9722 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2010–0092; MO 

92210–0–0008–B2] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition To List Solanum conocarpum 

(marron bacora) as Endangered 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service), announce a 12-month 

finding on a petition to list the plant 

Solanum conocarpum (marron bacora) 

as endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

After review of all available scientific 

and commercial information, we find 

that listing S. conocarpum is warranted. 

Currently, however, listing S. 

conocarpum is precluded by higher 

priority actions to amend the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. Upon publication of this 12- 

month petition finding, we will add S. 

conocarpum to our candidate species 

list. We will develop a proposed rule to 

list S. conocarpum as our priorities 

allow. We will make any determination 

on critical habitat during development 

of the proposed listing rule. In any 

interim period, the status of the 

candidate taxon will be addressed 

through our annual Candidate Notice of 

Review (CNOR). 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on February 22, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket Number 

[FWS–R4–ES–2010–0092]. Supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

this finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Caribbean 

Ecological Services Field Office, Road 

301, Km. 5.1, Boquero ́n, PR 00622. 

Please submit any new information, 

materials, comments, or questions 

concerning this species or this finding 

to the above internet address or the 

mailing address listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Marelisa Rivera, Assistant Field 

Supervisor, Caribbean Ecological 

Services Field Office, P.O. Box 491, 

Boquero ́n, PR 00622; by telephone at 

(787) 851–7297; or by facsimile at (787) 

851–7440. Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for 

any petition to revise the Federal Lists 

of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife 

and Plants that contains substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

that listing a species may be warranted, 

we make a finding within 12 months of 

the date of receipt of the petition. In this 

finding, we determine whether the 

petitioned action is: (a) Not warranted, 

(b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but 

immediate proposal of a regulation 

implementing the petitioned action is 

precluded by other pending proposals to 

determine whether species are 

threatened or endangered, and 

expeditious progress is being made to 

add or remove qualified species from 

the Federal Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 

4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we 

treat a petition for which the requested 

action is found to be warranted but 

precluded as though resubmitted on the 

date of such finding, that is, requiring a 

subsequent finding to be made within 

12 months. We must publish these 12- 

month findings in the Federal Register. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On November 21, 1996, we received 

a petition from the U.S. Virgin Islands 

(VI) Department of Planning and Natural 

Resources (DPNR) requesting that we 

list Agave eggersiana and Solanum 

conocarpum as endangered. On 

November 16, 1998, we published in the 

Federal Register (63 FR 63659) our 

finding that the petition to list A. 

eggersiana and S. conocarpum 

presented substantial information 

indicating that the requested action may 

be warranted and initiated a status 

review on these two plants. 

On September 1, 2004, the Center for 

Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit 

against the Department of the Interior 

and the Service alleging that the Service 

failed to publish a 12-month finding for 

Agave eggersiana and Solanum 

conocarpum (Center for Biological 

Diversity v. Norton, Civil Action No. 

1:04–CV–2553 CAP). In a stipulated 

settlement agreement resolving that 

case, signed April 27, 2005, we agreed 

to submit our 12-month finding for A. 

eggersiana and S. conocarpum to the 

Federal Register by February 28, 2006. 

On March 7, 2006, we published our 12- 

month finding (71 FR 11367) that listing 

of A. eggersiana and S. conocarpum was 

not warranted, because we did not have 

sufficient information to determine the 

true status of either A. eggersiana or S. 

conocarpum in the wild. Further, we 

could not determine if either species 

met the definition of threatened or 

endangered according to one or more of 

the five listing factors because we did 

not have sufficient evidence of which 

threats, if any, were affecting these 

species. 

On September 9, 2008, the Center for 

Biological Diversity filed another 

complaint challenging our 12-month 

finding (Center for Biological Diversity 

v. Hamilton, Case No. 1:08–CV–02830– 

CAP). In a settlement agreement 

approved by the Court on August 21, 

2009, the Service agreed to submit to the 

Federal Register a new 12-month 

finding for Solanum conocarpum by 

February 15, 2011. This notice 

constitutes the 12-month finding on the 

1996 petition to list S. conocarpum as 

endangered. 

Species Information 

Taxonomy and Species Description 

Solanum conocarpum is a dry-forest 

shrub of the Solanaceae, or tomato, 

family that may attain 3 meters (m) (9.8 

feet (ft)) in height. Its leaves are oblongelliptic or oblanceolate (broader at the 

distal third than the middle), range in 

size from 3.5 to 7 centimeters (cm) (0.62 

to 1.5 inches (in) wide, are coriaceous 

(leathery texture) and glabrous (no 

hairs), and have a conspicuous 

yellowish midvein. The flowers are 

usually paired in nearly sessile (not 

stalked) lateral or terminal cymes (flattopped flower cluster). The corolla 

consists of five separate petals that are 

light violet, greenish at the base, and 

about 2 cm (0.78 in) wide. The fruit, a 

berry, is ovoid-conical (teardrop 

shaped), 2 to 3 cm (0.78 to 1.2 in) long, 

and turns from green with white 

striations to golden yellow when ripe 

(Acevedo-Rodrı ́guez 1996, p. 415). Little 

is known about the natural history, 

reproductive biology, and effects of 

herbivory on the species (Ray and 

Stanford 2003, p. 3). 

The petition suggests that Solanum 

conocarpum might be functionally 

dioecious (requiring male and female 

flowers from different plants to 

outcross). However, P. AcevedoRodrı ́guez (pers. comm. 2002) 

documented flowers and fruits in a 

solitary wild plant he discovered in the 

White Cliff area (Reef Bay general area). 

He further suggested that S. 

conocarpum may have less reproductive 

fitness due to selfing (self-pollination). 

Later, Ray and Stanford (2005, p. 5) 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 9723 

conducted some pollination studies in a 

controlled environment that indicate 

that the species might be an obligate 

outcrosser (plant has both male and 

female parts, but it needs to outcross 

with other individuals to produce fruits 

due to self-incompatibility) with 

complete self-incompatibility. This 

study was conducted because, prior to 

2003, a lack of natural recruitment was 

observed in the wild (Ray and Stanford 

2003, p. 3; J. Saliva, Service, pers. obs. 

2004; O. Monsegur, Service, pers. obs. 

2010; Vilella and Palumbo 2010, pp. 4– 

7). 

DNA sampling of the majority of the 

populations suggests that most 

populations have been long isolated 

(Ray and Stanford 2005, p. 18). 

Additionally, genetic work performed 

by Dr. A. Stanford at the University of 

the Virgin Islands has shown low 

heterozygosity (A measure of the allele 

frequency or genetic diversity) (Ray 

pers. comm. 2010). Further, when 

compared with its close relative 

Solanum polyganum, Solanum 

conocarpum appears to show a 

significant reduction in genetic diversity 

(Ray pers. comm. 2010). 

Habitat and Distribution 

Solanum conocarpum was originally 

known from a type specimen collected 

by L.C. Richard at Coral Bay, St. John 

(U.S. Virgin Islands, or VI), in 1787 

(Acevedo-Rodrı ́guez 1996, p. 415). No 

population estimates are available from 

Richard’s discovery, nor are there any 

known population estimates prior to 

1992. The species was rediscovered in 

1992 by P. Acevedo-Rodrı ́guez on the 

island of St. John (Ray and Stanford 

2003, p. 4). The species was presumed 

to be near extinction, as two mature 

plants were believed to be the only 

specimens left in the wild: One on 

Virgin Islands National Park (VINP) 

land and one on private land (B. Kojis 

and R. Boulon pers. comm. 1996; Vilella 

and Palumbo 2010, p. 1). The habitat 

descriptions of these two localities are 

consistent with the localities reported 

by Acevedo-Rodrı ́guez (1996, p. 415; 

pers. comm. 2002), who described the 

habitat as a dry, deciduous forest. 

After 1992, six additional populations 

of Solanum conocarpum were 

identified. Among these newly 

discovered populations, the species has 

been reported to occur on dry, poor soils 

(Ray and Stanford 2005, p. 6). It can be 

locally abundant in exposed topography 

on sites disturbed by erosion 

(depositional zones at the toe of the 

slopes), areas that have received 

moderate grazing, and around ridgelines 

as an understory component in diverse 

woodland communities (Carper and Ray 

2008, p. 1). A habitat suitability model 

suggests that the vast majority of S. 

conocarpum habitat is found in the 

lower elevation coastal scrub forest 

(Vilella and Palumbo 2010, p. 10). 

Acevedo-Rodrı ́guez (1996, p. 415) 

referenced the possibility of the species 

being present on St. Thomas, and 

mentioned a collection of a sterile 

specimen from Virgin Gorda (British 

Virgin Islands (BVI)). Pedro AcevedoRodrı ́guez (pers. comm. 2002) believes 

that the specimen from Virgin Gorda 

belongs to a different species, Cestrum 

laurifolium. Omar Monsegur, Service 

biologist, recently conducted a site visit 

to the John Folly population and 

identified several Cestrum laurifolium 

adjacent to individuals of Solanum 

conocarpum. Both plants (Cestrum 

laurifolium and S. conocarpum) look 

very similar, and it is common to 

confuse the two species (O. Monsegur, 

pers. comm. 2010). Appropriate surveys 

should be conducted in St. Thomas and 

the British Virgin Islands to determine 

the presence or absence of the species 

on the islands (O. Monsegur, pers. 

comm. 2010). 

Several efforts have been conducted 

to propagate Solanum conocarpum in 

the last decade. B. Kojis and R. Boulon 

(pers. comm. 1996) reported that a local 

horticulturist, E. Gibney, was able to 

propagate the species by cuttings 

(asexually) collected from the two 

individuals known from the wild and to 

get them to reproduce sexually by 

dusting the flowers. Ray and Stanford 

(2005, p. 6) reported that Gibney 

successfully reproduced S. conocarpum 

and distributed specimens to various 

places in the Virgin Islands. P. AcevedoRodrı ́guez (pers. comm. 2002) reported 

planted individuals (cultivars) on the 

Campus of the University of Virgin 

Islands in St. Thomas that are sexually 

reproducing. He also reported a few 

individuals in the St. George Botanical 

Garden in St. Croix, on the island of 

Tortola, at Cannel Bay Hotel on St. John, 

and in the New York Botanical Garden, 

the National Botanical Garden in 

Dominican Republic, and the Puerto 

Rico Botanical Garden. 

Current Status 

Currently, Solanum conocarpum is 

known from eight localities on St. John 

Island, VI (see Table 1): Two found on 

the north side of the island (Base Hill 

and Brown Bay Trail) and six toward 

the southeast side (Nanny Point, Friis 

Bay, Reef Bay, John Folly, Sabbat Point, 

and Europa Ridge). All of the eight 

known localities of S. conocarpum are 

wild populations each ranging from 1 to 

144 individuals. The majority of the 

individuals are found within the VINP 

boundaries, leaving only two 

populations on private lands (Friis Bay 

and Sabbat Point). 

The largest population of Solanum 

conocarpum is located at Nanny Point. 

As a result of potential urban and 

tourism development at Nanny Point, 

most of the natural population has been 

transferred to the VINP. About 22 

percent of the S. conocarpum 

population at Nanny Point was located 

within a 30-ft access corridor to a 

private property (Carper, pers. comm. 

2005); however, these adult plants were 

transplanted to an adjacent location on 

the VINP to avoid potential impacts 

from development (Carper, pers. comm. 

2010). A site visit to the population in 

May 2010 showed that approximately 

90 percent of the transplanted (adult 

plants) were dead or stressed due to lack 

of water (Monsegur, Service, 

unpublished data 2010). Additionally, 

observation of other S. conocarpum 

deaths appears to result from 

competition with edge vegetation 

(vines). The original population size at 

Nanny Point was estimated at 

approximately 184 natural plants. As a 

result of the combined deaths 

(transplants and competition), it is now 

estimated that this population has 

decreased by 25 percent. 

The owners of the private properties 

that harbor the Nanny Point natural 

population agreed to protect an 

additional area corresponding to Parcel 

30–3 by donating it to the National Park 

Service (NPS) (Carper and Selengut 

2003, p. 1; Ray and Carper 2009, p. 2). 

Therefore, the entire Nanny Point 

population, which is the largest known 

population, now lies within a protected 

area managed by the VINP. 

Additionally, one of the Nanny Point 

landowners has implemented an active 

propagation program through 

germination and cloning of adult 

individuals to enhance the Nanny Point 

population and other natural 

populations (Brown Bay Trail and John 

Folly) (Ray and Carper 2009, p. 3). The 

aim of this program is to safeguard the 

genetic diversity of the species and to 

enhance the existing populations (Ray 

and Carper 2009, p. 2; Carper 2010, p. 

2). The transplanting efforts of seedlings 

and cuttings (clones) seem to be 

successful (Monsegur, Service, 

unpublished data 2010). Ray and 

Stanford (2005, p. 3) reported a 95- 

percent seedling survival rate after a 

reintroduction at Reef Bay. Further 

planting efforts conducted at Brown Bay 

Trail, John Folly, and Nanny Point 

showed a 97-percent survival rate after 

2 months (Ray and Carper 2009, p. 5). 

Populations located on Base Hill (one 

individual), Brown Bay Trail (one 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

9724 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

individual), Europa Ridge (one 

individual) and Reef Bay (six 

individuals) lie within NPS lands. 

Recent evidence suggests that the Reef 

Bay population was apparently 

extirpated, but there are no further 

details about the causes for the 

extirpation (G. Ray, pers. comm. 2010). 

The Brown Bay individual is located on 

the edge of the Brown Bay Trail, and 

shows evidence of damage due to trail 

maintenance. A new population was 

recently recorded just along the 

boundaries of the NPS (John Folly Bay) 

(M. Carper, pers. comm. 2010). This 

population is composed of 

approximately 11 adult individuals and 

shows signs of human disturbance 

within the area (Monsegur, Service, 

unpublished data 2010). It is highly 

probable that they were pruned in the 

past, as there is a small trail that goes 

across the population. Also the area was 

used as a junkyard in the past, and there 

is debris on the area indicating former 

use as a housing area (Monsegur, 

Service, unpublished data 2010). The 

John Folly Bay population is adjacent to 

Road 107, making the population 

vulnerable to habitat degradation 

(deforestation and soil erosion) due to 

road maintenance and potential future 

road expansion. The second largest 

population, Friis Bay (33 individuals), is 

found on privately owned property (Ray 

and Stanford 2005, p. 16). Another 

private property site composed of a 

single individual is located on Sabbat 

Point, an area adjacent to Friis Bay. 

Ray and Stanford (2003, p. 4) 

developed an implementation plan to 

conduct shade-house propagation, 

which used both seedlings and cuttings, 

to reintroduce Solanum conocarpum 

seedlings within the VINP on St. John. 

The plants responded well in shadehouse conditions, where seed 

germination and survivorship have been 

very successful, almost 100 percent and 

95 percent, respectively. On the other 

hand, the survival rate for the cutting 

technique (cutting a piece of a plant and 

inducing root growth) is less than 10 

percent under nursery conditions (Ray 

and Carper 2009, p. 6). As observed 

during a site visit by a Service biologist, 

the transplanting of seedlings and 

cuttings to the wild seems to be 

successful (Monsegur, Service, 

unpublished data 2010). Approximately 

240 seedlings and propagules have been 

planted around several of the wild 

individuals to enhance and augment the 

natural populations of S. conocarpum 

(providing new genetic inflow to several 

of the wild populations, especially to 

the populations consisting of only one 

individual). 

TABLE 1—CURRENTLY KNOWN POPULATIONS OF SOLANUM CONOCARPUM (MARRON BACORA) ON ST. JOHN

Locality 

Estimated 

number of 

individuals 

in natural 

population 

Estimated 

number of 

introduced 

individuals 

reported 

Ownership Source of information 

Nanny Point .................................. 144** 50 Public–NPS .................................. Ray and Stanford 2005, p. 16; Ray 

and Carper 2009, pp. 3 and 5; 

Vilella and Palumbo 2010, p. 1; 

Monsegur, Service, pers. obs. 

2010. 

Friis Bay ....................................... 33 ........................ Private .......................................... Ray and Stanford 2005, p. 16. 

John Folly ..................................... 11 37 Public–NPS (Boundary) ............... Ray and Carper 2009, pp. 3 and 5; 

Monsegur, Service, pers. obs. 

2010; Vilella and Palumbo 2010, p. 

6. 

Reef Bay ....................................... 6* 60 Public–NPS .................................. Ray and Stanford 2005, p. 16; 

Monsegur, Service, pers. obs. 

2010. 

Brown Bay Trail ............................ 1 36 Public–NPS .................................. Ray and Stanford 2005, p. 16; Ray &

Carper 2009, pp. 3 and 5; 

Monsegur, Service, pers. obs. 

2010. 

Europa Ridge ............................... 1 60 Public–NPS .................................. Ray and Stanford 2005, p. 16; 

Monsegur, Service, pers. obs. 

2010. 

Sabbat Point ................................. 1 ........................ Private .......................................... Ray and Stanford 2005, p. 16. 

Base Hill ....................................... 1 ........................ Public–NPS .................................. Ray and Stanford 2005, p. 16. 

198 243 

* Indicates that, based on Ray (pers. comm. 2010), this population is probably extirpated. 

** This number does not include the 40 adult plants that died as a result of translocation. 

Summary of Information Pertaining to 

the Five Factors 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), 

and implementing regulations (50 CFR 

424), set forth procedures for adding 

species to the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act, a species may be determined to be 

endangered or threatened based on any 

of the following five factors: (A) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. In 

making this finding, information 

pertaining to Solanum conocarpum, in 

relation to the five factors provided in 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act, is discussed 

below. 

In considering what factors might 

constitute threats to a species; we must 

look beyond the exposure of the species 

to a factor to evaluate whether the 

species may respond to the factor in a 

way that causes actual impacts to the 

species. If there is exposure to a factor 

and the species responds negatively, the 

factor may be a threat, and we would 

therefore attempt to determine how 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 9725 

significant a threat it is. The threat is 

significant if it drives, or contributes to, 

the risk of extinction of the species such 

that the species warrants listing as 

endangered or threatened as those terms 

are defined in the Act. 

Factor A: The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or 

Range 

Of the currently known Solanum 

conocarpum populations, only two 

populations (Friis Bay and Sabbat Point) 

remain on private lands; however, 

currently unsurveyed habitat suitable 

for S. conocarpum, exists on additional 

private lands. All other known 

populations are located on VINP lands. 

The populations that occur on private 

lands as well as the ones bordering the 

VINP are subject to intense pressure 

from urban development (Vilella and 

Palumbo 2010, p. 1). At present time, 

the upper slopes and the drainage areas 

that surround the largest population 

(Nanny Point) are privately owned. 

These private lands are planned for 

housing development and have been 

divided for smaller housing lots that are 

currently advertised for sale (Carper and 

Selengut 2003, p. 1; Ray and Carper 

2009, p. 2). The same pattern (private 

lands divided for housing lots) is 

observed at the Johns Folly drainage 

(Monsegur, pers. obs. 2010), where 

small housing developments may 

jeopardize undetected populations. In 

addition, habitat suitability models 

conducted by Vilella and Palumbo 

(2010, p. 7) indicate that a good portion 

of the high-quality (39 percent) and 

moderate quality (38 percent) habitat for 

S. conocarpum is located within private 

lands subject to urban development. 

The relative abundance of the species at 

some sites (Nanny Point and Friis Bay) 

may indicate that the species was once 

more common and that it was an 

important component of the vegetation 

of the dry forest of St. John. Even though 

the majority of the known populations 

lie within federally protected areas, the 

likely destruction or modification of the 

high-quality habitat within St. John may 

imply the extirpation of undetected 

populations and the irreversible damage 

to areas with suitable habitat for the 

reintroduction of the species. 

Based on the above information, we 

consider the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the species’ habitat or 

range as a low-to-moderate, not 

imminent threat to populations of 

Solanum conocarpum. Despite the 

majority of known S. conocarpum 

individuals occurring within protected 

areas, a large part of the suitable habitat 

for the species is under pressure from 

future development, which could result 

in the extirpation of unknown 

populations. 

Factor B: Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

The current available information on 

the species does not suggest that overutilization for commercial, recreational, 

scientific, or educational purposes has 

contributed to a decline of Solanum 

conocarpum. In recent years, S. 

conocarpum has been propagated from 

seeds and cuttings obtained from wild 

populations; however, collection for 

these purposes is not thought to affect 

survivability of individuals or 

negatively affect the status of the 

species. In fact, this practice has 

significantly enhanced the existing 

populations, and continues to safeguard 

the genetic diversity of the species (Ray 

and Stanford 2005, p. 3; Ray and Carper 

2009, p. 2). This is the only known use 

of the species, and it is strictly for 

scientific purposes. Therefore, we do 

not have any evidence that suggests 

overutilization as a threat to S. 

conocarpum. 

Factor C: Disease or Predation 

It has been hypothesized that hermit 

crabs act as predators of the fruits and 

seeds of Solanum conocarpum (Ray 

2005, p. 2). Hermit crabs have been 

observed feeding on the fruit where 

shrub densities are high (Ray and 

Carper, 2008, p. 1; Ray, 2005, p. 2). Fruit 

and seed production in the Nanny Point 

and John Folly populations has been 

reported as ample and copious (Ray 

2005, p. 6; Carper, pers. comm. 2010). 

While hermit crabs may consume fallen 

fruit in large quantities (Ray 2005, p. 2), 

it is not known at this time if fruit 

consumption prevents seed germination 

(e.g., potentially crushing seed embryos 

as the crabs feed), or if this consumption 

is in any way responsible for the lack of 

seedling recruitment in the wild. 

Another observation of S. conocarpum 

predation was reported by Vilella and 

Palumbo (2010, p. 14) and was 

presumed to be by insects feeding on 

the leaves. This observation concurs 

with the reports by Ray and Stanford 

(2005, p. 15) indicating bite marks of an 

herbivore insect on S. conocarpum 

leaves. Nevertheless, there is no clear 

evidence indicating that seed or plant 

predation is adversely affecting the 

status of the species. Based on the 

above, we do not consider disease or 

predation as a current threat to the 

species. 

Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The Territory of the U.S. Virgin 

Islands currently considers Solanum 

conocarpum to be endangered under the 

Virgin Islands Indigenous and 

Endangered Species Act (V.I. Code, Title 

12, Chapter 2), and has amended an 

existing regulation (Bill No. 18–0403) to 

provide for protection of endangered 

and threatened wildlife and plants by 

prohibiting the take, injury, or 

possession of indigenous plants. 

However, Rothenberger et al. (2008, p. 

68) mentioned that the lack of 

management and enforcement capacity 

continues to be a significant challenge 

for the U.S. Virgin Islands, since 

enforcement agencies are chronically 

understaffed and territorial resource 

management offices experience 

significant staff turnover. Despite this, 

however, we do not consider the 

inadequacy of Territorial regulatory 

mechanisms to be a threat, because at 

this time we have not identified any 

adverse effect to the populations or the 

species related to collection or take of S. 

conocarpum. 

The National Park Service, under its 

Organic Act, is responsible for managing 

the national parks to conserve the 

scenery and the natural and historic 

objects and the wildlife. 16 U.S.C. 1. 

The National Parks Omnibus 

Management Act of 1998 requires the 

NPS to inventory and monitor its 

natural resources. 16 U.S.C. 5934. NPS 

has implemented its resource 

management responsibilities through its 

Management Policies, Section 4.4, 

which states that ‘‘it will maintain as 

parts of the natural ecosystems of parks 

all plants and animals native to park 

ecosystems.’’ 

Section 207 of the Omnibus 

Management Act of 1998 allows NPS to 

withhold from the public information 

related to the nature and specific 

location of endangered, threatened, or 

rare species unless disclosure would not 

create an unreasonable risk of harm to 

the species. 16 U.S.C. 5937. 

Pursuant to many of these authorities, 

VINP does not allow cutting of 

vegetation and all natural resource 

activities must be permitted by the park 

(Boulon, pers. comm. 2010). 

In short, we do not consider the 

inadequacy of Federal regulatory 

mechanisms to be a threat to the 

populations of S. conocarpum located 

in VINP. The regulatory mechanisms 

discussed above allow NPS to prevent 

collection or take of S. conocarpum on 

NPS property. Furthermore, we do not 

consider development outside VINP to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

9726 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

be a threat to S. conocarpum 

populations inside VINP. 

Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting the Continued 

Existence of the Species 

Human-Induced Fires 

In the Caribbean, native plant species, 

particularly endemics with limited 

distribution, may be vulnerable to 

natural or manmade events such as 

hurricanes and human-induced fires. 

Fire is not a natural component of 

subtropical dry forest in Puerto Rico and 

the Virgin Islands; thus, most species 

found in this type of forest are not fire 

adapted (Monsegur 2009, p. 26). 

Solanum conocarpum is associated with 

lower elevation dry forests. This habitat 

may be susceptible to forest fires, 

particularly on private lands, where fire 

could be accidentally ignited. 

Furthermore, regenerating forests, such 

as the ones prevalent in St. John, are 

prone to wildfires that promote a 

decrease in the stature of the vegetation 

and allow for the development of 

persistent shrubland dominated by 

introduced tree species and grasses 

(Wiley and Vilella 1998, p. 340). Studies 

conducted within the Gua ́nica Forest in 

southern Puerto Rico indicate that some 

exotic tree species can remain as a 

dominant canopy species for at least 80 

years (Wolfe 2009, p. 2). Given the 

growth habit of S. conocarpum, it is 

unlikely that mature individuals would 

survive a fire even of moderate intensity 

(Vilella and Palumbo 2010, p. 15), and, 

therefore, the species might be 

outcompeted by exotics. However, a site 

visit to St. John to evaluate the threats 

to the species, found no substantial 

evidence that fires posed as an 

imminent threat to the species 

(Monsegur, pers. obs. 2010). The only 

site that is vulnerable to fires is the John 

Folly site, due to its proximity to a road 

and the accumulation of debris 

associated with a former house 

(Monsegur, pers. obs. 2010). In addition, 

the VINP has a fire prevention plan that 

includes the protection of native 

species, including S. conocarpum. 

Therefore, we conclude that this species 

is not currently threatened by humaninduced fires. 

Hurricanes and Climate Change 

Hurricanes frequently affect the 

islands of the Caribbean. Successional 

responses to hurricanes can influence 

the structure and composition of plant 

communities in the Caribbean islands 

(Van Bloem et al. 2005, p. 576). Within 

natural conditions, it is likely that 

Solanum conocarpum is well adapted to 

these tropical storms. However, the 

cumulative effect of severe tropical 

storms and increased sediment runoff 

may jeopardize the establishment of 

seedlings along drainage areas usually 

associated with suitable habitat for S. 

conocarpum (Ray 2005, p. 2; Monsegur, 

pers. obs. 2010). Due to the low number 

of adult individuals and the problems 

regarding the natural recruitment of the 

species, severe tropical storms may have 

an adverse impact on the species. 

However, based on the available 

information, we consider hurricanes as 

a low and not imminent threat to the 

species. 

Solanum conocarpum may be further 

threatened by climate change, which is 

predicted to increase the frequency and 

strength of tropical storms and can 

cause severe droughts (Hopkinson et al. 

2008, p. 260). The cumulative effect of 

coastal erosion due to severe hurricanes 

plus the habitat modification for urban 

and tourist development can further 

diminish the availability of suitable 

habitat and, therefore, limit population 

expansion and colonization of new 

areas. In addition, the possibility of 

severe droughts may contribute to an 

increase in the quantity and frequency 

of fires on the island. These cumulative 

factors may reduce the number of 

individuals and further reduce 

populations. As a result, we consider 

the threat of climate change to be 

moderate and imminent. We do not 

anticipate any changes that would 

appreciably reduce this threat in the 

foreseeable future. 

Lack of Natural Recruitment 

Lack of natural recruitment represents 

one of the major threats to the Solanum 

conocarpum. Based on the structure of 

the populations of Nanny Point and 

John Folly, these populations are 

predominantly composed of old 

individuals. This is also true for the 

Brown Bay Trail individual. Seedling 

and sapling stages are missing in these 

populations, and old individuals are 

dying due to competition with other 

species such as vines. Without natural 

recruitment or successful augmentation 

from captive propagated individuals, 

these populations are likely to become 

extirpated as older S. conocarpum 

individuals die. Despite the efforts to 

enhance the natural populations by 

planting seedlings and saplings, it is 

unknown if the planted individuals will 

develop as mature plants capable of 

reproduction. Flowering or fruit 

production of individuals planted in the 

wild has not been reported to date. 

Additionally, the structure of the 

existing wild population indicates that 

they are mostly composed of old 

individuals (Monsegur, pers. obs. 2010). 

Hermit crab consumption of fruit is 

currently the only factor suspected in 

the lack of natural recruitment; 

however, as both species coevolved in 

the same habitat, this consumption is 

unlikely to explain the complete lack of 

recruitment. Plant sterility is also not a 

viable theory for the lack of recruitment, 

as germination under greenhouse 

conditions is highly successful, with 

almost 100-percent germination (Ray 

and Stanford, 2005, p. 6). Although the 

cause of Solanum conocarpum’s 

unsuccessful recruitment is unknown, it 

is not the only species within the 

Solanaceae family facing this threat. 

Matabuey (Goetzea elegans) is an 

example of another species endemic to 

the Caribbean that shows a conspicuous 

flowering with showy fruits, but faces 

problems with its dispersion and 

recruitment. Similar to Solanum 

conocarpum, matabuey shows an 

outstanding germination under 

greenhouse conditions. Based on the 

above, we consider lack of natural 

recruitment as a high and imminent 

threat to the species. 

Reproductive Biology 

The nature of the relationships 

between Solanum conocarpum and the 

different pollinators and seed dispersers 

that have interacted with this species 

over its evolutionary history is 

important to consider. Controlled 

pollination studies concluded that this 

species is an obligate outcrosser 

(reproduction requires pollen from 

another plant) with complete selfincompatibility (Ray and Stanford 2005, 

p. 5). As plant populations become 

reduced and spatially segregated, 

important life-history needs provided by 

pollinators and seed dispersers may be 

compromised (Kearns and Inouye 1997, 

p. 299). It is possible that the natural 

fruit dispersers of S. conocarpum 

focused on other food sources as the 

populations of this shrub became 

increasingly patchy, due to changes in 

the structure and composition of the 

vegetation because of deforestation and 

introduction of exotic plant species. The 

absence of a fruit disperser may indicate 

that the disperser of a species is extinct 

or that the populations are too small to 

attract the disperser (Roman, 2006, p. 

50). The loss of potential breeding 

partners, reduction or loss of 

pollinators, and the loss of seed 

dispersers are examples of negative 

impacts due to habitat fragmentation 

(Kearns and Inouye 1997, p. 299; 

Murren 2002, p. 101). As an obligate 

outcrosser, S. conocarpum encounters 

another challenge, in that isolated and 

relic individuals may no longer 

reproduce unless enhancement and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 9727 

artificial propagation projects are 

conducted. We consider the absence of 

natural dispersion to be a high and 

imminent threat. 

Genetic Variation 

Along with a decreasing population 

size, negative impacts of habitat 

fragmentation may result in erosion of 

genetic variation through the loss of 

alleles by random genetic drift (Honnay 

and Jacquemyn, 2007, p. 824). Habitat 

fragmentation may also limit the ability 

of a species to respond to a changing 

environment (Booy et al. 2000, p. 385). 

Research conducted on Solanum 

conocarpum shows a reduction in its 

genetic diversity (Ray and Stanford 

2005, p. 18). The population with the 

greatest genetic diversity is the one 

located at Nanny Point, which also has 

the largest number of individuals. In 

addition to attempts to safeguard the 

genetic diversity of the species, the 

survival of reintroduced individuals 

needs to be monitored, as well as their 

development into mature individuals 

capable of contributing to the natural 

recruitment of the species. 

Consequently, the protection and 

monitoring of known adult individuals 

should be considered as a high priority 

for the conservation of the species. 

Based on the above, we consider the 

lack of genetic variation as a moderate 

but imminent threat to the species. 

Nonnative Species 

Exotic mammal browsers are found 

throughout the range of Solanum 

conocarpum on St. John Island. These 

include feral goats (Capra aegagrus 

hircus), pigs (Sus scrofa), Key deer 

(Odocoileus virginianus clavium), and 

donkeys (Equus asinus) (Vilella and 

Palumbo 2010, p. 5; Monsegur, pers. 

obs. 2010). Feral donkeys, pigs, deer, 

and goats could directly and indirectly 

affect S. conocarpum populations by 

uprooting and eating seedlings, 

destabilizing slopes, and dispersing 

exotic plant species, thus preventing or 

reducing sustainability of populations of 

S. conocarpum. However, the extent of 

such threats to the species is 

‘‘speculative’’ (NPS 2003, p. 37) and 

‘‘imprecise’’ (NPS 2004, p. 43). There is 

no available information on the role 

these exotic species may play as a 

limiting factor to S. conocarpum 

population dynamics in general, and to 

recruitment in particular (Schemske et 

al. 1994, p. 592). VINP is implementing 

plans to control the populations of 

nonnative feral hogs, goats, and sheep 

within VINP (NPS 2003, 2004). Feral 

hog populations in VINP are low, and 

reduction efforts have been targeted to 

problem areas such as Reef Bay Valley 

(NPS 2008, p. 2). 

However, hogs continue to be a 

problem at the Reef Bay area as they 

uproot the vegetation searching for food 

and water (Monsegur, Service, 

unpublished data 2010). The Service 

conducted a field assessment that 

confirmed the presence of exotic 

mammal species within Solanum 

conocarpum habitat, and which 

highlighted the abundance of the Key 

deer and herds of feral goats (Monsegur, 

Service, unpublished data 2010). The 

observations by Monsegur (2010) 

coincide with reports of a high 

abundance of key deer within the range 

of S. conocarpum by Ray and Stanford 

(2005, p. 19), and also with reports from 

the NPS that describe deer populations 

as increasing (NPS 2008, p. 4). Despite 

the reports of the intrusion of freeroaming ungulates within S. 

conocarpum natural populations (Ray 

and Stanford, 2005, p. 5), there is a lack 

of information regarding the specific 

adverse effects of these exotic animals 

on the species. It is expected that, due 

to their abundance, exotic mammal 

species are modifying the structure of 

the vegetation and, therefore, the 

environmental conditions on these 

areas. This may imply changes to 

microhabitat conditions that are 

necessary for seed germination and 

seedling recruitment of S. conocarpum. 

Apparently, the distribution of the 

species seems to be more correlated 

with abiotic or environmental factors, 

than with composition or structure of 

the vegetation, as S. conocarpum shows 

little fidelity to any particular suite of 

community associates (Ray and Stanford 

2005, p. 5). 

At this time, there is no clear 

evidence that donkeys, deer, pigs, or 

goats constitute a specific threat to 

Solanum conocarpum by feeding on 

young or adult, wild or reintroduced 

individuals, and fruits of the species. 

However, the impacts of introduced 

herbivores on the species include 

modifying the structure of the 

vegetation and the environmental 

conditions in which S. conocarpum 

evolved and that are required for their 

natural recruitment. Based on the above, 

we consider the effects of ungulates as 

a moderate but imminent threat to the 

species. 

In summary, we consider that 

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, any 

or all of which may result in an 

increased risk of genetic drift. Thus, we 

consider threats under this factor to be 

high in magnitude and imminent. 

Finding 

As required by the Act, we conducted 

a review of the status of the species and 

considered the five factors in assessing 

whether Solanum conocarpum is 

threatened or endangered throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range. We 

examined the best scientific and 

commercial information available 

regarding the past, present, and future 

threats faced by the species. We 

reviewed the petition, information 

available in our files, and other 

available published and unpublished 

information; consulted with species and 

habitat experts and other Federal and 

State agencies; and conducted field 

surveys on the island of St. John. 

This status review identified threats 

to the species attributable to Factors A 

and E. Of the currently known eight 

populations, two are located on private 

lands, and six are located in the Virgin 

Islands National Park System. Habitat 

modification may result in irreversible 

damage to the species’ natural habitat, 

decreasing the number of individuals in 

already small populations. In addition, 

the current sale of private housing lots 

adjacent to currently known 

populations may suggest future urban 

developments that could lead to the 

extirpation of unknown populations 

(see Factor A). 

Solanum conocarpum is also 

threatened by the lack of natural 

recruitment, absence of dispersers, 

fragmented distribution, lack of genetic 

variation, and habitat destruction or 

modification by exotic mammal species. 

These threats are evidenced by the 

predominance of old individuals in the 

populations, reduced number of 

individuals, low number of populations, 

and lack of connectivity between 

populations, any or all of which may 

result in an increased risk of genetic 

drift. Furthermore, four of the currently 

known localities consist of a single 

individual, which may not be 

sustainable, as the species has been 

identified as an obligate outcrosser. One 

natural population has been reported as 

extirpated, the largest population has 

suffered a reduction of approximately 

25 percent of the natural individuals, 

and low genetic variability has been 

reported for the species. In addition, the 

abundance of feral animals may modify 

the structure of vegetation and may 

change the conditions necessary for 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

9728 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

seed germination or seedling 

recruitment (see Factor E). 

The Service does not have any 

substantial evidence to suggest that 

overutilization (Factor B), predation or 

disease (Factor C) or inadequacy of 

regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) is a 

threat for Solanum conocarpum at this 

time. 

On the basis of the best scientific and 

commercial information available, we 

find that listing Solanum conocarpum is 

warranted. We will make a 

determination on the status of the 

species as threatened or endangered 

when we develop a proposed listing 

determination. However, as explained 

in more detail below, an immediate 

proposal of a regulation implementing 

this action is precluded by higher 

priority listing actions, and the need to 

make progress on adding or removing 

already qualified species from the Lists 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. 

We reviewed the available 

information to determine if the existing 

and foreseeable threats render the 

species at risk of extinction now such 

that issuing an emergency regulation 

temporarily listing the species under 

section 4(b)(7) of the Act is warranted. 

We determined that issuing an 

emergency regulation temporarily 

listing this species is not warranted at 

this time, since approximately 198 

individuals in natural populations are 

known to occur in 8 localities where the 

majority of the individuals (86 percent) 

are located within protected areas 

(Table 1). However, if at any time we 

determine that issuing an emergency 

regulation temporarily listing the 

species is warranted, we will initiate 

this action at that time. 

Listing Priority Number 

The Service adopted guidelines on 

September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098), to 

establish a rational system for utilizing 

available resources for the highest 

priority species when adding species to 

the Lists of Endangered or Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying 

species listed as threatened to 

endangered status. The system places 

greatest importance on the immediacy 

and magnitude of threats, but also 

factors in the level of taxonomic 

distinctiveness by assigning priority in 

descending order to monotypic genera, 

full species, and subspecies (or 

equivalently, distinct population 

segments of vertebrates). 

Using this guidance, we assign each 

candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending 

on the magnitude of threats (high vs. 

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, 

distinct population segment, or 

significant portion of the range)). 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). 

Under the Service’s guidelines, the 

magnitude of threat is the first criterion 

we look at when establishing a listing 

priority. The guidance indicates that 

species with the highest magnitude of 

threat are those species facing the 

greatest threats to their existence. These 

species receive the highest listing 

priority. We consider the threats to 

Solanum conocarpum to be high in 

magnitude because many of the threats 

that we analyzed are present throughout 

the range and are likely to result in 

adverse impact to the status of the 

species. 

Under our LPN guidelines, the second 

criterion we consider in assigning a 

listing priority is the immediacy of 

threats. This criterion is intended to 

ensure that species facing actual, 

identifiable threats are given priority 

over those for which threats are will 

likely occur in the future, or species that 

are intrinsically vulnerable but are not 

known to be presently facing threats. 

Not all threats to Solanum conocarpum 

are imminent, but we do have evidence 

of some currently ongoing threats. 

Studies show that S. conocarpum is 

limited by its lack of recruitment and 

low reproductive capacity, both of 

which are likely due to habitat 

fragmentation. 

Threats under Factor A are low-tomoderate, but not imminent because of 

protections provided through 

conservation agreements within private 

lands and management of the 

populations on VINP lands. The 

majority of the threats to Factor E are 

high in magnitude and imminent 

because they are currently occurring 

throughout the range of the species and 

result in the lack of successful 

recruitment. Threats under Factor E 

have occurred in the past and are clearly 

a threat today and in the near future. 

These impacts directly affect the species 

ability to produce new plants and the 

older plants are dying due to 

competition with other vegetation. 

Additionally, the pollinators and seed 

dispersers are unknown and may be 

focused on other food sources as the 

species population became fragmented. 

The U.S. Virgin Island and the IUCN 

have already classified this species as 

endangered according to their criteria. 

The third criterion in our LPN 

guidelines is intended to devote 

resources to those species representing 

highly distinctive or isolated gene pools 

as reflected by taxonomy. We 

determined that Solanum conocarpum 

is a full species, and as noted above, it 

faces threats of a high magnitude and 

nonimmediacy. 

As a result of our analysis of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we assigned Solanum 

conocarpum a Listing Priority Number 

2, based on the high magnitude and 

imminent threats described under 

Factor E. At least two of the threats 

discussed above are occurring now, and 

we anticipate they will still occur in the 

near future in St. John. These threats are 

ongoing and in some cases are 

considered irreversible. While we 

conclude that listing the species is 

warranted, an immediate proposal to list 

this species is precluded by work on 

higher priority listing actions with 

absolute statutory, court-ordered, or 

court-approved deadlines and final 

listing determinations for those species 

that were proposed for listing with 

funds from Fiscal Year 2011. This work 

includes all the actions listed in the 

tables below under expeditious 

progress. 

We will continue to monitor the 

threats to Solanum conocarpum, and 

the species’ status on an annual basis, 

and should the magnitude or the 

imminence of the threats change, we 

will revisit our assessment of the LPN. 

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress 

Preclusion is a function of the listing 

priority of a species in relation to the 

resources that are available and the cost 

and relative priority of competing 

demands for those resources. Thus, in 

any given fiscal year (FY), multiple 

factors dictate whether it will be 

possible to undertake work on a listing 

proposal regulation or whether 

promulgation of such a proposal is 

precluded by higher-priority listing 

actions. 

The resources available for listing 

actions are determined through the 

annual Congressional appropriations 

process. The appropriation for the 

Listing Program is available to support 

work involving the following listing 

actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 

90-day and 12-month findings on 

petitions to add species to the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants (Lists) or to change the status 

of a species from threatened to 

endangered; annual ‘‘resubmitted’’ 

petition findings on prior warrantedbut-precluded petition findings as 

required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 9729 

the Act; critical habitat petition 

findings; proposed and final rules 

designating critical habitat; and 

litigation-related, administrative, and 

program-management functions 

(including preparing and allocating 

budgets, responding to Congressional 

and public inquiries, and conducting 

public outreach regarding listing and 

critical habitat). The work involved in 

preparing various listing documents can 

be extensive and may include, but is not 

limited to: Gathering and assessing the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available and conducting analyses used 

as the basis for our decisions; writing 

and publishing documents; and 

obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating 

public comments and peer review 

comments on proposed rules and 

incorporating relevant information into 

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, 

the median cost is $305,000. 

We cannot spend more than is 

appropriated for the Listing Program 

without violating the Anti-Deficiency 

Act (see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In 

addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal 

year since then, Congress has placed a 

statutory cap on funds which may be 

expended for the Listing Program, equal 

to the amount expressly appropriated 

for that purpose in that fiscal year. This 

cap was designed to prevent funds 

appropriated for other functions under 

the Act (for example, recovery funds for 

removing species from the Lists), or for 

other Service programs, from being used 

for Listing Program actions (see House 

Report 105–163, 105th Congress, 1st 

Session, July 1, 1997). 

Since FY 2002, the Service’s budget 

has included a critical habitat subcap to 

ensure that some funds are available for 

other work in the Listing Program (‘‘The 

critical habitat designation subcap will 

ensure that some funding is available to 

address other listing activities’’ (House 

Report No. 107–103, 107th Congress, 1st 

Session, June 19, 2001)). In FY 2002 and 

each year until FY 2006, the Service has 

had to use virtually the entire critical 

habitat subcap to address courtmandated designations of critical 

habitat, and consequently none of the 

critical habitat subcap funds have been 

available for other listing activities. In 

some FYs since 2006, we have been able 

to use some of the critical habitat 

subcap funds to fund proposed listing 

determinations for high-priority 

candidate species. In other FYs, while 

we were unable to use any of the critical 

habitat subcap funds to fund proposed 

listing determinations, we did use some 

of this money to fund the critical habitat 

portion of some proposed listing 

determinations so that the proposed 

listing determination and proposed 

critical habitat designation could be 

combined into one rule, thereby being 

more efficient in our work. At this time, 

for FY 2011, we do not know if we will 

be able to use some of the critical 

habitat subcap funds 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 critical habitat subcap, 

and the amount of funds needed to 

address court-mandated critical habitat 

designations, Congress and the courts 

have in effect determined the amount of 

money available for other listing 

activities nationwide. Therefore, the 

funds in the listing cap, other than those 

needed to address court-mandated 

critical habitat for already listed species, 

set the limits on our determinations of 

preclusion and expeditious progress. 

Congress identified the availability of 

resources as the only basis for deferring 

the initiation of a rulemaking that is 

warranted. The Conference Report 

accompanying Public Law 97–304 

(Endangered Species Act Amendments 

of 1982), which established the current 

statutory deadlines and the warrantedbut-precluded finding, states that the 

amendments were ‘‘not intended to 

allow the Secretary to delay 

commencing the rulemaking process for 

any reason other than that the existence 

of pending or imminent proposals to list 

species subject to a greater degree of 

threat would make allocation of 

resources to such a petition [that is, for 

a lower-ranking species] unwise.’’ 

Although that statement appeared to 

refer specifically to the ‘‘to the 

maximum extent practicable’’ limitation 

on the 90-day deadline for making a 

‘‘substantial information’’ finding, that 

finding is made at the point when the 

Service is deciding whether or not to 

commence a status review that will 

determine the degree of threats facing 

the species, and therefore the analysis 

underlying the statement is more 

relevant to the use of the warranted-butprecluded finding, which is made when 

the Service has already determined the 

degree of threats facing the species and 

is deciding whether or not to commence 

a rulemaking. 

In FY 2011, on December 22, 2010, 

Congress passed a continuing resolution 

which provides funding at the FY 2010 

enacted level through March 4, 2011. 

Until Congress appropriates funds for 

FY 2011 at a different level, we will 

fund listing work based on the FY 2010 

amount. Thus, at this time in FY 2011, 

the Service anticipates an appropriation 

of $22,103,000 based on FY 2010 

appropriations. Of that, the Service 

must dedicate $11,632,000 for 

determinations of critical habitat for 

already listed species. Also $500,000 is 

appropriated for foreign species listings 

under the Act. The Service thus has 

$9,971,000 available to fund work in the 

following categories: Compliance with 

court orders and court-approved 

settlement agreements requiring that 

petition findings or listing 

determinations be completed by a 

specific date; section 4 (of the Act) 

listing actions with absolute statutory 

deadlines; essential litigation-related, 

administrative, and listing programmanagement functions; and highpriority listing actions for some of our 

candidate species. In FY 2010 the 

Service received many new petitions 

and a single petition to list 404 species. 

The receipt of petitions for a large 

number of species is consuming the 

Service’s listing funding that is not 

dedicated to meeting court-ordered 

commitments. Absent some ability to 

balance effort among listing duties 

under existing funding levels, it is 

unlikely that the Service will be able to 

initiate any new listing determination 

for candidate species in FY 2011. 

In 2009, the responsibility for listing 

foreign species under the Act was 

transferred from the Division of 

Scientific Authority, International 

Affairs Program, to the Endangered 

Species Program. Therefore, starting in 

FY 2010, we used a portion of our 

funding to work on the actions 

described above for listing actions 

related to foreign species. In FY 2011, 

we anticipate using $1,500,000 for work 

on listing actions for foreign species 

which reduces funding available for 

domestic listing actions, however, 

currently only $500,000 has been 

allocated. Although there are currently 

no foreign species issues included in 

our high-priority listing actions at this 

time, many actions have statutory or 

court-approved settlement deadlines, 

thus increasing their priority. The 

budget allocations for each specific 

listing action are identified in the 

Service’s FY 2011 Allocation Table (part 

of our record). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

9730 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

For the above reasons, funding a 

proposed listing determination for 

Solanum conocarpum is precluded by 

court-ordered and court-approved 

settlement agreements, listing actions 

with absolute statutory deadlines, and 

work on proposed listing 

determinations for those candidate 

species with a higher listing priority 

(i.e., candidate species with LPNs of 1). 

As discussed under Listing Priority 

Number above, based on our September 

21, 1983, guidance for assigning an LPN 

for each candidate species (48 FR 

43098), we have a significant number of 

species with a LPN of 2. Because of the 

large number of high-priority species, 

we have further ranked the candidate 

species with an LPN of 2 by using the 

following extinction-risk type criteria: 

International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature and Natural 

Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank, 

Heritage rank (provided by 

NatureServe), Heritage threat rank 

(provided by NatureServe), and species 

currently with fewer than 50 

individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. 

Those species with the highest IUCN 

rank (critically endangered), the highest 

Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage 

threat rank (substantial, imminent 

threats), and currently with fewer than 

50 individuals, or fewer than 4 

populations, originally comprised a 

group of approximately 40 candidate 

species (‘‘Top 40’’). These 40 candidate 

species have had the highest priority to 

receive funding to work on a proposed 

listing determination. As we work on 

proposed and final listing rules for those 

40 candidates, we apply the ranking 

criteria to the next group of candidates 

with an LPN of 2 and 3 to determine the 

next set of highest priority candidate 

species. Finally, proposed rules for 

reclassification of threatened species to 

endangered are lower priority, since as 

listed species, they are already afforded 

the protection of the Act and 

implementing regulations. However, for 

efficiency reasons, we may choose to 

work on a proposed rule to reclassify a 

species to endangered if we can 

combine this with work that is subject 

to a court-determined deadline. 

With our workload so much bigger 

than the amount of funds we have to 

accomplish it, it is important that we be 

as efficient as possible in our listing 

process. Therefore, as we work on 

proposed rules for the highest priority 

species in the next several years, we are 

preparing multi-species proposals when 

appropriate, and these may include 

species with lower priority if they 

overlap geographically or have the same 

threats as a species with an LPN of 2. 

In addition, we take into consideration 

the availability of staff resources when 

we determine which high-priority 

species will receive funding to 

minimize the amount of time and 

resources required to complete each 

listing action. 

As explained above, a determination 

that listing is warranted but precluded 

must also demonstrate that expeditious 

progress is being made to add and 

remove qualified species to and from 

the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants. As with our 

‘‘precluded’’ finding, the evaluation of 

whether progress in adding qualified 

species to the Lists has been expeditious 

is a function of the resources available 

for listing and the competing demands 

for those funds. (Although we do not 

discuss it in detail here, we are also 

making expeditious progress in 

removing species from the list under the 

Recovery program in light of the 

resource available for delisting, which is 

funded by a separate line item in the 

budget of the Endangered Species 

Program. So far during FY 2011, we 

have completed one delisting rule.) 

Given the limited resources available for 

listing, we find that we are making 

expeditious progress in FY 2011 in the 

Listing. This progress included 

preparing and publishing the following 

determinations: 

FY 2011 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS

Publication date Title Actions FR Pages 

10/6/2010 ..................... Endangered Status for the Altamaha Spinymussel and Designation 

of Critical Habitat.

Proposed Listing Endangered.75 FR 61664–61690 

10/7/2010 ..................... 12-month Finding on a Petition To List the Sacramento Splittail as 

Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month 

petition finding, Not 

warranted.

75 FR 62070–62095 

10/28/2010 ................... Endangered Status and Designation of Critical Habitat for 

Spikedace and Loach Minnow.

Proposed Listing Endangered (uplisting).75 FR 66481–66552 

11/2/2010 ..................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Bay Springs Salamander 

as Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not 

substantial.

75 FR 67341–67343 

11/2/2010 ..................... Determination of Endangered Status for the Georgia Pigtoe Mussel, Interrupted Rocksnail, and Rough Hornsnail and Designation of Critical Habitat.Final Listing Endangered.75 FR 67511–67550 

11/2/2010 ..................... Listing the Rayed Bean and Snuffbox as Endangered .................... Proposed Listing Endangered.75 FR 67551–67583 

11/4/2010 ..................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Cirsium wrightii (Wright’s 

Marsh Thistle) as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month 

petition finding, 

Warranted but precluded.

75 FR 67925–67944 

12/14/2010 ................... Endangered Status for Dunes Sagebrush Lizard ............................. Proposed Listing Endangered.75 FR 77801–77817 

12/14/2010 ................... 12-month Finding on a Petition To List the North American Wolverine as Endangered or Threatened.Notice of 12-month 

petition finding, 

Warranted but precluded.

75 FR 78029–78061 

12/14/2010 ................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Sonoran Population of 

the Desert Tortoise as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month 

petition finding, 

Warranted but precluded.

75 FR 78093–78146 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 9731 

FY 2011 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued 

Publication date Title Actions FR Pages 

12/15/2010 ................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Astragalus microcymbus 

and Astragalus schmolliae as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month 

petition finding, 

Warranted but precluded.

75 FR 78513–78556 

12/28/2010 ................... Listing Seven Brazilian Bird Species as Endangered Throughout 

Their Range.

Final Listing Endangered.75 FR 81793–81815 

1/4/2011 ....................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Red Knot subspecies 

Calidris canutus roselaari as Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not 

substantial.

76 FR 304–311 

1/19/2011 ..................... Endangered Status for the Sheepnose and Spectaclecase Mussels Proposed Listing Endangered.76 FR 3392–3420 

2/10/2011 ..................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Pacific Walrus as Endangered or Threatened.Notice of 12-month 

petition finding, 

Warranted but precluded.

76 FR 7634–7679 

Our expeditious progress also 

includes work on listing actions that we 

funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 but 

have not yet been completed to date. 

These actions are listed below. Actions 

in the top section of the table are being 

conducted under a deadline set by a 

court. Actions in the middle section of 

the table are being conducted to meet 

statutory timelines, that is, timelines 

required under the Act. Actions in the 

bottom section of the table are highpriority listing actions. These actions 

include work primarily on species with 

an LPN of 2, and, as discussed above, 

selection of these species is partially 

based on available staff resources, and 

when appropriate, include species with 

a lower priority if they overlap 

geographically or have the same threats 

as the species with the high priority. 

Including these species together in the 

same proposed rule results in 

considerable savings in time and 

funding, as compared to preparing 

separate proposed rules for each of them 

in the future. 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 AND FY 2011 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED

Species Action 

Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement 

Flat-tailed horned lizard ........................................................................................................................... Final listing determination. 

Mountain plover 4 ...................................................................................................................................... Final listing determination. 

Thorne’s Hairstreak butterfly 3 .................................................................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

Hermes copper butterfly 3 ......................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

4 parrot species (military macaw, yellow-billed parrot, red-crowned parrot, scarlet macaw) 5 ............... 12-month petition finding. 

4 parrot species (blue-headed macaw, great green macaw, grey-cheeked parakeet, hyacinth 

macaw)5.

12-month petition finding. 

4 parrot species (crimson shining parrot, white cockatoo, Philippine cockatoo, yellow-crested 

cockatoo)5.

12-month petition finding. 

Utah prairie dog (uplisting) ....................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Actions with Statutory Deadlines 

Casey’s june beetle .................................................................................................................................. Final listing determination. 

Southern rockhopper penguin—Campbell Plateau population ................................................................ Final listing determination. 

6 Birds from Eurasia ................................................................................................................................ Final listing determination. 

5 Bird species from Colombia and Ecuador ............................................................................................ Final listing determination. 

Queen Charlotte goshawk ....................................................................................................................... Final listing determination. 

5 species southeast fish (Cumberland darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, and 

laurel dace)4.

Final listing determination. 

Ozark hellbender 4 .................................................................................................................................... Final listing determination. 

Altamaha spinymussel 3 ........................................................................................................................... Final listing determination. 

3 Colorado plants (Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket), Penstemon debilis (Parachute 

Beardtongue), and Phacelia submutica (DeBeque Phacelia))4.

Final listing determination. 

Salmon crested cockatoo ......................................................................................................................... Final listing determination. 

6 Birds from Peru and Bolivia .................................................................................................................. Final listing determination. 

Loggerhead sea turtle (assist National Marine Fisheries Service) 5 ........................................................ Final listing determination. 

2 mussels (rayed bean (LPN = 2), snuffbox No LPN) 5 .......................................................................... Final listing determination. 

CA golden trout 4 ...................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Black-footed albatross .............................................................................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

Mount Charleston blue butterfly ............................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Mojave fringe-toed lizard 1 ........................................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Kokanee—Lake Sammamish population 1 ............................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl 1 ............................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Northern leopard frog ............................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Tehachapi slender salamander ................................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Coqui Llanero ........................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding/Proposed listing. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

9732 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 AND FY 2011 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued 

Species Action 

Dusky tree vole ........................................................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

3 MT invertebrates (mist forestfly (Lednia tumana), Oreohelix sp. 3, Oreohelix sp. 31) from 206 species petition.12-month petition finding. 

5 UT plants (Astragalus hamiltonii, Eriogonum soredium, Lepidium ostleri, Penstemon flowersii, 

Trifolium friscanum) from 206 species petition.

12-month petition finding. 

5 WY plants (Abronia ammophila, Agrostis rossiae, Astragalus proimanthus, Boechere (Arabis) 

pusilla, Penstemon gibbensii) from 206 species petition.

12-month petition finding. 

Leatherside chub (from 206 species petition) .......................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Frigid ambersnail (from 206 species petition) 3 ....................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Platte River caddisfly (from 206 species petition) 5 ................................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

Gopher tortoise—eastern population ....................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Grand Canyon scorpion (from 475 species petition) ............................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Anacroneuria wipukupa (a stonefly from 475 species petition) 4 ............................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

Rattlesnake-master borer moth (from 475 species petition) 3 ................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

3 Texas moths (Ursia furtiva, Sphingicampa blanchardi, Agapema galbina) (from 475 species petition).12-month petition finding. 

2 Texas shiners (Cyprinella sp., Cyprinella lepida) (from 475 species petition) ..................................... 12-month petition finding. 

3 South Arizona plants (Erigeron piscaticus, Astragalus hypoxylus, Amoreuxia gonzalezii) (from 475 

species petition).

12-month petition finding. 

5 Central Texas mussel species (3 from 475 species petition) .............................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

14 parrots (foreign species) ..................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Berry Cave salamander 1 ......................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Striped Newt 1 ........................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Fisher—Northern Rocky Mountain Range 1 ............................................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

Mohave Ground Squirrel 1 ........................................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Puerto Rico Harlequin Butterfly 3 ............................................................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

Western gull-billed tern ............................................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Ozark chinquapin (Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis) 4 ........................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

HI yellow-faced bees ................................................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Giant Palouse earthworm ........................................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Whitebark pine ......................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

OK grass pink (Calopogon oklahomensis) 1 ............................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Ashy storm-petrel 5 ................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Honduran emerald ................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Southeastern pop. snowy plover and wintering pop. of piping plover 1 .................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

Eagle Lake trout 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Smooth-billed ani 1 ................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

32 Pacific Northwest mollusks species (snails and slugs) 1 .................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

42 snail species (Nevada and Utah) ....................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Peary caribou ........................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Plains bison .............................................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

Spring Mountains checkerspot butterfly ................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Spring pygmy sunfish ............................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Bay skipper .............................................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

Unsilvered fritillary .................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Texas kangaroo rat .................................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

Spot-tailed earless lizard .......................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Eastern small-footed bat .......................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Northern long-eared bat ........................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Prairie chub .............................................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

10 species of Great Basin butterfly ......................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

6 sand dune (scarab) beetles .................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

Golden-winged warbler 4 .......................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Sand-verbena moth .................................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

404 Southeast species ............................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

Franklin’s bumble bee 4 ............................................................................................................................ 90-day petition finding. 

2 Idaho snowflies (straight snowfly and Idaho snowfly) 4 ........................................................................ 90-day petition finding. 

American eel 4 .......................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Gila monster (Utah population) 4 .............................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

Arapahoe snowfly 4 ................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Leona’s little blue 4 ................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Aztec gilia 5 ............................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

White-tailed ptarmigan 5 ........................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

San Bernardino flying squirrel 5 ................................................................................................................ 90-day petition finding. 

Bicknell’s thrush 5 ..................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Chimpanzee ............................................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

Sonoran talussnail 5 .................................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

2 AZ Sky Island plants (Graptopetalum bartrami and Pectis imberbis) 5 ................................................ 90-day petition finding. 

I’iwi 5 ......................................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 9733 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 AND FY 2011 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued 

Species Action 

High-Priority Listing Actions 

19 Oahu candidate species 2 (16 plants, 3 damselflies) (15 with LPN = 2, 3 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN 

= 9).

Proposed listing. 

19 Maui-Nui candidate species 2 (16 plants, 3 tree snails) (14 with LPN = 2, 2 with LPN = 3, 3 with 

LPN = 8).

Proposed listing. 

2 Arizona springsnails 2 (Pyrgulopsis bernadina (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis trivialis (LPN = 2)) ................. Proposed listing. 

Chupadera springsnail 2 (Pyrgulopsis chupaderae (LPN = 2) ................................................................. Proposed listing. 

8 Gulf Coast mussels (southern kidneyshell (LPN = 2), round ebonyshell (LPN = 2), Alabama 

pearlshell (LPN = 2), southern sandshell (LPN = 5), fuzzy pigtoe (LPN = 5), Choctaw bean (LPN = 

5), narrow pigtoe (LPN = 5), and tapered pigtoe (LPN = 11)) 4.

Proposed listing. 

Umtanum buckwheat (LPN = 2) and white bluffs bladderpod (LPN = 9) 4 ............................................. Proposed listing. 

Grotto sculpin (LPN = 2) 4 ........................................................................................................................ Proposed listing. 

2 Arkansas mussels (Neosho mucket (LPN = 2) and Rabbitsfoot (LPN = 9)) 4 ..................................... Proposed listing. 

Diamond darter (LPN = 2) 4 ..................................................................................................................... Proposed listing. 

Gunnison sage-grouse (LPN = 2) 4 .......................................................................................................... Proposed listing. 

Miami blue (LPN = 3) 3 ............................................................................................................................. Proposed listing. 

4 Texas salamanders (Austin blind salamander (LPN = 2), Salado salamander (LPN = 2), Georgetown salamander (LPN = 8), Jollyville Plateau (LPN = 8)) 3.Proposed listing. 

5 SW aquatics (Gonzales Spring Snail (LPN = 2), Diamond Y springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom 

springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom Cave snail (LPN = 2), Diminutive amphipod (LPN = 2))3.

Proposed listing. 

2 Texas plants (Texas golden gladecress (Leavenworthia texana) (LPN = 2), Neches River rose-mallow (Hibiscus dasycalyx) (LPN = 2))3.Proposed listing. 

FL bonneted bat (LPN = 2) 3 .................................................................................................................... Proposed listing. 

21 Big Island (HI) species 5 (includes 8 candidate species—5 plants and 3 animals; 4 with LPN = 2, 

1 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN = 4, 2 with LPN = 8).

Proposed listing. 

12 Puget Sound prairie species (9 subspecies of pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama ssp.) (LPN = 

3), streaked horned lark (LPN = 3), Taylor’s checkerspot (LPN = 3), Mardon skipper (LPN = 8))3.

Proposed listing. 

2 TN River mussels (fluted kidneyshell (LPN = 2), slabside pearlymussel (LPN = 2) 5 ......................... Proposed listing. 

Jemez Mountain salamander (LPN = 2) 5 ................................................................................................ Proposed listing. 

1Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in previous FYs. 

2Although funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided in FY 2008 or 2009, due to the complexity of these actions and competing 

priorities, these actions are still being developed. 3Partially funded with FY 2010 funds and FY 2011 funds. 

4Funded with FY 2010 funds. 

5Funded with FY 2011 funds. 

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 Act, these 

actions described above collectively 

constitute expeditious progress. 

We intend that any proposed 

reclassification of Solanum conocarpum 

will be as accurate as possible. 

Therefore, we will continue to accept 

additional information and comments 

from all concerned governmental 

agencies, the scientific community, 

industry, or any other interested party 

concerning this finding. 

Solanum conocarpum will be added 

to the list of candidate species upon 

publication of this 12-month finding. 

We will continue to evaluate this 

species as new information becomes 

available. This review will determine if 

a change in status is warranted, 

including the need to make prompt use 

of emergency listing procedures. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the Caribbean Ecological Services 

Field Office (see ADDRESSES section). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff members of the Caribbean 

Ecological Services Field Office. 

Authority 

The authority for this section is 

section 4 of the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 

Dated: February 10, 2011. 

Rowan W. Gould, 

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3730 Filed 2–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 223 

[Docket No. 101126590–0589–01] 

RIN 0648–XZ59 

Endangered and Threatened Species; 

Proposed Threatened Status for 

Subspecies of the Ringed Seal 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public hearings. 

SUMMARY: On December 10, 2010, we, 

NMFS, published a proposed rule to list 

the Arctic (Phoca hispida hispida), 

Okhotsk (Phoca hispida ochotensis), 

Baltic (Phoca hispida botnica), and 

Ladoga (Phoca hispida ladogensis) 

subspecies of the ringed seal as 

threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). 

As part of that proposal, we announced 

a public comment period to end on 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS