..........
Colletidae .......................
C* ...........
2 .............
R1
Hylaeus mana ................
Colletidae .......................
C* ...........
3 .............
R8
Lycaenidae .....................
C ............
3 .............
R4
Plebejus shasta
charlestonensis.
Strymon acis bartrami ....
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Lycaenidae .....................
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Bee, Hawaiian yellowfaced.
Bee, Hawaiian yellowfaced.
Bee, Hawaiian yellowfaced.
Bee, Hawaiian yellowfaced.
Bee, Hawaiian yellowfaced.
Bee, Hawaiian yellowfaced.
Bee, Hawaiian yellowfaced.
Blue, Mt. Charleston ......
Butterfly, Bartram’s
hairstreak.
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
U.S.A. (HI).
U.S.A. (HI).
U.S.A. (HI).
U.S.A. (HI).
U.S.A. (HI).
U.S.A. (HI).
U.S.A. (HI).
U.S.A. (NV).
U.S.A. (FL).
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
66435
TABLE 1—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued
[Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table]
Status
Lead
region
Category
Priority
PSAT .....
................
R4
PSAT .....
................
R4
C ............
3 .............
R4
C* ...........
3 .............
R1
C* ...........
2 .............
R1
PE ..........
3 .............
R4
PSAT .....
................
C* ...........
Scientific name
Family
Common name
Historical range
Leptotes cassius
theonus.
Lycaenidae .....................
Butterfly, cassius blue ....
Hemiargus ceraunus
antibubastus.
Anaea troglodyta
floridalis.
Hypolimnas octucula
mariannensis.
Vagrans egistina ............
Lycaenidae .....................
Butterfly, ceraunus blue
U.S.A. (FL), Bahamas,
Greater Antilles, Cayman Islands.
U.S.A. (FL), Bahamas.
Nymphalidae ..................
Butterfly, Florida
leafwing.
Butterfly, Mariana eightspot.
Butterfly, Mariana wandering.
Butterfly, Miami blue ......
Nymphalidae ..................
Nymphalidae ..................
Lycaenidae .....................
2 .............
R4
Atlantea tulita .................
Nymphalidae ..................
C* ...........
5 .............
R4
5 .............
R4
C* ...........
5 .............
R4
C* ...........
11 ...........
R4
C ............
5 .............
R4
C* ...........
5 .............
R4
C ............
5 .............
R4
Glyphopsyche
sequatchie.
Pseudanophthalmus
insularis.
Pseudanophthalmus
caecus.
Pseudanophthalmus
colemanensis.
Pseudanophthalmus
fowlerae.
Pseudanophthalmus
frigidus.
Pseudanophthalmus
tiresias.
Limnephilidae .................
C ............
C* ...........
5 .............
R4
C* ...........
5 .............
R4
C ............
5 .............
R4
C* ...........
5 .............
R4
C* ...........
3 .............
R1
C* ...........
5 .............
R8
PE ..........
9 .............
R1
PE ..........
2 .............
R1
Pseudanophthalmus inquisitor.
Pseudanophthalmus
troglodytes.
Pseudanophthalmus
paulus.
Pseudanophthalmus
parvus.
Euphydryas editha
taylori.
Hermelycaena [Lycaena]
hermes.
Megalagrion
nigrohamatum
nigrolineatum.
Megalagrion leptodemas
PE ..........
2 .............
R1
Megalagrion oceanicum
Coenagrionidae ..............
C* ...........
8 .............
R1
5 .............
R8
Megalagrion
xanthomelas.
Ambrysus funebris .........
Coenagrionidae ..............
C ............
Naucoridae .....................
C* ...........
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
R4
Cyclargus thomasi
bethunebakeri.
Cyclargus ammon ..........
2 .............
R1
Drosophila digressa .......
Drosophilidae .................
C* ...........
C* ...........
8 .............
8 .............
R2
R3
Heterelmis stephani .......
Hesperia dacotae ...........
C* ...........
C ............
8 .............
2 .............
R1
R3
C* ...........
5 .............
C* ...........
2 .............
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Lycaenidae .....................
U.S.A. (GU, MP).
U.S.A. (GU, MP).
U.S.A. (FL), Bahamas.
U.S.A. (FL), Bahamas,
Cuba.
U.S.A. (PR).
U.S.A. (TN).
Carabidae ......................
Cave beetle, Baker Station (=insular).
Cave beetle, Clifton .......
U.S.A. (KY).
Carabidae ......................
Cave beetle, Coleman ...
U.S.A. (TN).
Carabidae ......................
Cave beetle, Fowler’s ....
U.S.A. (TN).
Carabidae ......................
Cave beetle, icebox .......
U.S.A. (KY).
Carabidae ......................
U.S.A. (TN).
Carabidae ......................
Cave beetle, Indian
Grave Point
(=Soothsayer).
Cave beetle, inquirer .....
U.S.A. (TN).
Carabidae ......................
Cave beetle, Louisville ...
U.S.A. (KY).
Carabidae ......................
Cave beetle, Noblett’s ...
U.S.A. (TN).
Carabidae ......................
Cave beetle, Tatum .......
U.S.A. (KY).
Nymphalidae ..................
Checkerspot butterfly,
Taylor’s (=Whulge).
Copper, Hermes ............
U.S.A. (OR, WA), Canada (BC).
U.S.A. (CA).
Coenagrionidae ..............
Damselfly, blackline Hawaiian.
U.S.A. (HI).
Coenagrionidae ..............
U.S.A. (HI).
Elmidae ..........................
Hesperiidae ....................
Damselfly, crimson Hawaiian.
Damselfly, oceanic Hawaiian.
Damselfly, orangeblack
Hawaiian.
Naucorid bug (=Furnace
Creek), Nevares
Spring.
fly, Hawaiian Picturewing.
Riffle beetle, Stephan’s ..
Skipper, Dakota .............
Polites mardon ...............
Oarisma poweshiek .......
Hesperiidae ....................
Hesperiidae ....................
Skipper, Mardon ............
Skipperling, Poweshiek ..
R6
Lednia tumana ...............
Nemouridae ...................
R6
Cicindela albissima ........
Cicindelidae ...................
Stonefly, melwater
lednian.
Tiger beetle, Coral Pink
Sand Dunes.
U.S.A. (AZ).
U.S.A. (MN, IA, SD, ND,
IL), Canada.
U.S.A. (CA, OR, WA).
U.S.A. (IA, IL, IN, MI,
MN, ND, SD, WI),
Canada (MB).
U.S.A. (MT).
U.S.A. (UT).
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Carabidae ......................
Butterfly, Nickerbean
blue.
Butterfly, Puerto Rican
harlequin.
Caddisfly, Sequatchie ....
U.S.A. (FL).
Lycaenidae .....................
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
U.S.A. (TN).
U.S.A. (HI).
U.S.A. (HI).
U.S.A. (CA).
U.S.A. (HI).
66436
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued
[Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table]
Status
Category
Priority
C* ...........
5 .............
Lead
region
R4
Scientific name
Family
Cicindela highlandensis
Common name
Historical range
Cicindelidae ...................
Tiger beetle, highlands ..
U.S.A. (FL).
Meshweaver, Warton’s
cave.
U.S.A. (TX).
Amphipod, diminutive ....
Amphipod, Kenk’s ..........
Shrimp, anchialine pool
Shrimp, anchialine pool
Shrimp, anchialine pool
Shrimp, anchialine pool
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A. (CA).
U.S.A. (VI).
U.S.A. (AL, GA).
U.S.A. (CA).
ARACHNIDS
C* ...........
8 .............
R2
Cicurina wartoni .............
Dictynidae ......................
CRUSTACEANS
C ............
C ............
C* ...........
C* ...........
C* ...........
C* ...........
2
8
5
5
5
4
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
R2
R5
R1
R1
R1
R1
Gammarus hyalleloides
Stygobromus kenki ........
Metabetaeus lohena ......
Palaemonella burnsi ......
Procaris hawaiana .........
Vetericaris chaceorum ...
Gammaridae ..................
Crangonyctidae ..............
Alpheidae .......................
Palaemonidae ................
Procarididae ...................
Procaridae ......................
(TX).
(DC).
(HI).
(HI).
(HI).
(HI).
FLOWERING PLANTS
11 ...........
R8
Abronia alpina ................
Nyctaginaceae ...............
C* ...........
C* ...........
PE ..........
8 .............
8 .............
................
R4
R4
R8
Agavaceae .....................
Brassicaceae .................
Ericaceae .......................
11 ...........
3 .............
R4
R1
Euphorbiaceae ...............
Asteraceae .....................
Silverbush, Blodgett’s ....
Wormwood, northern .....
U.S.A. (FL).
U.S.A. (OR, WA).
C* ...........
C ............
5 .............
3 .............
R1
R1
Fabaceae .......................
Fabaceae .......................
Milkvetch, Goose Creek
Milkvetch, Packard’s ......
U.S.A. (ID, NV, UT).
U.S.A. (ID).
C* ...........
C* ...........
C* ...........
PE ..........
C* ...........
8 .............
8 .............
11 ...........
2 .............
3 .............
R6
R6
R6
R1
R1
Fabaceae .......................
Fabaceae .......................
Fabaceae .......................
Asteraceae .....................
Asteraceae .....................
Milkvetch, skiff ...............
Milkvetch, Schmoll .........
Milkvetch, Sleeping Ute
Ko‘oko‘olau ....................
Ko‘oko‘olau ....................
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
C* ...........
3 .............
R1
Asteraceae .....................
Ko‘oko‘olau ....................
U.S.A. (HI).
C* ...........
C* ...........
8 .............
3 .............
R1
R1
Asteraceae .....................
Asteraceae .....................
Ko‘oko‘olau ....................
Ko‘oko‘olau ....................
U.S.A. (HI).
U.S.A. (HI).
C* ...........
8 .............
R6
Agave eggersiana ..........
Arabis georgiana ............
Arctostaphylos
franciscana.
Argythamnia blodgettii ...
Artemisia borealis var.
wormskioldii.
Astragalus anserinus .....
Astragalus cusickii var.
packardiae.
Astragalus microcymbus
Astragalus schmolliae ....
Astragalus tortipes .........
Bidens amplectens ........
Bidens campylotheca
pentamera.
Bidens campylotheca
waihoiensis.
Bidens conjuncta ...........
Bidens micrantha
ctenophylla.
Boechera (Arabis) pusilla
Sand-verbena,
Ramshaw Meadows.
No common name .........
Rockcress, Georgia .......
Manzanita, Franciscan ...
C* ...........
C* ...........
Brassicaceae .................
8 .............
2 .............
2 .............
R4
R1
R1
Asteraceae .....................
Poaceae .........................
Poaceae .........................
U.S.A. (FL).
U.S.A. (HI).
U.S.A. (HI).
C*
C*
C*
C*
5
2
8
9
.............
.............
.............
.............
R8
R1
R1
R4
Liliaceae .........................
Fabaceae .......................
Scrophulariaceae ...........
Fabaceae .......................
Mariposa lily, Siskiyou ...
‘Awikiwiki ........................
Paintbrush, Christ’s ........
Pea, Big Pine partridge
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
C* ...........
12 ...........
R4
Euphorbiaceae ...............
Sandmat, pineland .........
U.S.A. (FL).
C* ...........
9 .............
R4
Euphorbiaceae ...............
Spurge, wedge ...............
U.S.A. (FL).
C* ...........
6 .............
R8
Polygonaceae ................
2 .............
R4
C* ...........
8 .............
R2
Cirsium wrightii ..............
Asteraceae .....................
Spineflower, San Fernando Valley.
Thoroughwort, Cape
Sable.
Thistle, Wright’s .............
U.S.A. (CA).
C* ...........
Brickellia mosieri ............
Calamagrostis expansa
Calamagrostis
hillebrandii.
Calochortus persistens ..
Canavalia pubescens ....
Castilleja christii .............
Chamaecrista lineata
var. keyensis.
Chamaesyce deltoidea
pinetorum.
Chamaesyce deltoidea
serpyllum.
Chorizanthe parryi var.
fernandina.
Chromolaena frustrata ...
Rockcress, Fremont
County or small.
Brickell-bush, Florida .....
Reedgrass, Maui ............
Reedgrass, Hillebrand’s
U.S.A. (WY).
C* ...........
C* ...........
C* ...........
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
C* ...........
C* ...........
2 .............
R4
Consolea corallicola .......
Cactaceae ......................
C* ...........
C* ...........
PE ..........
C* ...........
PE ..........
5
2
2
2
2
R4
R1
R1
R1
R1
Cordia rupicola ...............
Cyanea asplenifolia .......
Cyanea calycina ............
Cyanea kunthiana ..........
Cyanea lanceolata .........
Boraginaceae .................
Campanulaceae .............
Campanulaceae .............
Campanulaceae .............
Campanulaceae .............
...........
...........
...........
...........
VerDate Mar<15>2010
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Asteraceae .....................
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Cactus, Florida semaphore.
No common name .........
Haha ..............................
Haha ..............................
Haha ..............................
Haha ..............................
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
(CO).
(CO).
(CO).
(HI).
(HI).
(CA, OR).
(HI).
(ID).
(FL).
U.S.A. (FL).
U.S.A. (AZ, NM), Mexico.
U.S.A. (FL).
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
(PR), Anegada.
(HI).
(HI).
(HI).
(HI).
66437
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued
[Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table]
Status
Lead
region
Scientific name
Family
Common name
Campanulaceae .............
Campanulaceae .............
Campanulaceae .............
Gesneriaceae .................
Gesneriaceae .................
Gesneriaceae .................
Gesneriaceae .................
Gesneriaceae .................
Gesneriaceae .................
Fabaceae .......................
Haha ..............................
Haha ..............................
‘Aku ................................
Ha‘iwale .........................
Ha‘iwale .........................
Ha‘iwale .........................
Ha‘iwale .........................
Ha‘iwale .........................
Ha‘iwale .........................
Prairie-clover, Florida .....
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
R5
Cyanea obtusa ...............
Cyanea purpurellifolia ....
Cyanea tritomantha .......
Cyrtandra filipes .............
Cyrtandra gracilis ...........
Cyrtandra kaulantha ......
Cyrtandra oxybapha ......
Cyrtandra sessilis ..........
Cyrtandra waiolani .........
Dalea carthagenensis
var. floridana.
Dichanthelium hirstii .......
Poaceae .........................
5 .............
R4
Digitaria pauciflora .........
Poaceae .........................
U.S.A. (DE, GA, NC,
NJ).
U.S.A. (FL).
C* ...........
3 .............
R2
Cactaceae ......................
C* ...........
C* ...........
8 .............
2 .............
R2
R1
Echinomastus
erectocentrus var.
acunensis.
Erigeron lemmonii ..........
Eriogonum codium .........
Panic grass, Hirst Brothers’.
Crabgrass, Florida pineland.
Cactus, Acuna ...............
C* ...........
6 .............
R8
C ............
5 .............
C* ...........
Category
Priority
C* ...........
PE ..........
C* ...........
C* ...........
PE ..........
PE ..........
C* ...........
PE ..........
PE ..........
C* ...........
2 .............
................
2 .............
2 .............
................
2 .............
2 .............
2 .............
................
3 .............
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R4
C* ...........
5 .............
C* ...........
Asteraceae .....................
Polygonaceae ................
Historical range
(HI).
(HI).
(HI).
(HI).
(HI).
(HI).
(HI).
(HI).
(HI).
(FL).
U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico.
Fleabane, Lemmon ........
Buckwheat, Umtanum
Desert.
Buckwheat, Las Vegas ..
U.S.A. (AZ).
U.S.A. (WA).
U.S.A (NV).
5 .............
R8
Eriogonum kelloggii .......
Polygonaceae ................
C* ...........
C* ...........
C* ...........
C* ...........
C* ...........
C* ...........
C* ...........
C ............
8 .............
2 .............
11 ...........
2 .............
8 .............
8 .............
5 .............
2 .............
R6
R1
R2
R1
R1
R1
R4
R4
Eriogonum soredium ......
Festuca hawaiiensis ......
Festuca ligulata ..............
Gardenia remyi ..............
Geranium hanaense ......
Geranium hillebrandii .....
Gonocalyx concolor .......
Harrisia aboriginum ........
Polygonaceae ................
Poaceae .........................
Poaceae .........................
Rubiaceae ......................
Geraniaceae ..................
Geraniaceae ..................
Ericaceae .......................
Cactaceae ......................
C*
C*
C*
C*
5
2
8
2
.............
.............
.............
.............
R8
R1
R4
R2
Hazardia orcuttii .............
Hedyotis fluviatilis ..........
Helianthus verticillatus ...
Hibiscus dasycalyx ........
Asteraceae .....................
Rubiaceae ......................
Asteraceae .....................
Malvaceae ......................
C* ...........
C* ...........
5 .............
3 .............
R8
R1
Rosaceae .......................
Joinvilleaceae ................
2 .............
5 .............
3 .............
R1
R4
R4
Viscaceae ......................
Brassicaceae .................
Brassicaceae .................
Hulumoa .........................
Gladecress, unnamed ....
Gladecress, Kentucky ....
U.S.A. (HI).
U.S.A. (AL).
U.S.A. (KY).
C* ...........
2 .............
R2
Ivesia webberi ................
Joinvillea ascendens
ascendens.
Korthalsella degeneri .....
Leavenworthia crassa ....
Leavenworthia exigua
var. laciniata.
Leavenworthia texana ....
Buckwheat, Churchill
Narrows.
Buckwheat, Red Mountain.
Buckwheat, Frisco .........
No common name .........
Fescue, Guadalupe .......
Nanu ..............................
Nohoanu ........................
Nohoanu ........................
No common name .........
Pricklyapple, aboriginal
(shellmound
applecactus).
Orcutt’s hazardia ............
Kampua‘a .......................
Sunflower, whorled ........
Rose-mallow, Neches
River.
Ivesia, Webber ...............
‘Ohe ...............................
PE ..........
C* ...........
C ............
Brassicaceae .................
8 .............
5 .............
3 .............
R6
R4
R4
Lepidium ostleri ..............
Linum arenicola .............
Linum carteri var. carteri
Brassicaceae .................
Linaceae ........................
Linaceae ........................
PE ..........
2 .............
R1
Rutaceae ........................
PE ..........
PE ..........
C ............
2 .............
2 .............
3 .............
R1
R1
R8
C* ...........
C* ...........
C* ...........
2 .............
2 .............
8 .............
R1
R1
R5
Melicope
christophersenii.
Melicope hiiakae ............
Melicope makahae .........
Mimulus fremontii var.
vandenbergensis.
Myrsine fosbergii ............
Myrsine vaccinioides ......
Narthecium americanum
Gladecress, Texas golden.
Peppergrass, Ostler’s ....
Flax, sand ......................
Flax, Carter’s small-flowered.
Alani ...............................
U.S.A. (TX).
C* ...........
C* ...........
C* ...........
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Polygonaceae ................
R8
Eriogonum corymbosum
var. nilesii.
Eriogonum diatomaceum
C* ...........
C* ...........
2 .............
2 .............
R1
R1
Nothocestrum latifolium
Ochrosia haleakalae ......
...........
...........
...........
...........
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Polygonaceae ................
Rutaceae ........................
Rutaceae ........................
Phrymaceae ...................
Myrsinaceae ...................
Myrsinaceae ...................
Liliaceae .........................
Alani ...............................
Alani ...............................
Monkeyflower, Vandenberg.
Kolea ..............................
Kolea ..............................
Asphodel, bog ................
Solanaceae ....................
Apocynaceae .................
‘Aiea ...............................
Holei ...............................
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
U.S.A. (NV).
U.S.A. (CA).
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
(UT).
(HI).
(TX), Mexico.
(HI).
(HI).
(HI).
(PR).
(FL).
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
(CA), Mexico.
(HI).
(AL, GA, TN).
(TX).
U.S.A. (CA, NV).
U.S.A. (HI).
U.S.A. (UT).
U.S.A. (FL).
U.S.A. (FL).
U.S.A. (HI).
U.S.A. (HI).
U.S.A. (HI).
U.S.A. (CA).
U.S.A. (HI).
U.S.A. (HI).
U.S.A. (DE, NC, NJ, NY,
SC).
U.S.A. (HI).
U.S.A. (HI).
66438
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued
[Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table]
Status
Lead
region
Scientific name
Family
Common name
Cactaceae ......................
Cactus, Fickeisen plains
U.S.A. (AZ).
Scrophulariaceae ...........
Scrophulariaceae ...........
U.S.A. (CO, UT).
U.S.A. (CO, UT).
Piperaceae .....................
Hydrophyllaceae ............
Lamiaceae .....................
Lamiaceae .....................
Brassicaceae .................
Beardtongue, Graham’s
Beardtongue, White
River.
‘Ala ‘ala wai nui ..............
Phacelia, Brand’s ...........
No common name .........
No common name .........
Bladderpod, White Bluffs
R4
R6
Pediocactus
peeblesianus var.
fickeiseniae.
Penstemon grahamii ......
Penstemon scariosus
var. albifluvis.
Peperomia subpetiolata
Phacelia stellaris ............
Phyllostegia bracteata ...
Phyllostegia floribunda ...
Physaria douglasii
tuplashensis.
Physaria globosa ...........
Pinus albicaulis ..............
Brassicaceae .................
Pinaceae ........................
Bladderpod, Short’s .......
Pine, whitebark ..............
8 .............
R4
Platanthera integrilabia ..
Orchidaceae ...................
Orchid, white fringeless
PE ..........
3 .............
R1
Rutaceae ........................
No common name .........
PE ..........
3 .............
R1
Rutaceae ........................
No common name .........
U.S.A. (HI).
C* ...........
C ............
PE ..........
C* ...........
2 .............
2 .............
2 .............
11 ...........
R1
R1
R1
R8
Platydesma cornuta var.
cornuta.
Platydesma cornuta var.
decurrens.
Platydesma remyi ..........
Pleomele fernaldii ..........
Pleomele forbesii ...........
Potentilla basaltica .........
U.S.A. (IN, KY, TN).
U.S.A. (CA, ID, MT, NV,
OR, WA, WY), Canada (AB, BC).
U.S.A. (AL, GA, KY, MS,
NC, SC, TN, VA).
U.S.A. (HI).
Rutaceae ........................
Agavaceae .....................
Agavaceae .....................
Rosaceae .......................
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
C* ...........
3 .............
R1
Asteraceae .....................
No common name .........
Hala pepe ......................
Hala pepe ......................
Cinquefoil, Soldier
Meadow.
‘Ena‘ena .........................
PE ..........
3 .............
R1
Rubiaceae ......................
Kopiko ............................
U.S.A. (HI).
PE ..........
C* ...........
C* ...........
C* ...........
C* ...........
C* ...........
C* ...........
2
2
2
8
2
2
5
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
R1
R1
R1
R8
R1
R1
R8
Apocynaceae .................
Ranunculaceae ..............
Ranunculaceae ..............
Brassicaceae .................
Caryophyllaceae ............
Caryophyllaceae ............
Crassulaceae .................
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
C* ...........
C ............
2 .............
12 ...........
R1
R4
Cucurbitaceae ................
Sapotaceae ....................
Kaulu ..............................
Makou ............................
Makou ............................
Cress, Tahoe yellow ......
Ma‘oli‘oli .........................
No common name .........
Stonecrop, Red Mountain.
‘Anunu ............................
Bully, Everglades ...........
C* ...........
C* ...........
C* ...........
C* ...........
C* ...........
C ............
C* ...........
2
8
8
2
2
8
8
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
R4
R1
R4
R2
R1
R2
R4
Solanaceae ....................
Solanaceae ....................
Asteraceae .....................
Malvaceae ......................
Lamiaceae .....................
Brassicaceae .................
Asteraceae .....................
Bacora, marron ..............
Popolo ............................
Goldenrod, Yadkin River
Mallow, Gierisch ............
No common name .........
Twistflower, bracted .......
Aster, Georgia ................
PE ..........
C* ...........
PE ..........
................
8 .............
2 .............
R1
R6
R1
Araliaceae ......................
Fabaceae .......................
Rutaceae ........................
No common name .........
Clover, Frisco .................
A‘e ..................................
U.S.A. (PR).
U.S.A. (HI).
U.S.A. (NC).
U.S.A. (AZ, UT).
U.S.A. (HI).
U.S.A. (TX).
U.S.A. (AL, FL, GA, NC,
SC).
U.S.A. (HI).
U.S.A. (UT).
U.S.A. (HI).
Thelypteridaceae ...........
Pteridaceae ....................
Lycopodiaceae ...............
No common name .........
No common name .........
Wawae‘iole .....................
U.S.A. (HI).
U.S.A. (HI).
U.S.A. (HI).
Dennstaedtiaceae ..........
Palapalai ........................
U.S.A. (HI).
Hymenophyllaceae ........
Florida bristle fern ..........
U.S.A. (FL)
Category
Priority
C* ...........
3 .............
R2
PT ..........
C* ...........
2 .............
9 .............
R6
R6
C* ...........
C ............
C* ...........
C* ...........
C* ...........
2
5
2
8
9
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
R1
R8
R1
R1
R1
C* ...........
C* ...........
8 .............
2 .............
C* ...........
Pseudognaphalium
(=Gnaphalium)
sandwicensium var.
molokaiense.
Psychotria hexandra
oahuensis.
Pteralyxia macrocarpa ...
Ranunculus hawaiensis
Ranunculus mauiensis ...
Rorippa subumbellata ....
Schiedea pubescens .....
Schiedea salicaria ..........
Sedum eastwoodiae ......
Sicyos macrophyllus ......
Sideroxylon reclinatum
austrofloridense.
Solanum conocarpum ....
Solanum nelsonii ...........
Solidago plumosa ..........
Sphaeralcea gierischii ....
Stenogyne cranwelliae ...
Streptanthus bracteatus
Symphyotrichum
georgianum.
Tetraplasandra lydgatei
Trifolium friscanum ........
Zanthoxylum oahuense
Historical range
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
(HI).
(CA), Mexico.
(HI).
(HI).
(WA).
(HI).
(HI).
(HI).
(NV).
U.S.A. (HI).
(HI).
(HI).
(HI).
(CA, NV).
(HI).
(HI).
(CA).
U.S.A. (HI).
U.S.A. (FL).
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
FERNS AND ALLIES
C* ...........
PE ..........
C* ...........
8 .............
2 .............
2 .............
R1
R1
R1
C* ...........
3 .............
R1
C ............
3 .............
R4
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Cyclosorus boydiae .......
Doryopteris takeuchii .....
Huperzia (=
Phlegmariurus)
stemmermanniae.
Microlepia strigosa var.
mauiensis (=
Microlepia mauiensis).
Trichomanes punctatum
floridanum.
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
66439
TABLE 2—ANIMALS AND PLANTS FORMERLY CANDIDATES OR FORMERLY PROPOSED FOR LISTING
[Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table]
Status
Code
Expl.
Lead region
Scientific name
Family
Common name
Historical range
Plover, mountain ............
U.S.A. (AZ, CA, CO, KS,
MT, ND, NE, NM, NV,
OK, SD, TX, UT, WY),
Canada (AB, SK),
Mexico.
Dace, laurel ....................
Darter, Cumberland .......
Darter, rush ....................
Darter, yellowcheek .......
Madtom, chucky .............
U.S.A. (TN).
U.S.A. (KY, TN).
U.S.A. (AL).
U.S.A (AR).
U.S.A. (TN).
Springsnail, Gila .............
Springsnail, New Mexico
U.S.A. (NM).
U.S.A. (NM).
BIRDS
Rp ..........
A ............
R6 ..........
Charadrius montanus ....
Charadriidae ..................
FISH
E
E
E
E
E
............
............
............
............
............
L
L
L
L
L
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
R4
R4
R4
R4
R4
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
Phoxinus saylori .............
Etheostoma susanae .....
Etheostoma phytophilum
Etheostoma moorei ........
Noturus crypticus ...........
Cyprinidae ......................
Percidae .........................
Percidae .........................
Percidae .........................
Ictaluridae ......................
SNAILS
Rc ..........
Rc ..........
A ............
A ............
R2 ..........
R2 ..........
Pyrgulopsis gilae ............
Pyrgulopsis thermalis .....
Hydrobiidae ....................
Hydrobiidae ....................
INSECTS
T(S/A) ....
L .............
R4 ..........
Leptotes cassius
theonus.
Lycaenidae .....................
Butterfly, cassius blue ....
T(S/A) ....
L .............
R4 ..........
Lycaenidae .....................
Butterfly, ceraunus blue
E ............
L 1 ...........
R4 ..........
Lycaenidae .....................
Butterfly, Miami blue ......
U.S.A. (FL), Bahamas.
T(S/A) ....
L .............
R4 ..........
Hemiargus ceraunus
antibubastus.
Cyclargus thomasi
bethunebakeri.
Cyclargus ammon ..........
U.S.A. (FL), Bahamas,
Greater Antilles, Cayman Islands.
U.S.A. (FL), Bahamas.
Lycaenidae .....................
Rc ..........
E ............
A ............
L .............
R1 ..........
R8 ..........
Nysius wekiuicola ..........
Dinacoma caseyi ...........
Lygaeidae ......................
Scarabidae .....................
Butterfly, Nickerbean
blue.
Bug, Wekiu ....................
June beetle, Casey’s .....
U.S.A. (FL), Bahamas,
Cuba.
U.S.A. (HI).
U.S.A. (CA).
Skyrocket, Pagosa .........
Beardtongue, Parachute
Phacelia, DeBeque ........
U.S.A. (CO)
U.S.A. (CO)
U.S.A. (CO)
FLOWERING PLANTS
E ............
T .............
T .............
L .............
L .............
L .............
R6 ..........
R6 ..........
R6 ..........
Ipomopsis polyantha ......
Penstemon debilis .........
Phacelia submutica ........
Polemoniaceae ..............
Scrophulariaceae ...........
Hydrophyllaceae ............
1 Emergency.
[FR Doc. 2011–27122 Filed 10–25–11; 8:45 am]
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
BILLING CODE P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM
26OCP2
Agencies
[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)