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, 72449-72497 [2014-28536]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 234 (Friday, December 5, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72449-72497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28536]



[[Page 72449]]

Vol. 79

Friday,

No. 234

December 5, 2014

Part III





 Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





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

Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 72450]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2014-0032; FF09E21000 FXES11190900000 145]


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of review.

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

SUMMARY: In this Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service (Service), present an updated list of plant and 
animal species native to the United States that we regard as candidates 
for or have proposed for addition to the Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended. Identification of candidate species can assist 
environmental planning efforts by providing advance notice of potential 
listings, allowing landowners and resource managers to alleviate 
threats and thereby possibly remove the need to list species as 
endangered or threatened. Even if we subsequently list a candidate 
species, the early notice provided here could result in more options 
for species management and recovery by prompting candidate conservation 
measures to alleviate threats to the species.
    The CNOR summarizes the status and threats that we evaluated in 
order to determine that species qualify as candidates, to assign a 
listing priority number (LPN) to each species, and to determine whether 
a species should be removed from candidate status. Additional material 
that we relied on is available in the Species Assessment and Listing 
Priority Assignment Forms (species assessment forms) for each candidate 
species.
    Overall, this CNOR recognizes 23 new candidates, changes the LPN 
for one candidate, and removes one species from candidate status. 
Combined with other decisions for individual species that were 
published separately from this CNOR in the past year, the current 
number of species that are candidates for listing is 146.
    This document also includes our findings on resubmitted petitions 
and describes our progress in revising the Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) during the period October 1, 
2013, through September 30, 2014.
    We request additional status information that may be available for 
the 146 candidate species identified in this CNOR.

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

ADDRESSES: This notice is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/cnor.html. Species assessment forms with information and references on 
a particular candidate species' range, status, habitat needs, and 
listing priority assignment are available for review at the appropriate 
Regional Office listed below in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION or at the 
Branch of Communications and Candidate Conservation, Falls Church, VA 
(see address under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or on our Web site 
(https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/candidateSpecies.jsp). Please 
submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions of a 
general nature on this notice to the Falls Church, VA, address listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any new 
information, materials, comments, or questions pertaining to a 
particular species to the address of the Endangered Species Coordinator 
in the appropriate Regional Office listed in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 
Species-specific information and materials we receive will be available 
for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at 
the appropriate Regional Office listed below under Request for 
Information in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. General information we 
receive will be available at the Branch of Communications and Candidate 
Conservation, Falls Church, VA (see address under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief, Branch of Communications and 
Candidate Conservation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, 
MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (telephone 703-
358-2171). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may 
call the Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We request additional status information 
that may be available for any of the candidate species identified in 
this CNOR. We will consider this information to monitor changes in the 
status or LPN of candidate species and to manage candidates as we 
prepare listing documents and future revisions to the notice of review. 
We also request information on additional species to consider including 
as candidates as we prepare future updates of this notice.

Candidate Notice of Review

Background

    The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.) (ESA), requires that we identify species of wildlife and plants 
that are endangered or threatened based on the best available 
scientific and commercial information. As defined in section 3 of the 
ESA, an endangered species is any species that is in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a 
threatened species is any species that is likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. Through the Federal rulemaking 
process, we add species that meet these definitions to the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11 or the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Plants at 50 CFR 17.12. As part of this 
program, we maintain a list of species that we regard as candidates for 
listing. A candidate species is one for which we have on file 
sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to 
support a proposal for listing as endangered or threatened, but for 
which preparation and publication of a proposal is precluded by higher 
priority listing actions. We may identify a species as a candidate for 
listing after we have conducted an evaluation of its status on our own 
initiative, or resulting from a petition we have received. If we have 
made a positive finding on a petition to list a species, but we have 
found that listing is warranted but precluded by other higher priority 
listing actions, we will add the species to our list of candidates.
    We maintain this list of candidates for a variety of reasons: (1) 
To notify the public that these species are facing threats to their 
survival; (2) to provide advance knowledge of potential listings that 
could affect decisions of environmental planners and developers; (3) to 
provide information that may stimulate and guide conservation efforts 
that will remove or reduce threats to these species and possibly make 
listing unnecessary; (4) to request input from interested parties to 
help us identify those candidate species that may not require 
protection under the ESA as well as additional species that may require 
the ESA's protections; and (5) to request necessary information for 
setting priorities for preparing listing proposals. We strongly 
encourage collaborative

[[Page 72451]]

conservation efforts for candidate species, and offer technical and 
financial assistance to facilitate such efforts. For additional 
information regarding such assistance, please contact the appropriate 
Regional Office listed under Request for Information or visit our Web 
site, 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 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104). 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 Branch of Communications and Candidate Conservation (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above).
    On September 21, 1983, we published guidance for assigning an LPN 
for each candidate species (48 FR 43098). Using this guidance, we 
assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of 
threats, immediacy of threats, and taxonomic status; the lower the LPN, 
the higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 
would have the highest listing priority). Section 4(h)(3) of the ESA 
(16 U.S.C. 1533(h)(3)) requires the Secretary to establish guidelines 
for such a priority-ranking guidance system. As explained below, in 
using this system, we first categorize based on the magnitude of the 
threat(s), then by the immediacy of the threat(s), and finally by 
taxonomic status.
    Under this priority-ranking system, magnitude of threat can be 
either ``high'' or ``moderate to low.'' This criterion helps ensure 
that the species facing the greatest threats to their continued 
existence receive the highest listing priority. It is important to 
recognize that all candidate species face threats to their continued 
existence, so the magnitude of threats is in relative terms. For all 
candidate species, the threats are of sufficiently high magnitude to 
put them in danger of extinction, or make them likely to become in 
danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. But for species with 
higher magnitude threats, the threats have a greater likelihood of 
bringing about extinction or are expected to bring about extinction on 
a shorter timescale (once the threats are imminent) than for species 
with lower magnitude threats. Because we do not routinely quantify how 
likely or how soon extinction would be expected to occur absent 
listing, we must evaluate factors that contribute to the likelihood and 
time scale for extinction. We therefore consider information such as: 
(1) The number of populations or extent of range of the species 
affected by the threat(s), or both; (2) the biological significance of 
the affected population(s), taking into consideration the life-history 
characteristics of the species and its current abundance and 
distribution; (3) whether the threats affect the species in only a 
portion of its range, and, if so, the likelihood of persistence of the 
species in the unaffected portions; (4) the severity of the effects and 
the rapidity with which they have caused or are likely to cause 
mortality to individuals and accompanying declines in population 
levels; (5) whether the effects are likely to be permanent; and (6) the 
extent to which any ongoing conservation efforts reduce the severity of 
the threat.
    As used in our priority-ranking system, immediacy of threat is 
categorized as either ``imminent'' or ``nonimminent,'' and is based on 
when the threats will begin. If a threat is currently occurring or 
likely to occur in the very near future, we classify the threat as 
imminent. Determining the immediacy of threats helps ensure that 
species facing actual, identifiable threats are given priority for 
listing proposals over those for which threats are only potential or 
species that are intrinsically vulnerable to certain types of threats 
but are not known to be presently facing such threats.
    Our priority ranking system has three categories for taxonomic 
status: Species that are the sole members of a genus; full species (in 
genera that have more than one species); and subspecies and distinct 
population segments of vertebrate species (DPS).
    The result of the ranking system is that we assign each candidate a 
listing priority number of 1 to 12. For example, if the threats are of 
high magnitude, with immediacy classified as imminent, the listable 
entity is assigned an LPN of 1, 2, or 3 based on its taxonomic status 
(i.e., a species that is the only member of its genus would be assigned 
to the LPN 1 category, a full species to LPN 2, and a subspecies or DPS 
would be assigned to LPN 3). In summary, the LPN ranking system 
provides a basis for making decisions about the relative priority for 
preparing a proposed rule to list a given species. No matter which LPN 
we assign to a species, each species included in this notice as a 
candidate is one for which we have sufficient information to prepare a 
proposed rule for listing because it is in danger of extinction or 
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range.
    For more information on the process and standards used in assigning 
LPNs, a copy of the 1983 guidance is available on our Web site at: 
https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/48fr43098-43105.pdf. 
Information on the LPN assigned to a particular species is summarized 
in this CNOR and the species assessment for each candidate contains the 
LPN chart and a rationale for the determination of the magnitude and 
immediacy of threat(s) and assignment of the LPN.
    This revised notice supersedes all previous animal, plant, and 
combined candidate notices of review for native species and supersedes 
previous 12-month warranted-but-precluded petition findings for those 
candidate species that were petitioned for listing.

Summary of This CNOR

    Since publication of the previous CNOR on November 22, 2013 (78 FR 
70104), we reviewed the available information on candidate species to 
ensure that a proposed listing is justified for each species, and 
reevaluated the relative LPN assigned to each species. We also 
evaluated the need to emergency list any of these species, particularly 
species with higher priorities (i.e., species with LPNs of 1, 2, or 3). 
This review and reevaluation ensures that we focus conservation efforts 
on those species at greatest risk.
    In addition to reviewing candidate species since publication of the 
last CNOR, we have worked on findings in response to petitions to list 
species, and on proposed and final determinations for rules to list 
species under the ESA. Some of these findings and determinations have 
been completed and published in the Federal Register, while work on 
others is still under way (see Preclusion and Expeditious Progress, 
below, for details).
    Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information, with this CNOR, we are identifying 23 new candidates, we 
change the LPN for one candidate, and determine that a listing proposal 
is not warranted for one species and thus remove it from candidate 
status (see Candidate Removals, below). Combined with the other 
decisions published separately from this CNOR, a total of 146 species 
(67 plant and 79 animal species) are now candidates awaiting 
preparation of rules proposing their listing. These 146 species, along 
with the 36 species currently proposed for listing (including 1 species 
proposed for listing due to similarity in appearance), are included in 
Table 1.

[[Page 72452]]

    Table 2 lists the changes from the previous CNOR, and includes 49 
species identified in the previous CNOR as either proposed for listing 
or classified as candidates that are no longer in those categories. 
This includes 33 species for which we published a final listing rule, 
11 candidate species for which we published a separate not-warranted 
finding and removed from candidate status, 3 species for which we 
published a withdrawal of a proposed rule, 1 species for which we 
published a separate notice of removal from candidate status, and the 1 
species in this notice that we have determined does not meet the 
definition of an endangered or threatened species and therefore does 
not warrant listing. We have removed this species from candidate status 
in this CNOR.

New Candidates

    We have identified 23 new candidate species through this notice 
discussed below.

Birds

    Ma'oma'o (Gymnomyza samoensis)--The ma'oma'o is a large, dusky 
olive-green honeyeater that is known for making a variety of loud 
distinctive calls. The genus Gymnomyza consists of three honeyeaters 
restricted to a few islands in the southwestern Pacific. The ma'oma'o 
is endemic to Upolu and Savaii, Independent Samoa (Samoa), and Tutuila 
Island, American Samoa. The ma'oma'o is now believed to be extirpated 
from Tutuila Island, American Samoa. It is currently only found in 
small populations on the islands of Savaii and Upolu in Samoa. The 
ma'oma'o is primarily restricted to mature, well-developed, moist, 
mossy forests at upper elevations. Monitoring over the last decade has 
provided evidence of a decline in the relative abundance of the 
species. In 2007, the total population was estimated to be 
approximately 500 individuals.
    Little mature forest remains in Samoa, and the loss of forested 
habitat due to logging, agricultural clearing, and catastrophic storms 
is the primary threat to the ma'oma'o. Two storms in the 1990s, 
Cyclones Ofa (1990) and Val (1991), destroyed much of the forested 
habitat in Samoa, reducing forest canopy cover by 73 percent. In 2012, 
Cyclone Evan caused additional severe forest damage. Loss of mature 
forest is likely to affect the ma'oma'o by reducing breeding and 
foraging habitat, increasing forest fragmentation, and increasing the 
abundance and diversity of invasive species. Other threats to the 
species include habitat degradation, predation by nonnative species, 
and small population size. Habitat quality has degraded with the loss 
of closed forest space and the spread of nonnative invasive weeds. Nest 
predation by rats (Rattus spp.) and feral cats (Felis catus) is an 
important threat to many island birds, including the ma'oma'o, and may 
impede population growth. Small populations are more susceptible to 
inbreeding depression (reduced reproductive vigor) and extirpation from 
stochastic events (e.g., inclement weather, population demographics, 
and altered predation patterns). Based on our evaluation that these 
ongoing threats pose an imminent risk of a high magnitude, we assign a 
LPN of 2 for this species.

Flowering Plants

    Eighteen Hawaiian flowering plants (Cyanea kauaulaensis, Cyperus 
neokunthianus, Cyrtandra hematos, Exocarpos menziesii, Kadua 
haupuensis, Labordia lorenciana, Lepidium orbiculare, Phyllostegia 
brevidens, Phyllostegia helleri, Phyllostegia stachyoides, Portulaca 
villosa, Pritchardia bakeri, Sanicula sandwicensis, Santalum involutum, 
Schiedea diffusa ssp. diffusa, Sicyos lanceoloideus, Stenogyne kaalae 
ssp. sherffii, Wikstromoemia skottsbergiana)--Each of these 18 species 
is endemic to one or more islands in the State of Hawaii ((Cyanea 
kauaulaensis (Maui), Cyperus neokunthianus (Maui), Cyrtandra hematos 
(Molokai), Exocarpos menziesii (Hawaii Island; extirpated from Lanai), 
Kadua haupuensis (Kauai), Labordia lorenciana (Kauai), Lepidium 
orbiculare (Kauai), Phyllostegia brevidens (Maui; extirpated from 
Hawaii Island), Phyllostegia helleri (Kauai), Phyllostegia stachyoides 
(Maui, Molokai, and Hawaii Island), Portulaca villosa (Maui and Nihoa), 
Pritchardia bakeri (Oahu), Sanicula sandwicensis (Maui and Hawaii 
Island), Santalum involutum (Kauai), Schiedea diffusa ssp. diffusa 
(Maui), Sicyos lanceoloideus (Kauai and Oahu), Stenogyne kaalae ssp. 
sherffii (Oahu), and Wikstromoemia skottsbergiana (Kauai)), and each is 
negatively affected by nonnative animals and plants.
    Introduced, nonnative animals damage and destroy plants and seeds, 
modify habitat, create habitat more conducive to nonnative plant 
introductions, and spread nonnative plant seeds. Nonnative plants 
displace and outcompete native species. Introduced, nonnative plants 
and animals are serious and ongoing threats to these species rangewide, 
and these threats are increased by the continued inadequacy of existing 
protective regulations. In addition, small population size (each 
species has fewer than 100 individuals) is a serious and ongoing threat 
to each of these species because (1) they may experience reduced 
reproductive vigor due to ineffective pollination or inbreeding 
depression; (2) they may experience reduced levels of genetic 
variability, leading to diminished capacity to adapt and respond to 
environmental changes, thereby lessening the probability of long-term 
persistence; and (3) a single catastrophic event may result in 
extirpation of remaining populations and extinction of the species. 
Climate change may pose a threat to the ecosystems that support these 
species, thus exacerbating the effects of the aforementioned threats. 
There are varying degrees of conservation efforts ongoing for these 
species; however, at a minimum, all of these species are listed on the 
Hawaii Plant Extinction Prevention Program (PEPP) species list. Species 
on the PEPP list are prioritized for monitoring, surveys, collection 
and storing of seeds, propagation, and outplanting. The threats to each 
of these species are imminent and of high magnitude, leading to a 
relatively high likelihood of extinction. Therefore, we assign a LPN of 
2 for the above plants that are full species and an LPN of 3 for those 
that are subspecies or varieties.

Ferns and Allies

    Four Hawaiian ferns (Asplenium diellaciniatum, Deparia kaalaana, 
Dryopteris glabra var. pusilla, Hypolepis hawaiiensis var. mauiensis)--
Each of these four species is endemic to one or more islands in the 
State of Hawaii (Asplenium diellaciniatum (Kauai), Deparia kaalaana 
(Maui; extirpated from Kauai and Hawaii Island), Dryopteris glabra var. 
pusilla (Kauai), Hypolepis hawaiiensis var. mauiensis (Maui)); and each 
is negatively affected by nonnative animals and plants. Introduced, 
nonnative animals damage and destroy plants and seeds, modify habitat, 
create habitat more conducive to nonnative plant introductions, and 
spread nonnative plant seeds. Nonnative plants displace and outcompete 
native species. Introduced nonnative plants and animals are serious and 
ongoing threats to these species rangewide, and these threats are 
increased by the continued inadequacy of existing protective 
regulations. In addition, small population size (each species has fewer 
than 100 individuals) is a serious and ongoing threat to each of these 
species because (1) they may experience reduced reproductive vigor due 
to ineffective pollination or inbreeding depression; (2) they may

[[Page 72453]]

experience reduced levels of genetic variability, leading to diminished 
capacity to adapt and respond to environmental changes, thereby 
lessening the probability of long-term persistence; and (3) a single 
catastrophic event may result in extirpation of remaining populations 
and extinction of the species. Climate change may pose a threat to the 
ecosystems that support these species, thus exacerbating the effects of 
the aforementioned threats. There are varying degrees of conservation 
efforts ongoing for these species; however, at a minimum, all of these 
species are listed on the Hawaii Plant Extinction Prevention Program 
(PEPP) species list. Species on the PEPP list are prioritized for 
monitoring, surveys, collection and storing of seeds, propagation, and 
outplanting. The threats to each of these species are imminent and of 
high magnitude, leading to a relatively high likelihood of extinction. 
Therefore, we assign a LPN of 2 for Asplenium diellaciniatum and 
Deparia kaalaana and an LPN of 3 for Dryopteris glabra var. pusilla and 
Hypolepis hawaiiensis var. mauiensis.

Listing Priority Changes in Candidates

    We reviewed the LPN for all candidate species and are changing the 
number for the following species discussed below.

Birds

    Sprague's pipit (Anthus spragueii)--The Sprague's pipit is a small 
grassland bird characterized by its high breeding flight display and 
otherwise very secretive behavior. Sprague's pipits are strongly 
associated with native prairie (land that has never been plowed), 
especially on the breeding grounds. Its current breeding range includes 
portions of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Canada. The 
wintering range includes south-central and southeast Arizona, southern 
New Mexico, Texas, southern Oklahoma, southern Arkansas, northwest 
Mississippi, southern Louisiana, and northern Mexico; the vast majority 
of the U.S. winter sightings have been in Texas. During migration, the 
species has been sighted in areas outside of the direct flight path 
between its breeding and wintering sites, including Michigan, western 
Ontario, Ohio, Massachusetts, and Gulf and Atlantic States from 
Mississippi east and north to South Carolina. Sprague's pipits also 
have been sighted in California during fall migration.
    The primary stressor to the species is habitat conversion on the 
breeding grounds. The Breeding Bird Survey shows a long-term decline 
from 1966 through 2012. From 2002 through 2012, however, the long-term 
population decline has leveled off and currently, there is no 
discernable trend. The Christmas Bird Count data also indicates that 
the population decline has stopped and the population trend has no 
direction, either increasing or decreasing between 2003 and 2012.
    In the Service's 12-month finding published on September 15, 2010, 
we identified oil and gas development and associated infrastructure as 
having a strong negative influence on the species based upon the 
available information at that time. New information suggests that 
Sprague's pipit avoidance response of these features is highly variable 
across the range and thus the species' response to oil and gas 
development and roads does not indicate that these are a threat.
    Landscape modelling to predict Sprague's pipit habitat use on the 
breeding range indicates the population is concentrated in north-
central Montana, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, Canada. Analysis of the 
likelihood of prairie conversion in the area where most pipits occur 
suggests that the risk of widespread conversion is low, with the most 
likely risk scenario of future conversion to cropland predicting a 
relatively low proportion (10-15 percent) of the breeding population 
affected.
    On the wintering range, conversion of prairie to cropland appears 
to be accelerating. The species is widely distributed and mobile during 
winter, but grassland conversion is ongoing and apparently widespread. 
At this time, we believe that the species' trends can be explained by 
the habitat changes that have occurred on the breeding range; however, 
we will be more closely assessing the changes to the wintering range 
and whether those changes threaten the Sprague's pipit.
    The threats to the Sprague's pipit described above are moderate to 
low in magnitude. Because of the relatively large population remaining 
and the stable-to-uncertain (i.e. not showing a clear decline) trends 
shown by surveys on both the breeding and wintering grounds, the 
potential decline is nonimminent. In addition, the threat from 
conversion of habitat on the breeding grounds is now nonimment. 
Therefore, we are revising the LPN from 8 to an 11.

Candidate Removals

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

Flowering Plants

    Astragalus cusickii var. packardiae (Packard's milkvetch)--The 
following summary is based on information contained in our files. 
Packard's milkvetch is narrowly endemic to a specific group of light-
colored sedimentary outcrops in southwestern Idaho. The total range of 
the species covers approximately 26 square kilometers (km\2\) (10 
square miles (mi\2\)) in Payette County. Suboccurrences of Packard's 
milkvetch, which are typically represented by individual occupied 
outcrops, are found at elevations ranging from 793 to 915 meters (m) 
(2,600 to 3,000 feet (ft)). Occupied outcrops tend to be found on 
steep, south- to west-facing slopes, and are relatively sparsely 
vegetated.
    Packard's milkvetch became a candidate species in 2010, based on 
the identified primary threat of habitat degradation due to off highway 
vehicles (OHVs). In response, on December 13, 2013, the Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) made a decision that permanently closed 5,620 acres 
within and near Packard's milkvetch habitat to OHV use, covering 68 
percent of the species' occurrences. Monitoring data collected since 
the closure was implemented in 2011 indicates that the OHV closure has 
been effective at eliminating the primary threat to the species 
throughout a large majority of the species' range.
    Other natural and anthropogenic activities identified at the time 
it was designated a candidate included an altered wildfire regime due 
to invasive nonnative plant species and livestock use. There was little 
data at the time to suggest whether these potential threats were 
significant, but out of an abundance of caution, the Idaho Fish and 
Wildlife Office (IFWO) considered

[[Page 72454]]

these activities along with the OHV monitoring data from 2008-2010 when 
making the 2010 decision. However, by 2013, a 5-year monitoring dataset 
(2008-2013) suggested a stable population and no association between 
cover of nonnative plant species and wildfire and the abundance of 
Packard's milkvetch.
    In 2010, the population of Packard's milkvetch was estimated at 
approximately 5,000 plants located within 26 suboccurrences with 
abundance ranges from 3 to approximately 500 plants per suboccurrence. 
Surveys in 2012 documented several additional occupied outcrops 
collectively totaling approximately 2,000 individuals, which revised 
the range-wide population estimate to 6,500 plants occurring within 28 
suboccurrences. The 5-year monitoring dataset (2008-2013) has suggested 
a stable population overall.
    Therefore, based on (1) the reduction of the species' primary 
threat (i.e., OHV use), (2) the increase in number of known 
suboccurrences and resulting increase in the overall population, and 
(3) the species' overall stable population status over a 5-year 
monitoring period, we find that listing of Packard's milkvetch as 
threatened or endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range is no longer warranted; the species no longer meets the 
definition of a candidate species, and we are removing it from 
candidate status.
    In addition to the factors that led us to conclude that Packard's 
milkvetch no longer warrants candidate status, the BLM and IFWO signed 
a 20-year Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA) on December 20, 2013, 
which further supports the BLM's OHV closure decision and commits to 
continued enforcement and monitoring of the OHV closure. The CCA also 
outlines the BLM's plans for long-term monitoring and future proactive 
conservation measures to address new potential threats that may arise.

Petition Findings

    The ESA provides two mechanisms for considering species for 
listing. One method allows the Secretary, on the Secretary's own 
initiative, to identify species for listing under the standards of 
section 4(a)(1). We implement this authority through the candidate 
program, discussed above. The second method for listing a species 
provides a mechanism for the public to petition us to add a species to 
the Lists. The CNOR serves several purposes as part of the petition 
process: (1) In some instances (in particular, for petitions to list 
species that the Service has already identified as candidates on its 
own initiative), it serves as the initial petition finding; (2) for 
candidate species for which the Service has made a warranted-but-
precluded petition finding, it serves as a ``resubmitted'' petition 
finding that the ESA requires the Service to make each year; and (3) it 
documents the Service's compliance with the statutory requirement to 
monitor the status of species for which listing is warranted but 
precluded, and to ascertain if they need emergency listing.
    First, the CNOR serves as an initial petition finding in some 
instances. Under section 4(b)(3)(A), when we receive a listing 
petition, we must determine within 90 days, to the maximum extent 
practicable, whether the petition presents substantial information 
indicating that listing may be warranted (a ``90-day finding''). If we 
make a positive 90-day finding, we must promptly commence a status 
review of the species under section 4(b)(3)(A); we must then make and 
publish one of three possible findings within 12 months of the receipt 
of the petition (a ``12-month finding''):
    (1) The petitioned action is not warranted;
    (2) The petitioned action is warranted (in which case we are 
required to promptly publish a proposed regulation to implement the 
petitioned action; once we publish a proposed rule for a species, 
sections 4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) of the ESA govern further procedures, 
regardless of whether we issued the proposal in response to a 
petition); or
    (3) The petitioned action is warranted, but (a) the immediate 
proposal of a regulation and final promulgation of a regulation 
implementing the petitioned action is precluded by pending proposals to 
determine whether any species is endangered or threatened, and (b) 
expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to the 
Lists. We refer to this third option as a ``warranted-but-precluded 
finding.''
    We define ``candidate species'' to mean those species for which the 
Service has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability 
and threat(s) to support issuance of a proposed rule to list, but for 
which issuance of the proposed rule is precluded (61 FR 64481; December 
5, 1996). The standard for making a species a candidate through our own 
initiative is identical to the standard for making a warranted-but-
precluded 12-month petition finding on a petition to list, and we add 
all petitioned species for which we have made a warranted-but-precluded 
12-month finding to the candidate list.
    Therefore, all candidate species identified through our own 
initiative already have received the equivalent of substantial 90-day 
and warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings. Nevertheless, we review 
the status of the newly petitioned candidate species and through this 
CNOR publish specific section 4(b)(3) findings (i.e., substantial 90-
day and warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings) in response to the 
petitions to list these candidate species. We publish these findings as 
part of the first CNOR following receipt of the petition. We have 
identified the candidate species for which we received petitions by the 
code ``C*'' in the category column on the left side of Table 1 below.
    Second, the CNOR serves as a ``resubmitted'' petition finding. 
Section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the ESA requires that when we make a 
warranted-but-precluded finding on a petition, we treat the petition as 
one that is resubmitted on the date of the finding. Thus, we must make 
a 12-month petition finding in compliance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of 
the ESA at least once a year, until we publish a proposal to list the 
species or make a final not-warranted finding. We make these annual 
findings for petitioned candidate species through the CNOR. These 
annual findings supercede any findings from previous CNORs and the 
initial 12-month warranted-but-precluded finding, although all previous 
findings are part of the administrative record for the new finding, and 
we may rely upon them or incorporate them by reference in the new 
finding as appropriate.
    Third, through undertaking the analysis required to complete the 
CNOR, the Service determines if any candidate species needs emergency 
listing. Section 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the ESA requires us to ``implement 
a system to monitor effectively the status of all species'' for which 
we have made a warranted-but-precluded 12-month finding, and to ``make 
prompt use of the [emergency listing] authority [under section 4(b)(7)] 
to prevent a significant risk to the well being of any such species.'' 
The CNOR plays a crucial role in the monitoring system that we have 
implemented for all candidate species by providing notice that we are 
actively seeking information regarding the status of those species. We 
review all new information on candidate species as it becomes 
available, prepare an annual species assessment form that reflects 
monitoring results and other new information, and identify any species 
for which emergency listing may be appropriate. If we determine that 
emergency listing is appropriate for any

[[Page 72455]]

candidate, we will make prompt use of the emergency listing authority 
under section 4(b)(7). For example, on August 10, 2011, we emergency 
listed the Miami blue butterfly (76 FR 49542). We have been reviewing 
and will continue to review, at least annually, the status of every 
candidate, whether or not we have received a petition to list it. Thus, 
the CNOR and accompanying species assessment forms constitute the 
Service's system for monitoring and making annual findings on the 
status of petitioned species under sections 4(b)(3)(C)(i) and 
4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the ESA.
    A number of court decisions have elaborated on the nature and 
specificity of information that we must consider in making and 
describing the petition findings in the CNOR. The CNOR that published 
on November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), describes these court decisions in 
further detail. As with previous CNORs, we continue to incorporate 
information of the nature and specificity required by the courts. For 
example, we include a description of the reasons why the listing of 
every petitioned candidate species is both warranted and precluded at 
this time. We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide 
basis to ensure that the species most in need of listing will be 
addressed first and also because we allocate our listing budget on a 
nationwide basis (see below). Regional priorities can also be discerned 
from Table 1, below, which includes the lead region and the LPN for 
each species. Our preclusion determinations are further based upon our 
budget for listing activities for unlisted species only, and we explain 
the priority system and why the work we have accomplished does preclude 
action on listing candidate species.
    In preparing this CNOR, we reviewed the current status of, and 
threats to, the 112 candidates for which we have received a petition to 
list and the 5 listed species for which we have received a petition to 
reclassify from threatened to endangered, where we found the petitioned 
action to be warranted but precluded. We find that the immediate 
issuance of a proposed rule and timely promulgation of a final rule for 
each of these species, except for the Selkirk ecosystem population and 
the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem population of Grizzly bear (see Petitions To 
Reclassify Species Already Listed), has been, for the preceding months, 
and continues to be, precluded by higher priority listing actions. 
Additional information that is the basis for this finding is found in 
the species assessments and our administrative record for each species.
    Our review included updating the status of, and threats to, 
petitioned candidate or listed species for which we published findings, 
under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA, in the previous CNOR. We have 
incorporated new information we gathered since the prior finding and, 
as a result of this review, we are making continued warranted-but-
precluded 12-month findings on the petitions for these species.
    The immediate publication of proposed rules to list these species 
was precluded by our work on higher priority listing actions, listed 
below, during the period from October 1, 2013, through September 30, 
2014. Below we describe the actions that continue to preclude the 
immediate proposal and final promulgation of a regulation implementing 
each of the petitioned actions for which we have made a warranted-but-
precluded finding, and we describe the expeditious progress we are 
making to add qualified species to, and remove species from, the Lists. 
We will continue to monitor the status of all candidate species, 
including petitioned species, as new information becomes available to 
determine if a change in status is warranted, including the need to 
emergency-list a species under section 4(b)(7) of the ESA.
    In addition to identifying petitioned candidate species in Table 1 
below, we also present brief summaries of why each of these candidates 
warrants listing. More complete information, including references, is 
found in the species assessment forms. You may obtain a copy of these 
forms from the Regional Office having the lead for the species, or from 
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Internet Web site: https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/candidateSpecies.jsp. As described above, under section 
4 of the ESA, we identify and propose species for listing based on the 
factors identified in section 4(a)(1), and section 4 also provides a 
mechanism for the public to petition us to add species to the Lists of 
Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the ESA.

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress

    To make a finding that a particular action is warranted but 
precluded, the Service must make two determinations: (1) That the 
immediate proposal and timely promulgation of a final regulation is 
precluded by pending listing proposals and (2) that expeditious 
progress is being made to add qualified species to either of the lists 
and to remove species from the lists. 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)(iii).
Preclusion
    A listing proposal is precluded if the Service does not have 
sufficient resources available to complete the proposal, because there 
are competing demands for those resources, and the relative priority of 
those competing demands is higher. Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), 
multiple factors dictate whether it will be possible to undertake work 
on a listing proposal regulation or whether promulgation of such a 
proposal is precluded by higher priority listing actions--(1) The 
amount of resources available for completing the listing function, (2) 
the estimated cost of completing the proposed listing, and (3) the 
Service's workload and prioritization of the proposed listing in 
relation to other actions.
Available Resources
    The resources available for listing actions are determined through 
the annual Congressional appropriations process. In FY 1998 and for 
each fiscal year since then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on 
funds that may be expended for the Listing Program. This spending cap 
was designed to prevent the listing function from depleting funds 
needed for other functions under the ESA (for example, recovery 
functions, such as removing species from the Lists), or for other 
Service programs (see House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st 
Session, July 1, 1997). The funds within the spending cap are available 
to support work involving the following listing actions: Proposed and 
final listing rules; 90-day and 12-month findings on petitions to add 
species to the Lists or to change the status of a species from 
threatened to endangered; annual ``resubmitted'' petition findings on 
prior warranted-but-precluded petition findings as required under 
section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the ESA; critical habitat petition findings; 
proposed and final rules designating critical habitat; and litigation-
related, administrative, and program-management functions (including 
preparing and allocating budgets, responding to Congressional and 
public inquiries, and conducting public outreach regarding listing and 
critical habitat).
    We cannot spend more for the Listing Program than the amount of 
funds within the spending cap without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act 
(see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, since FY 2002, the 
Service's budget has included a critical habitat subcap to ensure that 
some funds are available for completing Listing Program actions other 
than critical habitat designations

[[Page 72456]]

(``The critical habitat designation subcap will ensure that some 
funding is available to address other listing activities'' (House 
Report No. 107-103, 107th Congress, 1st Session. June 19, 2001)). In FY 
2002 and each year until FY 2006, the Service had to use virtually the 
entire critical habitat subcap to address court-mandated designations 
of critical habitat, and consequently none of the critical habitat 
subcap funds were available for other listing activities. In some FYs 
since 2006, we have been able to use some of the critical habitat 
subcap funds to fund proposed listing determinations for high-priority 
candidate species. In other FYs, while we were unable to use any of the 
critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing determinations, 
we did use some of this money to fund the critical habitat portion of 
some proposed listing determinations so that the proposed listing 
determination and proposed critical habitat designation could be 
combined into one rule, thereby being more efficient in our work. In FY 
2014, based on the Service's workload, we were able to use some of the 
critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing determinations.
    For FY 2012 Congress also put in place two additional subcaps 
within the listing cap: One for listing actions for foreign species and 
one for petition findings. As with the critical habitat subcap, if the 
Service does not need to use all of the funds within the subcap, we are 
able to use the remaining funds for completing proposed or final 
listing determinations. In FY 2014, based on the Service's workload, we 
were able to use some of the funds within the foreign species subcap 
and the petitions subcap to fund proposed listing determinations.
    We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to 
ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed 
first, and also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide 
basis. Through the listing cap, the three subcaps, and the amount of 
funds needed to complete court-mandated actions within those subcaps, 
Congress and the courts have in effect determined the amount of money 
available for other listing activities nationwide. Therefore, the funds 
in the listing cap--other than those within the subcaps needed to 
comply with court orders or court-approved settlement agreements 
requiring critical habitat actions for already-listed species, listing 
actions for foreign species, and petition findings--set the framework 
within which we make our determinations of preclusion and expeditious 
progress.
    For FY 2014, on January 17, 2014, Congress passed a Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113-76), which provided funding 
through September 30, 2014. In particular, it included an overall 
spending cap of $20,515,000 for the listing program. Of that, no more 
than $1,504,000 could be used for listing actions for foreign species, 
and no more than $1,501,000 could be used to make 90-day or 12-month 
findings on petitions. The Service thus had $ 12,905,000 available to 
work on proposed and final listing determinations for domestic species. 
In addition, if the Service had funding available within the critical 
habitat, foreign species, or petition subcaps after those workloads had 
been completed, it could use those funds to work on listing actions 
other than critical habitat designations or foreign species.
    Costs of Listing Actions. The work involved in preparing various 
listing documents can be extensive, and may include, but is not limited 
to: Gathering and assessing the best scientific and commercial data 
available and conducting analyses used as the basis for our decisions; 
writing and publishing documents; and obtaining, reviewing, and 
evaluating public comments and peer review comments on proposed rules 
and incorporating relevant information into final rules. The number of 
listing actions that we can undertake in a given year also is 
influenced by the complexity of those listing actions; that is, more 
complex actions generally are more costly. The median cost for 
preparing and publishing a 90-day finding is $39,276; for a 12-month 
finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule with critical habitat, $345,000; 
and for a final listing rule with critical habitat, $305,000.
    Prioritizing Listing Actions. The Service's Listing Program 
workload is broadly composed of four types of actions, which the 
Service prioritizes as follows: (1) Compliance with court orders and 
court-approved settlement agreements requiring that petition findings 
or listing or critical habitat determinations be completed by a 
specific date; (2) essential litigation-related, administrative, and 
listing program-management functions; (3) section 4 (of the Act) 
listing and critical habitat actions with absolute statutory deadlines; 
and (4) section 4 listing actions that do not have absolute statutory 
deadlines. In the last few years, the Service received many new 
petitions and a single petition to list 404 species, significantly 
increasing the number of actions within the second category of our 
workload--actions that have absolute statutory deadlines. As a result 
of the petitions to list hundreds of species, we currently have over 
450 12-month petition findings yet to be initiated and completed.
    An additional way in which we prioritize work in the section 4 
program is application of the listing priority guidelines (48 FR 43098; 
September 21, 1983). Under those guidelines, we assign each candidate 
an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats (high or 
moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or nonimminent), and 
taxonomic status of the species (in order of priority: Monotypic genus 
(a species that is the sole member of a genus), species, or part of a 
species (subspecies or distinct population segment)). The lower the 
listing priority number, the higher the listing priority (that is, a 
species with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing priority). A 
species with a higher LPN would generally be precluded from listing by 
species with lower LPNs, unless work on a proposed rule for the species 
with the higher LPN can be combined with work on a proposed rule for 
other high-priority species. In addition to prioritizing species with 
our 1983 guidance, because of the large number of high-priority species 
we have had in the recent past, we had further ranked the candidate 
species with an LPN of 2 by using the following extinction-risk type 
criteria: International Union for the Conservation of Nature and 
Natural Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank, Heritage rank (provided 
by NatureServe), Heritage threat rank (provided by NatureServe), and 
species currently with fewer than 50 individuals, or 4 or fewer 
populations. Those species with the highest IUCN rank (critically 
endangered), the highest Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage 
threat rank (substantial, imminent threats), and currently with fewer 
than 50 individuals, or fewer than 4 populations, originally comprised 
a group of approximately 40 candidate species (``Top 40''). These 40 
candidate species had the highest priority to receive funding to work 
on a proposed listing determination and we used this to formulate our 
work plan for FYs 2010 and 2011 that was included in the MDL Settlement 
Agreement (see below), as well as for work on proposed and final 
listing rules for the remaining candidate species with LPNs of 2 and 3.
    Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened species 
to endangered species are lower priority, because as listed species, 
they are already afforded the protections of the Act and implementing 
regulations. However, for efficiency reasons, we may choose to work on 
a proposed rule to

[[Page 72457]]

reclassify a species to endangered if we can combine this with work 
that is subject to a court order or court-approved deadline.
    Since before Congress first established the spending cap for the 
Listing Program in 1998, the Listing Program workload has required 
considerably more resources than the amount of funds Congress has 
allowed for the Listing Program. It is therefore important that we be 
as efficient as possible in our listing process. As we implement our 
listing work plan and work on proposed rules for the highest priority 
species in the next several years, we are preparing multi-species 
proposals when appropriate, and these may include species with lower 
priority if they overlap geographically or have the same threats as one 
of the highest priority species. In addition, we take into 
consideration the availability of staff resources when we determine 
which high-priority species will receive funding to minimize the amount 
of time and resources required to complete each listing action.
    Listing Program Workload. Each FY we determine, based on the amount 
of funding Congress has made available within the Listing Program 
spending cap, specifically which actions we will have the resources to 
work on in that FY. We then prepare Allocation Tables that identify the 
actions that we are funding for that FY, and how much we estimate it 
will cost to complete each action; these Allocation Tables are part of 
our record for this notice and the listing program. Our Allocation 
Table for FY 2012, which incorporated the Service's approach to 
prioritizing its workload, was adopted as part of a settlement 
agreement in a case before the U.S. District Court for the District of 
Columbia (Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 10-
377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (``MDL Litigation''), Document 31-1 
(D.D.C. May 10, 2011) (``MDL Settlement Agreement'')). The requirements 
of paragraphs 1 through 7 of that settlement agreement, combined with 
the work plan attached to the agreement as Exhibit B, reflected the 
Service's Allocation Tables for FY 2011 and FY 2012. In addition, 
paragraphs 2 through 7 of the agreement require the Service to take 
numerous other actions through FY 2017--in particular, complete either 
a proposed listing rule or a not-warranted finding for all 251 species 
designated as ``candidates'' in the 2010 candidate notice of review 
(``CNOR'') before the end of FY 2016, and complete final listing 
determinations for those species proposed for listing within the 
statutory deadline (usually one year from the proposal). Paragraph 10 
of that settlement agreement sets forth the Service's conclusion that 
``fulfilling the commitments set forth in this Agreement, along with 
other commitments required by court orders or court-approved settlement 
agreements already in existence at the signing of this Settlement 
Agreement (listed in Exhibit A), will require substantially all of the 
resources in the Listing Program.'' As part of the same lawsuit, the 
court also approved a separate settlement agreement with the other 
plaintiff in the case; that settlement agreement requires the Service 
to complete additional actions in specific fiscal years--including 12-
month petition findings for 11 species, 90-day petition findings for 
477 species, and proposed listing determinations or not-warranted 
findings for 39 species.
    These settlement agreements have led to a number of results that 
affect our preclusion analysis. First, the Service has been, and will 
continue to be, limited in the extent to which it can undertake 
additional actions within the Listing Program through FY 2017, beyond 
what is required by the MDL Settlement Agreements. Second, because the 
settlement is court approved, two broad categories of actions now fall 
within the Service's highest priority (compliance with a court order): 
(1) The actions required to be completed in FY 2014 by the MDL 
Settlement Agreements; and (2) completion, before the end of FY 2016, 
of proposed listings or not-warranted findings for most of the 
candidate species identified in this CNOR (in particular, for those 
candidate species that were included in the 2010 CNOR). Therefore, each 
year, one of the Service's highest priorities is to make steady 
progress towards completing by the end of 2017 proposed and final 
listing determinations for the 2010 candidate species--based on the 
Service's LPN prioritization system, preparing multi-species actions 
when appropriate, and taking into consideration the availability of 
staff resources.
    Based on these prioritization factors, we continue to find that 
proposals to list the petitioned candidate species included in Table 1 
are all precluded by higher priority listing actions including those 
with court-ordered and court-approved settlement agreements and listing 
actions with absolute statutory deadlines.
Expeditious Progress
    As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but 
precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made 
to add and remove qualified species to and from the Lists. As with our 
``precluded'' finding, the evaluation of whether progress in adding 
qualified species to the Lists has been expeditious is a function of 
the resources available for listing and the competing demands for those 
funds. (Although we do not discuss it in detail here, we are also 
making expeditious progress in removing species from the list under the 
Recovery program in light of the resources available for delisting, 
which is funded by a separate line item in the budget of the Endangered 
Species Program. During FY 2014, we completed a delisting rule for one 
species.) As discussed below, given the limited resources available for 
listing, we find that we made expeditious progress in FY 2014 in the 
Listing Program.
    We provide below tables cataloguing the work of the Service's 
Listing Program in FY 2014. This work includes all three of the steps 
necessary for adding species to the Lists: (1) Identifying species that 
warrant listing; (2) undertaking the evaluation of the best available 
scientific data about those species and the threats they face, and 
preparing proposed and final listing rules; and (3) adding species to 
the Lists by publishing proposed and final listing rules that include a 
summary of the data on which the rule is based and show the 
relationship of that data to the rule. After taking into consideration 
the limited resources available for listing, the competing demands for 
those funds, and the completed work catalogued in the tables below, we 
find that we made expeditious progress to add qualified species to the 
Lists in FY 2014.
    First, we made expeditious progress in the third and final step: 
Listing qualified species. In FY 2014, we resolved the status of 35 
species that we determined, or had previously determined, qualified for 
listing. Moreover, for 32 species, the resolution was to add them to 
the Lists, most with concurrent designations of critical habitat, and 
for 3 species we published a withdrawal of the proposed rule. We also 
proposed to list an additional 24 qualified species, most with 
concurrent critical habitat proposals.
    Second, we are making expeditious progress in the second step: 
Working towards adding qualified species to the Lists. In FY 2014, we 
worked on developing proposed listing rules for 34 species (most of 
them with concurrent critical habitat proposals). Although we have not 
yet completed those actions, we are making expeditious progress towards 
doing so.

[[Page 72458]]

    Third, we are making expeditious progress in the first step towards 
adding qualified species to the Lists: Identifying additional species 
that qualify for listing. In FY 2014, we completed two 90-day petition 
findings for two species.
    Our accomplishments this year should also be considered in the 
broader context of our commitment to reduce the number of candidate 
species for which we have not made final determinations whether or not 
to list. On May 10, 2011, the Service filed in the MDL Litigation a 
settlement agreement that put in place an ambitious schedule for 
completing proposed and final listing determinations at least through 
FY 2016; the court approved that settlement agreement on September 9, 
2011. That agreement required, among other things, that for all 251 
species that were included as candidates in the 2010 CNOR, the Service 
submit to the Federal Register proposed listing rules or not-warranted 
findings by the end of FY 2016, and for any proposed listing rules, the 
Service complete final listing determinations within the statutory time 
frame. Paragraph 6 of the agreement provided indicators that the 
Service is making adequate progress towards meeting that requirement: 
Completing proposed listing rules or not-warranted findings for at 
least 130 of the species by the end of FY 2013, at least 160 species by 
the end of FY 2014, and at least 200 species by the end of FY 2015. The 
Service has completed proposed listing rules or not-warranted findings 
for 166 of the 2010 candidate species, as well as final listing rules 
for 118 of those proposed rules, and is therefore is making adequate 
progress towards meeting all of the requirements of the MDL settlement 
agreement. Both by entering into the settlement agreement and by making 
adequate progress towards making final listing determinations for the 
251 species on the 2010 candidate, the Service is making expeditious 
progress to add qualified species to the lists.
    The Service's progress in FY 2014 included completing and 
publishing the following determinations:

                                        FY 2014 Completed Listing Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Publication date                  Title                   Actions                     FR Pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11/14/2013.....................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       78 FR 68660-68685.
                                  Petition To List the     petition finding, Not
                                  Gunnison's Prairie Dog   warranted.
                                  as an Endangered or
                                  Threatened Species.
11/26/2013.....................  Initiation of Status     Notice of Status Review  78 FR 70525-70527.
                                  Review of Arctic
                                  Grayling in the Upper
                                  Missouri River System.
12/19/2013.....................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       78 FR 76795-76807.
                                  Petition To List         petition finding, Not
                                  Coleman's Coralroot as   warranted.
                                  an Endangered or
                                  Threatened Species.
12/20/2013.....................  Threatened Status for    Final Rule_Revision....  78 FR 76995-77005.
                                  Eriogonum codium
                                  (Umtanum Desert
                                  Buckwheat) and
                                  Physaria douglasii
                                  subsp. tuplashensis
                                  (White Bluffs
                                  Bladderpod) and
                                  Designation of
                                  Critical Habitat.
2/24/2014......................  Determination of         Final Listing            79 FR 10235-10293.
                                  Threatened Species       Threatened.
                                  Status for the
                                  Georgetown Salamander
                                  and Salado Salamander
                                  Throughout Their
                                  Ranges.
3/31/2014......................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         79 FR 17993-17995.
                                  Petition To List the     petition finding,
                                  Alexander Archipelago    Substantial.
                                  Wolf as Threatened or
                                  Endangered.
4/9/2014.......................  Threatened Species       Final Listing            79 FR 19759-19796.
                                  Status for the Olympia   Threatened, with
                                  Pocket Gopher, Roy       Special Rule.
                                  Prairie Pocket Gopher,
                                  Tenino Pocket Gopher,
                                  and Yelm Pocket
                                  Gopher, with Special
                                  Rule.
4/10/2014......................  Determination of         Final Listing            79 FR 19973-20071.
                                  Threatened Status for    Threatened.
                                  the Lesser Prairie-
                                  Chicken.
4/29/2014......................  Endangered Species       Final Listing            79 FR 24255-24310.
                                  Status for Sierra        Threatened and
                                  Nevada Yellow-Legged     Endangered.
                                  Frog and Northern
                                  Distinct Population
                                  Segment of the
                                  Mountain Yellow-Legged
                                  Frog, and Threatened
                                  Species Status for
                                  Yosemite Toad.
5/6/2014.......................  Determination of         Final Listing            79 FR 25683-25688.
                                  Threatened Status for    Threatened.
                                  Leavenworthia exigua
                                  var. laciniata
                                  (Kentucky Glade Cress).
6/3/2014.......................  Threatened Species       Final Listing            79 FR 31878-31883.
                                  Status for Ivesia        Threatened.
                                  webberi.
6/10/2014......................  Determination of         Final Listing            79 FR 33119-33137.
                                  Endangered Status for    Endangered.
                                  the New Mexico Meadow
                                  Jumping Mouse
                                  Throughout Its Range.
7/8/2014.......................  Threatened Status for    Final Listing            79 FR 38677-38746.
                                  the Northern Mexican     Threatened.
                                  Gartersnake and Narrow-
                                  Headed Gartersnake.
7/24/2014......................  Endangered Species       Final Listing            79 FR 43131-43161.
                                  Status for the Zuni      Endangered.
                                  Bluehead Sucker.
8/1/2014.......................  Endangered Status for    Final Listing            79 FR 44712-44718.
                                  Physaria globosa         Endangered.
                                  (Short's bladderpod),
                                  Helianthus
                                  verticillatus (whorled
                                  sunflower), and
                                  Leavenworthia crassa
                                  (fleshy-fruit
                                  gladecress).
8/4/2014.......................  Determination of         Final Listing            79 FR 45273-45286.
                                  Endangered Status for    Endangered.
                                  the Sharpnose Shiner
                                  and Smalleye Shiner.

[[Page 72459]]

 
8/6/2014.......................  Withdrawal of the        Proposed Listing         79 FR 46041-46087.
                                  Proposed Rules To List   Withdrawal.
                                  Graham's Beardtongue
                                  (Penstemon grahamii)
                                  and White River
                                  Beardtongue (Penstemon
                                  scariosus var.
                                  albifluvis) and
                                  Designate Critical
                                  Habitat.
8/12/2014......................  Endangered Status for    Final Listing            79 FR 47222-47244.
                                  the Florida Leafwing     Endangered.
                                  and Bartram's Scrub-
                                  Hairstreak Butterflies.
8/13/2014......................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       79 FR 47413-47415.
                                  Petition To List the     petition finding, Not
                                  Warton's Cave            warranted Candidate
                                  Meshweaver as            removal.
                                  Endangered or
                                  Threatened.
8/13/2014......................  Threatened Status for    Proposed Listing         79 FR 47521-47545.
                                  the Distinct             Withdrawal.
                                  Population Segment of
                                  the North American
                                  Wolverine Occurring in
                                  the Contiguous United
                                  States; Establishment
                                  of a Nonessential
                                  Experimental
                                  Population of the
                                  North American
                                  Wolverine in Colorado,
                                  Wyoming, and New
                                  Mexico.
8/19/2014......................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         79 FR 49045-49047.
                                  Petition To List the     petition finding,
                                  Island Marble            Substantial.
                                  Butterfly as an
                                  Endangered Species.
8/20/2014......................  Revised 12-Month         Notice of 12-month       79 FR 49383-49422.
                                  Finding on a Petition    petition finding, Not
                                  To List the Upper        warranted Candidate
                                  Missouri River           removal.
                                  Distinct Population
                                  Segment of Arctic
                                  Grayling as an
                                  Endangered or
                                  Threatened Species.
8/26/2014......................  12-Month Finding on the  Notice of 12-month       79 FR 51041-51066.
                                  Petition To List Least   petition finding, Not
                                  Chub as an Endangered    warranted Candidate
                                  or Threatened Species.   removal.
8/26/2014......................  Endangered Status for    Final Listing            79 FR 50844-50854.
                                  Vandenberg               Endangered.
                                  Monkeyflower.
8/29/2014......................  Threatened Status for    Final Listing            79 FR 51657-51710.
                                  Oregon Spotted Frog.     Threatened.
9/4/2014.......................  Endangered Species       Final Listing            79 FR 52567-52575.
                                  Status for Brickellia    Endangered.
                                  mosieri (Florida
                                  Brickell-bush) and
                                  Linum carteri var.
                                  carteri (Carter's
                                  Small-flowered Flax).
9/9/2014.......................  Endangered Species       Final Listing            79 FR 53315-53344.
                                  Status for Agave         Endangered and
                                  eggersiana and           Threatened.
                                  Gonocalyx concolor,
                                  and Threatened Species
                                  Status for Varronia
                                  rupicola.
9/12/2014......................  Threatened Status for    Final Listing            79 FR 54627-54635.
                                  Arabis georgiana         Threatened.
                                  (Georgia rockcress).
9/12/2014......................  Revised Designation of   Final Critical Habitat   79 FR 54781-54846.
                                  Critical Habitat for     Final Listing_adding
                                  the Contiguous United    New Mexico to DPS
                                  States Distinct          boundary.
                                  Population Segment of
                                  the Canada Lynx and
                                  Revised Distinct
                                  Population Segment
                                  Boundary.
9/18/2014......................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       79 FR 56029-56040.
                                  Petition To List         petition finding, Not
                                  Eriogonum kelloggii      warranted Candidate
                                  (Red Mountain            removal.
                                  buckwheat) and Sedum
                                  eastwoodiae (Red
                                  Mountain stonecrop) as
                                  Endangered or
                                  Threatened Species.
9/18/2014......................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       79 FR 56041-56047.
                                  Petition To List         petition finding, Not
                                  Symphyotrichum           warranted Candidate
                                  georgianum (Georgia      removal.
                                  aster) as Endangered
                                  or Threatened Species.
9/23/2014......................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       79 FR 56730-56738.
                                  Petition To List the     petition finding, Not
                                  Tucson Shovel-Nosed      warranted Candidate
                                  Snake.                   removal.
9/24/2014......................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       79 FR 57032-57041.
                                  Petition To List         petition finding, Not
                                  Eriogonum corymbosum     warranted Candidate
                                  var. nilesii and         removal.
                                  Eriogonum diatomaceum.
10/1/2014......................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       79 FR 59140-59150.
                                  Petition To List Rio     petition finding, Not
                                  Grande Cutthroat Trout   warranted Candidate
                                  as an Endangered or      removal.
                                  Threatened Species.
10/1/2014......................  12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       79 FR 59195-59204.
                                  Petition To List         petition finding, Not
                                  Yellow-Billed Loon       warranted Candidate
                                  (Gavia adamsii) as an    removal.
                                  Endangered or
                                  Threatened Species.
10/1/2014......................  Proposed Endangered      Proposed Listing         79 FR 59363-59413.
                                  Status for 21 Species    Endangered and
                                  and Proposed             Threatened.
                                  Threatened Status for
                                  2 Species in Guam and
                                  the Commonwealth of
                                  the Northern Mariana
                                  Islands.

[[Page 72460]]

 
10/3/2014......................  Threatened Species       Final Listing            79 FR 59991-60038.
                                  Status for the Western   Threatened.
                                  Distinct Population
                                  Segment of the Yellow-
                                  billed Cuckoo.
10/7/2014......................  Threatened Species       Proposed Listing         79 FR 60406-60419.
                                  Status for Black         Threatened.
                                  Pinesnake.
10/7/2014......................  Threatened Species       Proposed Listing         79 FR 60419-60443.
                                  Status for West Coast    Threatened.
                                  Distinct Population
                                  Segment of Fisher.
10/9/2014......................  Endangered Species       Proposed Listing         79 FR 61135-61161.
                                  Status for Trichomanes   Endangered.
                                  punctatum ssp.
                                  floridanum (Florida
                                  Bristle Fern).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our expeditious progress also included work on listing actions that 
we funded in previous fiscal years and in FY 2014 but did not complete 
in FY 2014. For these species, we have completed the first step, and 
have been working on the second step, necessary for adding species to 
the Lists. These actions are listed below. All the actions in the table 
are being conducted under a deadline set by a court through a court 
order or settlement agreement.

 Actions Funded in Previous FYs and FY 2014 But Not Completed in FY 2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Species                               Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gunnison sage-grouse.................  Final listing.
Dakota skipper and Poweshiek           Final listing.
 skipperling.
Red knot (rufa subspecies)...........  Final listing.
Northern long-eared bat..............  Final listing.
Greater sage-grouse_Bi-State DPS.....  Final listing.
Washington ground squirrel...........  Proposed listing.
Xantus's murrelet....................  Proposed listing.
Columbia spotted frog_Great Basin DPS  Proposed listing.
Sequatchie caddisfly.................  Proposed listing.
Four Florida Keys plants (sand flax,   Proposed listing.
 Big Pine partridge pea, Blodgett's
 silverbush, and wedge spurge).
Four Florida plants (Florida pineland  Proposed listing.
 crabgrass, Florida prairie clover,
 pineland sandmat, and Everglades
 bully).
White fringeless orchid..............  Proposed listing.
Black warrior waterdog...............  Proposed listing.
Black mudalia........................  Proposed listing.
Elfin-woods warbler..................  Proposed listing.
Kentucky arrow darter and Cumberland   Proposed listing.
 arrow darter.
Six Cave beetles (Nobletts, Baker      Proposed listing.
 Station, Fowler's, Indian Grave
 Point, inquirer, and Coleman).
Sicyos macrophyllus..................  Proposed listing.
Highlands tiger beetle...............  Proposed listing.
Sicklefin redhorse...................  Proposed listing.
Headwater chub.......................  Proposed listing.
Roundtail chub DPS...................  Proposed listing.
Page springsnail.....................  Proposed listing.
Sonoran desert tortoise..............  Proposed listing.
Texas hornshell......................  Proposed listing.
New England cottontail...............  Proposed listing.
Eastern massasauga...................  Proposed listing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also funded work on resubmitted petitions findings for 112 
candidate species (species petitioned prior to the last CNOR). In our 
resubmitted petition finding for the Columbia Basin population of the 
greater sage-grouse in this notice, although we completed a new 
analysis of the threats facing the species, we did not include new 
information, as the significance of the Columbia Basin DPS of the 
greater sage-grouse will require further review and we will update our 
finding when we resolve the status of the greater sage-grouse at a 
later date (see 75 FR 13910; March 23, 2010). We also did not include 
an updated assessment form as part of our resubmitted petition findings 
for the 34 candidate species for which we are preparing proposed 
listing determinations. However, for both the Columbia Basin DPS of the 
greater sage-grouse and for the other resubmitted petition findings, in 
the course of preparing proposed listing determinations, we continue to 
monitor new information about their status so that we can make prompt 
use of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in the case of an emergency 
posing a significant risk to the well-being of any of these candidate 
species; see summaries below regarding publication of these 
determinations (these species will remain on the candidate list until a 
proposed listing rule is published). We also funded a revised 12-month 
petition finding for the petitioned candidate species that we are 
removing from candidate status, which is being published as part of 
this CNOR (see Candidate Removals). Because the majority of these 
petitioned species were already candidate species prior to our receipt 
of a petition to list them, we had already assessed their status using 
funds from our Candidate Conservation Program, so we continue to 
monitor the

[[Page 72461]]

status of these species through our Candidate Conservation Program. The 
cost of updating the species assessment forms and publishing the joint 
publication of the CNOR and resubmitted petition findings is shared 
between the Listing Program and the Candidate Conservation Program.
    During FY 2014, we also funded work on resubmitted petition 
findings for uplisting five listed species (three grizzly bear 
populations, Delta smelt, and Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette 
cactus)), for which we had previously received a petition and made a 
warranted-but-precluded finding.
    Another way that we have been expeditious in making progress to add 
qualified species to the Lists is that we have endeavored to make our 
listing actions as efficient and timely as possible, given the 
requirements of the relevant law and regulations and constraints 
relating to workload and personnel. We are continually considering ways 
to streamline processes or achieve economies of scale, such as by 
batching related actions together. Given our limited budget for 
implementing section 4 of the ESA, these efforts also contribute 
towards finding that we are making expeditious progress to add 
qualified species to the Lists.
    Although we have not been able to resolve the listing status of 
many of the candidates, we continue to contribute to the conservation 
of these species through several programs in the Service. In 
particular, the Candidate Conservation Program, which is separately 
budgeted, focuses on providing technical expertise for developing 
conservation strategies and agreements to guide voluntary on-the-ground 
conservation work for candidate and other at-risk species. The main 
goal of this program is to address the threats facing candidate 
species. Through this program, we work with our partners (other Federal 
agencies, State agencies, Tribes, local governments, private 
landowners, and private conservation organizations) to address the 
threats to candidate species and other species at risk. We are 
currently working with our partners to implement voluntary conservation 
agreements for more than 110 species covering 3.6 million ac of 
habitat. In some instances, the sustained implementation of 
strategically designed conservation efforts culminates in making 
listing unnecessary for species that are candidates for listing or for 
which listing has been proposed.

Findings for Petitioned Candidate Species

    Below are updated summaries for petitioned candidates for which we 
published findings under section 4(b)(3)(B). In accordance with section 
4(b)(3)(C)(i), we treat any petitions for which we made warranted-but-
precluded 12-month findings within the past year as having been 
resubmitted on the date of the warranted-but-precluded finding. We are 
making continued warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings on the 
petitions for these species (for 12-month findings on resubmitted 
petitions for species that we determined no longer meet the definition 
of ``endangered species'' or ``threatened species,'' see summaries 
above under Candidate Removals).

Mammals

    Pacific sheath-tailed bat, American Samoa DPS (Emballonura 
semicaudata semicaudata)--The following summary is based on information 
contained in our files. No new information was provided in the petition 
we received on May 11, 2004. This small insectivorous bat is a member 
of the Emballonuridae family, an Old World bat family that has an 
extensive distribution, primarily in the tropics. Emballonura 
semicaudata semicaudata was once common and widespread in Polynesia and 
Micronesia. The species as a whole (E. semicaudata) occurred on several 
of the Caroline Islands (Palau, Chuuk, and Pohnpei), Samoa (Independent 
and American), the Mariana Islands (Guam and the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)), Tonga, Fiji, and Vanuatu. While 
populations appear to be healthy in some locations, mainly in the 
Caroline Islands, they have declined substantially in other areas, 
including Independent and American Samoa, the Mariana Islands, Fiji, 
and possibly Tonga. Scientists recognize four subspecies: E. s. 
rotensis, endemic to the Mariana Islands (Guam and the Commonwealth of 
the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)); E. s. sulcata, occurring in Chuuk 
and Pohnpei; E. s. palauensis, found in Palau; and E. s. semicaudata, 
occurring in American and Independent Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, and Vanuatu. 
The candidate assessment form addresses the DPS of E. s. semicaudata 
that occurs in American Samoa.
    Emballonura semicaudata semicaudata historically occurred in 
American and Independent Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, and Vanuatu. It is extant 
in Fiji and Tonga, but may be extirpated from Vanuatu and Independent 
Samoa. There is some concern that it is also extirpated from American 
Samoa, the location of this DPS, where surveys are currently ongoing to 
ascertain its status. The factors that led to the decline of this 
subspecies and the DPS are poorly understood; however, current threats 
to this subspecies and the DPS include habitat loss, predation by 
introduced species, and its small population size and distribution, 
which make the taxon extremely vulnerable to extinction due to typhoons 
and similar natural catastrophes. The subspecies may also be 
susceptible to disturbance in its roosting caves. The threats are 
imminent and of high magnitude, since they are ongoing and severe 
enough to pose a relatively high likelihood of extinction. Therefore, 
we have retained an LPN of 3 for this DPS of a subspecies.
    Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk (Tamias minimus atristria)--The 
following summary is based on information contained in our files. 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is endemic to the White Mountains, Otero 
and Lincoln Counties, and the Sacramento Mountains, Otero County, New 
Mexico. The Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk historically had a broad 
distribution throughout the Sacramento Mountains within ponderosa pine 
forests. The last verification of persistence of the Sacramento 
Mountains population of Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk was in 1966, and 
the subspecies appears to be extirpated from the Sacramento Mountains. 
The only remaining known distribution of the least chipmunk is 
restricted to open, high-elevation talus slopes within a subalpine 
grassland, located in the Sierra Blanca area of the White Mountains in 
Lincoln and Otero Counties, New Mexico.
    The Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk faces threats from present or 
threatened destruction, modification, and curtailment of its habitat 
from the alteration or loss of mature ponderosa pine forests in one of 
the two historically occupied areas. The documented decline in occupied 
localities, in conjunction with the small numbers of individuals 
captured, are linked to widespread habitat alteration. Moreover, the 
highly fragmented nature of its distribution is a significant 
contributor to the vulnerability of this subspecies and increases the 
likelihood of very small, isolated populations being extirpated. As a 
result of this fragmentation, even if suitable habitat exists (or is 
restored) in the Sacramento Mountains, the likelihood of natural 
recolonization of historical habitat or population expansion from the 
White Mountains is extremely remote. Considering the high magnitude and 
immediacy of these threats to the subspecies and its habitat, and the

[[Page 72462]]

vulnerability of the White Mountains population, we conclude that the 
least chipmunk is in danger of extinction throughout all of its known 
range now or in the foreseeable future.
    The one known remaining extant population of Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunk in the White Mountains is particularly susceptible to 
extinction as a result of small, reduced population sizes and its 
isolation. Because of the reduced population size and lack of 
contiguous habitat adjacent to the extant White Mountains population, 
even a small impact on the White Mountains could have a very large 
impact on the status of the species as a whole. As a result of its 
restricted range, apparent small population size, and fragmented 
historical habitat, the White Mountains population is inherently 
vulnerable to extinction due to effects of small, population sizes 
(e.g. loss of genetic diversity). These impacts are likely to be seen 
in the population at some point in the foreseeable future, but do not 
appear to be affecting this population currently as it appears to be 
stable at this time. Therefore, we conclude that the threats to this 
population are of high magnitude, but not imminent. Therefore, we 
assign an LPN of 6 to the subspecies.
    New England cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis)--We continue to 
find that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the 
date of publication of this notice. However, we are working on a 
proposed listing determination that we expect to publish prior to 
making the next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the 
course of preparing the proposed listing rule, we are continuing to 
monitor new information about this species' status so that we can make 
prompt use of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 
emergency posing a significant risk to the species.
    Southern Idaho ground squirrel (Urocitellus endemicus)--The 
following summary is based on information contained in our files. No 
new information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 
2004. The southern Idaho ground squirrel is endemic to four counties in 
southwest Idaho; its total known range is approximately 292,000 
hectares (ha) (722,000 acres (ac)). The population declined 
significantly between 1985 and 2001, and approximately 37 percent of 
the historical known sites were occupied in 1999 by a relatively small 
number of individuals. More recently, southern Idaho ground squirrels 
have increased in abundance, and monitoring suggests that the 
population may now be stable.
    Threats to southern Idaho ground squirrels include: Habitat 
degradation; direct killing from shooting, trapping, or poisoning; 
predation; and competition with other ground squirrel species. Habitat 
degradation appears to be the primary threat. Nonnative annuals such as 
Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass) and Taeniatherum caput-medusae 
(medusahead) now dominate much of this species' range and have altered 
the fire regime by increasing the frequency of wildfire. Nonnative 
annuals may provide inconsistent forage quality for southern Idaho 
ground squirrels compared to native vegetation. A programmatic 
Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) has been 
completed for this species and contains conservation measures that 
minimize ground disturbing activities, allow for the investigation of 
methods to restore currently degraded habitat, provide for additional 
protection to southern Idaho ground squirrels from recreational 
shooting and other direct killing on enrolled lands, and allow for the 
translocation of squirrels to or from enrolled lands, if necessary. The 
acreage enrolled through the CCAA encompasses approximately 9 percent 
of the known range of the species. While the ongoing conservation 
efforts have helped to reduce the magnitude of threats to a moderate 
level, habitat degradation remains the primary threat to the species 
throughout most of its range. This threat is imminent, due to the 
ongoing and increasing prevalence of nonnative vegetation. Therefore, 
we have retained an LPN of 8 for this species.
    Washington ground squirrel (Urocitellus washingtoni)--We continue 
to find that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the 
date of publication of this notice. However, we are working on a 
proposed listing rule that we expect to publish prior to making the 
next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the course of 
preparing the proposed listing determination, we are continuing to 
monitor new information about this species' status so that we can make 
prompt use of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 
emergency posing a significant risk to the species.
    Red tree vole, north Oregon coast DPS (Arborimus longicaudus)--The 
following summary is based on information contained in our files and in 
our initial warranted-but-precluded finding, published in the Federal 
Register on October 13, 2011 (76 FR 63720). Red tree voles are small, 
mouse-sized rodents that live in conifer forests and spend almost all 
of their time in the tree canopy. They are one of the few animals that 
can persist on a diet of conifer needles, which is their principal 
food. Red tree voles are endemic to the humid, coniferous forests of 
western Oregon (generally west of the crest of the Cascade Range) and 
northwestern California (north of the Klamath River). The north Oregon 
coast DPS of the red tree vole comprises that portion of the Oregon 
Coast Range from the Columbia River south to the Siuslaw River. Red 
tree voles demonstrate strong selection for nesting in older conifer 
forests, which are now relatively rare across the DPS; they avoid 
nesting in younger forests.
    Although data are not available to rigorously assess population 
trends, information from retrospective surveys indicates red tree voles 
have declined in the DPS and are largely absent in areas where they 
were once relatively abundant. Older forests that provide habitat for 
red tree voles are limited and highly fragmented, while ongoing forest 
practices in much of the DPS maintain the remnant patches of older 
forest in a highly fragmented and isolated condition. Modeling 
indicates that only 11 percent of the DPS currently contains tree vole 
habitat, largely restricted to the 22 percent of the DPS that is under 
Federal ownership.
    Existing regulatory mechanisms on State and private lands are 
inadequate to prevent continued harvest of forest stands at a scale and 
extent that would be meaningful for conserving red tree voles. 
Biological characteristics of red tree voles, such as small home 
ranges, limited dispersal distances, and low reproductive potential, 
limit their ability to respond to and persist in areas of extensive 
habitat loss and alteration. These biological characteristics also make 
it difficult for the tree voles to recolonize isolated habitat patches. 
Due to its reduced distribution, the red tree vole is now vulnerable to 
random environmental disturbances that may remove or further isolate 
large blocks of already limited habitat, and to extirpation within the 
DPS from such factors as lack of genetic variability, inbreeding 
depression, and demographic stochasticity. Although the entire 
population is experiencing threats, the impact is less pronounced on 
Federal lands, where much of the red tree vole habitat remains. Hence, 
the magnitude of these threats is moderate to low. The threats are 
imminent because habitat loss and reduced distribution are currently 
occurring within the DPS. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 9 for 
this DPS.
    Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens)--The following 
information

[[Page 72463]]

is based on information in our files and our warranted-but-precluded 
12-month petition finding published on February 10, 2011 (76 FR 7634). 
The Pacific walrus is an ice-dependent species found across the 
continental shelf waters of the northern Bering and Chukchi Seas. 
Unlike seals, which can remain in the water for extended periods, 
walrus must haul out onto ice or land periodically. Pacific walrus is a 
traditional and important source of food and products to native 
Alaskans, especially those living on Saint Lawrence Island, and to 
native Russians.
    Annually, walrus migrate up to 1,500 kilometers (km) (932 miles 
(mi)) between winter breeding areas in the sub-Arctic (northern Bering 
Sea) and summer foraging areas in the Arctic. Historically, the females 
and calves remained on pack ice over the continental shelf of the 
Chukchi Sea throughout the summer, using it as a platform for resting 
after making shallow foraging dives for invertebrates on the sea floor. 
Sea ice also provides isolation from disturbance and terrestrial 
predators such as polar bears. Since 1979, the extent of summer Arctic 
sea ice has declined. The five lowest records of minimum sea ice extent 
occurred from 2007 to 2012. Based on the best scientific information 
available, we anticipate that sea ice will retreat northward off the 
Chukchi continental shelf for 1 to 5 months every year in the 
foreseeable future.
    When the ice melts beyond the limits of the continental shelf (and 
the ability of the walrus to obtain food), thousands of walrus 
congregate at coastal haulouts. Although coastal haulouts have 
historically provided a place to rest, the aggregation of so many 
animals, in particular females and calves, at this time of year has 
increased in the last 5 years. Not only are the number of animals more 
concentrated at coastal haulouts than on widely dispersed sea ice, but 
also the probability of disturbance from humans and terrestrial animals 
is much higher. Disturbances at coastal haulouts can cause stampedes, 
leading to mortalities and injuries. In addition, there is also concern 
that the concentration of animals will cause local prey depletion, 
leading to longer foraging trips, increased energy costs, and potential 
effects on female condition and calf survival. We expect these effects 
to lead to a population decline.
    We recognize that Pacific walrus face additional stressors from 
ocean warming, ocean acidification, disease, oil and gas exploration 
and development, increased shipping, commercial fishing, and 
subsistence harvest, but none rise to the level of a threat except 
subsistence harvest. We found that subsistence harvest will rise to the 
level of a threat if the population declines but harvest levels remain 
the same. Because both the loss of sea ice habitat and the ongoing 
practice of subsistence harvest are presently occurring, these threats 
are imminent. However, these threats are not having significant 
population-level effects currently, but are projected to, we determined 
that the magnitude of the threats is moderate, not high. Thus, we 
assigned an LPN of 9 to this subspecies.

Birds

    Spotless crake, American Samoa DPS (Porzana tabuensis)--The 
following summary is based on information contained in our files. No 
new information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 
2004. The spotless crake is a small, dark, cryptic bird found in 
wetlands and rank scrublands or forests in the Philippines, Australia, 
Fiji, Tonga, Society Islands, Marquesas, Independent Samoa, and 
American Samoa (Ofu, Tau). The genus Porzana is widespread in the 
Pacific, where it is represented by numerous island-endemic and 
flightless species (many of which are extinct as a result of 
anthropogenic disturbances), as well as several more cosmopolitan 
species, including P. tabuensis. No subspecies of P. tabuensis are 
recognized.
    The American Samoa population is the only population of spotless 
crakes under U.S. jurisdiction. The available information indicates 
that distinct populations of the spotless crake, a species not noted 
for long-distance dispersal, are definable. The population of spotless 
crakes in American Samoa is discrete in relation to the remainder of 
the species as a whole, which is distributed in widely separated 
locations. Although the spotless crake (and other rails) have dispersed 
widely in the Pacific, flight in island rails has atrophied or been 
completely lost over evolutionary time, causing populations to become 
isolated (and vulnerable to terrestrial predators such as rats). The 
population of this species in American Samoa is therefore distinct 
based on geographic and distributional isolation from spotless crake 
populations on other islands in the oceanic Pacific, the Philippines, 
and Australia. The American Samoa population of the spotless crake 
links the Central and Eastern Pacific portions of the species' range. 
The loss of this population would result in an increase of roughly 500 
mi (805 km) in the distance between the central and eastern Polynesian 
portions of the spotless crake's range, and could result in the 
isolation of the Marquesas and Society Islands populations by further 
limiting the potential for even rare genetic exchange. Based on the 
discreteness and significance of the American Samoa population of the 
spotless crake, we consider this population to be a distinct vertebrate 
population segment.
    Threats to this population have not changed over the past year. The 
population in American Samoa is threatened by small population size, 
limited distribution, predation by nonnative and native animals, 
continued development of wetland habitat, and natural catastrophes such 
as hurricanes. The co-occurrence of a known predator of ground-nesting 
birds, the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), and native predators, the 
Pacific boa (Candoia bibroni) and the Purple Swamphen (Porphyrio 
porphyrio), along with the extremely restricted observed distribution 
and low numbers, indicates that the threats to the American Samoa DPS 
of the spotless crake continue to be both imminent and high in 
magnitude because the ongoing threats have a high likelihood of 
affecting the ability of the species to survive in a relatively short 
time frame. Based on this assessment of existing information about the 
imminence and high magnitude of these threats, we have retained an LPN 
of 3 for this DPS.
    Friendly ground-dove, American Samoa DPS (Gallicolumba stairi)--The 
following summary is based on information contained in our files. No 
new information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 
2004. The genus Gallicolumba is distributed throughout the Pacific and 
Southeast Asia. The genus is represented in the oceanic Pacific by six 
species: Three are endemic to Micronesian islands or archipelagos, two 
are endemic to island groups in French Polynesia, and G. stairi is 
endemic to Samoa, Tonga, and Fiji. Some authors recognize two 
subspecies of the friendly ground-dove, one, slightly smaller, in the 
Samoan archipelago (G. s. stairi), and one in Tonga and Fiji (G. s. 
vitiensis), but because morphological differences between the two are 
minimal, we are not recognizing separate subspecies at this time.
    In American Samoa, the friendly ground-dove has been found on the 
islands of Ofu and Olosega (Manua Group). Threats to this species have 
not changed over the past year. Predation by nonnative species and 
natural catastrophes such as hurricanes are the primary threats to the 
DPS. Of these, predation by nonnative species is

[[Page 72464]]

thought to be occurring now and likely has been occurring for several 
decades. This predation may be an important impediment to population 
growth. Predation by introduced species has played a significant role 
in reducing, limiting, and extirpating populations of island birds, 
especially ground-nesters like the friendly ground-dove, in the Pacific 
and other locations worldwide. Nonnative predators known or thought to 
occur in the range of the friendly ground-dove in American Samoa 
include feral cats (Felis catus), Polynesian rats (Rattus exulans), 
black rats (R. rattus), and Norway rats (R. norvegicus).
    In January 2004 and February of 2005, hurricanes virtually 
destroyed the habitat of G. stairi in the area on Olosega Island where 
the species had been most frequently recorded. Although this species 
has evolved on islands subject to severe storms, this example 
illustrates the potential for natural disturbance to exacerbate the 
effect of anthropogenic disturbance on small populations. Consistent 
monitoring using a variety of methods over the last 5 years yielded few 
observations and no change in the relative abundance of this taxon in 
American Samoa. The total population size remains poorly known but is 
unlikely to number more than a few hundred pairs. The distribution of 
the friendly ground-dove is limited to steep, forested slopes with an 
open understory and a substrate of fine scree or exposed earth; this 
habitat is not common in American Samoa. The threats are ongoing and 
therefore imminent, and the magnitude is moderate because relative 
abundance has remained unchanged for several years. Thus, we have 
retained an LPN of 9 for this DPS.
    Xantus's murrelet (Synthliboramphus hypoleucus)--We continue to 
find that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the 
date of publication of this notice. However, we are working on a 
proposed listing determination that we expect to publish prior to 
making the next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the 
course of preparing the proposed listing rule, we are continuing to 
monitor new information about this species' status so that we can make 
prompt use of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 
emergency posing a significant risk to the species.
    Red-crowned parrot (Amazona viridigenalis)--The following summary 
is based on information contained in the notice of 12-month finding (76 
FR 62016) as well as communication with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (Service), Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, The Nature 
Conservancy, Rio Grande Joint Venture, World Birding Center, Rio Grande 
Valley Birding Festival, and the Universidad Aut[oacute]noma de 
Tamaulipas. As of April, 2014, there are no changes to the range or 
distribution of the red-crowned parrot. The red-crowned parrot is non-
migratory, and occurs in fragmented isolated habitat in the Mexican 
States of Tamaulipas, Veracruz, San Luis Potosi, Nuevo Leon, and 
northeast Queretaro. The species also occurs within the southern tip of 
Texas, in the cities of Mission, McAllen, Pharr, and Edinburg (Hidalgo 
County), and in Brownsville, Los Fresnos, San Benito, and Harlingen 
(Cameron County). Feral populations also exist in southern California, 
Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Florida and escaped birds have been reported 
in central Texas. As of 2004, half of the native population is believed 
to be found in the United States. The species is nomadic during the 
winter (non-breeding) season when large flocks range widely to forage, 
moving tens of kilometers during a single flight in Mexico. In Texas, 
red-crowned parrots are thought to move between urban areas in search 
of food and other available resources. There has not been systematic 
annual monitoring of red-crowned parrot populations in Texas's Lower 
Rio Grande Valley (LRGV), so no population trend information is 
available; instead, numbers of parrots are most often reported from 
more informal surveys including Christmas Bird Counts and E-bird; 
surveys with wide variation in observers' skill levels. Counts of 
nesting pairs have not been documented since McKinney's 1995 survey. In 
Mexico, the level of monitoring of red-crowned parrots within the last 
two decades is not well known; however, community groups did include 
the species in bird surveys in the Ejido El Sabinito, in Sierras of 
Tamaulipas, in 2012 and 2013, where they reported approximately 2,500 
and 1,889 individuals, respectively. Anecdotal reports from Mexico 
suggest that the species may be increasing in numbers in urban areas of 
Tamaulipas and Neuvo Leon.
    The primary threats within Mexico and Texas remain habitat 
destruction and modification from logging, deforestation, and 
conversion of suitable habitat for agricultural and urban development 
purposes. In addition, existing regulations do not adequately address 
the habitat or capture and trade threats to the species. Thus, the 
inadequacy of existing regulations and their enforcement continue to 
threaten the red-crowned parrot. Disease and predation are not 
documented to threaten the species. Pesticide exposure is not known to 
affect the red-crowned parrot. Conservation efforts include the 
artificial nest structure projects, as well as habitat creation 
projects such as one initiated by the Service and the Rio Grande Joint 
Venture in the LRGV to understand and compare how birds are using 
revegetated tracts of land that were previously affected by flooding. 
The project is in its initial steps and no results are yet available. 
Threats to the species are imminent because habitat destruction and 
inadequate regulatory mechanisms are ongoing. In addition, the threats 
are high in magnitude, because they affect the species extensively at a 
population level; therefore, we have determined that a LPN of 2 remains 
appropriate for the species.
    Sprague's pipit (Anthus spragueii)--See above in ``Listing Priority 
Changes in Candidates.''
    Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)--The following 
summary is based on information in our files and in the petition we 
received on January 30, 2002. Currently, greater sage-grouse occur in 
11 States (Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, 
Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, South Dakota, and North Dakota) and 2 Canadian 
provinces (Alberta and Saskatchewan), occupying approximately 56 
percent of their historical range. Greater sage-grouse depend on a 
variety of shrub-steppe habitats throughout their life cycle, and are 
obligate users of several species of sagebrush.
    The primary threat to greater sage-grouse is ongoing fragmentation 
and loss of shrub-steppe habitats through a variety of mechanisms. Most 
importantly, increasing fire cycles and invasive plants (and the 
interaction between them) in more westerly parts of the range, along 
with energy development and related infrastructure in more easterly 
areas, are negatively affecting the species. In addition, direct loss 
of habitat and fragmentation is occurring due to agriculture, 
urbanization, and infrastructure such as roads and power lines built in 
support of several activities. We also have determined that currently 
existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect the species 
from these ongoing threats. However, many of these habitat impacts are 
being actively addressed through conservation actions taken by local 
working groups, and State and Federal agencies. Notably, the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service has committed significant financial and 
technical resources to address threats to this species on private lands 
through

[[Page 72465]]

their Sage-grouse Initiative. Also notably, the Bureau of Land 
Management and U.S. Forest Service are in the process of revising 98 
Land Management Plans through 6 Environmental Impact Statements to 
provide adequate regulatory mechanisms. These efforts, when fully 
implemented, will potentially provide important conservation benefits 
to the greater sage-grouse and its habitats. We consider the threats to 
the greater sage-grouse to be of moderate magnitude, because the 
threats are not occurring with uniform intensity or distribution across 
the wide range of the species at this time, and substantial habitat 
still remains to support the species in many areas. The threats are 
imminent because the species is currently facing them in many portions 
of its range. Therefore, we assigned the greater sage-grouse an LPN of 
8.
    Greater sage-grouse, Columbia Basin DPS (Centrocercus 
urophasianus)--The following summary is based on information in our 
files and a petition, dated May 14, 1999, requesting the listing of the 
Washington population of the western sage-grouse (C. u. phaios). This 
population was historically found in northern Oregon and central 
Washington. On May 7, 2001, we concluded that listing the Columbia 
Basin DPS of the western sage-grouse was warranted, but precluded by 
higher priority listing actions (66 FR 22984). Following our May 7, 
2001, finding, the Service received additional petitions requesting 
listing actions for various other greater sage-grouse populations, 
including one for the nominal western subspecies, dated January 24, 
2002, and three for the entire species, dated June 18, 2002, and March 
19 and December 22, 2003. The Service subsequently found that the 
petition for the western subspecies did not present substantial 
information indicating that listing may be warranted (68 FR 6500; 
February 7, 2003), and that listing the greater sage-grouse was not 
warranted (70 FR 2244; January 12, 2005). The court subsequently 
remanded these latter findings to the Service for further 
consideration. In response, we initiated a new rangewide status review 
for the entire species (73 FR 10218; February 26, 2008). On March 5, 
2010, we found that listing of the greater sage-grouse was warranted 
but precluded by higher priority listing actions (75 FR 13909; March 
23, 2010), and it was added to the list of candidates. We also found 
that the western subspecies of the greater sage-grouse, the taxonomic 
entity we relied on in our DPS analysis for the Columbia Basin 
population, was no longer considered a valid subspecies. In light of 
our conclusions regarding the taxonomic invalidity of the western sage-
grouse subspecies, the significance of the Columbia Basin DPS to the 
greater sage-grouse will require further review. The Service intends to 
complete an analysis to determine if this population continues to 
warrant recognition as a DPS in accordance with our Policy Regarding 
the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments (61 FR 4722; 
February 7, 1996) at the time we make a listing decision on the status 
of the greater sage-grouse. Until that time, the Columbia Basin DPS 
will remain a candidate for listing.
    Band-rumped storm-petrel, Hawaii DPS (Oceanodroma castro)--The 
following summary is based on information contained in our files and 
the petition we received on May 8, 1989. No new information was 
provided in the second petition received on May 11, 2004. The band-
rumped storm-petrel is a small seabird that is found in several areas 
of the subtropical Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. In the Pacific, there 
are three widely separated breeding populations--one in Japan, one in 
Hawaii, and one in the Galapagos. Populations in Japan and the 
Galapagos are comparatively large and number in the thousands, while 
the Hawaiian birds represent a small, remnant population of possibly 
only a few hundred pairs. Band-rumped storm-petrels are most commonly 
found in close proximity to breeding islands. The three populations in 
the Pacific are separated by long distances across the ocean where 
birds are not found. Extensive at-sea surveys of the Pacific have 
revealed a broad gap in distribution of the band-rumped storm-petrel to 
the east and west of the Hawaiian Islands, indicating that the 
distribution of birds in the central Pacific around Hawaii is disjunct 
from other nesting areas. The available information indicates that 
distinct populations of band-rumped storm-petrels are definable and 
that the Hawaiian population is distinct based on geographic and 
distributional isolation from other band-rumped storm-petrel 
populations in Japan, the Galapagos, and the Atlantic Ocean. Loss of 
the Hawaiian population would cause a significant gap in the 
distribution of the band-rumped storm-petrel in the Pacific, and could 
result in the complete isolation of the Galapagos and Japan populations 
without even occasional genetic exchange. Therefore, the population is 
both discrete and significant, and constitutes a DPS.
    The band-rumped storm-petrel probably was common on all of the main 
Hawaiian Islands when Polynesians arrived about 1,500 years ago, based 
on storm-petrel bones found in middens on the island of Hawaii and in 
excavation sites on Oahu and Molokai, Hawaii. Nesting colonies of this 
species in the Hawaiian Islands currently are restricted to remote 
cliffs on Kauai and Lehua Island and high-elevation lava fields on 
Hawaii. Vocalizations of the species were heard in Haleakala Crater on 
Maui as recently as 2006; however, no nesting sites have been located 
on the island to date. The significant reduction in numbers and range 
of the band-rumped storm-petrel is due primarily to predation by 
nonnative species introduced by humans, including the domestic cat 
(Felis catus), small Indian mongoose (Herpestes auropunctatus), common 
barn owl (Tyto alba), black rat (Rattus rattus), Polynesian rat (R. 
exulans), and Norway rat (R. norvegicus). These nonnative predators 
occur throughout the main Hawaiian Islands, with the exception of the 
mongoose, which is not established on Kauai. Attraction of fledglings 
to artificial lights, which disrupt their night-time navigation, 
resulting in collisions with buildings and other objects, and 
collisions with artificial structures such as communication towers and 
utility lines, are also threats. Erosion of nest sites caused by the 
actions of nonnative ungulates is a potential threat in some locations. 
Efforts are under way in some areas to reduce light pollution and 
mitigate the threat of collisions, as well as to control some of the 
nonnative predators in the Hawaiian Islands; however, the threats are 
ongoing and are therefore imminent. They are of a high magnitude, 
because they can severely affect the survival of this DPS, leading to a 
relatively high likelihood of extinction. Therefore, we have retained 
an LPN of 3 for this DPS.
    Elfin-woods warbler (Dendroica angelae)--We continue to find that 
listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of 
publication of this notice. However, we are working on a proposed 
listing determination that we expect to publish prior to making the 
next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the course of 
preparing the proposed listing rule, we are continuing to monitor new 
information about this species' status so that we can make prompt use 
of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in the case of an emergency 
posing a significant risk to the species.

Reptiles

    Eastern massasauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus)--We continue 
to

[[Page 72466]]

find that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the 
date of publication of this notice. However, we are working on a 
proposed listing determination that we expect to publish prior to 
making the next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the 
course of preparing the proposed listing rule, we are continuing to 
monitor new information about this species' status so that we can make 
prompt use of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 
emergency posing a significant risk to the species.
    Louisiana pine snake (Pituophis ruthveni)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files and the petition we 
received on July 20, 2000, and updated through April 22, 2014. The 
Louisiana pine snake historically occurred in the fire-maintained 
longleaf pine ecosystem within west-central Louisiana and extreme east-
central Texas. Most of the historical longleaf pine habitat of the 
Louisiana pine snake has been destroyed or degraded due to logging, 
fire suppression, roadways, short rotation silviculture, and grazing. 
Over time, the extensive loss, degradation, and fragmentation of the 
longleaf pine ecosystem, coupled with the disruption of natural fire 
regimes, have resulted in extant Louisiana pine snake populations that 
are isolated and small.
    The Louisiana pine snake is currently restricted to six small, 
isolated naturally occupied areas; four of these areas occur on Federal 
lands, and two occur mainly on private industrial timberlands. All of 
these remnant individuals may be vulnerable to factors associated with 
low population sizes and demographic isolation, such as reduced genetic 
heterozygosity. The currently occupied area in Louisiana and Texas is 
estimated to be approximately 58,497 ha (144,549 ac). All remnant 
Louisiana pine snake habitats require active management to remain 
suitable. A Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA) was completed in 
2003 to maintain and enhance occupied and potential habitat on public 
lands, and to protect known Louisiana pine snake populations. This 
proactive habitat management has likely slowed or reversed the rate of 
Louisiana pine snake habitat degradation on many portions of Federal 
lands. The 2003 CCA was updated in 2013. The 2013 updated CCA directly 
links the specific conservation actions performed by the cooperators to 
the specific threats affecting the species. However, the historical and 
ongoing loss or unavailability of preferable habitat (via fire 
suppression, conversion to short rotation, dense-canopy, off-site pine 
plantations, increases in the number and width of roads, and 
urbanization) on private lands in the matrix between these extant 
populations has eliminated dispersal among remnant populations and the 
natural recolonization of vacant habitat patches. Because corridors 
linking extant populations are extremely unlikely to be established, 
the loss of any extant population would be permanent without future 
reintroduction of captive-bred individuals.
    All populations require active habitat management, and the lack of 
adequate amounts of suitable habitat remains a threat for several 
populations. The potential threats to nearly all extant Louisiana pine 
snake populations, coupled with the likely permanence of these effects 
and the species' low fecundity and low population sizes (based on 
capture rates and occurrence data), lead us to conclude that the 
threats have a relatively high likelihood of bringing about extinction 
and therefore remain high in magnitude. The threats are not imminent, 
because, while the extent of Louisiana pine snake habitat loss has been 
great in the past, the rate of habitat loss on Federal lands is 
declining and habitat conditions within occupied or preferable areas is 
improving due to proactive habitat management and other threat 
reduction through the CCA. Thus, based on nonimminent, high-magnitude 
threats, we assign an LPN of 5 to this species.
    Desert tortoise, Sonoran (Gopherus morafkai)--We continue to find 
that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of 
publication of this notice. However, we are working on a proposed 
listing determination that we expect to publish prior to making the 
next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the course of 
preparing the proposed listing rule, we are continuing to monitor new 
information about this species' status so that we can make prompt use 
of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in the case of an emergency 
posing a significant risk to the species.
    Gopher tortoise, eastern population (Gopherus polyphemus) -- The 
following summary is based on information in our files. The gopher 
tortoise is a large, terrestrial, herbivorous turtle that reaches a 
total length up to 15 inches (in) (38 centimeters (cm)), and typically 
inhabits the sandhills, pine/scrub oak uplands, and pine flatwoods 
associated with the longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) ecosystem. A 
fossorial animal, the gopher tortoise is usually found in areas with 
well-drained, deep, sandy soils, an open tree canopy, and a diverse, 
abundant herbaceous groundcover.
    The gopher tortoise ranges from extreme southern South Carolina 
south through peninsular Florida, and west through southern Georgia, 
Florida, southern Alabama, and Mississippi, into extreme southeastern 
Louisiana. The eastern population of the gopher tortoise in South 
Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and Alabama (east of the Mobile and 
Tombigbee Rivers) is a candidate species; the gopher tortoise is 
federally listed as threatened in the western portion of its range, 
which includes Alabama (west of the Mobile and Tombigbee Rivers), 
Mississippi, and Louisiana.
    The primary threat to the gopher tortoise is habitat fragmentation, 
destruction, and modification (either deliberately or from 
inattention), including conversion of longleaf pine forests to 
incompatible silvicultural or agricultural habitats, urbanization, 
shrub/hardwood encroachment (mainly from fire exclusion or insufficient 
fire management), and establishment and spread of invasive species. 
Other threats include disease, predation (mainly on nests and young 
tortoises), and inadequate regulatory mechanisms, specifically those 
needed to protect and enhance relocated tortoise populations in 
perpetuity. The magnitude of threats to the eastern range of the gopher 
tortoise is considered to be moderate to low, since populations extend 
over a broad geographic area and conservation measures are in place in 
some areas. However, since the species is currently being affected by a 
number of threats including destruction and modification of its 
habitat, disease, predation, exotics, and inadequate regulatory 
mechanisms, the threats are imminent. Thus, we have assigned a LPN of 8 
for this species.
    Sonoyta mud turtle (Kinosternon sonoriense longifemorale)--The 
following summary is based on information contained in our files. No 
new information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 
2004. The Sonoyta mud turtle occurs in a spring and pond at 
Quitobaquito Springs on Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in Arizona, 
and in the Rio Sonoyta and Quitovac Spring of Sonora, Mexico. Loss and 
degradation of stream habitat from water diversion and groundwater 
pumping, along with its very limited distribution, are the primary 
threats to the Sonoyta mud turtle. Sonoyta mud turtles are highly 
aquatic and depend on permanent water for survival. The area of 
southwest Arizona and northern Sonora where the Sonoyta mud turtle 
occurs is one of the driest regions in the Southwest. While

[[Page 72467]]

currently there is sufficient water for the turtles, so the threats are 
not imminent we expect drought and irrigated agriculture in the region 
to cause surface water in the Rio Sonoyta and Quitobaquito Springs to 
dwindle further in the foreseeable future and negatively affect this 
species. National Park Service staff continue to implement actions to 
stabilize the water levels in the pond at Quitobaquito Springs. 
However, surface water use in the Rio Sonoyta, in Sonora Mexico, will 
have a significant impact on the survival of this water-dependent 
subspecies. We retained a LPN of 6 for Sonoyta mud turtle due to high-
magnitude, nonimminent threats.

Amphibians

    Columbia spotted frog, Great Basin DPS (Rana luteiventris)--We 
continue to find that listing this species is warranted but precluded 
as of the date of publication of this notice. However, we are working 
on a proposed listing determination that we expect to publish prior to 
making the next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the 
course of preparing the proposed listing rule, we are continuing to 
monitor new information about this species' status so that we can make 
prompt use of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 
emergency posing a significant risk to the species.
    Relict leopard frog (Lithobates onca)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. Natural relict leopard 
frog populations occur in two general areas in Nevada: near the Overton 
Arm area of Lake Mead and Black Canyon below Lake Mead. These two areas 
include a small fraction of the historical distribution of the species. 
Its historical range included springs, streams, and wetlands within the 
Virgin River drainage downstream from the vicinity of Hurricane, Utah; 
along the Muddy River in Nevada; and along the Colorado River in Nevada 
and Arizona, from its confluence with the Virgin River downstream to 
Black Canyon below Lake Mead.
    Factors contributing to the decline of the species include 
alteration, loss, and degradation of aquatic habitat due to water 
developments and impoundments, and scouring and erosion; changes in 
plant communities that result in dense growth and the prevalence of 
vegetation; introduced predators; climate change; and stochastic 
events. The presence of chytrid fungus in relict leopard frogs at Lower 
Blue Point Spring is a concern and warrants further evaluation of the 
threat of disease to the relict leopard frog. The size of natural and 
translocated populations is small and, therefore, these populations are 
vulnerable to stochastic events, such as floods and wildfire. Climate 
change that results in reduced spring flow, habitat loss, and increased 
prevalence of wildfire would adversely affect relict leopard frog 
populations.
    In 2005, the National Park Service, in cooperation with the Fish 
and Wildlife Service and other Federal, State, and local partners, 
developed a conservation agreement and strategy, which is intended to 
improve the status of the species through prescribed management actions 
and protection. Conservation actions identified in the agreement and 
strategy include captive rearing of tadpoles for translocation and 
refugium populations, habitat and natural history studies, habitat 
enhancement, population and habitat monitoring, and translocation. New 
sites within the historical range of the species have been successfully 
established with captive-reared frogs. Conservation is proceeding under 
the agreement and strategy; however, additional time is needed to 
determine whether or not the agreement and strategy will be effective 
in eliminating or reducing the threats to the point that the relict 
leopard frog is no longer a candidate for listing. In consideration of 
these conservation efforts and the overall threat level to the species, 
we determined that the magnitude of existing threats is moderate to 
low. Potential water development and other habitat effects, presence of 
introduced predators, chytrid fungus, limited distribution, small 
population size, and climate change are ongoing, and thus, imminent 
threats. Therefore, we continue to assign a LPN of 8 to this species.
    Striped newt (Notophthalmus perstriatus)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. The striped newt is a 
small salamander that inhabits ephemeral ponds surrounded by upland 
habitats of high pine, scrubby flatwoods, and scrub. Longleaf pine-
turkey oak stands with intact ground cover containing wiregrass are the 
preferred upland habitat for striped newts, followed by scrub, then 
flatwoods. Life-history stages of the striped newt are complex, and 
include the use of both aquatic and terrestrial habitats throughout 
their life cycle. Striped newts are opportunistic feeders that prey on 
a variety of items such as frog eggs, worms, snails, fairy shrimp, 
spiders, and insects (adult and larvae) that are of appropriate size. 
They occur in appropriate habitats from the Atlantic Coastal Plain of 
southeastern Georgia to the north-central peninsula of Florida and 
through the Florida panhandle into portions of southwest Georgia. Prior 
to 2014, there was thought to be a 125-km (78-mile (mi)) separation 
between the western and eastern portions of the striped newt's range. 
However, the discovery of five adult striped newts in Taylor County, 
Florida, represents a significant possible range connection. The 
historical range of the striped newt was likely similar to the current 
range. However, loss of native longleaf habitat, fire suppression, and 
the natural patchy distribution of upland habitats used by striped 
newts have resulted in fragmentation of existing populations.
    Other threats to the species include disease, drought, and 
inadequate regulatory mechanisms. Overall, we conclude that the 
magnitude of the threats is moderate because most of the known striped 
newt metapopulations are on conservation lands which reduces the threat 
from further habitat fragmentation, and currently no diseases have been 
found in striped newts. Since the majority of threats are ongoing, they 
are imminent. Therefore, we assigned an LPN of 8 to this species. 
However, due to recent information that suggests the striped newt is 
likely extirpated from Apalachicola National Forest, the LPN may 
warrant changing to a lower number in the future.
    Berry Cave salamander (Gyrinophilus gulolineatus)--The following 
summary is based on information in our files. The Berry Cave salamander 
is recorded from Berry Cave in Roane County; from Mud Flats, Aycock 
Spring, Christian, Meades Quarry, Meades River, and Fifth caves in Knox 
County; from Blythe Ferry Cave in Meigs County; and from an unknown 
cave in Athens, McMinn County, Tennessee. In May of 2012, the species 
was also discovered in an additional cave, The Lost Puddle Cave, in 
Knox County. These cave systems are all located within the Upper 
Tennessee River and Clinch River drainages. A total of 113 caves in 
Middle and East Tennessee were surveyed from the time period of April 
2004 through June 2007, resulting in observations of 63 Berry Cave 
salamanders. These surveys concluded that Berry Cave salamander 
populations are robust at Berry and Mudflats caves where population 
declines had been previously reported, and documented two new 
populations of Berry Cave salamanders at Aycock Spring and Christian 
caves. Three Berry Cave salamanders were spotted during the May, 2012, 
survey in The Lost Puddle, and local cavers also reported sighting one 
individual in August 2012. Surveys for new populations are planned 
along the Valley and Ridge

[[Page 72468]]

Province between Knoxville and Chattanooga.
    Ongoing threats to this species are in the form of lye leaching in 
the Meades Quarry Cave as a result of past quarrying activities, the 
possible development of a roadway with potential to impact the recharge 
area for the Meades Quarry Cave system, urban development in Knox 
County, water quality impacts despite existing State and Federal laws, 
and hybridization between spring salamanders and Berry Cave salamanders 
in Meades Quarry Cave. These threats, coupled with confined 
distribution of the species and apparent low population densities, are 
all factors that leave the Berry Cave salamander vulnerable to 
extirpation. We have determined that the Berry Cave salamander faces 
imminent threats of moderate magnitude. The threats are moderate 
because the species still occurs in several different cave systems, and 
existing populations appear stable. Based on moderate-magnitude 
imminent threats, we continue to assign this species a LPN of 8.
    Black Warrior waterdog (Necturus alabamensis)--We continue to find 
that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of 
publication of this notice. However, we are working on a proposed 
listing determination that we expect to publish prior to making the 
next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the course of 
preparing the proposed listing rule, we are continuing to monitor new 
information about this species' status so that we can make prompt use 
of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in the case of an emergency 
posing a significant risk to the species.

Fishes

    Headwater chub (Gila nigra)--We continue to find that listing this 
species is warranted but precluded as of the date of publication of 
this notice. However, we are working on a proposed listing 
determination that we expect to publish prior to making the next annual 
resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the course of preparing the 
proposed listing rule, we are continuing to monitor new information 
about this species' status so that we can make prompt use of our 
authority under section 4(b)(7) in the case of an emergency posing a 
significant risk to the species.
    Roundtail chub (Gila robusta), Lower Colorado River DPS--We 
continue to find that listing this species is warranted but precluded 
as of the date of publication of this notice. However, we are working 
on a proposed listing determination that we expect to publish prior to 
making the next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the 
course of preparing the proposed listing rule, we are continuing to 
monitor new information about this species' status so that we can make 
prompt use of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 
emergency posing a significant risk to the species.
    Arkansas darter (Etheostoma cragini)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. No new information was 
provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. This fish species 
occurs in Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. The 
species is found most often in sand- or pebble-bottomed pools of small, 
spring-fed streams and marshes, with cool water and broadleaved aquatic 
vegetation. Its current distribution is indicative of a species that 
once was widely dispersed throughout its range, but has been relegated 
to isolated areas separated by unsuitable habitat that prevents 
dispersal.
    Factors influencing the current distribution include: Surface and 
groundwater irrigation resulting in decreased flows or stream 
dewatering; the dewatering of long reaches of riverine habitat; 
conversion of prairie to cropland, which influences groundwater 
recharge and spring flows; water quality degradation from a variety of 
sources; and the construction of dams, which act as barriers preventing 
emigration upstream and downstream through the reservoir pool. A 
current drought in the western portions of the species' range is also a 
threat. If drought conditions continue into the future, these 
conditions are likely to have a severe impact on many of these isolated 
populations. However, at present, the magnitude of threats facing this 
species is still moderate to low, given the number of different 
locations where the species occurs, and the fact that no single threat 
or combination of threats affects more than a portion of the species' 
widely distributed range. The immediacy of threats varies across the 
species' range; groundwater pumping is an ongoing concern in the 
western portion of the species range, although it has declined in some 
portions, and groundwater levels continue to support surface spring and 
stream flow in the majority of the species' range. Development, spills, 
and runoff are not currently affecting the species on a rangewide 
basis. Overall, the threats are nonimminent. Thus, we are retaining an 
LPN of 11 for the Arkansas darter.
    Pearl darter (Percina aurora)--The following summary is based on 
information contained in our files. Little is known about the specific 
habitat requirements or natural history of the Pearl darter. Pearl 
darters have been collected from a variety of river/stream attributes, 
mainly over gravel bottom substrate. This species is historically known 
only from localized sites within the Pascagoula and Pearl River 
drainages in Mississippi and Louisiana. Currently, the Pearl darter is 
considered extirpated from the Pearl River drainage and rare in the 
Pascagoula River drainage. Since 1983, the range of the Pearl darter 
has decreased by 55 percent.
    The Pearl darter is vulnerable to non-point source pollution caused 
by urbanization and other land use activities; gravel mining and 
resultant changes in river geomorphology, especially head cutting; and 
the possibility of water quantity decline from the proposed Department 
of Energy Strategic Petroleum Reserve project and a proposed dam on the 
Bouie River. Additional threats are posed by the apparent lack of 
adequate State and Federal water quality regulations resulting in the 
continued degradation of water quality within the species' habitat. The 
Pearl darter's localized distribution and apparent low population 
numbers may indicate a species with lower genetic diversity; this would 
also make this species more vulnerable to catastrophic events. Threats 
affecting the Pearl darter are localized in nature, affecting only 
portions of the population within the drainage having only a localized 
impact on the species and its' habitat. While water quality degradation 
is the most pervasive threat, it is not significant within the areas 
protected through The Nature Conservancy ownership and other areas 
where best managmenet practices are routinely practiced. Thus, we 
assigned a threat magnitude of moderate to low to this species. In 
addition, the threats are imminent since the identified threats are 
currently impacting this species in some portions of its range. 
Therefore, we have assigned an LPN of 8 for this species.
    Sicklefin redhorse (Moxostoma sp.)--We continue to find that 
listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of 
publication of this notice. However, we are working on a proposed 
listing determination that we expect to publish prior to making the 
next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the course of 
preparing the proposed listing rule, we are continuing to monitor new 
information about this species' status so that we can make prompt use 
of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in the case of an

[[Page 72469]]

emergency posing a significant risk to the species.
    Longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), Bay-Delta DPS--The 
following summary is based on information contained in our files and 
the petition we received on August 8, 2007. On April 2, 2012 (77 
FR19756), we determined that listing the longfin smelt San Francisco 
Bay-Delta distinct population segment (Bay-Delta DPS) was warranted but 
precluded. Longfin smelt measure 9-11 cm (3.5-4.3 in) standard length. 
Longfin smelt are considered pelagic and anadromous, although anadromy 
in longfin smelt is poorly understood, and certain populations in other 
parts of the species' range are not anadromous and complete their 
entire life cycle in freshwater lakes and streams. Longfin smelt 
usually live for 2 years, spawn, and then die, although some 
individuals may spawn as 1- or 3-year-old fish before dying. In the 
Bay-Delta, longfin smelt are believed to spawn primarily in freshwater 
in the lower reaches of the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River.
    Longfin smelt numbers in the Bay-Delta have declined significantly 
since the 1980s. Abundance indices derived from the Fall Midwater Trawl 
(FMWT), Bay Study Midwater Trawl (BSMT), and Bay Study Otter Trawl 
(BSOT) all show marked declines in Bay-Delta longfin smelt populations 
from 2002 to 2012. Longfin smelt abundance over the last decade is the 
lowest recorded in the 40-year history of CDFG's FMWT monitoring 
surveys.
    The primary threat to the DPS is from reduced freshwater flows. 
Freshwater flows, especially winter-spring flows, are significantly 
correlated with longfin smelt abundance--longfin smelt abundance is 
lower when winter-spring flows are lower. The long-term decline in 
abundance of longfin smelt in the Bay-Delta has been partially 
attributed to reductions in food availability and disruptions of the 
Bay-Delta food web caused by establishment of the nonnative overbite 
clam and likely by increasing ammonium concentrations. In the 2012, 12-
month finding, we determined that threats were high in magnitude and 
imminent, resulting in an LPN of 3. The threats still remain high in 
magnitude since they pose a significant risk to the DPS throughout its 
range. The threats are ongoing, and thus are imminent. We are 
maintaining an LPN of 3 for this population.

Clams

    Texas fatmucket (Lampsilis bracteata)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. The Texas fatmucket is a 
large, elongated freshwater mussel that is endemic to central Texas. 
Its shell can be moderately thick, smooth, and rhomboidal to oval in 
shape. Its external coloration varies from tan to brown with continuous 
dark brown, green-brown, or black rays, and internally it is pearly 
white, with some having a light salmon tint. This species historically 
occurred throughout the Colorado and Guadalupe-San Antonio River basins 
but is now known to occur only in nine streams within these basins in 
very limited numbers. All existing populations are represented by only 
one or two individuals and are not likely to be stable or recruiting.
    The Texas fatmucket is primarily threatened by habitat destruction 
and modification from impoundments, which scour river beds, thereby 
removing mussel habitat; decrease water quality; modify stream flows; 
and prevent fish host migration and distribution of freshwater mussels. 
This species is also threatened by sedimentation, dewatering, sand and 
gravel mining, and chemical contaminants. Additionally, these threats 
may be exacerbated by the current and projected effects of climate 
change, population fragmentation and isolation, and the anticipated 
threat of nonnative species. Threats to the Texas fatmucket and its 
habitat are not being adequately addressed through existing regulatory 
mechanisms. Because of the limited distribution of this endemic species 
and its lack of mobility, these threats are likely to result in the 
extinction of the Texas fatmucket in the foreseeable future.
    The threats to the Texas fatmucket are high in magnitude, because 
habitat loss and degradation from impoundments, sedimentation, sand and 
gravel mining, and chemical contaminants are widespread throughout the 
range of the Texas fatmucket and profoundly affect its survival and 
recruitment. These threats are exacerbated by climate change, which 
will increase the frequency and magnitude of droughts. Remaining 
populations are small, isolated, and highly vulnerable to stochastic 
events, which could lead to extirpation or extinction. These threats 
are imminent because they are ongoing and will continue in the 
foreseeable future. Habitat loss and degradation have already occurred 
and will continue as the human population continues to grow in central 
Texas. Texas fatmucket populations may already be below the minimum 
viable population requirement, which causes a reduction in the number 
of populations and an increase in the species' vulnerability to 
extinction. Based on imminent, high-magnitude threats, we maintained an 
LPN of 2 for the Texas fatmucket.
    Texas fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. The Texas fawnsfoot is a 
small, relatively thin-shelled freshwater mussel that is endemic to 
central Texas. Its shell is long and oval, generally free of external 
sculpturing, with external coloration that varies from yellowish- or 
orangish-tan, brown, reddish-brown, to smoky-green with a pattern of 
broken rays or irregular blotches. The internal color is bluish-white 
or white and iridescent posteriorly. This species historically occurred 
throughout the Colorado and Brazos River basins and is now known from 
only five locations. The Texas fawnsfoot has been extirpated from 
nearly all of the Colorado River basin and from much of the Brazos 
River basin. Of the populations that remain, only three are likely to 
be stable and recruiting; the remaining populations are disjunct and 
restricted to short stream reaches.
    The Texas fawnsfoot is primarily threatened by habitat destruction 
and modification from impoundments, which scour river beds, thereby 
removing mussel habitat; decrease water quality; modify stream flows; 
and prevent fish host migration and distribution of freshwater mussels, 
as well as by sedimentation, dewatering, sand and gravel mining, and 
chemical contaminants. Additionally, these threats may be exacerbated 
by the current and projected effects of climate change, population 
fragmentation and isolation, and the anticipated threat of nonnative 
species. Threats to the Texas fawnsfoot and its habitat are not being 
adequately addressed through existing regulatory mechanisms. Because of 
the limited distribution of this endemic species and its lack of 
mobility, these threats are likely to result in the extinction of the 
Texas fawnsfoot in the foreseeable future.
    The threats to the Texas fawnsfoot are high in magnitude. Habitat 
loss and degradation from impoundments, sedimentation, sand and gravel 
mining, and chemical contaminants are widespread throughout the range 
of the Texas fawnsfoot and profoundly affect its habitat. These threats 
are exacerbated by climate change, which will increase the frequency 
and magnitude of droughts. Remaining populations are small, isolated, 
and highly vulnerable to stochastic events. These threats are imminent 
because they are ongoing and will continue in the foreseeable future. 
Habitat loss and degradation has already occurred and will continue as 
the

[[Page 72470]]

human population continues to grow in central Texas. The Texas 
fawnsfoot populations may already be below the minimum viable 
population requirement, which causes a reduction in the number of 
populations and an increase in the species' vulnerability to 
extinction. Based on imminent, high-magnitude threats, we assigned the 
Texas fawnsfoot an LPN of 2.
    Texas hornshell (Popenaias popei)--We continue to find that listing 
this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of publication 
of this notice. However, we are working on a proposed listing 
determination that we expect to publish prior to making the next annual 
resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the course of preparing the 
proposed listing rule, we are continuing to monitor new information 
about this species' status so that we can make prompt use of our 
authority under section 4(b)(7) in the case of an emergency posing a 
significant risk to the species.
    Golden orb (Quadrula aurea)--The following summary is based on 
information contained in our files. The golden orb is a small, round-
shaped freshwater mussel that is endemic to central Texas. This species 
historically occurred throughout the Nueces-Frio and Guadalupe-San 
Antonio River basins and is now known from only nine locations in four 
rivers. The golden orb has been eliminated from nearly the entire 
Nueces-Frio River basin. Four of these populations appear to be stable 
and reproducing, and the remaining five populations are small and 
isolated and show no evidence of recruitment. It appears that the 
populations in the middle Guadalupe and lower San Marcos Rivers are 
likely connected. The remaining extant populations are highly 
fragmented and restricted to short reaches.
    The golden orb is primarily threatened by habitat destruction and 
modification from impoundments, which scour river beds (thereby 
removing mussel habitat), decrease water quality, modify stream flows, 
and prevent fish host migration and distribution of freshwater mussels. 
The species is also threatened by sedimentation, dewatering, sand and 
gravel mining, and chemical contaminants. Additionally, these threats 
may be exacerbated by the current and projected effects of climate 
change, population fragmentation and isolation, and the anticipated 
threat of nonnative species. Threats to the golden orb and its habitat 
are not being adequately addressed through existing regulatory 
mechanisms. Because of the limited distribution of this endemic species 
and its lack of mobility, these threats may be likely to result in the 
golden orb becoming in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future.
    The threats to the golden orb are moderate in magnitude. Although 
habitat loss and degradation from impoundments, sedimentation, sand and 
gravel mining, and chemical contaminants are widespread throughout the 
range of the golden orb, and are likely to be exacerbated by climate 
change, which will increase the frequency and magnitude of droughts, 
four large populations remain, including one that was recently 
discovered, suggesting that the threats are not high in magnitude. The 
threats from habitat loss and degradation are imminent because habitat 
loss and degradation have already occurred and will likely continue as 
the human population continues to grow in central Texas. Several golden 
orb populations may already be below the minimum viable population 
requirement, which causes a reduction in the number of populations and 
an increase in the species' vulnerability to extinction. Based on 
imminent, moderate threats, we maintain an LPN of 8 for the golden orb.
    Smooth pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. The smooth pimpleback is a 
small, round-shaped freshwater mussel that is endemic to central Texas. 
This species historically occurred throughout the Colorado and Brazos 
River basins and is now known from only nine locations. The smooth 
pimpleback has been eliminated from nearly the entire Colorado River 
and all but one of its tributaries, and has been limited to the central 
and lower Brazos River drainage. Five of the populations are 
represented by no more than a few individuals and are small and 
isolated. Six of the existing populations appear to be relatively 
stable and recruiting.
    The smooth pimpleback is primarily threatened by habitat 
destruction and modification from impoundments, which scour river beds 
(thereby removing mussel habitat), decrease water quality, modify 
stream flows, and prevent fish host migration and distribution of 
freshwater mussels. The species is also threatened by sedimentation, 
dewatering, sand and gravel mining, and chemical contaminants. 
Additionally, these threats may be exacerbated by the current and 
projected effects of climate change, population fragmentation and 
isolation, and the anticipated threat of nonnative species. Threats to 
the smooth pimpleback and its habitat are not being adequately 
addressed through existing regulatory mechanisms. Because of the 
limited distribution of this endemic species and its lack of mobility, 
these threats may be likely to result in the smooth pimpleback becoming 
in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future.
    The threats to the smooth pimpleback are moderate in magnitude. 
Although habitat loss and degradation from impoundments, sedimentation, 
sand and gravel mining, and chemical contaminants are widespread 
throughout the range of the smooth pimpleback, and may be exacerbated 
by climate change, which will increase the frequency and magnitude of 
droughts, several large populations remain, including one that was 
recently discovered, suggesting that the threats are not high in 
magnitude. The threats from habitat loss and degradation are imminent 
because they have already occurred and will continue as the human 
population continues to grow in central Texas. Several smooth 
pimpleback populations may already be below the minimum viable 
population requirement, which causes a reduction in the number of 
populations and an increase in the species' vulnerability to 
extinction. Based on imminent, moderate threats, we maintain an LPN of 
8 for the smooth pimpleback.
    Texas pimpleback (Quadrula petrina)--The following summary is based 
on information contained in our files. The Texas pimpleback is a large, 
freshwater mussel that is endemic to central Texas. This species 
historically occurred throughout the Colorado and Guadalupe-San Antonio 
River basins, but is now known to only occur in four streams within 
these basins. Only two populations appear large enough to be stable, 
but evidence of recruitment is limited in the Concho River population 
and is present in the San Saba River population, which may be the only 
remaining recruiting populations of Texas pimpleback. The remaining two 
populations are represented by one or two individuals and are highly 
disjunct.
    The Texas pimpleback is primarily threatened by habitat destruction 
and modification from impoundments, which scour river beds (thereby 
removing mussel habitat), decrease water quality, modify stream flows, 
and prevent fish host migration and distribution of freshwater mussels. 
This species is also threatened by sedimentation, dewatering, sand and 
gravel mining, and chemical contaminants. Additionally, these threats 
may be exacerbated by the current and projected effects of climate 
change (which will increase the frequency and magnitude of droughts),

[[Page 72471]]

population fragmentation and isolation, and the anticipated threat of 
nonnative species. Threats to the Texas pimpleback and its habitat are 
not being adequately addressed through existing regulatory mechanisms. 
Because of the limited distribution of this endemic species and its 
lack of mobility, these threats may be likely to result in the Texas 
pimpleback becoming in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future.
    The threats to the Texas pimpleback are high in magnitude, because 
habitat loss and degradation from impoundments, sedimentation, sand and 
gravel mining, and chemical contaminants are widespread throughout the 
entire range of the Texas pimpleback and profoundly affect its survival 
and recruitment. The only remaining populations are small, isolated, 
and highly vulnerable to stochastic events, which could lead to 
extirpation or extinction. The threats are imminent because habitat 
loss and degradation have already occurred and will continue as the 
human population continues to grow in central Texas. All Texas 
pimpleback populations may already be below the minimum viable 
population requirement, which causes a reduction in the number of 
populations and an increase in the species' vulnerability to 
extinction. Based on imminent, high-magnitude threats, we assigned the 
Texas pimpleback an LPN of 2.

Snails

    Black mudalia (Elimia melanoides)--We continue to find that listing 
this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of publication 
of this notice. However, we are working on a proposed listing 
determination that we expect to publish prior to making the next annual 
resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the course of preparing the 
proposed listing rule, we are continuing to monitor new information 
about this species' status so that we can make prompt use of our 
authority under section 4(b)(7) in the case of an emergency posing a 
significant risk to the species.
    Magnificent ramshorn (Planorbella magnifica)--Magnificent ramshorn, 
is the largest North American air-breathing freshwater snail in the 
family Planorbidae. It has a relatively thin discoidal (i.e., coiling 
in one plane) shell that reaches a diameter commonly exceeding 35mm and 
heights exceeding 20mm. The great width of its shell, in relation to 
the diameter, makes it easily identifiable at all ages. The shell is 
brown colored (often with leopard-like spots) and fragile, thus 
indicating it is adapted to still or slow-flowing aquatic habitats. The 
magnificent ramshorn is believed to be a southeastern North Carolina 
endemic. The species is known from only four sites in the lower Cape 
Fear River Basin in North Carolina. Although the complete historical 
range of the species is unknown, the size of the species and the fact 
that it was not reported until 1903 are indications that the species 
may have always been rare and localized.
    Salinity and pH are major factors limiting the distribution of the 
magnificent ramshorn, as the snail prefers freshwater bodies with 
circumneutral pH (i.e., pH within the range of 6.8-7.5). While members 
of the family Planorbidae are hermaphroditic, it is currently unknown 
whether magnificent ramshorns self-fertilize their eggs, mate with 
other individuals of the species, or both. Like other members of the 
Planorbidae family, the magnificent ramshorn is believed to be 
primarily a vegetarian, feeding on submerged aquatic plants, algae, and 
detritus. While several factors likely have contributed to the possible 
extirpation of the magnificent ramshorn in the wild, the primary 
factors include loss of habitat associated with the extirpation of 
beavers (and their impoundments) in the early 20th century and 
increased salinity and alteration of flow patterns, as well as 
increased input of nutrients and other pollutants.
    The magnificent ramshorn appears to be extirpated from the wild due 
to habitat loss and degradation resulting from a variety of human-
induced and natural factors. The only known surviving individuals of 
the species are presently being held and propagated at a private 
residence, a lab at North Carolina State University's Veterinary 
School, and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission's Watha 
State Fish Hatchery. While efforts have been made to restore habitat 
for the magnificent ramshorn at one of the sites known to have 
previously supported the species, all of the sites continue to be 
affected or threatened by the same factors (i.e., salt water intrusion 
and other water-quality degradation, nuisance aquatic plant control, 
storms, sea level rise, etc.) believed to have resulted in extirpation 
of the species from the wild. Currently, only three captive populations 
exist; a single robust captive population of the species comprised of 
greater than 200 adults, and two small populations of 50 or more 
individuals. Although the robust captive population of the species has 
been maintained since 1993, a single catastrophic event affecting this 
captive population, such as a severe storm, disease, or predator 
infestation, could result in the near extinction of the species. 
Therefore, we assigned this species a LPN of 2.
    Sisi snail (Ostodes strigatus)--The following summary is based on 
information contained in our files. No new information was provided in 
the petition we received on May 11, 2004. The sisi snail is a ground-
dwelling species in the Potaridae family, and is endemic to American 
Samoa. The species is now known from a single population on the island 
of Tutuila, American Samoa.
    This species is currently threatened by habitat loss and 
modification and by predation from nonnative predatory snails. The 
decline of the sisi snail in American Samoa has resulted, in part, from 
loss of habitat to logging and agriculture, and loss of forest 
structure to hurricanes and nonnative weeds that become established 
after these storms. All live sisi snails have been found in the leaf 
litter beneath remaining intact forest canopy. No snails were found in 
areas bordering agricultural plots or in forested areas that were 
severely damaged by hurricanes. Under natural historical conditions, 
loss of forest canopy to storms did not pose a great threat to the 
long-term survival of these snails; enough intact forest with healthy 
populations of snails would support dispersal back into newly regrown 
forest canopy. However, the presence of nonnative weeds such as mile-a-
minute vine (Mikania micrantha) may reduce the likelihood that native 
forests will re-establish in areas damaged by hurricanes. This loss of 
habitat to storms is greatly exacerbated by expanding agriculture. 
Agricultural plots on Tutuila have spread from low elevation up to 
middle and some high elevations, greatly reducing the forested area and 
thus reducing the resilience of native forests and populations of 
native snails. These reductions also increase the likelihood that 
future storms will lead to the extinction of populations or species 
that rely on the remaining forest canopy. In an effort to eradicate the 
nonnative giant African snail (Achatina fulica), the nonnative rosy 
carnivore snail (Euglandina rosea) was introduced in 1980. The rosy 
carnivore snail has spread throughout the main island of Tutuila. 
Numerous studies show that the rosy carnivore snail feeds on endemic 
island snails, including the sisi snail, and is a major agent in their 
declines and extirpations. At present, the major threat to the long-
term survival of the native snail fauna in American Samoa, including 
the sisi snail, is predation by nonnative predatory snails. The threats 
are

[[Page 72472]]

imminent and of high magnitude, since they are severe enough to affect 
the continued existence of the species, leading to a relatively high 
likelihood of extinction. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 for 
this species.
    Tutuila tree snail (Eua zebrina)--A tree-dwelling species, the 
Tutuila tree snail is a member of the Partulidae family of snails and 
is endemic to American Samoa. The species is known from 32 populations 
on the islands of Tutuila, Manua, and Ofu.
    This species is currently threatened by habitat loss and 
modification and by predation from nonnative predatory snails and rats 
(Rattus spp.). All live Tutuila tree snails were found on understory 
vegetation beneath remaining intact forest canopy. No snails were found 
in areas bordering agricultural plots or in forested areas that were 
severely damaged by three hurricanes (1987, 1990, and 1991). (See 
summary for the sisi snail, above, regarding impacts of nonnative weeds 
and of the rosy carnivore snail.) Rats have also been shown to 
devastate snail populations, and rat-damaged snail shells have been 
found at sites where the Tutuila snail occurs. At present, the major 
threat to the long-term survival of the native snail fauna in American 
Samoa is ongoing predation by nonnative predatory snails and rats. The 
magnitude of threats is high because they result in direct mortality 
leading to significant population declines to the Tutuila tree snail 
rangewide. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 for this species.
    Huachuca springsnail (Pyrgulopsis thompsoni)--The following is 
based on information contained in our files. No new information was 
provided in the petition received on May 11, 2004. The Huachuca 
springsnail is endemic to Santa Cruz and Cochise Counties in 
southeastern Arizona and adjacent portions of northern Sonora, Mexico. 
Currently, the Huachuca springsnail inhabits at least 21 spring sites 
in southeastern Arizona and northern Sonora, Mexico. The species is 
most commonly found in shallow water habitats, often in rocky seeps at 
the spring source. Threats include habitat modification and destruction 
through catastrophic wildfire, unmanaged grazing at the landscape 
scale, and the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms. Overall, the 
threats are low in magnitude, because threats are not occurring 
throughout the range of the species uniformly and not all populations 
would likely be affected simultaneously by the known threats. We have 
no site-specific information indicating that grazing is currently 
ongoing in or adjacent to occupied habitats, and catastrophic wildfire 
is not known to be an imminent threat. Accordingly, threats are 
nonimminent. Therefore, we retain an LPN of 11 for the Huachuca 
springsnail.
    Page springsnail (Pyrgulopsis morrisoni)--We continue to find that 
listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of 
publication of this notice. However, we are working on a proposed 
listing determination that we expect to publish prior to making the 
next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the course of 
preparing the proposed listing rule, we are continuing to monitor new 
information about this species' status so that we can make prompt use 
of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in the case of an emergency 
posing a significant risk to the species.

Insects

    Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (Hylaeus anthracinus)--The following 
summary is based on information contained in our files and in the 
petition that we received for this species on March 23, 2009. Hylaeus 
anthracinus is a species of Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (family 
Colletidae) found in certain coastal areas and dry lowland forests 
containing native plant communities on the islands of Hawaii, 
Kahoolawe, Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu, Hawaii. Hylaeus anthracinus 
is currently known from 16 populations containing an unknown number of 
individuals. This species is threatened by ongoing habitat loss and 
modification due to the effects of feral ungulates, nonnative plants, 
wildfire, and climate change. Hylaeus anthracinus is directly 
threatened by predation from yellow jacket wasps (Vespula pensylvanica) 
and several species of nonnative ants. Additional indirect threats to 
the species include the limited number and small size of populations, 
competition from European honey bees (Apis mellifera), the possibility 
of habitat destruction from stochastic and catastrophic events, and a 
lack of regulatory mechanisms affording protection to the species.
    Some H. anthracinus populations occur in areas that are managed for 
one or more of the threats affecting habitat; however, no population is 
entirely protected from impacts to habitat, and predation on the 
species is not currently managed at any population site. Because the 
ongoing threats adversely affect H. anthracinus throughout its entire 
range, and cause impacts that are sufficiently severe that they could 
lead to population declines, the threats are high in magnitude and are 
imminent. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 for this species.
    Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (Hylaeus assimulans)--The following 
summary is based on information contained in our files and in the 
petition that we received for this species on March 23, 2009. Hylaeus 
assimulans is a species of Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (family 
Colletidae) found in certain coastal areas and dry lowland forests 
containing native plant communities on the islands of Hawaii, 
Kahoolawe, Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu, Hawaii. Hylaeus assimulans 
is currently known from five populations containing an unknown number 
of individuals. This species is threatened by ongoing habitat loss and 
modification due to the effects of feral ungulates, nonnative plants, 
wildfire, and climate change. Hylaeus assimulans is directly threatened 
by predation from yellow jacket wasps (Vespula pensylvanica) and 
several species of nonnative ants. Additional indirect threats to the 
species include the limited number and small size of populations, 
competition from European honey bees (Apis mellifera), the possibility 
of habitat destruction from stochastic and catastrophic events, and a 
lack of regulatory mechanisms affording protection to the species.
    Some H. assimulans populations occur in areas that are managed for 
one or more of the threats affecting habitat; however, no population is 
entirely protected from impacts to habitat, and predation on the 
species is not currently managed at any population site. Because the 
ongoing threats adversely affect H. assimulans throughout its entire 
range, and cause impacts that are sufficiently severe that they could 
lead to population declines, the threats are high in magnitude and are 
imminent. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 for this species.
    Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (Hylaeus facilis)--The following summary 
is based on information contained in our files and in the petition that 
we received for this species on March 23, 2009. Hylaeus facilis is a 
species of Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (family Colletidae) with a wide 
historical range of native plant community habitat including coastal 
areas, lowland dry and wet forests, and montane mesic forests on the 
islands of Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu, Hawaii. Now extirpated from 
the islands of Lanai and Maui, H. facilis is currently known from two 
populations containing an unknown number of individuals. This species 
is threatened by ongoing habitat loss and modification due to the 
effects of feral ungulates, nonnative plants, wildfire, and climate 
change. H. facilis is directly

[[Page 72473]]

threatened by predation from yellow jacket wasps (Vespula pensylvanica) 
and several species of nonnative ants. Additional indirect threats to 
the species include the limited number and small size of populations, 
competition from European honey bees (Apis mellifera), the possibility 
of habitat destruction from stochastic and catastrophic events, and a 
lack of regulatory mechanisms affording protection to the species.
    Both of the Hylaeus facilis populations occur in areas that are 
managed for one or more of the threats affecting habitat; however, 
neither population is entirely protected from impacts to habitat and 
predation upon the species is not currently managed within either 
population site. The threats to H. facilis are high in magnitude 
because their severity endangers the species with a relatively high 
likelihood of extinction throughout its entire range. The threats are 
ongoing throughout its entire range, thus the threats are imminent. 
Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 for this species.
    Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (Hylaeus hilaris)--The following summary 
is based on information contained in our files and in the petition that 
we received for this species on March 23, 2009. Hylaeus hilaris is a 
cleptoparasitic species of Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (family 
Colletidae) with a historical range in coastal habitat on the islands 
of Lanai, Maui, and Molokai, Hawaii. Now extirpated from the islands of 
Lanai and Maui, H. hilaris is currently known from a single population 
on Molokai containing an unknown number of individuals. This species is 
threatened by ongoing habitat loss and modification due to the effects 
of feral ungulates, nonnative plants, wildfire, and climate change. H. 
hilaris is directly threatened by predation from yellow jacket wasps 
(Vespula pensylvanica) and several species of nonnative ants. 
Additional indirect threats to the species include the small size of 
its remaining population, lack of additional populations, competition 
from European honey bees (Apis mellifera), possibility of habitat 
destruction from stochastic and catastrophic events, and a lack of 
regulatory mechanisms affording protection to the species.
    The Hylaeus hilaris population occurs within a private preserve 
that is managed for some of the threats affecting habitat; however, the 
population is not entirely protected from impacts to habitat, and 
predation upon the species is not currently managed at all. The threats 
to H. hilaris are high in magnitude because their severity presents a 
relatively high likelihood of extinction throughout its entire range. 
The threats to H. hilaris are imminent, since they are ongoing. 
Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 for this species.
    Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (Hylaeus kuakea)--The following summary 
is based on information contained in our files and in the petition that 
we received for this species on March 23, 2009. Hylaeus kuakea is a 
species of Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (family Colletidae) found in 
lowland mesic forests on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. H. kuakea is 
currently known from two populations containing an unknown number of 
individuals. This species is threatened by ongoing habitat loss and 
modification due to the effects of feral ungulates, nonnative plants, 
wildfire, and climate change. H. kuakea is directly threatened by 
predation from yellow jacket wasps (Vespula pensylvanica) and several 
species of nonnative ants. Additional indirect threats to the species 
include the limited number and small size of populations, competition 
from European honey bees (Apis mellifera), the possibility of habitat 
destruction from stochastic and catastrophic events, and a lack of 
regulatory mechanisms affording protection to the species.
    Both Hylaeus kuakea populations occur in areas that are managed for 
one or more of the threats affecting habitat; however, neither 
population is entirely protected from impacts to habitat, and predation 
on the species is not currently managed within either population site. 
The threats to H. kuakea are high in magnitude because their severity 
presents a relatively high likelihood of extinction throughout its 
entire range. The threats to H. kuakea are imminent, since they are 
ongoing. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 for this species.
    Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (Hylaeus longiceps)--The following 
summary is based on information contained in our files and in the 
petition that we received for this species on March 23, 2009. Hylaeus 
longiceps is a species of Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (family Colletidae) 
found in certain coastal areas and dry lowland forest containing native 
plant communities on the islands of Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu, 
Hawaii. H. longiceps is currently known from six populations containing 
an unknown number of individuals. This species is threatened by ongoing 
habitat loss and modification due to the effects of feral ungulates, 
nonnative plants, wildfire, and climate change. H. longiceps is 
directly threatened by predation from yellow jacket wasps (Vespula 
pensylvanica) and several species of nonnative ants. Additional 
indirect threats to the species include the limited number and small 
size of populations, competition from European honey bees (Apis 
mellifera), the possibility of habitat destruction from stochastic and 
catastrophic events, and a lack of regulatory mechanisms affording 
protection to the species.
    Some Hylaeus longiceps populations occur in areas that are managed 
for one or more of the threats affecting habitat; however, no 
population is entirely protected from impacts to habitat, and predation 
on the species is not currently managed within any population site. The 
threats to H. longiceps are high in magnitude because their severity 
presents a relatively high likelihood of extinction throughout its 
entire range. The threats to H. longiceps are imminent, since they are 
ongoing. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 for this species.
    Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (Hylaeus mana)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files and in the petition that we 
received for this species on March 23, 2009. Hylaeus mana is a species 
of Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (family Colletidae) found in lowland mesic 
forests on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. H. mana is currently known from 
four populations containing an unknown number of individuals. This 
species is threatened by ongoing habitat loss and modification due to 
the effects of feral ungulates, nonnative plants, wildfire, and climate 
change. H. mana is directly threatened by predation from yellow jacket 
wasps (Vespula pensylvanica) and several species of nonnative ants. 
Additional indirect threats to the species include the limited number 
and small size of populations, competition from European honey bees 
(Apis mellifera), the possibility of habitat destruction from 
stochastic and catastrophic events, and a lack of regulatory mechanisms 
affording protection to the species.
    The Hylaeus mana populations occur in areas that are managed for 
one or more of the threats affecting habitat; however, the population 
is not entirely protected from impacts to habitat, and predation on the 
species is not currently managed at all. The threats to H. mana are 
high in magnitude because their severity presents a relatively high 
likelihood of extinction throughout its entire range. The threats to H. 
mana are imminent, since they are ongoing. Therefore, we have retained 
an LPN of 2 for this species.
    Hermes copper butterfly (Hermelycaena [Lycaena] hermes)--

[[Page 72474]]

Hermes copper butterfly primarily occurs in San Diego County, 
California, and a few records of the species have been documented in 
Baja California, Mexico. The species inhabits coastal sage scrub and 
southern mixed chaparral, and is dependent on its larval host plant, 
Rhamnus crocea (spiny redberry), to complete its lifecycle. Adult 
Hermes copper butterflies lay single eggs on spiny redberry stems where 
they hatch and feed until pupation occurs at the base of the plant. 
Hermes copper butterflies have one flight period occurring in mid-May 
to early-July, depending on weather conditions and elevation. We 
estimate there were at least 59 known separate historical populations 
throughout the species' range since the species was first described. Of 
the 59 known Hermes copper butterfly populations, 21 are extant, 27 are 
believed to have been extirpated, and 11 are of unknown status.
    Primary threats to Hermes copper butterfly are megafires (large 
wildfires), and small and isolated populations. Secondary threats 
include increased wildfire frequency that results in habitat loss, and 
combined impacts of existing development, possible future (limited) 
development, existing dispersal barriers, and fires that fragment 
habitat. Hermes copper butterfly occupies scattered areas of sage scrub 
and chaparral habitat in an arid region susceptible to wildfires of 
increasing frequency and size. The likelihood that individuals of the 
species will be burned as a result of catastrophic wildfires, combined 
with the isolation and small size of extant populations, makes Hermes 
copper butterfly particularly vulnerable to population extirpation 
rangewide. Overall, the threats that Hermes copper butterfly faces are 
high in magnitude, because the major threats (particularly mortality 
due to wildfire and increased wildfire frequency) occur throughout all 
of the species' range and are likely to result in significant adverse 
impacts to the status of the species. The threats are nonimminent 
overall, because the impact of wildfire to Hermes copper butterfly and 
its habitat occurs on a sporadic basis, and we do not have the ability 
to predict when wildfires will occur. This species faces high-magnitude 
nonimminent threats; therefore, we assigned this species a LPN of 5.
    Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly (Atlantea tulita)--The following 
summary is based on information in our files and in the petition we 
received on February 29, 2009. The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is 
endemic to Puerto Rico, and one of the four species endemic to the 
Greater Antilles within the genus Atlantea. This species occurs within 
the subtropical moist forest life zone in the northern karst region 
(i.e., municipality of Quebradillas) of Puerto Rico, and in the 
subtropical wet forest (i.e., Maricao Commonwealth Forest, municipality 
of Maricao). The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly has only been found 
utilizing Oplonia spinosa (prickly bush) as its host plant (i.e., a 
plant that is used for laying the eggs, and also serves as a food 
source for development of the larvae).
    The primary threats to the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly are 
development, habitat fragmentation, and other natural or manmade 
factors such as human-induced fires, use of herbicides and pesticides, 
vegetation management, and climate change. These threats would 
substantially affect the distribution and abundance of the species, as 
well as its habitat. In addition, the lack of effective enforcement 
makes the existing policies and regulations inadequate for the 
protection of the species' habitat. Activities leading to habitat 
modification and destruction are expected to continue and potentially 
increase in the foreseeable future. These threats are high in magnitude 
and imminent because known populations occur in areas that are subject 
to ongoing development, increased traffic, and increased road 
maintenance and construction and they directly affect populations 
during all life stages throughout the range of the species. Therefore, 
we assigned a LPN of 2 to this species.
    Sequatchie caddisfly (Glyphopsyche sequatchie)--We continue to find 
that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of 
publication of this notice. However, we are working on a proposed 
listing determination that we expect to publish prior to making the 
next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the course of 
preparing the proposed listing rule, we are continuing to monitor new 
information about this species' status so that we can make prompt use 
of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in the case of an emergency 
posing a significant risk to the species..
    Clifton Cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus caecus)--The following 
summary is based upon information contained in our files. No new 
information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. 
Clifton Cave beetle is a small, eyeless, reddish-brown, predatory 
insect that feeds upon small cave invertebrates. It is cave dependent 
and is not found outside the cave environment. Clifton Cave beetle is 
known only from two privately owned caves in Woodford County, Kentucky. 
Soon after the species was first observed in 1963, the cave entrance 
was blocked due to road construction and placement of fill material 
along KY Highway 1964. We do not know whether the species still occurs 
at the original location or if it has been extirpated from the site by 
the closure of the cave entrance. A 2008 attempt to re-open the cave 
was unsuccessful. Other caves in the vicinity of this cave were 
surveyed for the species during 1995 and 1996, and only one additional 
site (Richardson's Spring) was found to support the Clifton Cave 
beetle.
    The limestone caves in which the Clifton Cave beetle is found 
provide a unique and fragile environment that supports a variety of 
species that have evolved to survive and reproduce under the demanding 
conditions found in cave ecosystems. The limited distribution of the 
species makes it vulnerable to isolated events that would only have a 
minimal effect on more wide-ranging insects. Events such as toxic 
chemical spills, discharges of large amounts of polluted water or 
indirect impacts from off-site construction activities, closure of 
entrances, alteration of entrances, or the creation of new entrances 
could have serious adverse impacts on on the survival of this species. 
Therefore, the magnitude of threat is high for this species. The 
threats are nonimminent because there are no known projects that would 
affect the species in the near future. We therefore have assigned an 
LPN of 5 to this species.
    Coleman cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus colemanensis)--We continue 
to find that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the 
date of publication of this notice. However, we are working on a 
proposed listing determination that we expect to publish prior to 
making the next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the 
course of preparing the proposed listing rule, we are continuing to 
monitor new information about this species' status so that we can make 
prompt use of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 
emergency posing a significant risk to the species.
    Icebox Cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus frigidus)--The following 
summary is based upon information contained in our files. No new 
information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. 
Icebox Cave beetle is a small, eyeless, reddish-brown, predatory insect 
that feeds upon small cave invertebrates. It is not found outside the 
cave

[[Page 72475]]

environment, and is only known from one privately owned Kentucky cave 
in Bell County.
    The limestone cave in which this species is found provides a unique 
and fragile environment that supports a variety of species that have 
evolved to survive and reproduce under the demanding conditions found 
in cave ecosystems. The species has not been observed since it was 
originally collected, but species experts believe that it may still 
exist in the cave in low numbers. The limited distribution of the 
species makes it vulnerable to isolated events that would only have a 
minimal effect on more wide-ranging insects. Events such as toxic 
chemical spills or discharges of large amounts of polluted water, or 
indirect impacts from off-site construction activities, closure of 
entrances, alteration of entrances, or the creation of new entrances, 
could have serious adverse impacts on the survival of this species. The 
magnitude of threat is high for this species because it is limited in 
distribution and the threats would result in a high level of mortality 
or reduced reproductive capacity. The threats are nonimminent because 
there are no known projects that would affect the species in the near 
future. We therefore have assigned an LPN of 5 to this species.
    Inquirer Cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus inquisitor)--We continue to 
find that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the 
date of publication of this notice. However, we are working on a 
proposed listing determination that we expect to publish prior to 
making the next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the 
course of preparing the proposed listing rule, we are continuing to 
monitor new information about this species' status so that we can make 
prompt use of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 
emergency posing a significant risk to the species.
    Louisville Cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus troglodytes)--The 
following summary is based upon information contained in our files. No 
new information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 
2004. The Louisville cave beetle is a small, eyeless, reddish-brown, 
predatory insect that feeds upon cave invertebrates. It is not found 
outside the cave environment and is only known from two privately owned 
Kentucky caves in Jefferson County. The cave entrance at the species' 
original location (Oxmoor, also called Highbaugh Cave) was closed due 
to residential development and placement of fill in the early 1990s. We 
do not know whether the species still occurs at the original location 
or if it has been extirpated from the site by the closure of the cave 
entrance. Several other caves in Jefferson County were surveyed for the 
species in 1994, but individuals of the species were observed at only 
one additional location, Eleven Jones Cave. This cave is located on the 
southeast bank of Beargrass Creek near Cave Hill Cemetery and 
Arboretum. Due to pollution and reportedly high carbon dioxide levels 
in the cave, additional searches of the cave have not been possible.
    The limestone caves in which this species is found provide a unique 
and fragile environment that supports a variety of species that have 
evolved to survive and reproduce under the demanding conditions found 
in cave ecosystems. The limited distribution of the species makes it 
vulnerable to isolated events that would only have a minimal effect on 
more wide-ranging insects. Events such as toxic chemical spills, 
discharges of large amounts of polluted water, or indirect impacts from 
off-site construction activities, closure of entrances, alteration of 
entrances, or the creation of new entrances, could have serious adverse 
impacts on the survival of this species. The magnitude of threat is 
high for this species, because it is limited in distribution and the 
threats would have severe negative impacts on the species. The threats 
are non-imminent because there are no known projects that would affect 
the species in the near future. We therefore have assigned an LPN of 5 
to this species.
    Tatum Cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus parvus)--The following summary 
is based upon information contained in our files. No new information 
was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Tatum Cave 
beetle is a small, eyeless, reddish-brown predatory insect that feeds 
upon cave invertebrates. It is not found outside the cave environment 
and is only known from one privately owned Kentucky cave (Tatum Cave) 
in Marion County. Despite searches in 1980, 1996, 2004, and 2005, the 
species has not been observed in Tatum Cave since 1965.
    The limestone cave in which this species is found provides a unique 
and fragile environment that supports a variety of species that have 
evolved to survive and reproduce under the demanding conditions found 
in cave ecosystems. The species has not been observed since 1965, but 
species experts believe that it still exists in low numbers. The 
limited distribution of the species makes it vulnerable to isolated 
events that would only have a minimal effect on more wide-ranging 
insects. Events such as toxic chemical spills, discharges of large 
amounts of polluted water, or indirect impacts from off-site 
construction activities, closure of entrances, alteration of entrances, 
or the creation of new entrances, could have serious adverse impacts on 
this species. The magnitude of threat is high for this species, because 
its limited numbers mean that any threats could severely affect its 
continued existence. The threats are nonimminent, because there are no 
known projects that would affect the species in the near future. We 
therefore have assigned an LPN of 5 to this species.
    Orangeblack Hawaiian damselfly (Megalagrion xanthomelas)--The 
following summary is based on information contained in our files. No 
new information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 
2004. The orangeblack Hawaiian damselfly is a stream- and pool-dwelling 
species endemic to the Hawaiian Islands of Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Maui, 
Lanai, and Hawaii. The species no longer is found on Kauai, and is now 
restricted to a total of 16 populations distributed across the islands 
of Oahu, Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and Hawaii. This species is threatened 
by predation from nonnative aquatic species such as fish and predacious 
insects, and habitat loss through dewatering of streams and invasion by 
nonnative plants. Nonnative fish and insects prey on the larval-stage 
naiads of the damselfly, and loss of water reduces the amount of 
suitable habitat for the naiad life stage. Invasive plants (e.g., 
California grass (Brachiaria mutica)) also contribute to loss of 
habitat by forming dense, monotypic stands that completely eliminate 
open water. Nonnative fish and plants are found in all the streams 
where orangeblack Hawaiian damselflies occur, except at the single Oahu 
population, where there are no nonnative fish. We have retained an LPN 
of 8 for this species because, although the threats are ongoing and 
therefore imminent, they affect the different populations of the 
species to varying degrees throughout the species' range and are thus 
of moderate magnitude.
    Rattlesnake-master borer moth (Papaipema eryngii)--The following 
information is based on information in our files. Rattlesnake-master 
borer moths are obligate residents of undisturbed prairie remnants, 
savanna, and pine barrens that contain their only food plant--
rattlesnake-master (Eryngium yuccifolium). The rattlesnake-master borer 
moth is known from 16 sites distributed over 5 States: Illinois, 
Arkansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma,

[[Page 72476]]

and North Carolina. Currently 12 of the sites contain extant 
populations, 3 contain populations with unknown status, and 1 contains 
a population that is considered extirpated.
    Although the rattlesnake-master plant is widely distributed across 
26 States and is a common plant in remnant prairies, it is a 
conservative species, meaning it is not found in disturbed areas, with 
relative frequencies of less than 1 percent. The habitat range for the 
rattlesnake-master borer moth is very narrow and appears to be limiting 
for the species. The ongoing effects of habitat loss, fragmentation, 
degradation, and modification from agriculture, development, flooding, 
invasive species, and secondary succession have resulted in fragmented 
populations and population declines. Rattlesnake-master borer moths are 
affected by habitat fragmentation and population isolation. Almost all 
of the sites with extant populations of the rattlesnake-master borer 
moth are isolated from one another, with the populations in Kentucky, 
North Carolina, and Oklahoma occurring within a single site for each 
State, thus precluding recolonization from other populations. These 
small, isolated populations are likely to become unviable over time due 
to lower genetic diversity reducing their ability to adapt to 
environmental change, effects of stochastic events, and inability to 
recolonize areas where they are extirpated.
    Rattlesnake-master borer moths have life-history traits that make 
them more susceptible to outside stressors. They are univoltine (having 
a single flight per year), do not disperse widely, and are monophagous 
(have only one food source). The life history of the species makes it 
particularly sensitive to fire, which is the primary practice used in 
prairie management. The species is only safe from fire once it bores 
into the root of the host plant, which makes adult, egg, and first 
larval stages subject to mortality during prescribed burns and 
wildfires. Fire and grazing cause direct mortality to the moth and 
destroy food plants if the intensity, extent, or timing is not 
conducive to the species' biology. Although fire management is a threat 
to the species, lack of management is also a threat, and at least one 
site has become extirpated likely because of the succession to woody 
habitat. The species is sought after by collectors, and the host plant 
is very easy to identify, making the moth susceptible to collection, 
and thus many sites are kept undisclosed to the public.
    Existing regulatory mechanisms provide protection for 12 of the 16 
sites containing rattlesnake-master borer moth populations. Illinois' 
endangered species statute provides regulatory mechanisms to protect 
the species from potential impacts from actions such as development and 
collecting on the 10 Illinois sites; however, illegal collections of 
the species have occurred at two sites. A permit is required for 
collection by site managers within the sites in North Carolina and 
Oklahoma. The rattlesnake-master borer moth is also listed as 
endangered in Kentucky by the State's Nature Preserves Commission, 
although at this time the Kentucky legislature has not enacted any 
statute that provides legal protection for species listed as threatened 
or endangered. There are no statutory mechanisms in place to protect 
the populations in North Carolina, Arkansas, or Oklahoma.
    Some threats that the rattlesnake-master moth faces are high in 
magnitude, such as habitat conversion and fragmentation, and population 
isolation. These threats with the highest magnitude occur in many of 
the populations throughout the species' range, but although they are 
likely to affect each population at some time, they are not likely to 
affect all of the populations at any one time. Other threats, such as 
agricultural and nonagricultural development, mortality from 
implementation of some prairie management tools (such as fire), 
flooding, succession, and climate change are of moderate to low 
magnitude. For example, the life history of rattlesnake-master borer 
moths makes them highly sensitive to fire, which can cause mortality of 
individuals through most of the year and can affect entire populations. 
Conversely, complete fire suppression can also be a threat to 
rattlesnake-master borer moths as prairie habitat declines and woody or 
invasive species become established such that the species' only food 
plant is not found in disturbed prairies. Although these threats can 
cause direct and indirect mortality of the species, they are of 
moderate or low magnitude because they affect only some populations 
throughout the range and to varying degrees. Overall, the threats are 
moderate. The threats are imminent because they are ongoing; every 
known population of rattlesnake-master borer moth has at least one 
ongoing threat, and some have several working in tandem. Thus, we 
assigned a LPN of 8 to this species.
    Stephan's riffle beetle (Heterelmis stephani)--The following 
summary is based on information contained in our files. No new 
information was provided in the petition received on May 11, 2004. The 
Stephan's riffle beetle is an endemic riffle beetle historically found 
in limited spring environments within the Santa Rita Mountains, Pima 
County, Arizona. In the most recent surveys conducted in 1993, the 
Stephan's riffle beetle was documented only in Sylvester Spring in 
Madera Canyon, Santa Cruz County, within the Coronado National Forest. 
Suspected potential threats to that spring are largely from habitat 
modification, and potential changes in water quality and quantity due 
to catastrophic natural events (such as wildfire or flooding from 
storms). The threats are of low to moderate magnitude because the 
Forest Service has no plans to modify the springs where this species 
occurs. In addition, the effects of the other threats are unlikely to 
be permanent, as they stem from occasional natural events that do not 
result in permanent water quality degradation. In addition, because of 
the physical habitat structure (large boulders surrounding the springs) 
and the location of the springs (on hillsides above the stream or in 
the headwaters where there is little watershed to generate large flood 
flows), flooding, resulting from thunderstorms or post-fire runoff is 
not a factor affecting this species at this time. Additionally, there 
is a higher likelihood that the species will persist in areas that are 
unaffected by the threats; it is unlikely that all areas of the spring 
would be simultaneously be affected. Threats from habitat modification 
have already occurred and are no longer ongoing. Therefore, the threats 
are not imminent. Thus, we retain an LPN of 11 for the Stephan's riffle 
beetle.
    Arapahoe snowfly (Capnia arapahoe)--The following summary is based 
on information contained in our files. This insect is a winter stonefly 
associated with clean, cool, running waters. Adult snowflies emerge in 
late winter from the space underneath stream ice. The Arapahoe snowfly 
is known to be found only in a short section of Elkhorn Creek, a small 
tributary of the Cache la Poudre River in the Roosevelt National 
Forest, Larimer County, Colorado. New surveys completed in 2013 
indicate that the Arapahoe snowfly may occur in additional drainages 
other than Elkhorn Creek; however, the results are preliminary, and 
surveys are continuing in 2014. We will evaluate and incorporate the 
results of these new surveys into our review when they become 
available. The species previously occurred downriver at Young Gulch, 
but it is likely that either habitat became unsuitable or other unknown 
causes extirpated the species. Habitats

[[Page 72477]]

at Young Gulch were further degraded by the High Park Fire in 2012, and 
potentially by a flash flood disaster in September 2013.
    Climate change is a threat to the Arapahoe snowfly, and modifies 
its habitats by reducing snowpacks, increasing temperatures, fostering 
mountain pine beetle outbreaks, and increasing the frequency of 
destructive wildfires. Limited dispersal capabilities, an extremely 
restricted range, dependence on pristine habitats, and a small 
population size make the Arapahoe snowfly vulnerable to demographic 
stochasticity, environmental stochasticity, and random catastrophes. 
Furthermore, regulatory mechanisms inadequately reduce these threats, 
which may act cumulatively to affect the species. The threats to the 
Arapahoe snowfly are high in magnitude because they occur throughout 
the species' limited range. However, the threats are nonimminent. While 
limited dispersal capabilities, restricted range, dependence on 
pristine habitats, and small population size are characteristics that 
make this species vulnerable to stochastic events and catastrophes (and 
potential impacts from climate change), these events are not currently 
occurring and increased temperatures will adversely affect the species 
in the future. Therefore, we have assigned the Arapahoe snowfly an LPN 
of 5.
    Meltwater lednian stonefly (Lednia tumana)--The following summary 
is based on information contained in our files and in the petition we 
received on July 30, 2007. This species is an aquatic insect in the 
order Plecoptera (stoneflies). Stoneflies are primarily associated with 
clean, cool streams and rivers. Eggs and nymphs (juveniles) of the 
meltwater lednian stonefly are found in high-elevation, alpine, and 
subalpine streams, most typically in locations closely linked to 
glacial runoff. The species is generally restricted to streams with 
mean summer water temperature less than 10 [deg]C (50[emsp14][deg]F). 
The only known meltwater lednian stonefly occurrences are within 
Glacier National Park (NP), Montana.
    Climate change, and the associated effects of glacier loss (with 
glaciers predicted to be gone by 2030)--including reduced streamflows, 
and increased water temperatures--are expected to significantly reduce 
the occurrence of populations and extent of suitable habitat for the 
species in Glacier NP. In addition, the existing regulatory mechanisms 
are not adequate to address these environmental changes due to global 
climate change. We determined that the meltwater lednian stonefly was a 
candidate for listing in a warranted-but-precluded 12-month petition 
finding published on April 5, 2011 (76 FR 18684). We have assigned the 
species an LPN of 5, based on three criteria: (1) The high magnitude of 
threat, which is projected to substantially reduce the amount of 
suitable habitat relative to the species' current range; (2) the low 
immediacy of the threat based on the lack of documented evidence that 
climate change is affecting stonefly habitat; and (3) the taxonomic 
status of the species, which is a full species.
    Highlands tiger beetle (Cicindela highlandensis)--We continue to 
find that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the 
date of publication of this notice. However, we are working on a 
proposed listing determination that we expect to publish prior to 
making the next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the 
course of preparing the proposed listing rule, we are continuing to 
monitor new information about this species' status so that we can make 
prompt use of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 
emergency posing a significant risk to the species.

Crustaceans

    Anchialine pool shrimp (Metabetaeus lohena)--The following summary 
is based on information contained in our files. No new information was 
provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Metabetaeus 
lohena is a species of shrimp belonging to the family Alpheidae that 
inhabits anchialine pools. This species is endemic to the Hawaiian 
Islands, with populations on the islands of Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii. The 
primary threats to this species are predation by fish (i.e., fish 
species that do not naturally occur in the pools inhabited by this 
species) and habitat loss from degradation (primarily from illegal 
trash dumping). Populations of M. lohena on the islands of Maui and 
Hawaii are located within State Natural Area Reserves (NARs) and in a 
National Park. Both the State NARs and the National Park prohibit the 
collection of the species and the disturbance of the pools. However, 
enforcement of collection and disturbance prohibitions is difficult, 
and the negative effects from the introduction of fish can occur 
suddenly and could quickly decimate a population. On Oahu, four pools 
containing this species are located in a National Wildlife Refuge and 
are protected from collection and disturbance to the pool; however, on 
State-owned land where the species occurs, there is no protection from 
collection or disturbance of the pools. Threats to this species could 
have a significant adverse effect on the survival of the species, 
leading to a relatively high likelihood of extinction, and are thus of 
a high magnitude. The primary threats of predation from fish and loss 
of habitat due to degradation are nonimminent, because on the islands 
of Maui and Hawaii no fish were observed in any of the pools where this 
species occurs, and there has been no documented trash dumping in these 
pools. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 5 for this species.
    Anchialine pool shrimp (Palaemonella burnsi)--The following summary 
is based on information contained in our files. No new information was 
provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Palaemonella 
burnsi is a species of shrimp belonging to the family Palaemonidae, 
that inhabits anchialine pools. This species is endemic to the Hawaiian 
Islands with populations on the islands of Maui and Hawaii. The primary 
threats to this species are predation by nonnative fish (i.e., fish 
species that do not naturally occur in the pools inhabited by this 
species) and habitat loss due to degradation (primarily from illegal 
trash dumping). This species' populations on Maui are located within a 
State Natural Area Reserve (NAR). Hawaii's State statutes prohibit the 
collection of the species and the disturbance of the pools in State 
NARs. On the island of Hawaii, the species occurs within a State NAR 
and a National Park, where collection and disturbance are also 
prohibited. However, enforcement of these prohibitions is difficult, 
and the negative effects from the introduction of fish can occur 
suddenly and could quickly decimate a population. Therefore, threats to 
this species could have a significant adverse effect on the survival of 
the species, leading to a relatively high likelihood of extinction, and 
thus are of a high magnitude. The threats are nonimminent, because 
surveys in 2004 and 2007 did not find fish in the pools where these 
shrimp occur on Maui or the island of Hawaii. Also, there was no 
evidence of recent habitat degradation at those pools. Therefore, we 
have retained an LPN of 5 for this species.
    Anchialine pool shrimp (Procaris hawaiana)--The following summary 
is based on information contained in our files. No new information was 
provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Procaris hawaiana 
is a species of shrimp belonging to the family Procarididae that 
inhabits anchialine pools. This species is endemic to the Hawaiian 
Islands, and is currently

[[Page 72478]]

known from 2 pools on the island of Maui and 12 pools on the island of 
Hawaii. The primary threats to this species are predation from 
nonnative fish (i.e., fish species that do not naturally occur in the 
pools inhabited by this species) and habitat loss due to degradation 
(primarily from illegal trash dumping). This species' populations on 
Maui are located within a State Natural Area Reserve (NAR). Twelve 
pools containing this species on the island of Hawaii are also located 
within a State NAR. Hawaii's State statutes prohibit the collection of 
the species and the disturbance of the pools in State NARs. However, 
enforcement of these prohibitions is difficult, and the negative 
effects from the introduction of fish can occur suddenly and could 
quickly decimate a population. In addition, there are no prohibitions 
for either removal of the species or disturbance to one pool containing 
this species located outside a NAR on the island of Hawaii. Therefore, 
threats to this species could have a significant adverse effect on the 
survival of the species, leading to a relatively high likelihood of 
extinction, and thus remain at a high magnitude. The threats to the 
species are nonimminent, because, during 2004 and 2007 surveys, no 
nonnative fish were observed in the pools where these shrimp occur on 
Maui, nor were they observed in the one pool on the island of Hawaii 
that was surveyed in 2005. In addition, there were no signs of dumping 
or fill in any of the pools where the species occurs. Therefore, we 
have retained an LPN of 5 for this species.

Flowering Plants

    Abronia alpina (Ramshaw Meadows sand-verbena)--The following 
summary is based on information contained in our files. No new 
information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. 
Abronia alpina is a small perennial herb in the Nyctaginaceae (four-
o'clock) family, 2.5 to 15.2 cm (1 to 6 in) across, forming compact 
mats with lavender-pink, trumpet-shaped, and generally fragrant 
flowers. Abronia alpina is known from one main population center at 
Ramshaw Meadow and a smaller population at the adjacent Templeton 
Meadow. The meadows are located on the Kern River Plateau in the Sierra 
Nevada, on lands administered by the Inyo National Forest, in Tulare 
County, California. The total estimated area occupied is approximately 
6 hectares (15 acres). The population fluctuates from year to year 
without any clear trends. Population estimates for the years from 1985 
up to, but not including, 2012 range from a high of approximately 
130,000 plants in 1997 to a low of approximately 40,000 plants in 2003. 
In 2012, when the population was last monitored, the estimated total 
population increased to approximately 156,000 plants.
    The factors currently threatening Abronia alpina include natural 
and human habitat alteration, lowering of the water table due to 
erosion within the meadow system, and recreational use within meadow 
habitats. Lodgepole pines are encroaching upon meadow habitat with 
trees germinating within A. alpina habitat, occupying up to 20 percent 
of two A. alpina subpopulations. Lodgepole pine encroachment may alter 
soil characteristics by increasing organic matter levels, decreasing 
porosity, and moderating diurnal temperature fluctuations thus reducing 
the competitive ability of A. alpina to persist in an environment more 
hospitable to other plant species. The habitat occupied by Abronia 
alpina directly borders the meadow system, which is supported by the 
South Fork of the Kern River. The river flows through the meadow, at 
times coming within 15 m (50 ft) of Abronia alpina habitat, 
particularly in the vicinity of five subpopulations. Past livestock 
trampling and past removal of bank-stabilizing vegetation by grazing 
livestock have contributed to down-cutting of the river channel through 
the meadow, leaving the meadow subject to potential alteration by 
lowering of the water table. In 2001, the Forest Service began resting 
the grazing allotment for 10 years, thereby eliminating cattle use. The 
allotment is still being rested while the Forest Service assesses the 
data collected on the rested allotment for eventual inclusion in an 
environmental analysis to consider resumption of grazing. Established 
hiker, packstock, and cattle trails pass through A. alpina 
subpopulations. Two main hiker trails pass through Ramshaw Meadow, but 
in 1988 and 1997, they were rerouted out of A. alpina subpopulations. 
Occasional incidental use by horses and hikers sometimes occurs on the 
remnants of cattle trails that pass through subpopulations in several 
places.
    The Service has funded studies to determine appropriate 
conservation measures for the species and is working with the U.S. 
Forest Service on developing a conservation strategy for the species. 
The remaining threats affect individuals in the population and have not 
appeared to have population-level effects. Therefore, the threats are 
low in magnitude. In addition, because the grazing activities have been 
eliminated for the time being and the hiking trails have been rerouted, 
the threats are not imminent. The LPN for A. alpina remains an 11 due 
to the presence of moderate-to-low threats, and the determination that 
the threats are not imminent at this point in time.
    Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett's silverbush)--We continue to find 
that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of 
publication of this notice. However, we are working on a proposed 
listing determination that we expect to publish prior to making the 
next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the course of 
preparing the proposed listing determination, we are continuing to 
monitor new information about this species' status so that we can make 
prompt use of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 
emergency posing a significant risk to the species.
    Artemisia borealis var. wormskioldii (Northern wormwood)--The 
following summary is based on information contained in our files. No 
new information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 
2004. Historically known from eight sites, Artemisia campestris var. 
wormskioldii (formerly A. borealis var. wormskioldii) is currently 
known from two natural populations (one in Klickitat County and one in 
Grant County, Washington) and four outplanted populations in Oregon and 
Washington. This plant is restricted to exposed basalt, cobbly-sandy 
terraces, and sand habitat along the shore of, and on islands within, 
the Columbia River. Annual monitoring indicates that the two natural 
populations have declined from historical numbers and now total roughly 
550 individuals. Two populations were outplanted with approximately 
3,000 individuals, and when monitored in 2012, approximately 900 
individuals still remained; the other two outplanted populations have 
not been monitored since 120 individuals were outplanted at the sites 
in 2013. It is possible that additional natural populations of the 
species exist as there are relatively large stretches of the mid-
Columbia River and its tributaries that have not been surveyed 
specifically for this plant; however, we currently know of the species 
only from the above six locations. The species is also cultivated ex 
situ for future translocation projects.
    Habitat loss from inundation behind hydroelectric dams and 
placement of riprap along the Columbia River is thought to be the cause 
of historical population loss. Current threats to northern wormwood 
include possible direct loss of habitat through regulation of water 
levels in the Columbia River;

[[Page 72479]]

human trampling of plants from recreation; competition with nonnative 
invasive species; burial by wind- and water-borne sediments; small 
population sizes; susceptibility to genetic drift and inbreeding; and 
the potential for hybridization with two other species of Artemisia. At 
the Grant County site, ongoing conservation actions have reduced 
trampling, but have not eliminated or reduced the other threats. At the 
Klickitat County site (Miller Island), active conservation measures are 
not currently in place. The magnitude of these threats is high, as the 
remaining populations are small, isolated, and each could be eliminated 
by a single disturbance. The threats are imminent because recreational 
use is ongoing, invasive nonnative species occur at both sites, erosion 
of the substrate is ongoing at the Klickitat County site, and high 
water flows may occur unpredictably in any year. Therefore, we have 
retained an LPN of 3 for this variety.
    Astragalus anserinus (Goose Creek milkvetch)--The following summary 
is based on information in our files and in the petition received on 
February 3, 2004. The majority (over 80 percent) of Goose Creek 
milkvetch sites in Idaho, Utah, and Nevada occur on Federal lands 
managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The rest of the sites occur 
as small populations on private and State lands in Utah and on private 
land in Idaho and Nevada. Goose Creek milkvetch occurs in a variety of 
habitats, but is typically associated with dry, tuffaceous soils (made 
up of rock consisting of smaller kinds of volcanic detritus) from the 
Salt Lake Formation. The species grows on steep or flat sites, with 
soil textures ranging from silty to sandy to somewhat gravelly. The 
species tolerates some level of disturbance, based on its occurrence on 
steep slopes, where downhill movement of soil is common.
    The primary threat to Goose Creek milkvetch is habitat degradation 
and modification resulting from an altered wildfire regime, fire 
suppression activities, and rehabilitation efforts to recover lands 
that have burned. Other factors that also appear to threaten Goose 
Creek milkvetch include livestock use and invasive nonnative species. 
The existing regulatory mechanisms are not adequate to address these 
threats. Climate change effects to Goose Creek drainage habitats are 
possible, but we are unable to predict the specific impacts of this 
change to Goose Creek milkvetch at this time.
    The magnitude of threats is high as available monitoring data 
indicate declines in excess of 70 percent within the perimeter of 
wildfires that occurred in 2007 which negatively affected nearly 50 
percent of the known occurrences in Nevada and Utah. In addition, 
livestock use impacts were observed at all sites visited in Utah in 
2011 with 25 percent of the sites (containing 73 percent of the 
individuals) being directly affected. The threats to the species are 
imminent, or currently occurring, largely as a result of land 
management actions taken since fires initially altered the habitat. The 
threats associated with livestock grazing and invasive species are 
occurring throughout a large portion of the species' range. The high 
magnitude and immediacy of threats leave the species and its small 
populations more vulnerable to stochastic events. Therefore, we have 
assigned the Goose Creek milkvetch an LPN of 2.
    Astragalus microcymbus (Skiff milkvetch)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files and in the petition we 
received on July 30, 2007. Skiff milkvetch is a perennial forb that 
dies back to the ground every year. It has a very limited range and a 
spotty distribution within Gunnison and Saguache Counties in Colorado, 
where it is found in open, park-like landscapes in the sagebrush-steppe 
ecosystem on rocky or cobbly, moderate-to-steep slopes of hills and 
draws.
    The most significant threats to skiff milkvetch are recreation, 
roads, trails, and habitat fragmentation and degradation. Existing 
regulatory mechanisms are not adequate to protect the species from 
these threats. Recreational impacts are likely to increase, given the 
close proximity of skiff milkvetch to the town of Gunnison and the 
increasing popularity of mountain biking, motorcycling, and all-terrain 
vehicles. Furthermore, the Hartman Rocks Recreation Area draws users, 
and contains over 40 percent of the skiff milkvetch units. Other 
threats to the species include residential and urban development; 
livestock, deer, and elk use; climate change; increasing periodic 
drought; nonnative invasive cheatgrass; and wildfire. The threats to 
skiff milkvetch are moderate in magnitude, because, while serious and 
occurring rangewide, they do not collectively result in population 
declines on a short time scale. The threats are imminent, because the 
species is currently facing them in many portions of its range. 
Therefore, we have assigned skiff milkvetch an LPN of 8.
    Astragalus schmolliae (Schmoll milkvetch)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files and in the petition we 
received on July 30, 2007. Schmoll milkvetch is a narrow endemic 
perennial plant that grows in the mature pinyon-juniper woodland of 
mesa tops in the Mesa Verde National Park area and in the Ute Mountain 
Ute Tribal Park in Colorado.
    The most significant threats to the species are degradation of 
habitat by fire, followed by invasion by nonnative cheatgrass and 
subsequent increase in fire frequency. These threats currently affect 
about 40 percent of the species' entire known range, and cheatgrass is 
likely to increase, given (1) its rapid spread and persistence in 
habitat disturbed by wildfires, fire and fuels management and 
development of infrastructure, and (2) the inability of land managers 
to control it on a landscape scale. Other threats to Schmoll milkvetch 
include fire break clearings, drought, and feral livestock grazing; 
existing regulatory mechanisms are not adequate to address these 
threats. The threats to the species overall are imminent, because they 
are ongoing, and moderate in magnitude, because the species is 
currently facing them in many portions of its range, but the threats do 
not collectively result in population declines on a short time scale. 
Therefore, we have assigned Schmoll milkvetch an LPN of 8.
    Astragalus tortipes (sleeping Ute milkvetch)--The following summary 
is based on information contained in our files. No new information was 
provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Sleeping Ute 
milkvetch is a perennial plant that grows only on the Smokey Hills 
layer of the Mancos Shale Formation on the Ute Mountain Ute Indian 
Reservation in Montezuma County, Colorado.
    In 2000, a total of 3,744 plants were recorded at 24 locations 
covering 500 acres within an overall range of 6,400 acres. Available 
information from 2000 and 2009 indicated that the species' status was 
stable at that time. However, previous and ongoing threats from borrow 
pit excavation, off-highway vehicles, irrigation canal construction, 
and a prairie dog colony have had minor impacts that reduced the range 
and number of plants by small amounts. Off road-vehicle use of the 
habitat has reportedly been controlled by fencing. Oil and gas 
development is active in the general area, but the Service has received 
no information to indicate that there is development within plant 
habitat. In 2011, the tribal Environmental Programs Department reported 
habitat disturbance by vehicles and activity at the shooting range 
located within the plant habitat. The Tribe reported that the status of 
the species remained unchanged. The Tribe has been working on a 
management

[[Page 72480]]

plan that will include a monitoring program for this species, among 
others. We had expected the final plan to be released in 2010, but it 
still has not been completed. We have no documentation concerning the 
current status of the plants, condition of habitat, and terms of the 
species management plan being drafted by the Tribe. Thus, at this time, 
we cannot accurately assess whether populations are being adequately 
protected from previously existing threats. The threats are moderate in 
magnitude, since they have had only minor impacts. Until the management 
plan is completed there are no regulatory mechanisms in place to 
protect the species from the threats described above. Overall, we 
conclude that threats are moderate to low and nonimminent. Therefore, 
we assigned an LPN of 11 to this species.
    Boechera pusilla (Fremont County rockcress)--The following summary 
is based on information in our files and in the petition received on 
July 24, 2007. Boechera pusilla is a perennial herb that occupies 
sparsely vegetated, coarse granite soil pockets in exposed granite-
pegmatite outcrops, with slopes generally less than 10 degrees, at an 
elevation between 2,438 and 2,469 m (8,000 and 8,100 ft). The only 
known population of B. pusilla is located in Wyoming on lands 
administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the southern foothills 
of the Wind River Range. B. pusilla is likely restricted in 
distribution by the limited occurrence of pegmatite (a very coarse-
grained rock formed from magma or lava) in the area. The specialized 
habitat requirements of B. pusilla have allowed the plant to persist 
without competition from other herbaceous plants or sagebrush-grassland 
species that are present in the surrounding landscape.
    Boechera pusilla has a threat that is not identified, but that is 
indicated by the small and overall declining population size. Although 
the threat is not fully understood, we know it exists as indicated by 
the declining population. The population size may be declining from a 
variety of unknown causes, with drought or disease possibly 
contributing to the trend. The downward trend may have been leveled off 
somewhat recently, but without improved population numbers, the species 
may reach a population level at which other stressors become threats. 
We are unable to determine how climate change may affect the species in 
the future. To the extent that we understand the species, other 
potential habitat-related threats have been removed through the 
implementation of Federal regulatory mechanisms and associated actions. 
Overutilization, predation, and the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms 
are likely threats to the species. The threats that B. pusilla faces 
are moderate in magnitude, primarily because of the recent leveling off 
of the population decline. The threat to B. pusilla is imminent, 
because we have evidence that the species is currently facing a threat 
indicated by reduced population size. The threat appears to be ongoing, 
although we are unsure of the extent and timing of its effects on the 
species. Thus, we have assigned B. pusilla an LPN of 8.
    Calamagrostis expansa (Maui reedgrass)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. No new information was 
provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Calamagrostis 
expansa is a perennial grass found in wet forests and bogs, and in bog 
margins, on the Hawaiian Islands of Maui and Hawaii. This species is 
known from 13 populations collectively totaling fewer than 750 
individuals.
    Calamagrostis expansa is threatened by habitat degradation and loss 
by feral pigs (Sus scrofa), and by competition with nonnative plants. 
All of the known populations of C. expansa on Maui occur in managed 
areas. Pig exclusion fences have been constructed, and control of 
nonnative plants is ongoing within the exclosures but still pose a 
threat to the species. On the island of Hawaii, the population in the 
Upper Waiakea Forest Reserve has been fenced entirely. This species is 
not represented in an ex situ collection. Threats to this species from 
feral pigs and nonnative plants are still ongoing despite the 
conservation actions, and are thus imminent and of high magnitude, 
given the limited number of individuals, leading to a relatively high 
likelihood of extinction. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 for 
this species.
    Calochortus persistens (Siskiyou mariposa lily)--The following 
summary is based on information contained in our files and the petition 
we received on September 10, 2001. The Siskiyou mariposa lily is a 
narrow endemic that is restricted to three disjunct ridge tops in the 
Klamath-Siskiyou Range near the California-Oregon border. The 
southernmost occurrence of this species is composed of nine separate 
sites on approximately 17.6 ha (43.4 ac) of Klamath National Forest and 
privately owned lands that stretch for 10 km (6 mi) along the Gunsight-
Humbug Ridge, Siskiyou County, California. In 2007, a new occurrence 
was confirmed in the locality of Cottonwood Peak and Little Cottonwood 
Peak, Siskiyou County, where several populations are distributed over 
164 ha (405 ac) on three individual mountain peaks in the Klamath 
National Forest and on private lands. The northernmost occurrence 
consists of not more than five Siskiyou mariposa lily plants that were 
discovered in 1998, on Bald Mountain, west of Ashland, Jackson County, 
Oregon.
    Major threats include competition and shading by native and 
nonnative species fostered by suppression of wildfire; increased fuel 
loading and subsequent risk of wildfire; fragmentation by roads, fire 
breaks, tree plantations, and radio-tower facilities; maintenance and 
construction around radio towers and telephone relay stations located 
on Gunsight Peak and Mahogany Point; and soil disturbance, direct 
damage, and nonnative weed and grass species introduction as a result 
of heavy recreational use and construction of fire breaks. Dyer's woad 
(Isatis tinctoria), an invasive, nonnative plant that may prevent 
germination of Siskiyou mariposa lily seedlings, has invaded 75 percent 
of the known lily habitat on Gunsight-Humbug Ridge, the southernmost 
California occurrence. Forest Service staff and the Klamath-Siskiyou 
Wildlands Center cite competition with dyer's woad as a significant and 
chronic threat to the survival of Siskiyou mariposa lily.
    The combination of restricted range, extremely low numbers (five 
plants) in one of three disjunct populations, poor competitive ability, 
short seed dispersal distance, slow growth rates, low seed production, 
apparently poor survival rates in some years, herbivory, habitat 
disturbance, and competition from nonnative invasive plants threatens 
the continued existence of this species. The main threat is competition 
by dyer's woad. However, because efforts are under way to reduce the 
threat of dyer's woad where it is found and there is no evidence of a 
decline in C. persistens populations where this weed has become most 
widely distributed, the magnitude of existing threats is moderate. 
Overall, the threats are nonimment since the threats of competition 
from nonnative invasive plants has been reduced to localized areas and 
are not anticipated to overwhelm a large portion of the species' range 
in the immediate future. The likelihood that a large proportion of the 
Gunsight-Humbug Ridge range would be affected by disturbance, and 
therefore invaded by dyer's woad at the same time, is low. Therefore, 
we have assigned a LPN of 11 to this species.
    Chamaecrista lineata var. keyensis (Big Pine partridge pea)--We 
continue to find that listing this species is

[[Page 72481]]

warranted but precluded as of the date of publication of this notice. 
However, we are working on a proposed listing determination that we 
expect to publish prior to making the next annual resubmitted petition 
12-month finding. In the course of preparing the proposed listing 
determination, we are continuing to monitor new information about this 
species' status so that we can make prompt use of our authority under 
section 4(b)(7) in the case of an emergency posing a significant risk 
to the species.
    Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum (Pineland sandmat)--We continue 
to find that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the 
date of publication of this notice. However, we are working on a 
proposed listing determination that we expect to publish prior to 
making the next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the 
course of preparing the proposed listing determination, we are 
continuing to monitor new information about this species' status so 
that we can make prompt use of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in 
the case of an emergency posing a significant risk to the species.
    Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. serpyllum (Wedge spurge)--We continue to 
find that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the 
date of publication of this notice. However, we are working on a 
proposed listing determination that we expect to publish prior to 
making the next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the 
course of preparing the proposed listing determination, we are 
continuing to monitor new information about this species' status so 
that we can make prompt use of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in 
the case of an emergency posing a significant risk to the species.
    Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina (San Fernando Valley 
spineflower)--The following summary is based on information contained 
in our files and the petition received on December 14, 1999. 
Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina is a low-growing herbaceous annual 
plant in the buckwheat family. Germination occurs following the onset 
of late-fall and winter rains and typically represents different 
cohorts from the seed bank. Flowering occurs in the spring, generally 
between April and June. The plant currently is known from two disjunct 
localities: The first is in the southeastern portion of Ventura County 
on a site within the Upper Las Virgenes Canyon Open Space Preserve, 
formerly known as Ahmanson Ranch, and the second is in an area of 
southwestern Los Angeles County known as Newhall Ranch. Investigations 
of historical locations and seemingly suitable habitat within the range 
of the species have not revealed any other occurrences.
    The threats facing C. parryi var. fernandina include threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range 
(Factor A), inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D), 
and other natural or manmade factors (Factor E). The threats to C. 
parryi var. fernandina from habitat destruction or modification are 
lower in magnitude than they were 9 years ago when we originally 
determined that the species was a candidate for listing. One of the two 
populations (Upper Las Virgenes Canyon Open Space Preserve) is now in 
permanent public ownership and is being managed by an agency that is 
working to conserve the plant; however, the use of adjacent habitat for 
Hollywood film productions was brought to our attention in 2007, and 
the potential impacts to C. parryi var. fernandina are not yet clear. 
During a site visit to the Preserve in April 2012, we noted an 
abundance of nonnative species that, if not managed, could degrade the 
quality of the habitat for C. parryi var. fernandina over time. We will 
be working with the landowners to manage the site for the benefit of C. 
parryi var. fernandina.
    The other population (Newhall Ranch) is under the threat of 
development. A CCA was being developed with the landowner to address 
conservation of the plants; however, as of 2014, work on the CCA has 
been suspended. Until such an agreement is finalized, the threat of 
development and the potential damage to the Newhall Ranch population 
still exist, as shown by the destruction of some plants during 
installation of an agave farm. Furthermore, cattle grazing on Newhall 
Ranch may be a current threat. Cattle grazing may harm C. parryi var. 
fernandina by trampling and soil compaction. Grazing activity could 
also alter the nutrient (e.g., elevated organic material levels) 
content of the soils for C. parryi var. fernandina habitat through 
fecal inputs, which in turn may favor the growth of other plant species 
that would otherwise not grow so readily on the mineral-based soils. 
Over time, changes in species composition may render the sites less 
favorable for the persistence of C. parryi var. fernandina. Chorizanthe 
parryi var. fernandina may be threatened by invasive nonnative plants, 
including grasses, which could potentially displace it from available 
habitat; compete for light, water, and nutrients; and reduce survival 
and establishment.
    Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina is particularly vulnerable to 
extinction due to its concentration in two isolated areas. The 
existence of only two areas of occurrence, and a relatively small 
range, makes the variety highly susceptible to extinction or 
extirpation from a significant portion of its range due to random 
events such as fire, drought, and erosion. We retained an LPN of 6 for 
this species due to high-magnitude, nonimminent threats.
    Cirsium wrightii (Wright's marsh thistle)--The following summary is 
based on information from the 12-month warranted-but-precluded finding 
published November 4, 2010 (75 FR 67925), as well as any new 
information gathered since then. Wright's marsh thistle is a flowering 
plant in the sunflower family. It is prickly with short black spines 
and a 3- to 8-foot (ft) (0.9- to 2.4-meter (m)) single stalk covered 
with succulent leaves. Flowers are white to pale pink in areas of the 
Sacramento Mountains, but are vivid pink in all the Pecos Valley 
locations. There are eight general confirmed locations of Wright's 
marsh thistle in New Mexico: Santa Rosa, Guadalupe County; Bitter Lake 
National Wildlife Refuge, Chaves County; Blue Spring, Eddy County; La 
Luz Canyon, Karr Canyon, Silver Springs, and Tularosa Creek, Otero 
County; and Alamosa Creek, Socorro County. Wright's marsh thistle has 
been extirpated from all previously known locations in Arizona, and was 
misidentified and likely not ever present in Texas. The status of the 
species in Mexico is uncertain, with few verified collections.
    Wright's marsh thistle faces threats primarily from natural and 
human-caused modifications of its habitat due to ground and surface 
water depletion, drought, invasion of Phragmites australis, and from 
the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The species occupies 
relatively small areas of seeps, springs, and wetland habitat in an 
arid region plagued by drought and ongoing and future water 
withdrawals. The species' highly specific requirements of saturated 
soils with surface or subsurface water flow make it particularly 
vulnerable.
    Long-term drought, in combination with ground and surface 
waterwithdrawal, pose a current and future threat to Wright's marsh 
thistle and its habitat. In addition, we expect that these threats will 
likely intensify in the foreseeable future. However, the threats are 
moderate in magnitude because the majority of the threats (habitat loss 
and degradation due to alteration of the hydrology of its rare wetland 
habitat), while serious and

[[Page 72482]]

occurring rangewide, do not at this time collectively and significantly 
adversely affect the species at a population level. All of the threats 
are ongoing and therefore imminent. Thus, we continue to assign an LPN 
of 8 to Wright's marsh thistle.
    Dalea carthagenensis ssp. floridana (Florida prairie-clover)--We 
continue to find that listing this species is warranted but precluded 
as of the date of publication of this notice. However, we are working 
on a proposed listing determination that we expect to publish prior to 
making the next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the 
course of preparing the proposed listing rule, we are continuing to 
monitor new information about this species' status so that we can make 
prompt use of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 
emergency posing a significant risk to the species.
    Dichanthelium hirstii (Hirst Brothers' panic grass)--The following 
summary is based on information contained in our files. No new 
information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. 
Dichanthelium hirstii is a perennial grass that produces erect, leafy, 
flowering stems from May to October. The species occurs in coastal 
plain intermittent ponds, usually in wet savanna or pine barren 
habitats, and is known to occur at only three sites in New Jersey, one 
site in Delaware, and two sites in North Carolina. While all six extant 
D. hirstii populations are located on public land, threats to the 
species from encroachment of woody and herbaceous vegetation, 
competition from rhizomatous perennials, fluctuations in hydrology, and 
threats associated with small population number and size are 
significant. Given the naturally fluctuating number of plants found at 
each site, and the isolated nature of the wetlands (limiting dispersal 
opportunities), even small changes in the species' habitat could result 
in local extirpation. With so few populations, the loss of any known 
sites would constitute a significant contraction of the species' range 
and increase the risk of extinction of the species. Because most of the 
significant threats to D. hirstii affect the species over a period of 
years and, in some cases, are being managed to some extent, the threats 
are nonimminent. Based on nonimminent threats of a high magnitude, we 
retain a LPN of 5 for this species.
    Digitaria pauciflora (Florida pineland crabgrass)--We continue to 
find that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the 
date of publication of this notice. However, we are working on a 
proposed listing determination that we expect to publish prior to 
making the next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the 
course of preparing the proposed listing determination, we are 
continuing to monitor new information about this species' status so 
that we can make prompt use of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in 
the case of an emergency posing a significant risk to the species.
    Eriogonum soredium (Frisco buckwheat)--The following summary is 
based on information in our files and the petition we received on July 
30, 2007. Frisco buckwheat is a narrow endemic perennial plant 
restricted to soils derived from Ordovician limestone outcrops. The 
range of the species is less than 5 sq mi (13 sq km), with four known 
populations. All four populations occur exclusively on private lands in 
Beaver County, Utah, and each population occupies a very small area 
with high densities of plants. Available population estimates are 
highly variable and inaccurate due to the limited access for surveys 
associated with private lands.
    The primary threat to Frisco buckwheat is habitat destruction from 
precious metal and gravel mining. Mining for precious metals 
historically occurred within the vicinity of all four populations. 
Three of the populations are currently in the immediate vicinity of 
active limestone quarries. Ongoing mining in the species' habitat has 
the potential to extirpate one population in the near future and 
extirpate all populations in the foreseeable future. Ongoing 
exploration for precious metals and gravel indicate that mining will 
continue, but will take time for the mining operations to be put into 
place. This will result in the loss and fragmentation of Frisco 
buckwheat populations over a longer time scale. Other threats to the 
species include nonnative species, vulnerability associated with small 
population size, and climate change. Existing regulatory mechanisms are 
inadequate to protect the species from these threats. The threats that 
Frisco buckwheat faces are moderate in magnitude, because while serious 
and occurring rangewide, the threats do not significantly reduce 
populations on a short time scale. The threats are imminent, because 
three of the populations are currently in the immediate vicinity of 
active limestone quarries. Therefore, we have assigned Frisco buckwheat 
an LPN of 8.
    Festuca hawaiiensis (no common name)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. No new information was 
provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. This species is a 
cespitose (growing in dense, low tufts) annual found in dry forests on 
Hawaii Island. Festuca hawaiiensis is known from four populations 
collectively totaling approximately 1,000 individuals in and around the 
Pohakuloa Training Area. Historically, this species was also found on 
Hualalai and Puu Huluhulu, but it no longer occurs at these sites. In 
addition, the historical range of F. hawaiiensis may have included 
Maui.
    This species is threatened by pigs (Sus scrofa), goats (Capra 
hircus), mouflon (Ovis musimon), and feral sheep (O. aries) that 
degrade and destroy habitat; fire; military training activities; and 
nonnative plants that outcompete and displace it. Feral pigs, goats, 
mouflon, and feral sheep have been fenced out of a portion of the 
populations of F. hawaiiensis and nonnative plants have been reduced in 
the fenced area, but the majority of the populations are still affected 
by threats from ungulates. The threats are imminent because they are 
not controlled and are ongoing in the remaining, unfenced populations. 
Firebreaks have been established to protect two populations, but fire 
is an imminent threat to the remaining populations that have no 
firebreaks. There are no ex situ collections. The threats are of a high 
magnitude because they could adversely affect the majority of F. 
hawaiiensis populations resulting in direct mortality or reduced 
reproductive capacity which could bring about extinction on a 
relatively short time scale. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 
for this species.
    Festuca ligulata (Guadalupe fescue)--The following summary is based 
on information obtained from the original species petition, received in 
1975, and from our files, on-line herbarium databases, and scientific 
publications. Six small populations of Guadalupe fescue, a member of 
the Poaceae (grass family), have been documented in mountains of the 
Chihuahuan desert in Texas and in Coahuila, Mexico. Only two extant 
populations have been confirmed in the last 5 years: One in the Chisos 
Mountains, Big Bend National Park (BIBE), Texas, and one in the 
privately owned Area de Protecci[oacute]n de Flora y Fauna (APFF, 
Protected Area for Flora and Fauna) Maderas del Carmen in northern 
Coahuila. Despite intensive searches, a population known from Guadalupe 
Mountains National Park, Texas, has not been found since 1952, and is 
presumed extirpated. In 2009, botanists confirmed Guadalupe fescue at 
one site in APFF Maderas del Carmen, but could not find the species at 
the

[[Page 72483]]

original site, known as Sierra El Jard[iacute]n, which was first 
reported in 1973. Two additional Mexican populations, near Fraile in 
southern Coahuila, and the Sierra de la Madera in central Coahuila, 
have not been monitored since 1941 and 1977, respectively. A great 
amount of potentially suitable habitat in Coahuila and adjacent Mexican 
States has never been surveyed; due to prevailing security issues in 
northern Mexico. We do not know if or when these sites can be safely 
monitored. The BIBE site was monitored in September 2013; at that time 
the total population was estimated to be less than 200 individual 
plants.
    The potential threats to Guadalupe fescue include changes in the 
wildfire cycle and vegetation structure, trampling from humans and pack 
animals, possible grazing, trail runoff, fungal infection of seeds, 
small sizes and isolation of populations, and limited genetic 
diversity. A historically unprecedented period of exceptional drought 
and high temperatures prevailed throughout the species' range from 
October 2010 until November 2011. The Service and the National Park 
Service established a candidate conservation agreement (CCA) in 2008 to 
provide additional protection for the Chisos Mountains population and 
to promote cooperative conservation efforts with U.S. and Mexican 
partners. The threats to Guadalupe fescue are of moderate magnitude and 
are not imminent due to the provisions of the CCA and other 
conservation efforts that address threats from trampling, grazing, 
trail runoff, and genetic diversity. Thus, we maintained an LPN of 11 
for this species.
    Gardenia remyi (Nanu)--The following summary is based on 
information contained in our files. No new information was provided in 
the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Gardenia remyi is a tree 
found in mesic to wet forests on the Hawaiian Islands of Kauai, 
Molokai, Maui, and Hawaii. Gardenia remyi is known from 19 populations 
collectively totaling between 85 and 87 individuals. This species is 
threatened by pigs (Sus scrofa), goats (Capra hircus), and deer (Axis 
axis and Odocoileus hemionus), which degrade and destroy habitat and 
possibly forage upon the species, and by nonnative plants that 
outcompete and displace it. G. remyi is also threatened by landslides 
and reduced reproductive vigor on the island of Hawaii. This species is 
represented in ex situ collections. On Kauai, G. remyi individuals have 
been outplanted within ungulate-proof exclosures in two locations. 
Feral pigs have been fenced out of the west Maui populations of G. 
remyi, and nonnative plants have been reduced in those areas. However, 
these threats are ongoing in the remaining, unfenced populations, and 
are therefore imminent. In addition, the threat from goats and deer is 
ongoing and imminent throughout the range of the species, because no 
goat or deer control measures have been undertaken for any of the 
populations of G. remyi. All of the threats are of a high magnitude, 
because habitat destruction, predation, and landslides could 
significantly affect the entire species, resulting in direct mortality 
or reduced reproductive capacity, leading to a relatively high 
likelihood of extinction. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 for 
this species.
    Joinvillea ascendens ssp. ascendens (Ohe)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. No new information was 
provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Joinvillea 
ascendens ssp. ascendens is an erect herb found in wet to mesic 
Metrosideros polymorpha-Acacia koa (ohia-koa) lowland and montane 
forests on the Hawaiian Islands of Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Maui, and 
Hawaii. This subspecies is known from 44 widely scattered populations 
collectively totaling approximately 200 individuals. Many of the 
populations, which are widely separated, include only one or two 
individuals. This subspecies is threatened by destruction or 
modification of habitat by pigs (Sus scrofa), goats (Capra hircus), and 
deer (Axis axis and Odocoileus hemionus), and by nonnative plants that 
outcompete and displace native plants. Herbivory by pigs, goats, deer, 
and rats (Rattus exulans, R. norvegicus, and R. rattus) is a likely 
threat to this species. Landslides are a potential threat to 
populations on Kauai and Molokai. Seedlings have rarely been observed 
in the wild. Seeds germinate in cultivation, but most die soon 
thereafter. It is uncertain if the apparent low seedling recruitment is 
typical of this subspecies, or if it is related to habitat disturbance. 
Feral pigs have been fenced out of a few of the populations of this 
subspecies, and nonnative plants have been reduced in those populations 
that are fenced. However, these threats are not controlled and are 
ongoing in the remaining, unfenced populations. This species is 
represented in ex situ collections. The threats are imminent because 
they are ongoing and are of high magnitude because habitat degradation, 
nonnative plants, and predation result in mortality and may severely 
affect the reproductive capacity of the majority of populations of this 
species, leading to a relatively high probability of extinction. 
Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 3 for this subspecies.
    Kadua (=Hedyotis) fluviatilis (Kamapuaa)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. No new information was 
provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Kadua fluviatilis 
(formerly Hedyotis fluviatilis) is a scandent (climbing) shrub found in 
mixed shrubland to wet lowland forests on the islands of Oahu and 
Kauai, Hawaii. This species is known from 11 populations collectively 
totaling between 400 and 900 individuals. Kadua fluviatilis is 
threatened by pigs (Sus scrofa) and goats (Capra hircus) that degrade 
and destroy habitat, and by nonnative plants that outcompete and 
displace it. Landslides and hurricanes are a potential threat to 
populations on Kauai. Herbivory by pigs and goats is a likely threat. 
This species is not represented in an ex situ collection. Threats to 
this species are imminent because they are ongoing, and are of high 
magnitude, leading to a relatively high likelihood of extinction. 
Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 for this species.
    Lepidium ostleri (Ostler's peppergrass)--The following summary is 
based on information in our files and the petition we received on July 
30, 2007. Ostler's peppergrass is a long-lived perennial herb in the 
mustard family that grows in dense, cushion-like tufts. Ostler's 
peppergrass is a narrow endemic restricted to soils derived from 
Ordovician limestone outcrops. The range of the species is less than 5 
sq mi (13 sq km), with only four known populations. All four 
populations occur exclusively on private lands in the southern San 
Francisco Mountains of Beaver County, Utah. Available population 
estimates are highly variable and inaccurate due largely to the limited 
access for surveys associated with private lands.
    The primary threat to Ostler's peppergrass is habitat destruction 
from precious metal and gravel mining. Mining for precious metals 
historically occurred within the vicinity of all four populations. 
Three of the populations are currently in the immediate vicinity of 
active limestone quarries, but mining is only currently occurring in 
the area of one population. Ongoing mining in the species' habitat has 
the potential to extirpate one population in the near future. Ongoing 
exploration for precious metals and gravel indicate that mining will 
continue, but will take time for the mining operations to be put into 
place. This will result in the loss and fragmentation of Ostler's 
peppergrass populations over a longer time scale.

[[Page 72484]]

Other threats to the species include nonnative species, vulnerability 
associated with small population size, climate change, and the overall 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The threats that Ostler's 
peppergrass faces are moderate in magnitude, because, while serious and 
occurring rangewide, the threats do not collectively result in 
significant population declines on a short time scale. The threats are 
imminent because the species is currently facing them across its entire 
range. Therefore, we have assigned Ostler's peppergrass an LPN of 8.
    Linum arenicola (Sand flax)--We continue to find that listing this 
species is warranted but precluded as of the date of publication of 
this notice. However, we are working on a proposed listing 
determination that we expect to publish prior to making the next annual 
resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the course of preparing the 
proposed listing determination, we are continuing to monitor new 
information about this species' status so that we can make prompt use 
of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in the case of an emergency 
posing a significant risk to the species.
    Myrsine fosbergii (Kolea)--The following summary is based on 
information contained in our files. No new information was provided in 
the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Myrsine fosbergii is a 
branched shrub or small tree found in lowland mesic and wet forests, on 
watercourses or stream banks, on the islands of Kauai and Oahu, Hawaii. 
This species is currently known from 14 populations collectively 
totaling a little more than 100 individuals. Myrsine fosbergii is 
threatened by feral pigs (Sus scrofa) and goats (Capra hircus) that 
degrade and destroy habitat and may forage upon the plant, and by 
nonnative plants that compete for light and nutrients. This species is 
represented in an ex situ collection. Although there are plans to fence 
and remove ungulates from the Helemano area of Oahu, which may benefit 
this species, no conservation measures have yet been taken to protect 
this species from nonnative herbivores. Feral pigs and goats are found 
throughout the known range of M. fosbergii, as are nonnative plants. 
The threats from feral pigs, goats, and nonnative plants are imminent 
and of high magnitude because because they are ongoing and they pose a 
severe threat throughout the limited range of this species leading to a 
relatively high likelihood of extinction. Therefore, we have retained 
an LPN of 2 for this species.
    Nothocestrum latifolium ([revaps]Aiea)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. No new information was 
provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Nothocestrum 
latifolium is a small tree found in dry to mesic forests on the islands 
of Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Molokai, and Lanai, Hawaii. N. latifolium is 
known from 17 declining populations collectively totaling fewer than 
1,200 individuals. This species is threatened by feral pigs (Sus 
scrofa), goats (Capra hircus), and deer (Axis axis and Odocoileus 
hemionus) that degrade and destroy habitat and may forage upon it; by 
nonnative plants that compete for light and nutrients; and by decreased 
reproductive viability through the loss of pollinators. This species is 
represented in an ex situ collection. Ungulates have been fenced out of 
four areas where N. latifolium currently occurs, hundreds of N. 
latifolium individuals have been outplanted in fenced areas, and 
nonnative plants have been reduced in some populations that are fenced. 
However, these ongoing conservation efforts for this species benefit 
only a few of the known populations. The threats are not controlled and 
are ongoing in the remaining unfenced populations. In addition, little 
natural regeneration has been observed in this species. The threats are 
imminent because they are ongoing and of high magnitude, since they are 
severe enough to affect the continued existence of the species, leading 
to a relatively high likelihood of extinction. Therefore, we have 
retained an LPN of 2 for this species.
    Ochrosia haleakalae (Holei)--The following summary is based on 
information contained in our files. No new information was provided in 
the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Ochrosia haleakalae is a tree 
found in dry to mesic forests, often on lava, on the islands of Hawaii 
and Maui, Hawaii. This species is currently known from 8 populations 
collectively totaling between 64 and 76 individuals. Ochrosia 
haleakalae is threatened by fire; by feral pigs (Sus scrofa), goats 
(Capra hircus), and cattle (Bos taurus) that degrade and destroy 
habitat and may directly forage upon it; and, by nonnative plants that 
compete for light and nutrients. This species is represented in ex situ 
collections. Feral pigs, goats, and cattle have been fenced out of one 
wild and one outplanted population on private lands on the island of 
Maui and one outplanted population in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park on 
the island of Hawaii. Nonnative plants have been reduced in the fenced 
areas. The threat from fire is of a high magnitude and imminent because 
no control measures have been undertaken to address this threat that 
could adversely affect most O. haleakalae population sites. The threats 
from feral pigs, goats, and cattle are ongoing to the unfenced 
populations of O. haleakalae. The threat from nonnative plants is 
imminent and of a high magnitude to the wild populations on both 
islands, because it is ongoing and adversely affects the survival and 
reproductive capacity of the majority of the individuals of this 
species, leading to a relatively high likelihood of extinction. 
Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 for this species.
    Pinus albicaulis (Whitebark pine)--The following summary is based 
on information in our files and in the petition received on December 9, 
2008. Pinus albicaulis is a hardy conifer found at alpine tree line and 
subalpine elevations in Washington, Oregon, Nevada, California, Idaho, 
Montana, and Wyoming, and in British Columbia and Alberta, Canada. In 
the United States, approximately 96 percent of land where the species 
occurs is federally owned or managed, primarily by the U.S. Forest 
Service. Pinus albicaulis is a slow-growing, long-lived tree that often 
lives for 500 and sometimes more than 1,000 years. It is considered a 
keystone, or foundation, species in western North America, where it 
increases biodiversity and contributes to critical ecosystem functions.
    The primary threat to the species is from disease in the form of 
the nonnative white pine blister rust and its interaction with other 
threats. Pinus albicaulis also is currently experiencing significant 
mortality from predation by the native mountain pine beetle. We also 
anticipate that continuing environmental effects resulting from climate 
change will result in direct habitat loss for P. albicaulis. Models 
predict that suitable habitat for P. albicaulis will decline 
precipitously within the next 100 years. Past and ongoing fire 
suppression is also negatively affecting populations of P. albicaulis 
through direct habitat loss. Additionally, environmental changes 
resulting from changing climatic conditions are acting alone and in 
combination with the effects of fire suppression to increase the 
frequency and severity of wildfires. Lastly, the existing regulatory 
mechanisms are inadequate to address the threats presented above. The 
threats that face P. albicaulis are high in magnitude, because the 
major threats occur throughout all of the species' range and are having 
a major population-level

[[Page 72485]]

effect on the species. The threats are imminent, because rangewide 
disease, predation, fire and fire suppression, and environmental 
effects of climate change are affecting P. albicaulis currently and are 
expected to continue and likely intensify in the foreseeable future. 
Thus, we have assigned P. albicaulis an LPN of 2.
    Platanthera integrilabia (Correll) Leur (White fringeless orchid)--
We continue to find that listing this species is warranted but 
precluded as of the date of publication of this notice. However, we are 
working on a proposed listing determination that we expect to publish 
prior to making the next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. 
In the course of preparing the proposed listing rule, we are continuing 
to monitor new information about this species' status so that we can 
make prompt use of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in the case of 
an emergency posing a significant risk to the species.
    Pseudognaphalium (= Gnaphalium) sandwicensium var. molokaiense 
(Enaena)--The following summary is based on information contained in 
our files. No new information was provided in the petition we received 
on May 11, 2004. Pseudognaphalium sandwicensium var. molokaiense is a 
perennial herb found in strand vegetation in dry consolidated dunes on 
the islands of Molokai and Maui, Hawaii. Historically, this variety was 
also found on Oahu and Lanai. This variety is known from five 
populations collectively totaling approximately 200 to 20,000 
individuals (depending upon rainfall) in the Moomomi area on the island 
of Molokai, and from 2 populations of a few individuals at Waiehu dunes 
and at Puu Kahulianapa on west Maui. Pseudognaphalium s. var. 
molokaiense is threatened by feral goats (Capra hircus) and axis deer 
(Axis axis) that degrade and destroy habitat and possibly browse upon 
it, and by nonnative plants that compete for light and nutrients. 
Potential threats also include collection for cultural use, and off-
road vehicles that directly damage plants and degrade habitat. Weed 
control is conducted for one population on Molokai; however, no 
conservation efforts have been initiated to date for the other 
populations on Molokai or for the individuals on Maui. This species is 
represented in an ex situ collection. The ongoing threats from feral 
goats, axis deer, nonnative plants, collection, and off-road vehicles 
are of a high magnitude, because no control measures have been 
undertaken for the Maui population or for the four of the five Molokai 
populations, and the threats result in direct mortality or 
significantly reduce reproductive capacity for the majority of the 
populations, leading to a relatively high likelihood of extinction. 
Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 3 for this plant variety.
    Ranunculus hawaiensis (Makou)--The following summary is based on 
information contained in our files. No new information was provided in 
the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Ranunculus hawaiensis is an 
erect or ascending perennial herb found in mesic to wet forests 
dominated by Metrosideros polymorpha (ohia) and Acacia koa (koa) with 
scree substrate (loose stones or rocky debris on a slope) on the 
Hawaiian Islands of Maui and Hawaii. This species is currently known 
from 6 populations collectively totaling 14 individuals on the island 
of Hawaii. On Maui, it was historically known from an area in east 
Maui, but individuals have not been seen at this location since 1995. 
Ranunculus hawaiensis is threatened by direct predation by feral pigs 
(Sus scrofa), goats (Capra hircus), cattle (Bos taurus), mouflon (Ovis 
musimon), feral sheep (O. aries), and slugs (Limax maximus, Milax 
gagates, and Vaginulus plebeius); by degradation and destruction of 
habitat by feral ungulates; and by nonnative plants that compete for 
light and nutrients. This species is represented in ex situ 
collections, and three populations have been outplanted into protected 
exclosures; however, feral ungulates and nonnative plants are not 
controlled in the remaining, unfenced populations. In addition, the 
threat from introduced slugs is of a high magnitude because slugs occur 
throughout the limited range of this species and no effective measures 
have been undertaken to control them or prevent them from predating on 
the plants which can result in death or reduction in reproductive 
capacity. Overall, the threats to the species from pigs, goats, cattle, 
mouflon, feral sheep, slugs, and nonnative plants are imminent and of 
high magnitude. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 for this 
species.
    Ranunculus mauiensis (Makou)--The following summary is based on 
information contained in our files. No new information was provided in 
the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Ranunculus mauiensis is an 
erect to weakly ascending perennial herb found in open sites in mesic 
to wet forests and along streams on the islands of Maui, Kauai, and 
Molokai, Hawaii. This species is currently known from 14 populations 
collectively totaling 198 individuals. Ranunculus mauiensis is 
threatened by direct predation by feral pigs (Sus scrofa), goats (Capra 
hircus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), axis deer (Axis axis), and 
slugs (Limax maximus, Milax gagates, and Vaginulus plebeius); by 
habitat degradation and destruction by feral ungulates; and by 
nonnative plants that compete for light and nutrients. This species is 
represented in an ex situ collection. Feral pigs have been fenced out 
of one Maui population of R. mauiensis, and nonnative plants have been 
reduced in the fenced area. One individual occurs in the Kamakou 
Preserve on Molokai, managed by The Nature Conservancy. However, 
ongoing conservation efforts benefit only two populations. The threats 
are imminent and of high magnitude, since they are severe enough to 
affect the continued existence of the species, leading to a relatively 
high likelihood of extinction. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 
for this species.
    Rorippa subumbellata (Tahoe yellow cress)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files and the petition received 
on December 27, 2000. Rorippa subumbellata is a small, branching 
perennial herb known only from the shores of Lake Tahoe in California 
and Nevada.
    Data collected over the last 25 years generally indicate that 
species occurrence fluctuates yearly as a function of both lake level 
and the amount of exposed habitat. Records kept since 1900 show a 
preponderance of years with high lake levels that would isolate and 
reduce R. subumbellata occurrences at higher beach elevations. From the 
standpoint of the species, less favorable peak years have occurred 
almost twice as often as more favorable low-level years. Annual surveys 
are conducted to determine population numbers, site occupancy, and 
general disturbance regime. At least within a certain range, the data 
clearly show that more individuals are present when lake levels are low 
and fewer when lake levels are high.
    Many Rorippa subumbellata sites are intensively used for commercial 
and public purposes, and are subject to various activities such as 
erosion control, marina developments, pier construction, and 
recreation. The U.S. Forest Service, California Tahoe Conservancy, and 
California Department of Parks and Recreation have management programs 
for R. subumbellata that include monitoring, fenced enclosures, and 
transplanting efforts when funds and staff are available. Public 
agencies (including the Service), private landowners, and environmental 
groups collaborated to develop a Conservation Strategy coupled with a 
Memorandum of

[[Page 72486]]

Understanding-Conservation Agreement. The Conservation Strategy, 
completed in 2003, contains goals and objectives for recovery and 
survival and a research and monitoring agenda, and serves as the 
foundation for an adaptive management program. Because of the continued 
commitments to conservation demonstrated by regulatory and land 
management agencies participating in the conservation strategy, the 
threats to R. subumbellata from various land uses have been reduced to 
a moderate magnitude. In high lake level years such as 2011 and 2013, 
however, recreational use is concentrated within R. subumbellata 
habitat, and we consider this threat in particular to be ongoing and 
imminent. Therefore, we are maintaining an LPN of 8 for this species.
    Schiedea pubescens (Maolioli)--The following summary is based on 
information contained in our files. No new information was provided in 
the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Schiedea pubescens is a 
reclining or weakly climbing vine found in diverse mesic to wet forests 
on the Hawaiian Islands of Maui, Molokai, and Hawaii. It is presumed 
extirpated from Lanai. Currently, this species is known from 8 
populations collectively totaling between 30 and 32 individuals on 
Maui, from 4 populations collectively totaling between 21 and 22 
individuals on Molokai, and from 1 population of 4 to 6 individuals on 
the island of Hawaii. Schiedea pubescens is threatened by feral pigs 
(Sus scrofa) and goats (Capra hircus) that consume it and degrade and 
destroy habitat, and by nonnative plants that compete for light and 
nutrients. Feral ungulates have been fenced out of the population of S. 
pubescens on the island of Hawaii. Feral goats have been fenced out of 
a few of the west Maui populations of S. pubescens. Nonnative plants 
have been reduced in the populations that are fenced on Maui. However, 
the threats are not controlled and are ongoing in the remaining 
unfenced populations on Maui and the four populations on Molokai. 
Additional fenced areas are planned for the Hawaii Island population at 
Pohakuloa Training Area. Nonnative feral ungulates and nonnative plants 
will be controlled within these fenced areas. Fire is a potential 
threat to the Hawaii Island population. This species is not represented 
in an ex situ collection. Due to the extremely low number of 
individuals of this species, the ongoing threats from goats and 
nonnative plants are imminent and of high magnitude. These threats 
cause mortality and reduced reproductive capacity for the majority of 
the populations, leading to a relatively high likelihood of extinction. 
Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 2 for this species.
    Sicyos macrophyllus ([revaps]Anunu)--We continue to find that 
listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of 
publication of this notice. However, we are working on a proposed 
listing determination that we expect to publish prior to making the 
next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the course of 
preparing the proposed listing determination, we are continuing to 
monitor new information about this species' status so that we can make 
prompt use of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 
emergency posing a significant risk to the species.
    Solanum conocarpum (marron bacora)--The following summary is based 
on information in our files and in the petition we received on November 
21, 1996. Solanum conocarpum is a dry-forest shrub in the island of St. 
John, U.S. Virgin Islands. Its current distribution includes eight 
localities in the island of St. John, each ranging from 1 to 144 
individuals. The species has been reported to occur on dry, poor soils. 
It can be locally abundant in exposed topography on sites disturbed by 
erosion, areas that have received moderate grazing, and around 
ridgelines as an understory component in diverse woodland communities. 
A habitat suitability model suggests that the vast majority of Solanum 
conocarpum habitat is found in the lower elevation coastal scrub 
forest. Efforts have been conducted to propagate the species to enhance 
natural populations, and planting of seedlings has been conducted in 
the island of St. John.
    Solanum conocarpum is threatened by the lack of natural 
recruitment, absence of dispersers, fragmented distribution, lack of 
genetic variation, climate change, and habitat destruction or 
modification by exotic mammal species. These threats are evidenced by 
the reduced number of individuals, low number of populations, and lack 
of connectivity between populations. Overall, the threats are of high 
magnitude because they are leading to populations declines for a 
species that already has low population numbers and fragmented 
distribution; the threats are also ongoing and therefore imminent. 
Therefore, we assigned a LPN of 2 to Solanum conocarpum.
    Solanum nelsonii (popolo)--The following summary is based on 
information contained in our files. No new information was provided in 
the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Solanum nelsonii is a 
sprawling or trailing shrub found in coral rubble or sand in coastal 
sites. This species is known from populations on Molokai (approximately 
300 individuals), the island of Hawaii (5 individuals), and the 
northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), Hawaii. The current populations 
in the NWHI are found on Kure (unknown number of individuals), Midway 
(approximately 260 individuals), Laysan (approximately 490 
individuals), Pearl and Hermes (unknown number of individuals), and 
Nihoa (8,000 to 15,000 individuals). On Molokai, S. nelsonii is 
moderately threatened by ungulates which degrade and destroy habitat 
and which may eat individuals. On Molokai and the NWHI, this species is 
exposed to threats from nonnative plants that outcompete and displace 
it. Solanum nelsonii is exposed to threats by herbivory by a nonnative 
grasshopper (Schistocera nitens) in the NWHI. On Kure, Midway, Laysan, 
and Pearl and Hermes in the NWHI, tsunamis are also a potential threat 
to S. nelsonii. This species is represented in ex situ collections. 
Ungulate exclusion fences, routine fence monitoring and maintenance, 
and weed control protect the population of S. nelsonii on Molokai. 
Limited weed control is conducted in the NWHI. However, the threats are 
ongoing and are not being controlled in the majority of sites, they are 
therefore imminent. These threats are of moderate magnitude because of 
the relatively large number of plants, and the fact that this species 
is found on more than one island. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 
8 for this species.
    Trifolium friscanum (Frisco clover)--The following summary is based 
on information in our files and the petition we received on July 30, 
2007. Frisco clover is a narrow endemic perennial herb found only in 
Utah, with five known populations restricted to sparsely vegetated, 
pinion-juniper sagebrush communities and shallow, gravel soils derived 
from volcanic gravels, Ordovician limestone, and dolomite outcrops. The 
majority (68 percent) of Frisco clover plants occur on private lands, 
with the remaining plants found on Federal and State lands.
    On the private and State lands, the most significant threat to 
Frisco clover is habitat destruction from mining for precious metals 
and gravel. Active mining claims, recent prospecting, and an increasing 
demand for precious metals and gravel indicate that mining in Frisco 
clover habitats will increase in the foreseeable future, likely 
resulting in the loss of large numbers of plants. Other threats to 
Frisco clover include nonnative, invasive species;

[[Page 72487]]

vulnerability associated with small population size; and drought 
associated with climate change. Existing regulatory mechanisms are 
inadequate to protect the species from these threats. The threats to 
Frisco clover are moderate in magnitude because, while serious and 
occurring rangewide, they are not acting independently or cumulatively 
to have a highly significant negative impact on its survival or 
reproductive capacity. For example, although mining for precious metals 
and gravel historically occurred throughout Frisco clover's range, and 
mining operations may eventually expand into occupied habitats, there 
are no active mines within the immediate vicinity of any known 
population. The threats are imminent because the species is currently 
facing them across its entire range. Therefore, we have assigned Frisco 
clover an LPN of 8.

Ferns and Allies

    Cyclosorus boydiae (no common name)--The following summary is based 
on information contained in our files. No new information was provided 
in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Cyclosorus boydiae is a 
small- to medium-sized fern found in mesic to wet forests along stream 
banks on the Hawaiian Islands of Oahu and Maui. It has been extirpated 
from the island of Hawaii. Currently, C. boydiae is known from seven 
populations collectively totaling approximately 400 individuals. This 
species is threatened by feral pigs that degrade and destroy habitat 
and may eat this plant, and by nonnative plants that compete for light 
and nutrients. Feral pigs have been fenced out of the largest 
population on Maui, and nonnative plants have been reduced in the 
fenced area. No conservation efforts are under way to alleviate threats 
to the other two populations on Maui, or the two populations on Oahu. 
This species is represented in an ex situ collection. The threats are 
imminent because they are ongoing, and of moderate magnitude because 
pigs no longer threaten the largest population and nonnative plants 
have been reduced. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 8 for this 
species.
    Huperzia stemmermanniae (Waewaeiole)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. No new information was 
provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. Huperzia 
stemmermanniae is an epiphytic, pendant clubmoss found in mesic-to-wet 
Metrosideros polymorpha-Acacia koa (ohia-koa) forests on the Hawaiian 
Islands of Maui and Hawaii. Only 3 populations are known, collectively 
totaling approximately 20 individuals. The Maui population has not been 
observed since 1995. Huperzia stemmermanniae is threatened by feral 
pigs (Sus scrofa), goats (Capra hircus), cattle (Bos taurus), and axis 
deer (Axis axis) that degrade and destroy habitat, and by nonnative 
plants that compete for light, space, and nutrients. Huperzia 
stemmermanniae is also threatened by randomly occurring natural events 
due to its small population size. One individual at Waikamoi Preserve 
may benefit from fencing for axis deer and pigs. This species is 
represented in ex situ collections. The threats from pigs, goats, 
cattle, axis deer, and nonnative plants are imminent and of a high 
magnitude because they are sufficiently severe to adversely affect the 
species throughout its limited range, resulting in direct mortality or 
significantly reducing reproductive capacity and leading to a 
relatively high likelihood of extinction. Therefore, we have retained 
an LPN of 2 for this species.
    Microlepia strigosa var. mauiensis (Palapalai)--The following 
summary is based on information contained in our files. No new 
information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. 
Microlepia strigosa var. mauiensis is a terrestrial fern found in 
mesic-to-wet forests. It is currently found on the Hawaiian Islands of 
Maui, Oahu, and Hawaii in 9 known populations collectively totaling at 
least 50 individuals. M. s. var. mauiensis is threatened by feral pigs 
(Sus scrofa) that degrade and destroy habitat, and by nonnative plants 
that compete for light and nutrients. Pigs have been fenced out of some 
areas on east and west Maui, Oahu, and on Hawaii, where M. s. var. 
mauiensis currently occurs and nonnative plants have been reduced in 
the fenced areas. However, the threats are not controlled and are 
ongoing in the remaining unfenced populations on Maui, Oahu, and 
Hawaii. Therefore, the threats from feral pigs and nonnative plants are 
imminent. The threats are of a high magnitude because they are 
sufficiently severe to adversely affect the species throughout its 
range, resulting in direct mortality or significantly reducing 
reproductive capacity and leading to a relatively high likelihood of 
extinction. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 3 for this plant 
variety.

Petitions To Reclassify Species Already Listed

    We previously made warranted-but-precluded findings on five 
petitions seeking to reclassify threatened species to endangered 
status. The taxa involved in the reclassification petitions are three 
populations of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), delta smelt 
(Hypomesus transpacificus), and Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette 
cactus). Because these species are already listed under the ESA, they 
are not candidates for listing and are not included in Table 1. 
However, this notice and associated species assessment forms or 5-year 
review documents also constitute the findings for the resubmitted 
petitions to reclassify these species. Our updated assessments for 
these species are provided below. We find that reclassification to 
endangered status for one grizzly bear ecosystem population, delta 
smelt, and Sclerocactus brevispinus are all currently warranted but 
precluded by work identified above (see Findings for Petitioned 
Candidate Species). We find that uplisting the Selkirk ecosystem 
population and the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem population of grizzly bear is 
no longer warranted; the species remains listed as threatened. One of 
the primary reasons that the work identified above is considered to 
have higher priority is that the grizzly bear population, delta smelt, 
and Sclerocactus brevispinus are currently listed as threatened, and 
therefore already receive certain protections under the ESA. We 
promulgated regulations extending take prohibitions for wildlife and 
plants under section 9 to threatened species (50 CFR 17.31 and 50 CFR 
17.71, respectively). Prohibited actions under section 9 for wildlife 
include, but are not limited to, take (i.e., to harass, harm, pursue, 
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to 
engage in such activity). For plants, prohibited actions under section 
9 include removing or reducing to possession any listed plant from an 
area under Federal jurisdiction (50 CFR 17.61). Other protections that 
apply to these threatened species even before we complete proposed and 
final reclassification rules include those under section 7(a)(2) of the 
ESA, whereby Federal agencies must insure that any action they 
authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of any endangered or threatened species.
    Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis)--North Cascades ecosystem 
population (Region 6)--Since 1990, we have received and reviewed five 
petitions requesting a change in status for the North Cascades grizzly 
bear population (55 FR 32103, August 7, 1990; 56 FR 33892, July 24, 
1991; 57 FR 14372, April 20, 1992; 58 FR 43856, August 18, 1993; 63 FR 
30453, June 4, 1998). In response to these petitions, we

[[Page 72488]]

determined that grizzly bears in the North Cascade ecosystem warrant a 
change to endangered status. In 2014, we continue to find that 
reclassifying this population as endangered is warranted but precluded 
and we continue to assign a LPN of 3 for the uplisting of the North 
Cascades population based on high magnitude threats that are ongoing, 
thus imminent. However, higher priority listing actions, including 
court-approved settlements, court-ordered and statutory deadlines for 
petition findings and listing determinations, emergency listing 
determinations, and responses to litigation, continue to preclude 
reclassifying grizzly bears in this ecosystem. Furthermore, proposed 
rules to reclassify threatened species to endangered are a lower 
priority than listing currently unprotected species (i.e., candidate 
species), since species currently listed as threatened are already 
afforded the protection of the ESA and the implementing regulations. We 
continue to monitor this population and will change its status or 
implement an emergency uplisting if necessary.
    Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis)--Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem 
population (Region 6)--Since 1992, we have received and reviewed six 
petitions requesting a change in status for the Cabinet-Yaak grizzly 
bear population (57 FR 14372, April 20, 1992; 58 FR 8250, February 12, 
1993; 58 FR 43856, August 18, 1993; 58 FR 43856, August 18, 1993; 63 FR 
30453, June 4, 1998; 64 FR 26725, May 17, 1999). In response to these 
petitions, we previously determined that grizzly bears in the Cabinet-
Yaak ecosystem warranted a change to endangered status. However, for 
several years, this population's status has been improving. The 
population trend has now changed from declining to stable. The U.S. 
Forest Service has established regulatory mechanisms for motorized 
access management and attractant storage, and researchers have 
documented some movement between the Cabinet-Yaak and other populations 
in Canada. Together, these improvements have reduced the threats to 
this population. Until the Record of Decision for motorized access 
management is more fully implemented and we have several more years of 
a positive population trend, we remain cautious in our interpretation. 
We conclude that the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem population continues to 
face several threats, and retain this populations's threatened status, 
but we no longer find that the population is warranted for uplisting to 
endangered status (i.e., ``on the brink of extinction''). This 
constitutes our not-warranted finding on the six uplisting petitions we 
received.
    Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis)--Selkirk ecosystem 
population (Region 6)--Since 1992, we have received and reviewed four 
petitions requesting a change in status for individual grizzly bear 
populations (57 FR 14372, April 20, 1992; 58 FR 8250, February 12, 
1993; 58 FR 43856, August 18, 1993; 64 FR 26725, May 17, 1999). In 
response to these petitions, we previously determined that grizzly 
bears within the Selkirk ecosystem warranted a change to endangered 
status but reclassification was precluded by higher priority listing 
actions. However, improvements to habitat and the institutionalization 
of those improvements in National Forest Land Management Plans, as well 
as new information about population size have significantly reduced 
threats to this population from habitat destruction, and improved the 
adequacy of regulatory mechanisms. Population estimates indicate that 
the population is approaching recovery goals of 90 bears, and levels of 
human-caused mortality have been low in recent years. Additionally, 
food storage orders have been implemented and some movement between the 
Selkirk Mountains and other populations in Canada has been documented. 
However, until there are significant improvements to regulatory 
mechanisms in Canada, full implementation of motorized access 
management by the U.S. Forest Service, and improved population 
connectivity, we remain cautious in our interpretation. We conclude 
that the Selkirk ecosystem population continues to face several threats 
and will retain this populations's threatened status, but we no longer 
find that the population is warranted for uplisting to endangered 
status (i.e., ``on the brink of extinction''). This constitutes our 
not-warranted finding on the four uplisting petitions we received.
    Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) (Region 8) (see 75 FR 17667, 
April 7, 2010, for additional information on why reclassification to 
endangered is warranted but precluded)--The following summary is based 
on information contained in our files. In April, 2010 we completed a 
12-month finding for delta smelt in which we determined that a change 
in status from threatened to endangered was warranted, although 
precluded by other high priority listings. The primary rationale for 
reclassifying delta smelt from threatened to endangered was the 
significant declines in delta smelt abundance that have occurred since 
2001. Delta smelt abundance, as indicated by the Fall Mid-Water Trawl 
survey, was exceptionally low between 2004 and 2010, increased during 
the wet year of 2011, and decreased again to a very a low level in 
2012.
    The primary threats to the delta smelt are direct entrainments by 
State and Federal water export facilities, summer and fall increases in 
salinity and water clarity resulting from decreases in freshwater flow 
into the estuary, and effects from introduced species. Ammonia in the 
form of ammonium may also be a significant threat to the survival of 
the delta smelt. Additional potential threats are predation by striped 
and largemouth bass and inland silversides, entrainment into power 
plants, contaminants, and small population size. Existing regulatory 
mechanisms have not proven adequate to halt the decline of delta smelt 
since the time of listing as a threatened species.
    As a result of our analysis of the best available scientific and 
commercial data, we have retained the recommendation of uplisting the 
delta smelt to an endangered species with a LPN of 2, based on high 
magnitude and imminent threats. The magnitude of the threats is high, 
because the threats occur rangewide and result in mortality at a 
population level, or significantly reduce the reproductive capacity of 
the species. Threats are imminent because they are ongoing and, in some 
cases (e.g., nonnative species), considered irreversible.
    Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette cactus) (Region 6) (see 72 FR 
53211, September 18, 2007, and the species assessment form (see 
ADDRESSES) for additional information on why reclassification to 
endangered is warranted but precluded)--Sclerocactus brevispinus is 
restricted to clay badlands of the Uinta geologic formation in the 
Uinta Basin of northeastern Utah. The species is restricted to one 
population with an overall range of approximately 16 mi by 5 mi in 
extent. The species' entire population is within a developed and 
expanding oil and gas field. The location of the species' habitat 
exposes it to destruction from road, pipeline, and well-site 
construction in connection with oil and gas development. The species 
may be collected as a specimen plant for horticultural use. 
Recreational off-road vehicle use and livestock trampling are 
additional potential threats. The species is currently federally listed 
as threatened by its previous inclusion within the species Sclerocactus 
glaucus. The threats are of a high magnitude because any one of the

[[Page 72489]]

threats has the potential to severely affect the survival of this 
species, a narrow endemic with a highly limited range and distribution. 
Threats are ongoing and, therefore, are imminent. Thus, we assigned an 
LPN of 2 to this species for uplisting.

Current Notice of Review

    We gather data on plants and animals native to the United States 
that appear to merit consideration for addition to the Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists). This notice 
identifies those species that we currently regard as candidates for 
addition to the Lists. These candidates include species and subspecies 
of fish, wildlife, or plants, and DPSs of vertebrate animals. This 
compilation relies on information from status surveys conducted for 
candidate assessment and on information from State Natural Heritage 
Programs, other State and Federal agencies, knowledgeable scientists, 
public and private natural resource interests, and comments received in 
response to previous notices of review.
    Tables 1 and 2 list animals arranged alphabetically by common names 
under the major group headings, and list plants alphabetically by names 
of genera, species, and relevant subspecies and varieties. Animals are 
grouped by class or order. Plants are subdivided into two groups: (1) 
Flowering plants and (2) ferns and their allies. Useful synonyms and 
subgeneric scientific names appear in parentheses with the synonyms 
preceded by an ``equals'' sign. Several species that have not yet been 
formally described in the scientific literature are included; such 
species are identified by a generic or specific name (in italics), 
followed by ``sp.'' or ``ssp.'' We incorporate standardized common 
names in these notices as they become available. We sort plants by 
scientific name due to the inconsistencies in common names, the 
inclusion of vernacular and composite subspecific names, and the fact 
that many plants still lack a standardized common name.
    Table 1 lists all candidate species, plus species currently 
proposed for listing under the ESA. We emphasize that in this notice we 
are not proposing to list any of the candidate species; rather, we will 
develop and publish proposed listing rules for these species in the 
future. We encourage State agencies, other Federal agencies, and other 
parties to give consideration to these species in environmental 
planning.
    In Table 1, the ``category'' column on the left side of the table 
identifies the status of each species according to the following codes:

PE--Species proposed for listing as endangered. Proposed species are 
those species for which we have published a proposed rule to list as 
endangered or threatened in the Federal Register. This category does 
not include species for which we have withdrawn or finalized the 
proposed rule.
PT--Species proposed for listing as threatened.
PSAT--Species proposed for listing as threatened due to similarity of 
appearance.
C--Candidates: Species for which we have on file sufficient information 
on biological vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list 
them as endangered or threatened. Issuance of proposed rules for these 
species is precluded at present by other higher priority listing 
actions. This category includes species for which we made a 12-month 
warranted-but-precluded finding on a petition to list. We made new 
findings on all petitions for which we previously made ``warranted-but-
precluded'' findings. We identify the species for which we made a 
continued warranted-but-precluded finding on a resubmitted petition by 
the code ``C*'' in the category column (see the Findings for Petitioned 
Candidate Species section for additional information).

    The ``Priority'' column indicates the LPN for each candidate 
species, which we use to determine the most appropriate use of our 
available resources. The lowest numbers have the highest priority. We 
assign LPNs based on the immediacy and magnitude of threats, as well as 
on taxonomic status. We published a complete description of our listing 
priority system in the Federal Register (48 FR 43098, September 21, 
1983).
    The third column, ``Lead Region,'' identifies the Regional Office 
to which you should direct information, comments, or questions (see 
addresses under Request for Information at the end of the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section).
    Following the scientific name (fourth column) and the family 
designation (fifth column) is the common name (sixth column). The 
seventh column provides the known historical range for the species or 
vertebrate population (for vertebrate populations, this is the 
historical range for the entire species or subspecies and not just the 
historical range for the distinct population segment), indicated by 
postal code abbreviations for States and U.S. territories. Many species 
no longer occur in all of the areas listed.
    Species in Table 2 of this notice are those we included either as 
proposed species or as candidates in the previous CNOR (published 
November 22, 2013, at 78 FR 70104) that are no longer proposed species 
or candidates for listing. Since November 22, 2013, we listed 33 
species, withdrew 3 species from proposed status, and removed 13 
species from the candidate list. The first column indicates the present 
status of each species, using the following codes (not all of these 
codes may have been used in this CNOR):
E--Species we listed as endangered.
T--Species we listed as threatened.
Rc--Species we removed from the candidate list because currently 
available information does not support a proposed listing.
Rp--Species we removed from because we have withdrawn the proposed 
listing.

    The second column indicates why the species is no longer a 
candidate or proposed species using the following codes (not all of 
these codes may have been used in this CNOR):

A--Species that are more abundant or widespread than previously 
believed and species that are not subject to the degree of threats 
sufficient that the species is a candidate for listing (for reasons 
other than that conservation efforts have removed or reduced the 
threats to the species).
F--Species whose range no longer includes a U.S. territory.
I--Species for which we have insufficient information on biological 
vulnerability and threats to support issuance of a proposed rule to 
list.
L--Species we added to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 
and Plants.
M--Species we mistakenly included as candidates or proposed species in 
the last notice of review.
N--Species that are not listable entities based on the ESA's definition 
of ``species'' and current taxonomic understanding.
U--Species that are not subject to the degree of threats sufficient to 
warrant issuance of a proposed listing and therefore are not candidates 
for listing, due, in part or totally, to conservation efforts that 
remove or reduce the threats to the species.
X--Species we believe to be extinct.

    The columns describing lead region, scientific name, family, common 
name, and historical range include information as previously described 
for Table 1.

[[Page 72490]]

Request for Information

    We request you submit any further information on the species named 
in this notice as soon as possible or whenever it becomes available. We 
are particularly interested in any information:
    (1) Indicating that we should add a species to the list of 
candidate species;
    (2) Indicating that we should remove a species from candidate 
status;
    (3) Recommending areas that we should designate as critical habitat 
for a species, or indicating that designation of critical habitat would 
not be prudent for a species;
    (4) Documenting threats to any of the included species;
    (5) Describing the immediacy or magnitude of threats facing 
candidate species;
    (6) Pointing out taxonomic or nomenclature changes for any of the 
species;
    (7) Suggesting appropriate common names; and
    (8) Noting any mistakes, such as errors in the indicated historical 
ranges.
    Submit information, materials, or comments regarding a particular 
species to the Regional Director of the Region identified as having the 
lead responsibility for that species. The regional addresses follow:

Region 1. Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, American Samoa, Guam, and 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Regional Director (TE), 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Eastside Federal Complex, 911 NE. 11th 
Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181 (503/231-6158).
Region 2. Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. Regional Director 
(TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 500 Gold Avenue SW., Room 4012, 
Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505/248-6920).
Region 3. Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, 
and Wisconsin. Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 55437-1458 (612/
713-5334).
Region 4. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Puerto Rico, 
and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30345 
(404/679-4156).
Region 5. Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode 
Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. Regional Director (TE), 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA 
01035-9589 (413/253-8615).
Region 6. Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South 
Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 
80225-0486 (303/236-7400).
Region 7. Alaska. Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503-6199 (907/786-3505).
Region 8. California and Nevada. Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W2606, Sacramento, CA 95825 
(916/414-6464).

    We will provide information received in response to the previous 
CNOR to the Region having lead responsibility for each candidate 
species mentioned in the submission. We will likewise consider all 
information provided in response to this CNOR in deciding whether to 
propose species for listing and when to undertake necessary listing 
actions (including whether emergency listing under section 4(b)(7) of 
the ESA is appropriate). Information and comments we receive will 
become part of the administrative record for the species, which we 
maintain at the appropriate Regional Office.

Public Availability of Comments

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or 
other personal identifying information in your submission, be advised 
that your entire submission--including your personal identifying 
information--may be made publicly available at any time. Although you 
can ask us in your submission to withhold from public review your 
personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be 
able to do so.

Authority

    This notice is published under the authority of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: November 18, 2014.
David Cottingham,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

                            Table 1--Candidate Notice of Review (Animals and Plants)
          [Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Status
-----------------------------  Lead region    Scientific name       Family        Common name       Historical
   Category       Priority                                                                            range
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     MAMMALS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PE...........  .............  R3...........  Myotis            ...............  Bat, northern    U.S.A. (AL, AR,
                                              septentrionalis.                   long-eared.      CT, DE, DC,
                                                                                                  FL, GA, IL,
                                                                                                  IN, IA, KS,
                                                                                                  KY, LA, ME,
                                                                                                  MD, MA, MI,
                                                                                                  MN, MS, MO,
                                                                                                  MT, NE, NH,
                                                                                                  NJ, NY, NC,
                                                                                                  ND, OH, OK,
                                                                                                  PA, RI, SC,
                                                                                                  SD, TN, VT,
                                                                                                  VA, WV, WI,
                                                                                                  WY); Canada
                                                                                                  (AB, BC, LB,
                                                                                                  MB, NB, NF,
                                                                                                  NS, NT, ON,
                                                                                                  PE, QC, SK,
                                                                                                  YT).
PE...........  3............  R1...........  Emballonura       Emballonuridae.  Bat, Pacific     U.S.A. (GU,
                                              semicaudata                        sheath-tailed    CNMI).
                                              rotensis.                          (Mariana
                                                                                 Islands
                                                                                 subspecies).
C *..........  3............  R1...........  Emballonura       Emballonuridae.  Bat, Pacific     U.S.A. (AS),
                                              semicaudata                        sheath-tailed    Fiji,
                                              semicaudata.                       (American        Independent
                                                                                 Samoa DPS).      Samoa, Tonga,
                                                                                                  Vanuatu.

[[Page 72491]]

 
C *..........  6............  R2...........  Tamias minimus    Sciuridae......  Chipmunk,        U.S.A. (NM).
                                              atristriatus.                      Pe[ntilde]asco
                                                                                 least.
C *..........  2............  R5...........  Sylvilagus        Leporidae......  Cottontail, New  U.S.A. (CT, MA,
                                              transitionalis.                    England.         ME, NH, NY,
                                                                                                  RI, VT).
PT...........  6............  R8...........  Martes pennanti.  Mustelidae.....  Fisher (west     U.S.A. (CA, CT,
                                                                                 coast DPS).      IA, ID, IL,
                                                                                                  IN, KY, MA,
                                                                                                  MD, ME, MI,
                                                                                                  MN, MT, ND,
                                                                                                  NH, NJ, NY,
                                                                                                  OH, OR, PA,
                                                                                                  RI, TN, UT,
                                                                                                  VA, VT, WA,
                                                                                                  WI, WV, WY),
                                                                                                  Canada.
C *..........  8............  R1...........  Urocitellus       Sciuridae......  Squirrel,        U.S.A. (ID).
                                              endemicus.                         Southern Idaho
                                                                                 ground.
C *..........  5............  R1...........  Urocitellus       Sciuridae......  Squirrel,        U.S.A. (WA,
                                              washingtoni.                       Washington       OR).
                                                                                 ground.
C *..........  9............  R1...........  Arborimus         Cricetidae.....  Vole, Red        U.S.A. (OR).
                                              longicaudus.                       (north Oregon
                                                                                 coast DPS).
C *..........  9............  R7...........  Odobenus          Odobenidae.....  Walrus, Pacific  U.S.A. (AK),
                                              rosmarus                                            Russian
                                              divergens.                                          Federation
                                                                                                  (Kamchatka and
                                                                                                  Chukotka).
PE...........  .............  R2...........  Canis lupus       Canidae........  Wolf, Mexican    U.S.A. (AZ,
                                              baileyi.                           gray.            NM).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      BIRDS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C *..........  3............  R1...........  Porzana           Rallidae.......  Crake, spotless  U.S.A. (AS),
                                              tabuensis.                         (American        Australia,
                                                                                 Samoa DPS).      Fiji,
                                                                                                  Independent
                                                                                                  Samoa,
                                                                                                  Marquesas,
                                                                                                  Philippines,
                                                                                                  Society
                                                                                                  Islands,
                                                                                                  Tonga.
C *..........  9............  R1...........  Gallicolumba      Columbidae.....  Ground-dove,     U.S.A. (AS),
                                              stairi.                            friendly         Independent
                                                                                 (American        Samoa.
                                                                                 Samoa DPS).
PT...........  3............  R5...........  Calidris canutus  Scolopacidae...  Knot, red......  U.S.A.
                                              rufa.                                               (Atlantic
                                                                                                  coast),
                                                                                                  Canada, South
                                                                                                  America.
C............  2............  R1...........  Gymnomyza         Meliphagidae...  Ma'oma'o.......  U.S.A. (AS),
                                              samoensis.                                          Independent
                                                                                                  Samoa.
C *..........  5............  R8...........  Synthliboramphus  Alcidae........  Murrelet,        U.S.A. (CA),
                                              hypoleucus.                        Xantus's.        Mexico.
C *..........  2............  R2...........  Amazona           Psittacidae....  Parrot, red-     U.S.A. (TX),
                                              viridigenalis.                     crowned.         Mexico.
C *..........  8............  R6...........  Anthus spragueii  Motacillidae...  Pipit,           U.S.A. (AR, AZ,
                                                                                 Sprague's.       CO, KS, LA,
                                                                                                  MN, MS, MT,
                                                                                                  ND, NE, NM,
                                                                                                  OK, SD, TX),
                                                                                                  Canada,
                                                                                                  Mexico.
C *..........  8............  R6...........  Centrocercus      Phasianidae....  Sage-grouse,     U.S.A. (AZ, CA,
                                              urophasianus.                      greater.         CO, ID, MT,
                                                                                                  ND, NE, NV,
                                                                                                  OR, SD, UT,
                                                                                                  WA, WY),
                                                                                                  Canada (AB,
                                                                                                  BC, SK).
PT...........  3............  R8...........  Centrocercus      Phasianidae....  Sage-grouse,     U.S.A. (AZ, CA,
                                              urophasianus.                      greater (Bi-     CO, ID, MT,
                                                                                 State DPS).      ND, NE, NV,
                                                                                                  OR, SD, UT,
                                                                                                  WA, WY),
                                                                                                  Canada (AB,
                                                                                                  BC, SK).
C *..........  6............  R1...........  Centrocercus      Phasianidae....  Sage-grouse,     U.S.A. (AZ, CA,
                                              urophasianus.                      greater          CO, ID, MT,
                                                                                 (Columbia        ND, NE, NV,
                                                                                 Basin DPS).      OR, SD, UT,
                                                                                                  WA, WY),
                                                                                                  Canada (AB,
                                                                                                  BC, SK).
PE...........  2............  R6...........  Centrocercus      Phasianidae....  Sage-grouse,     U.S.A. (AZ, CO,
                                              minimus.                           Gunnison.        NM, UT).
C *..........  3............  R1...........  Oceanodroma       Hydrobatidae...  Storm-petrel,    U.S.A. (HI),
                                              castro.                            band-rumped      Atlantic
                                                                                 (Hawaii DPS).    Ocean, Ecuador
                                                                                                  (Galapagos
                                                                                                  Islands),
                                                                                                  Japan.
C *..........  11...........  R4...........  Dendroica         Emberizidae....  Warbler, elfin-  U.S.A. (PR).
                                              angelae.                           woods.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 72492]]

 
                                                    REPTILES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C *..........  8............  R3...........  Sistrurus         Viperidae......  Massasauga       U.S.A. (IA, IL,
                                              catenatus.                         (=rattlesnake)   IN, MI, MN,
                                                                                 , eastern.       MO, NY, OH,
                                                                                                  PA, WI),
                                                                                                  Canada.
PE...........  .............  R1...........  Emoia slevini...  Scincidae......  Skink, Slevin's  U.S.A. (Guam,
                                                                                 (Guali'ek        Mariana
                                                                                 Halom Tano).     Islands).
PT...........  3............  R4...........  Pituophis         Colubridae.....  Snake, black     U.S.A. (AL, LA,
                                              melanoleucus                       pine.            MS).
                                              lodingi.
C *..........  5............  R4...........  Pituophis         Colubridae.....  Snake,           U.S.A. (LA,
                                              ruthveni.                          Louisiana pine.  TX).
C *..........  5............  R2...........  Gopherus          Testudinidae...  Tortoise,        U.S.A. (AZ, CA,
                                              morafkai.                          Sonoran desert.  NV, UT).
C *..........  8............  R4...........  Gopherus          Testudinidae...  Tortoise,        U.S.A. (AL, FL,
                                              polyphemus.                        gopher           GA, LA, MS,
                                                                                 (eastern         SC).
                                                                                 population).
C *..........  6............  R2...........  Kinosternon       Kinosternidae..  Turtle, Sonoyta  U.S.A. (AZ),
                                              sonoriense                         mud.             Mexico.
                                              longifemorale.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   AMPHIBIANS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C *..........  9............  R8...........  Rana              Ranidae........  Frog, Columbia   U.S.A. (AK, ID,
                                              luteiventris.                      spotted (Great   MT, NV, OR,
                                                                                 Basin DPS).      UT, WA, WY),
                                                                                                  Canada (BC).
C *..........  8............  R8...........  Lithobates onca.  Ranidae........  Frog, relict     U.S.A. (AZ, NV,
                                                                                 leopard.         UT).
C *..........  8............  R4...........  Notophthalmus     Salamandridae..  Newt, striped..  U.S.A. (FL,
                                              perstriatus.                                        GA).
C *..........  8............  R4...........  Gyrinophilus      Plethodontidae.  Salamander,      U.S.A. (TN).
                                              gulolineatus.                      Berry Cave.
C............  3............  R2...........  Hyla wrightorum.  Hylidae........  Treefrog,        U.S.A. (AZ),
                                                                                 Arizona          Mexico
                                                                                 (Huachuca/       (Sonora).
                                                                                 Canelo DPS).
C *..........  2............  R4...........  Necturus          Proteidae......  Waterdog, black  U.S.A. (AL).
                                              alabamensis.                       warrior
                                                                                 (=Sipsey Fork).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     FISHES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C *..........  8............  R2...........  Gila nigra......  Cyprinidae.....  Chub, headwater  U.S.A. (AZ,
                                                                                                  NM).
C *..........  9............  R2...........  Gila robusta....  Cyprinidae.....  Chub, roundtail  U.S.A. (AZ, CO,
                                                                                 (Lower           NM, UT, WY).
                                                                                 Colorado River
                                                                                 Basin DPS).
C *..........  11...........  R6...........  Etheostoma        Percidae.......  Darter,          U.S.A. (AR, CO,
                                              cragini.                           Arkansas.        KS, MO, OK).
C............  8............  R4...........  Etheostoma        Percidae.......  Darter,          U.S.A. (KY,
                                              sagitta.                           Cumberland       TN).
                                                                                 arrow.
PE...........  2............  R5...........  Crystallaria      Percidae.......  Darter, diamond  U.S.A. (KY, OH,
                                              cincotta.                                           TN, WV).
C............  2............  R4...........  Etheostoma        Percidae.......  Darter,          U.S.A. (KY).
                                              spilotum.                          Kentucky arrow.
C *..........  8............  R4...........  Percina aurora..  Percidae.......  Darter, Pearl..  U.S.A. (LA,
                                                                                                  MS).
C *..........  5............  R4...........  Moxostoma sp....  Catostomidae...  Redhorse,        U.S.A. (GA, NC,
                                                                                 sicklefin.       TN).
C *..........  3............  R8...........  Spirinchus        Osmeridae......  Smelt, longfin   U.S.A. (AK, CA,
                                              thaleichthys.                      (San Francisco   OR, WA),
                                                                                 bay-delta DPS).  Canada.
PSAT.........  N/A..........  R1...........  Salvelinus malma  Salmonidae.....  Trout, Dolly     U.S.A. (AK,
                                                                                 Varden.          WA), Canada,
                                                                                                  East Asia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      CLAMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C *..........  2............  R2...........  Lampsilis         Unionidae......  Fatmucket,       U.S.A. (TX).
                                              bracteata.                         Texas.
C *..........  2............  R2...........  Truncilla         Unionidae......  Fawnsfoot,       U.S.A. (TX).
                                              macrodon.                          Texas.
C *..........  8............  R2...........  Popenaias popei.  Unionidae......  Hornshell,       U.S.A. (NM,
                                                                                 Texas.           TX), Mexico.
C *..........  8............  R2...........  Quadrula aurea..  Unionidae......  Orb, golden....  U.S.A. (TX).
C *..........  8............  R2...........  Quadrula          Unionidae......  Pimpleback,      U.S.A. (TX).
                                              houstonensis.                      smooth.
C *..........  2............  R2...........  Quadrula petrina  Unionidae......  Pimpleback,      U.S.A. (TX).
                                                                                 Texas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     SNAILS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C *..........  8............  R4...........  Elimia            Pleuroceridae..  Mudalia, black.  U.S.A. (AL).
                                              melanoides.
C *..........  2............  R4...........  Planorbella       Planorbidae....  Ramshorn,        U.S.A. (NC).
                                              magnifica.                         magnificent.
C *..........  2............  R1...........  Ostodes           Potaridae......  Sisi snail.....  U.S.A. (AS).
                                              strigatus.
PE...........  2............  R1...........  Samoana fragilis  Partulidae.....  Snail, fragile   U.S.A. (GU,
                                                                                 tree.            MP).
PE...........  2............  R1...........  Partula           Partulidae.....  Snail, Guam      U.S.A. (GU).
                                              radiolata.                         tree.

[[Page 72493]]

 
PE...........  2............  R1...........  Partula gibba...  Partulidae.....  Snail, Humped    U.S.A. (GU,
                                                                                 tree.            MP).
PE...........  2............  R1...........  Partula           Partulidae.....  Snail,           U.S.A. (MP).
                                              langfordi.                         Langford's
                                                                                 tree.
C *..........  2............  R1...........  Eua zebrina.....  Partulidae.....  Snail, Tutuila   U.S.A. (AS).
                                                                                 tree.
C *..........  11...........  R2...........  Pyrgulopsis       Hydrobiidae....  Springsnail,     U.S.A. (AZ),
                                              thompsoni.                         Huachuca.        Mexico.
C *..........  11...........  R2...........  Pyrgulopsis       Hydrobiidae....  Springsnail,     U.S.A. (AZ).
                                              morrisoni.                         Page.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     INSECTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C *..........  2............  R1...........  Hylaeus           Colletidae.....  Bee, Hawaiian    U.S.A. (HI).
                                              anthracinus.                       yellow-faced.
C *..........  2............  R1...........  Hylaeus           Colletidae.....  Bee, Hawaiian    U.S.A. (HI).
                                              assimulans.                        yellow-faced.
C *..........  2............  R1...........  Hylaeus facilis.  Colletidae.....  Bee, Hawaiian    U.S.A. (HI).
                                                                                 yellow-faced.
C *..........  2............  R1...........  Hylaeus hilaris.  Colletidae.....  Bee, Hawaiian    U.S.A. (HI).
                                                                                 yellow-faced.
C *..........  2............  R1...........  Hylaeus kuakea..  Colletidae.....  Bee, Hawaiian    U.S.A. (HI).
                                                                                 yellow-faced.
C *..........  2............  R1...........  Hylaeus           Colletidae.....  Bee, Hawaiian    U.S.A. (HI).
                                              longiceps.                         yellow-faced.
C *..........  2............  R1...........  Hylaeus mana....  Colletidae.....  Bee, Hawaiian    U.S.A. (HI).
                                                                                 yellow-faced.
C *..........  5............  R8...........  Hermelycaena      Lycaenidae.....  Butterfly,       U.S.A. (CA).
                                              [Lycaena]                          Hermes copper.
                                              hermes.
PE...........  3............  R1...........  Hypolimnas        Nymphalidae....  Butterfly,       U.S.A. (GU,
                                              octucula                           Mariana eight-   MP).
                                              mariannensis.                      spot.
PE...........  2............  R1...........  Vagrans egistina  Nymphalidae....  Butterfly,       U.S.A. (GU,
                                                                                 Mariana          MP).
                                                                                 wandering.
C *..........  2............  R4...........  Atlantea tulita.  Nymphalidae....  Butterfly,       U.S.A. (PR).
                                                                                 Puerto Rican
                                                                                 harlequin.
C *..........  5............  R4...........  Glyphopsyche      Limnephilidae..  Caddisfly,       U.S.A. (TN).
                                              sequatchie.                        Sequatchie.
C............  5............  R4...........  Pseudanophthalmu  Carabidae......  Cave beetle,     U.S.A. (TN).
                                              s insularis.                       Baker Station
                                                                                 (=insular).
C *..........  5............  R4...........  Pseudanophthalmu  Carabidae......  Cave beetle,     U.S.A. (KY).
                                              s caecus.                          Clifton.
C *..........  11...........  R4...........  Pseudanophthalmu  Carabidae......  Cave beetle,     U.S.A. (TN).
                                              s colemanensis.                    Coleman.
C............  5............  R4...........  Pseudanophthalmu  Carabidae......  Cave beetle,     U.S.A. (TN).
                                              s fowlerae.                        Fowler's.
C *..........  5............  R4...........  Pseudanophthalmu  Carabidae......  Cave beetle,     U.S.A. (KY).
                                              s frigidus.                        icebox.
C............  5............  R4...........  Pseudanophthalmu  Carabidae......  Cave beetle,     U.S.A. (TN).
                                              s tiresias.                        Indian Grave
                                                                                 Point (=
                                                                                 Soothsayer).
C *..........  5............  R4...........  Pseudanophthalmu  Carabidae......  Cave beetle,     U.S.A. (TN).
                                              s inquisitor.                      inquirer.
C *..........  5............  R4...........  Pseudanophthalmu  Carabidae......  Cave beetle,     U.S.A. (KY).
                                              s troglodytes.                     Louisville.
C............  5............  R4...........  Pseudanophthalmu  Carabidae......  Cave beetle,     U.S.A. (TN).
                                              s paulus.                          Noblett's.
C *..........  5............  R4...........  Pseudanophthalmu  Carabidae......  Cave beetle,     U.S.A. (KY).
                                              s parvus.                          Tatum.
C *..........  8............  R1...........  Megalagrion       Coenagrionidae.  Damselfly,       U.S.A. (HI).
                                              xanthomelas.                       orangeblack
                                                                                 Hawaiian.
PE...........  .............  R1...........  Ischnura luta...  Coenagrionidae.  Damselfly, Rota  U.S.A. (Mariana
                                                                                 blue.            Islands).
C............  2............  R8...........  Ambrysus          Naucoridae.....  Naucorid bug     U.S.A. (CA).
                                              funebris.                          (=Furnace
                                                                                 Creek),
                                                                                 Nevares Spring.
C *..........  8............  R3...........  Papaipema         Noctuidae......  Moth,            U.S.A. (AR, IL,
                                              eryngii.                           rattlesnake-     KY, NC, OK).
                                                                                 master borer.
C *..........  11...........  R2...........  Heterelmis        Elmidae........  Riffle beetle,   U.S.A. (AZ).
                                              stephani.                          Stephan's.
PT...........  8............  R3...........  Hesperia dacotae  Hesperiidae....  Skipper, Dakota  U.S.A. (MN, IA,
                                                                                                  SD, ND, IL),
                                                                                                  Canada.
PE...........  2............  R3...........  Oarisma           Hesperiidae....  Skipperling,     U.S.A. (IA, IL,
                                              poweshiek.                         Poweshiek.       IN, MI, MN,
                                                                                                  ND, SD, WI),
                                                                                                  Canada (MB).
C *..........  5............  R6...........  Capnia arapahoe.  Capniidae......  Snowfly,         U.S.A. (CO).
                                                                                 Arapahoe.

[[Page 72494]]

 
C *..........  5............  R6...........  Lednia tumana...  Nemouridae.....  Stonefly,        U.S.A. (MT).
                                                                                 meltwater
                                                                                 lednian.
C *..........  5............  R4...........  Cicindela         Cicindelidae...  Tiger beetle,    U.S.A. (FL).
                                              highlandensis.                     highlands.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   CRUSTACEANS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C............  8............  R5...........  Stygobromus       Crangonyctidae.  Amphipod,        U.S.A. (DC).
                                              kenki.                             Kenk's.
C *..........  5............  R1...........  Metabetaeus       Alpheidae......  Shrimp,          U.S.A. (HI).
                                              lohena.                            anchialine
                                                                                 pool.
C *..........  5............  R1...........  Palaemonella      Palaemonidae...  Shrimp,          U.S.A. (HI).
                                              burnsi.                            anchialine
                                                                                 pool.
C *..........  5............  R1...........  Procaris          Procarididae...  Shrimp,          U.S.A. (HI).
                                              hawaiana.                          anchialine
                                                                                 pool.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                FLOWERING PLANTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C *..........  11...........  R8...........  Abronia alpina..  Nyctaginaceae..  Sand-verbena,    U.S.A. (CA).
                                                                                 Ramshaw
                                                                                 Meadows.
C *..........  11...........  R4...........  Argythamnia       Euphorbiaceae..  Silverbush,      U.S.A. (FL).
                                              blodgettii.                        Blodgett's.
C *..........  3............  R1...........  Artemisia         Asteraceae.....  Wormwood,        U.S.A. (OR,
                                              borealis var.                      northern.        WA).
                                              wormskioldii.
C *..........  2............  R6...........  Astragalus        Fabaceae.......  Milkvetch,       U.S.A. (ID, NV,
                                              anserinus.                         Goose Creek.     UT).
C *..........  8............  R6...........  Astragalus        Fabaceae.......  Milkvetch,       U.S.A. (CO).
                                              microcymbus.                       skiff.
C *..........  8............  R6...........  Astragalus        Fabaceae.......  Milkvetch,       U.S.A. (CO).
                                              schmolliae.                        Schmoll.
C *..........  11...........  R6...........  Astragalus        Fabaceae.......  Milkvetch,       U.S.A. (CO).
                                              tortipes.                          Sleeping Ute.
C *..........  8............  R6...........  Boechera          Brassicaceae...  Rockcress,       U.S.A. (WY).
                                              (Arabis)                           Fremont County
                                              pusilla.                           or small.
PE...........  .............  R1...........  Bulbophyllum      Orchidaceae....  Cebello          U.S.A. (Guam,
                                              guamense.                          halumtano.       Mariana
                                                                                                  Islands).
C *..........  2............  R1...........  Calamagrostis     Poaceae........  Reedgrass, Maui  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              expansa.
C *..........  11...........  R8...........  Calochortus       Liliaceae......  Mariposa lily,   U.S.A. (CA,
                                              persistens.                        Siskiyou.        OR).
C *..........  9............  R4...........  Chamaecrista      Fabaceae.......  Pea, Big Pine    U.S.A. (FL).
                                              lineata var.                       partridge.
                                              keyensis.
C *..........  12...........  R4...........  Chamaesyce        Euphorbiaceae..  Sandmat,         U.S.A. (FL).
                                              deltoidea                          pineland.
                                              pinetorum.
C *..........  9............  R4...........  Chamaesyce        Euphorbiaceae..  Spurge, wedge..  U.S.A. (FL).
                                              deltoidea
                                              serpyllum.
C *..........  6............  R8...........  Chorizanthe       Polygonaceae...  Spineflower,     U.S.A. (CA).
                                              parryi var.                        San Fernando
                                              fernandina.                        Valley.
C *..........  8............  R2...........  Cirsium wrightii  Asteraceae.....  Thistle,         U.S.A. (AZ,
                                                                                 Wright's.        NM), Mexico.
C............  2............  R1...........  Cyanea            Campanulaceae..  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              kauaulaensis.
PT...........  .............  R1...........  Cycas             Cycadaceae.....  Fadang.........  U.S.A. (Guam,
                                              micronesica.                                        Mariana
                                                                                                  Islands).
C............  2............  R1...........  Cyperus           Cyperaceae.....  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              neokunthianus.
C............  2............  R1...........  Cyrtandra         Gesneriaceae...  Ha[revaps]iwale  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              hematos.
C *..........  3............  R4...........  Dalea             Fabaceae.......  Prairie-clover,  U.S.A. (FL).
                                              carthagenensis                     Florida.
                                              var. floridana.
PE...........  .............  R1...........  Dendrobium        Orchidaceae....  No common name.  U.S.A. (Guam,
                                              guamens.                                            Mariana
                                                                                                  Islands).
C *..........  5............  R5...........  Dichanthelium     Poaceae........  Panic grass,     U.S.A. (DE, GA,
                                              hirstii.                           Hirst            NC, NJ).
                                                                                 Brothers'.
C *..........  5............  R4...........  Digitaria         Poaceae........  Crabgrass,       U.S.A. (FL).
                                              pauciflora.                        Florida
                                                                                 pineland.
C *..........  8............  R6...........  Eriogonum         Polygonaceae...  Buckwheat,       U.S.A. (UT).
                                              soredium.                          Frisco.
PE...........  .............  R1...........  Eugenia bryanii.  Myrtaceae......  No common name.  U.S.A. (Guam).
C............  2............  R1...........  Exocarpos         Santalaceae....  Menzies ballart  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              menziesii.
C *..........  2............  R1...........  Festuca           Poaceae........  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              hawaiiensis.
C *..........  11...........  R2...........  Festuca ligulata  Poaceae........  Fescue,          U.S.A. (TX),
                                                                                 Guadalupe.       Mexico.
C *..........  2............  R1...........  Gardenia remyi..  Rubiaceae......  Nanu...........  U.S.A. (HI).
PE...........  .............  R1...........  Hedyotis          Rubiaceae......  Paudedo........  U.S.A. (Guam).
                                              megalantha.
PE...........  .............  R1...........  Heritiera         Malvaceae......  Ufa-halomtano..  U.S.A. (Guam,
                                              longipetiolata.                                     Mariana
                                                                                                  Islands).
C *..........  3............  R1...........  Joinvillea        Joinvilleaceae.  [revaps]Ohe....  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              ascendens
                                              ascendens.
C *..........  2............  R1...........  Kadua             Rubiaceae......  Kampua[revaps]a  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              (=Hedyotis)
                                              fluviatilis.
C............  2............  R1...........  Kadua haupuensis  Rubiaceae......  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
C............  2............  R1...........  Labordia          Loganiaceae....  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              lorenciana.
C............  2............  R1...........  Lepidium          Brassicaceae...  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              orbiculare.
C *..........  8............  R6...........  Lepidium ostleri  Brassicaceae...  Peppergrass,     U.S.A. (UT).
                                                                                 Ostler's.
C *..........  5............  R4...........  Linum arenicola.  Linaceae.......  Flax, sand.....  U.S.A. (FL).

[[Page 72495]]

 
PE...........  .............  R1...........  Maesa walkeri...  Primulaceae....  No common name.  U.S.A. (Guam,
                                                                                                  Mariana
                                                                                                  Islands).
C *..........  2............  R1...........  Myrsine           Myrsinaceae....  Kolea..........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              fosbergii.
PE...........  .............  R1...........  Nervilia          Orchidaceae....  No common name.  U.S.A. (Guam,
                                              jacksoniae.                                         Mariana
                                                                                                  Islands).
C *..........  2............  R1...........  Nothocestrum      Solanaceae.....  [revaps]Aiea...  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              latifolium.
C *..........  2............  R1...........  Ochrosia          Apocynaceae....  Holei..........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              haleakalae.
PE...........  .............  R1...........  Phyllanthus       Phyllanthaceae.  No common name.  U.S.A. (Guam).
                                              saffordii.
C............  2............  R1...........  Phyllostegia      Lamiaceae......  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              brevidens.
C............  2............  R1...........  Phyllostegia      Lamiaceae......  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              helleri.
C............  2............  R1...........  Phyllostegia      Lamiaceae......  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              stachyoides.
C *..........  2............  R6...........  Pinus albicaulis  Pinaceae.......  Pine, whitebark  U.S.A. (CA, ID,
                                                                                                  MT, NV, OR,
                                                                                                  WA, WY),
                                                                                                  Canada (AB,
                                                                                                  BC).
C *..........  8............  R4...........  Platanthera       Orchidaceae....  Orchid, white    U.S.A. (AL, GA,
                                              integrilabia.                      fringeless.      KY, MS, NC,
                                                                                                  SC, TN, VA).
C............  2............  R1...........  Portulaca         Portulacaceae..  Ihi............  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              villosa.
C............  2............  R1...........  Pritchardia       Arecaceae......  Lo[revaps]ulu    U.S.A. (HI).
                                              bakeri.                            (=Lo[revaps]ul
                                                                                 u lelo).
C *..........  3............  R1...........  Pseudognaphalium  Asteraceae.....  [revaps]Ena[rev  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              (=Gnaphalium)                      aps]ena.
                                              sandwicensium
                                              var.
                                              molokaiense.
PE...........  .............  R1...........  Psychotria        Rubiaceae......  Aplokating-      U.S.A. (Guam).
                                              malaspinae.                        palaoan.
C *..........  2............  R1...........  Ranunculus        Ranunculaceae..  Makou..........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              hawaiensis.
C *..........  2............  R1...........  Ranunculus        Ranunculaceae..  Makou..........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              mauiensis.
C *..........  8............  R8...........  Rorippa           Brassicaceae...  Cress, Tahoe     U.S.A. (CA,
                                              subumbellata.                      yellow.          NV).
C............  2............  R1...........  Sanicula          Apiaceae.......  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              sandwicensis.
C............  2............  R1...........  Santalum          Santalaceae....  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              involutum.
C............  3............  R1...........  Schiedea diffusa  Caryophyllaceae  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              ssp. diffusa.
C *..........  2............  R1...........  Schiedea          Caryophyllaceae  Ma[revaps]oli[r  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              pubescens.                         evaps]oli.
C............  2............  R1...........  Sicyos            Cucurbitaceae..  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              lanceoloideus.
C *..........  2............  R1...........  Sicyos            Cucurbitaceae..  [revaps]Anunu..  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              macrophyllus.
C............  12...........  R4...........  Sideroxylon       Sapotaceae.....  Bully,           U.S.A. (FL).
                                              reclinatum                         Everglades.
                                              austrofloridens
                                              e.
C *..........  2............  R4...........  Solanum           Solanaceae.....  Bacora, marron.  U.S.A. (PR).
                                              conocarpum.
PE...........  .............  R1...........  Solanum guamense  Solanaceae.....  Bereng-henas     U.S.A. (Guam,
                                                                                 halomtano.       Mariana
                                                                                                  Islands).
C *..........  8............  R1...........  Solanum nelsonii  Solanaceae.....  Popolo.........  U.S.A. (HI).
C............  3............  R1...........  Stenogyne kaalae  Lamiaceae......  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              ssp. sherffii.
C............  8............  R2...........  Streptanthus      Brassicaceae...  Twistflower,     U.S.A. (TX).
                                              bracteatus.                        bracted.
PT...........  .............  R1...........  Tabernaemontana   Apocynaceae....  No common name.  U.S.A. (Guam,
                                              rotensis.                                           Mariana
                                                                                                  Islands).
PE...........  .............  R1...........  Tinospora         Menispermaceae.  No common name.  U.S.A (Guam).
                                              homosepala.
C *..........  8............  R6...........  Trifolium         Fabaceae.......  Clover, Frisco.  U.S.A. (UT).
                                              friscanum.
PE...........  .............  R1...........  Tuberolabium      Orchidaceae....  No common name.  U.S.A. (Guam,
                                              guamense.                                           Mariana
                                                                                                  Islands).
C............  2............  R1...........  Wikstroemia       Thymelaeaceae..  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              skottsbergiana.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                FERNS AND ALLIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C............  2............  R1...........  Asplenium         Aspleniaceae...  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              diellaciniatum.
C *..........  8............  R1...........  Cyclosorus        Thelypteridacea  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              boydiae.          e.
C............  2............  R1...........  Deparia kaalaana  Woodsiaceae....  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
C............  3............  R1...........  Dryopteris        Dryopteridaceae  Kilau..........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              glabra var.
                                              pusilla.
C............  3............  R1...........  Hypolepis         Dennstaedtiacea  Olua...........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              hawaiiensis       e.
                                              var. mauiensis.
C *..........  2............  R1...........  Huperzia          Lycopodiaceae..  Wawae[revaps]io  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              (=Phlegmariurus                    le.
                                              )
                                              stemmermanniae.
C *..........  3............  R1...........  Microlepia        Dennstaedtiacea  Palapalai......  U.S.A. (HI).
                                              strigosa var.     e.
                                              mauiensis
                                              (=Microlepia
                                              mauiensis).
PE...........  3............  R4...........  Trichomanes       Hymenophyllacea  Florida bristle  U.S.A. (FL).
                                              punctatum         e.               fern.
                                              floridanum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 72496]]


                Table 2--Animals and Plants Formerly Candidates or Formerly Proposed for Listing
          [Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Status
-----------------------------  Lead  region   Scientific name       Family        Common name       Historical
     Code          Expl.                                                                              range
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     MAMMALS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T............  L............  R6...........  Lynx canadensis.  Felidae........  Lynx, Canada     U.S.A. (CO, ID,
                                                                                 (New Mexico      ME, MI, MN,
                                                                                 population).     MT, NH, NY,
                                                                                                  OR, UT, VT,
                                                                                                  WA, WI, WY),
                                                                                                  Canada.
E............  L............  R2...........  Zapus hudsonius   Zapodidae......  Mouse, New       U.S.A. (AZ, CO,
                                              luteus.                            Mexico meadow    NM).
                                                                                 jumping.
T............  L............  R1...........  Thomomys mazama   Geomyidae......  Pocket gopher,   U.S.A. (WA).
                                              glacialis.                         Roy Prairie.
T............  L............  R1...........  Thomomys mazama   Geomyidae......  Pocket gopher,   U.S.A. (WA).
                                              pugetensis.                        Olympia.
T............  L............  R1...........  Thomomys mazama   Geomyidae......  Pocket gopher,   U.S.A. (WA).
                                              tumuli.                            Tenino.
T............  L............  R1...........  Thomomys mazama   Geomyidae......  Pocket gopher,   U.S.A. (WA).
                                              yelmensis.                         Yelm.
Rc...........  A............  R6...........  Cynomys           Sciuridae......  Prairie dog,     U.S.A. (CO,
                                              gunnisoni.                         Gunnison's       NM).
                                                                                 (populations
                                                                                 in central and
                                                                                 south-central
                                                                                 Colorado,
                                                                                 north-central
                                                                                 New Mexico).
Rp...........  A............  R6...........  Gulo gulo luscus  Mustelidae.....  Wolverine,       U.S.A. (CA, CO,
                                                                                 North American   ID, MT, OR,
                                                                                 (Contiguous      UT, WA, WY).
                                                                                 U.S. DPS).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      BIRDS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T............  L............  R8...........  Coccyzus          Cuculidae......  Cuckoo, yellow-  U.S.A. (Lower
                                              americanus.                        billed           48 States),
                                                                                 (Western U.S.    Canada,
                                                                                 DPS).            Mexico,
                                                                                                  Central and
                                                                                                  South America.
Rc...........  A............  R7...........  Gavia adamsii...  Gaviidae.......  Loon, yellow-    U.S.A. (AK),
                                                                                 billed.          Canada,
                                                                                                  Norway,
                                                                                                  Russia,
                                                                                                  coastal waters
                                                                                                  of southern
                                                                                                  Pacific and
                                                                                                  North Sea.
T............  L............  R2...........  Tympanuchus       Phasianidae....  Prairie-         U.S.A. (CO, KA,
                                              pallidicinctus.                    chicken,         NM, OK, TX).
                                                                                 lesser.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    REPTILES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T............  L............  R2...........  Thamnophis        Colubridae.....  Gartersnake,     U.S.A. (AZ,
                                              rufipunctatus.                     narrow-headed.   NM).
T............  L............  R2...........  Thamnophis eques  Colubridae.....  Gartersnake,     U.S.A. (AZ, NM,
                                              megalops.                          northern         NV), Mexico.
                                                                                 Mexican.
Rc...........  A............  R2...........  Chionactis        Colubridae.....  Snake, Tucson    U.S.A. (AZ).
                                              occipitalis                        shovel-nosed.
                                              klauberi.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   AMPHIBIANS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E............  L............  R8...........  Rana muscosa....  Ranidae........  Frog, mountain   U.S.A (CA, NV).
                                                                                 yellow-legged
                                                                                 (northern
                                                                                 California
                                                                                 DPS).
T............  L............  R1...........  Rana pretiosa...  Ranidae........  Frog, Oregon     U.S.A. (CA, OR,
                                                                                 spotted.         WA), Canada
                                                                                                  (BC).
E............  L............  R8...........  Rana sierrae....  Ranidae........  Frog, Sierra     U.S.A. (CA,
                                                                                 Nevada yellow-   NV).
                                                                                 legged frog.
T............  L............  R2...........  Eurycea           Plethodontidae.  Salamander,      U.S.A. (TX).
                                              naufragia.                         Georgetown.
T............  L............  R2...........  Eurycea           Plethodontidae.  Salamander,      U.S.A. (TX).
                                              chisholmensis.                     Salado.
T............  L............  R8...........  Anaxyrus canorus  Bufonidae......  Toad, Yosemite.  U.S.A. (CA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     FISHES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rc...........  A............  R6...........  Iotichthys        Cyprinidae.....  Chub, least....  U.S.A. (UT).
                                              phlegethontis.
Rc...........  A............  R6...........  Thymallus         Salmonidae.....  Grayling,        U.S.A. (AK, MI,
                                              arcticus.                          Arctic (upper    MT, WY),
                                                                                 Missouri River   Canada,
                                                                                 DPS).            northern Asia,
                                                                                                  northern
                                                                                                  Europe.

[[Page 72497]]

 
E............  L............  R2...........  Notropis          Cyprinidae.....  Shiner,          U.S.A. (TX).
                                              oxyrhynchus.                       sharpnose.
E............  L............  R2...........  Notropis buccula  Cyprinidae.....  Shiner,          U.S.A. (TX).
                                                                                 smalleye.
E............  L............  R2...........  Catostomus        Catostomidae...  Sucker, Zuni     U.S.A. (AZ,
                                              discobolus                         bluehead.        NM).
                                              yarrowi.
Rc...........  U............  R2...........  Oncorhynchus      Salmonidae.....  Trout, Rio       U.S.A. (CO,
                                              clarki                             Grande           NM).
                                              virginalis.                        cutthroat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     INSECTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E............  L............  R4...........  Strymon acis      Lycaenidae.....  Butterfly,       U.S.A. (FL).
                                              bartrami.                          Bartram's
                                                                                 scrub-
                                                                                 hairstreak.
E............  L............  R4...........  Anaea troglodyta  Nymphalidae....  Butterfly,       U.S.A. (FL).
                                              floridalis.                        Florida
                                                                                 leafwing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    ARACHNIDS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rc...........  N............  R2...........  Cicurina wartoni  Dictynidae.....  Meshweaver,      U.S.A. (TX).
                                                                                 Warton's cave.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                FLOWERING PLANTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E............  L............  R4...........  Agave eggersiana  Agavaceae......  No common name.  U.S.A. (VI).
T............  L............  R4...........  Arabis georgiana  Brassicaceae...  Rockcress,       U.S.A. (AL,
                                                                                 Georgia.         GA).
Rc...........  A............  R1...........  Astragalus        Fabaceae.......  Milkvetch,       U.S.A. (ID).
                                              cusickii var.                      Packard's.
                                              packardiae.
E............  L............  R4...........  Brickellia        Asteraceae.....  Brickell-bush,   U.S.A. (FL).
                                              mosieri.                           Florida.
Rc...........  A............  R8...........  Eriogonum         Polygonaceae...  Buckwheat, Las   U.S.A. (NV).
                                              corymbosum var.                    Vegas.
                                              nilesii.
Rc...........  A............  R8...........  Eriogonum         Polygonaceae...  Buckwheat,       U.S.A (NV).
                                              diatomaceum.                       Churchill
                                                                                 Narrows.
Rc...........  A............  R8...........  Eriogonum         Polygonaceae...  Buckwheat, Red   U.S.A. (CA).
                                              kelloggii.                         Mountain.
E............  L............  R4...........  Gonocalyx         Ericaceae......  No common name.  U.S.A. (PR).
                                              concolor.
E............  L............  R4...........  Helianthus        Asteraceae.....  Sunflower,       U.S.A. (AL, GA,
                                              verticillatus.                     whorled.         TN).
T............  L............  R8...........  Ivesia webberi..  Rosaceae.......  Ivesia, Webber.  U.S.A. (CA,
                                                                                                  NV).
E............  L............  R4...........  Leavenworthia     Brassicaceae...  Gladecress,      U.S.A. (AL).
                                              crassa.                            fleshy-fruit.
T............  L............  R4...........  Leavenworthia     Brassicaceae...  Gladecress,      U.S.A. (KY).
                                              exigua var.                        Kentucky.
                                              laciniata.
E............  L............  R4...........  Linum carteri     Linaceae.......  Flax, Carter's   U.S.A. (FL).
                                              var. carteri.                      small-flowered.
E............  L............  R8...........  Mimulus           Phrymaceae.....  Monkeyflower,    U.S.A. (CA).
                                              fremontii var.                     Vandenberg.
                                              vandenbergensis.
Rp...........  A............  R6...........  Penstemon         Scrophulariacea  Beardtongue,     U.S.A. (CO,
                                              grahamii.         e.               Graham's.        UT).
Rp...........  A............  R6...........  Penstemon         Scrophulariacea  Beardtongue,     U.S.A. (CO,
                                              scariosus var.    e.               White River.     UT).
                                              albifluvis.
E............  L............  R4...........  Physaria globosa  Brassicaceae...  Bladderpod,      U.S.A. (IN, KY,
                                                                                 Short's.         TN).
Rc...........  A............  R8...........  Sedum             Crassulaceae...  Stonecrop, Red   U.S.A. (CA).
                                              eastwoodiae.                       Mountain.
Rc...........  U............  R4...........  Symphyotrichum    Asteraceae.....  Aster, Georgia.  U.S.A. (AL, FL,
                                              georgianum.                                         GA, NC, SC).
T............  L............  R4...........  Varronia          Boraginaceae...  No common name.  U.S.A. (PR),
                                              (=Cordia)                                           Anegada.
                                              rupicola.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-28536 Filed 12-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P