69222 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R9–ES–2010–0065; MO– 

9221050083–B2] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Review of Native Species 

That Are Candidates for Listing as 

Endangered or Threatened; Annual 

Notice of Findings on Resubmitted 

Petitions; Annual Description of 

Progress on Listing Actions 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of review. 

SUMMARY: In this Candidate Notice of 

Review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), present an 

updated list of plant and animal species 

native to the United States that we 

regard as candidates for or have 

proposed for addition to the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended. 

Identification of candidate species can 

assist environmental planning efforts by 

providing advance notice of potential 

listings, allowing landowners and 

resource managers to alleviate threats 

and thereby possibly remove the need to 

list species as endangered or threatened. 

Even if we subsequently list a candidate 

species, the early notice provided here 

could result in more options for species 

management and recovery by prompting 

candidate conservation measures to 

alleviate threats to the species. 

The CNOR summarizes the status and 

threats that we evaluated in order to 

determine that species qualify as 

candidates and to assign a listing 

priority number (LPN) to each species or 

to determine that species should be 

removed from candidate status. 

Additional material that we relied on is 

available in the Species Assessment and 

Listing Priority Assignment Forms 

(species assessment forms, previously 

called candidate forms) for each 

candidate species. 

Overall, this CNOR recognizes five 

new candidates, changes the LPN for 

four candidates, 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 251. 

This document also includes our 

findings on resubmitted petitions and 

describes our progress in revising the 

Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants during the period 

October 1, 2009, through September 30, 

2010. 

We request additional status 

information that may be available for 

the 251 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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov and http://

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 Candidate 

Conservation, Arlington, VA (see 

address below), or on our Web site 

(http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/

SpeciesReport.do?

listingType=C&mapstatus=1). Please 

submit any new information, materials, 

comments, or questions of a general 

nature on this notice to the Arlington, 

VA, address listed below. Please submit 

any new information, materials, 

comments, or questions pertaining to a 

particular species to the address of the 

Endangered Species Coordinator in the 

appropriate Regional Office listed in 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Endangered Species Coordinator(s) in 

the appropriate Regional Office(s), or 

Chief, Branch of Candidate 

Conservation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 

420, Arlington, VA 22203 (telephone 

703–358–2171; facsimile 703–358– 

1735). Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We 

request additional status information 

that may be available for any of the 

candidate species identified in this 

CNOR. We will consider this 

information to monitor changes in the 

status or LPN of candidate species and 

to manage candidates as we prepare 

listing documents and future revisions 

to the notice of review. We also request 

information on additional species to 

consider including as candidates as we 

prepare future updates of this notice. 

You may submit your information 

concerning this notice in general or for 

any of the species included in this 

notice by one of the methods listed in 

the ADDRESSES section. 

Species-specific information and 

materials we receive will be available 

for public inspection by appointment, 

during normal business hours, at the 

appropriate Regional Office listed below 

under Request for Information in 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. General 

information we receive will be available 

at the Branch of Candidate 

Conservation, Arlington, VA (see 

address above). 

Candidate Notice of Review 

Background 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, 

as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 

(Act), requires that we identify species 

of wildlife and plants that are 

endangered or threatened, based on the 

best available scientific and commercial 

information. As defined in section 3 of 

the Act, an endangered species is any 

species which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range, and a threatened species is 

any species which is likely to become 

an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. Through 

the Federal rulemaking process, we add 

species that meet these definitions to 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11 or the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants at 50 

CFR 17.12. As part of this program, we 

maintain a list of species that we regard 

as candidates for listing. A candidate 

species is one for which we have on file 

sufficient information on biological 

vulnerability and threats to support a 

proposal to list as endangered or 

threatened, but for which preparation 

and publication of a proposal is 

precluded by higher priority listing 

actions. We may identify a species as a 

candidate for listing after we have 

conducted an evaluation of its status on 

our own initiative, or after we have 

made a positive finding on a petition to 

list a species, in particular we have 

found that listing is warranted but 

precluded by other higher priority 

listing action (see the Petition Findings 

section, below). 

We maintain this list of candidates for 

a variety of reasons: To notify the public 

that these species are facing threats to 

their survival; to provide advance 

knowledge of potential listings that 

could affect decisions of environmental 

planners and developers; to provide 

information that may stimulate and 

guide conservation efforts that will 

remove or reduce threats to these 

species and possibly make listing 

unnecessary; to request input from 

interested parties to help us identify 

those candidate species that may not 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69223 

require protection under the Act or 

additional species that may require the 

Act’s protections; and to request 

necessary information for setting 

priorities for preparing listing proposals. 

We strongly encourage collaborative 

conservation efforts for candidate 

species, and offer technical and 

financial assistance to facilitate such 

efforts. For additional information 

regarding such assistance, please 

contact the appropriate Regional Office 

listed under Request for Information or 

visit our Web site, http://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 9, 

2009 (74 FR 57804). CNORs published 

since 1994 are available on our Web 

site, http://www.fws.gov/endangered/

what-we-do/cnor.html. For copies of 

CNORs published prior to 1994, please 

contact the Branch of Candidate 

Conservation (see ADDRESSES section 

above). 

On September 21, 1983, we published 

guidance for assigning an LPN for each 

candidate species (48 FR 43098). Using 

this guidance, we assign each candidate 

an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the 

magnitude of threats, immediacy of 

threats, and taxonomic status; the lower 

the LPN, the higher the listing priority 

(that is, a species with an LPN of 1 

would have the highest listing priority). 

Section 4(h)(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 

1533(h)(3)) requires the Secretary to 

establish guidelines for such a priorityranking guidance system. As explained 

below, in using this system we first 

categorize based on the magnitude of 

the threat(s), then by the immediacy of 

the threat(s), and finally by taxonomic 

status. 

Under this priority-ranking system, 

magnitude of threat can be either ‘‘high’’ 

or ‘‘moderate to low.’’ This criterion 

helps ensure that the species facing the 

greatest threats to their continued 

existence receive the highest listing 

priority. It is important to recognize that 

all candidate species face threats to their 

continued existence, so the magnitude 

of threats is in relative terms. For all 

candidate species, the threats are of 

sufficiently high magnitude to put them 

in danger of extinction, or make them 

likely to become in danger of extinction 

in the foreseeable future. But for species 

with higher magnitude threats, the 

threats have a greater likelihood of 

bringing about extinction or are 

expected to bring about extinction on a 

shorter time scale (once the threats are 

imminent) than for species with lower 

magnitude threats. Since we do not 

routinely quantify how likely or how 

soon extinction would be expected to 

occur absent listing, we must evaluate 

factors that contribute to the likelihood 

and time scale for extinction. We 

therefore consider information such as: 

The number of populations and/or 

extent of range of the species affected by 

the threat(s); the biological significance 

of the affected population(s), taking into 

consideration the life-history 

characteristics of the species and its 

current abundance and distribution; 

whether the threats affect the species in 

only a portion of its range, and if so the 

likelihood of persistence of the species 

in the unaffected portions; the severity 

of the effects and the rapidity with 

which they have caused or are likely to 

cause mortality to individuals and 

accompanying declines in population 

levels; whether the effects are likely to 

be permanent; and the extent to which 

any ongoing conservation efforts reduce 

the severity of the threat. 

As used in our priority-ranking 

system, immediacy of threat is 

categorized as either ‘‘imminent’’ or 

‘‘nonimminent’’ and is not a measure of 

how quickly the species is likely to 

become extinct if the threats are not 

addressed; rather, immediacy is based 

on when the threats will begin. If a 

threat is currently occurring or likely to 

occur in the very near future, we 

classify the threat as imminent. 

Determining the immediacy of threats 

helps ensure that species facing actual, 

identifiable threats are given priority for 

listing proposals over those for which 

threats are only potential or species that 

are intrinsically vulnerable to certain 

types of threats but are not known to be 

presently facing such threats. 

Our priority ranking system has three 

categories for taxonomic status: Species 

that are the sole members of a genus; 

full species (in genera that have more 

than one species); and subspecies and 

distinct population segments of 

vertebrate species (DPS). We also apply 

this last category to species that are 

threatened or endangered in only 

significant portions of their ranges 

rather than their entire ranges. 

The result of the ranking system is 

that we assign each candidate a listing 

priority number of 1 to 12. For example, 

if the threat(s) is of high magnitude, 

with immediacy classified as imminent, 

the listable entity is assigned an LPN of 

1, 2, or 3 based on its taxonomic status 

(i.e., a species that is the only member 

of its genus would be assigned to the 

LPN 1 category, a full species to LPN 2, 

and a subspecies, DPS, or a species that 

is threatened or endangered in only a 

significant portion of its range would be 

assigned to LPN 3). In summary, the 

LPN ranking system provides a basis for 

making decisions about the relative 

priority for preparing a proposed rule to 

list a given species. No matter which 

LPN we assign to a species, each species 

included in this notice as a candidate is 

one for which we have sufficient 

information to prepare a proposed rule 

to list it because it is in danger of 

extinction or likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. 

For more information on the process 

and standards used in assigning LPNs, 

a copy of the 1983 guidance is available 

on our Web site at: http://www.fws.gov/ 

endangered/esa-library/pdf/48fr43098- 

43105.pdf. For more information on the 

LPN assigned to a particular species, the 

species assessment for each candidate 

contains the LPN chart and a rationale 

for the determination of the magnitude 

and immediacy of threat(s) and 

assignment of the LPN; that information 

is summarized in this CNOR. 

This revised notice supersedes all 

previous animal, plant, and combined 

candidate notices of review. 

Summary of This CNOR 

Since publication of the previous 

CNOR on November 9, 2009 (74 FR 

57804), we reviewed the available 

information on candidate species to 

ensure that a proposed listing is 

justified for each species, and 

reevaluated the relative LPN assigned to 

each species. We also evaluated the 

need to emergency-list any of these 

species, particularly species with high 

priorities (i.e., species with LPNs of 1, 

2, or 3). This review and reevaluation 

ensures that we focus conservation 

efforts on those species at greatest risk 

first. 

In addition to reviewing candidate 

species since publication of the last 

CNOR, we have worked on numerous 

findings in response to petitions to list 

species, and on proposed and final 

determinations for rules to list species 

under the Act. Some of these findings 

and determinations have been 

completed and published in the Federal 

Register, while work on others is still 

under way (see Preclusion and 

Expeditious Progress, below, for details). 

Based on our review of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, with this CNOR we 

identify five new candidate species (see 

New Candidates, below), change the 

LPN for four candidates (see Listing 

Priority Changes in Candidates, below) 

and determine that a listing proposal is 

not warranted for one species and thus 

remove it from candidate status (see 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69224 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Candidate Removals, below). Combined 

with the other decisions published 

separately from this CNOR for 

individual species that previously were 

candidates, a total of 251 species 

(including 110 plant and 141 animal 

species) are now candidates awaiting 

preparation of rules proposing their 

listing. These 251 species, along with 

the 18 species currently proposed for 

listing (includes 1 species proposed for 

listing due to similarity in appearance), 

are included in Table 1. 

Table 2 lists the changes from the 

previous CNOR, and includes 55 species 

identified in the previous CNOR as 

either proposed for listing or classified 

as candidates that are no longer in those 

categories. This includes 54 species for 

which we published a final rule to list, 

plus the 1 species that we have 

determined does not meet the definition 

of endangered or threatened and 

therefore does not warrant listing. We 

have removed this species from 

candidate status in this CNOR. 

New Candidates 

Below we present a brief summary of 

one new fish, one new snail, one new 

crustacean, and two new plant 

candidates, which we are recognizing in 

this CNOR. Complete information, 

including references, can be found in 

the species assessment forms. You may 

obtain a copy of these forms from the 

Regional Office having the lead for the 

species, or from our Web site (http:// 

ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/ 

SpeciesReport.do?listingType=C

&mapstatus=1). For these species, we 

find that we have on file sufficient 

information on biological vulnerability 

and threats to support a proposal to list 

as endangered or threatened, but that 

preparation and publication of a 

proposal is precluded by higher priority 

listing actions (i.e., it met our definition 

of a candidate species). We also note 

below that nine other species— 

Sprague’s pipit, greater sage-grouse, 

Bi-State DPS of greater sage-grouse, 

Gunnison sage-grouse, least chub, upper 

Missouri River DPS of Arctic grayling, 

Tucson shovel-nosed snake, Jemez 

Mountains salamander, and Agave 

eggersiana—were identified as 

candidates earlier this year as a result of 

separate petition findings published in 

the Federal Register. 

Birds 

Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii)— 

We previously announced candidate 

status for this species, and described the 

reasons and data on which the finding 

was based, in a separate warranted-butprecluded 12-month petition finding 

published on September 14, 2010 (75 FR 

56028). 

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus)—We previously 

announced candidate status for this 

species, and described the reasons and 

data on which the finding was based, in 

a separate warranted-but-precluded 

12-month petition finding published on 

March 23, 2010 (75 FR 13910). 

Greater sage-grouse, Bi-State DPS 

(Centrocercus urophasianus)—We 

previously announced candidate status 

for this species, and described the 

reasons and data on which the finding 

was based, in a separate warranted-butprecluded 12-month petition finding 

published on March 23, 2010 (75 FR 

13910). 

Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

minimus)—We previously announced 

candidate status for this species, and 

described the reasons and data on 

which the finding was based, in a 

separate warranted-but-precluded 

12-month petition finding published on 

September 28, 2010 (75 FR 59803). 

Reptiles 

Tucson Shovel-Nosed Snake 

(Chionactis occipitalis klauberi)—We 

previously announced candidate status 

for this species, and described the 

reasons and data on which the finding 

was based, in a separate warranted-butprecluded 12-month petition finding 

published on March 31, 2010 (75 FR 

16050). 

Amphibians 

Jemez Mountains salamander 

(Plethodon neomexicanus)—We 

previously announced candidate status 

for this species, and described the 

reasons and data on which the finding 

was based, in a separate warranted-butprecluded 12-month petition finding 

published on September 9, 2010 (75 FR 

54822). 

Fish 

Least chub (Iotichthys 

phlegethontis)—We previously 

announced candidate status for this 

species, and described the reasons and 

data on which the finding was based, in 

a separate warranted-but-precluded 

12-month petition finding published on 

June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35398). 

Kentucky arrow darter (Etheostoma 

sagitta spilotum)—The following 

summary is based on information in our 

files. The Kentucky arrow darter is a 

rather large (total length of 4.6 inches 

(116 millimeters)), brightly colored 

darter that is restricted to the upper 

Kentucky River basin in eastern 

Kentucky. The species’ preferred habitat 

consists of pools or transitional areas 

between riffles and pools (runs and 

glides) in moderate to high gradient 

streams with bedrock, boulder, and 

cobble substrates. In most recent 

surveys, the Kentucky arrow darter has 

been observed in streams ranging in size 

from first to third order, with most 

individuals occurring in second order 

streams in watersheds encompassing 7.7 

square miles (20 square kilometers) or 

less. Kentucky arrow darters feed on a 

variety of aquatic invertebrates, but 

adults feed predominantly on larval 

mayflies (order Ephemeroptera), 

specifically the families Heptageniidae 

and Baetidae. Rangewide surveys from 

2007 to 2009 revealed that the Kentucky 

arrow darter has disappeared from 

portions of its range. During these 

surveys, the species was observed at 

only 33 of 68 historical streams and 45 

of 100 historical sites. 

The subspecies’ habitat and range 

have been severely degraded and 

limited by water pollution from surface 

coal mining and gas-exploration 

activities; removal of riparian 

vegetation; stream channelization; 

increased siltation associated with poor 

mining, logging, and agricultural 

practices; and deforestation of 

watersheds. The threats are high in 

magnitude because they are widespread 

across the subspecies’ range. In 

addition, the magnitude (severity or 

intensity) of these threats, especially 

impacts from mining and gasexploration activities, is high because 

these activities have the potential to 

alter stream water quality permanently 

throughout the range by contributing 

sediment, dissolved metals, and other 

solids to streams supporting Kentucky 

arrow darters, resulting in direct 

mortality or reduced reproductive 

capacity. The threats are imminent 

because the effects are manifested 

immediately and will continue for the 

foreseeable future. Consequently, we 

assigned an LPN of 3 to this subspecies. 

Arctic grayling, Missouri River DPS 

(Thymallus arcticus)—We previously 

announced candidate status for this 

species, and described the reasons and 

data on which the finding was based, in 

a separate warranted-but-precluded 

12-month petition finding published on 

September 8, 2010 (75 FR 54707). 

Snails 

Rosemont talussnail (Sonorella 

rosemontensis)—the following summary 

is based on information in our files. The 

petition we received on June 24, 2010, 

provided no new information beyond 

what we had already included in our 

assessment of this species. The 

Rosemont talussnail, a land snail in the 

family Helminthoglyptidae, is known 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69225 

from three talus slopes in the Santa Rita 

Mountains, Pima County, Arizona. The 

primary threat to Rosemont talussnail is 

hard rock mining. The entire range of 

the species is located on patented 

mining claims and can reasonably be 

expected to be subjected to mining 

activities in the foreseeable future. Hard 

rock mining typically involves the 

blasting of hillsides and the crushing of 

ore-laden rock. Such activities would 

kill talussnails and render their habitats 

unsuitable for occupation. Since mining 

may occur across the entire range of the 

species within the foreseeable future, 

potentially resulting in rangewide 

habitat destruction and population 

losses, the threats are of a high 

magnitude. However, mining on 

patented mining claims, although a 

reasonably anticipated action, is neither 

currently ongoing nor imminent. 

Although the Rosemont Copper Mine is 

scheduled to commence as soon as 

2011, there exists uncertainty regarding 

its scope, and therefore its potential 

effect on habitat of the Rosemont 

talussnail. Accordingly, we find that 

overall threats to the Rosemont 

talussnail are nonimminent and we 

assign an LPN of 5 to this species. 

Crustaceans 

Kenk’s amphipod (Stygobromus 

kenki)—Amphipods of the genus 

Stygobromus, occur in groundwater and 

groundwater-related habitats. In the case 

of Kenk’s amphipod, these include 

seeps, small springs, and possibly wells. 

Kenk’s amphipod is a small, eyeless, 

unpigmented crustacean adapted for 

survival in subterranean habitats. It can 

be found in dead leaves or fine sediment 

submerged in the waters of its spring/ 

seep outflows. The species is currently 

known only from five spring or seep 

sites in Washington, DC, and 

Montgomery County, Maryland. Four of 

these sites are within the Rock Creek 

drainage, and the fifth is within the 

Northwest Branch drainage. 

Within the limited area encompassing 

the current range of this species, the 

vast majority of potential expanses of 

habitat large enough to support this 

species have been significantly 

impacted or completely destroyed by 

urban and suburban development. 

Kenk’s amphipod is now vulnerable 

because of its limited geographic 

distribution and infringement of urban 

development on its habitat. Degradation 

of water quality and modifications of 

hydrology are among the principal 

threats to this species’ spring or seep 

habitats. Specific threats include toxic 

spills, non-point source pollution, 

sanitary sewer leaks, excessive 

stormwater flows, and additional land 

disturbance. In addition, climate change 

has the potential to adversely affect the 

species, particularly if it results in a 

significant change in the amount of 

precipitation in the Washington, DC, 

area. 

Although all five known sites of 

occurrence face threats to the hydrology 

and water quality of their springs, these 

threats are chronic in nature and appear 

to be increasing only gradually and are 

not currently resulting in major 

mortality events or impairment of 

reproduction. Thus, the threats are 

moderate in magnitude. Several threats 

are imminent because they are ongoing 

and expected to continue. Therefore, we 

assigned this species LPN of 8. 

Flowering Plants 

Agave eggersiana (no common 

name)—We previously announced 

candidate status for this species, and 

described the reasons and data on 

which the finding was based, in a 

separate warranted-but-precluded 

12-month petition finding published on 

September 22, 2010 (75 FR 57720). 

Astragalus cusickii var. packardiae 

(Packard’s milkvetch)—The following 

summary is based on information 

contained in our files. This plant is a 

narrow endemic located in northeastern 

Payette County, Idaho. Its entire known 

range is only approximately 10 square 

miles (26 square kilometers). The lightcolored, sparsely vegetated sedimentary 

outcrops to which this species is 

restricted are found scattered 

throughout the landscape, but are 

limited in extent. The size of occupied 

outcrops ranges from less than 0.04 

hectares (0.1 acre) to approximately 1.2 

hectares (3 acres). The entire population 

of A. cusickii var. packardiae is 

currently estimated at 5,000 plants 

located within 26 occurrences (17 on 

Bureau of Land Management, 4 on State, 

and 5 on private land). 

The primary threats to Astragalus 

cusickii var. packardiae include 

wildfire, nonnative invasive plant 

species, and more recently, off-road 

vehicle (ORV) use. Vegetation within 

the range of A. cusickii var. packardiae 

was originally sagebrush-steppe habitat; 

however, due to habitat impacts from a 

century of wildfires, livestock use, and 

invasive nonnative plant species, much 

of the area has been converted to annual 

grassland dominated by two nonnative 

grass species, Bromus tectorum 

(cheatgrass) and Taeniatherum caputmedusae (medusahead). Invasive 

nonnative plants affect A. cusickii var. 

packardiae directly through 

competition and indirectly by providing 

continuous fine fuels that contribute to 

the increased frequency and extent of 

wildfires. 

ORV use, which is currently 

considered the most immediate threat to 

Astragalus cusickii var. packardiae and 

its habitat, was not identified as a threat 

during the original 1999 surveys for this 

species, but monitoring conducted in 

2008 and 2009 indicate it has since 

become a widespread activity, occurring 

throughout the limited range of A. 

cusickii var. packardiae. ORVs are 

traveling directly through outcrops 

occupied by A. cusickii var. packardiae, 

as well as along the rims, spur ridges, 

and slope bases that form the margins of 

the occupied outcrops, with tracks 

ranging from single passage treads to 

major hill climbing runways. Based on 

monitoring data, this use appears to be 

increasing in scope and has resulted in 

the crushing of A. cusickii var. 

packardiae plants, as well as 

accelerated erosion of the fine, loose 

substrate occupied by this species. 

Based on this information, the 

magnitude of the primary threats to 

Astragalus cusickii var. packardiae and 

its habitat is high because ORV use, 

wildfires, and nonnative invasive 

species affect the species throughout its 

range, appear to be increasing in extent, 

and result in severe and direct impacts 

to individuals and population levels., 

Because these threats are ongoing 

throughout A. cusickii var. packardiae’s 

limited range, these threats are 

imminent. Thus, we assign an LPN of 3 

to this plant variety. 

Mimulus fremontii var. 

vandenbergensis (Vandenberg 

monkeyflower)—Mimulus fremontii var. 

vandenbergensis is a small, short-lived 

annual herb in the Phrymaceae family 

(no common family name). It ranges 

from 0.5 to 10 inches (1 to 20 

centimeters) tall and produces flowers 

that are bright yellow with reddish 

brown markings near the mouth. The 

seeds are small and numerous, and seed 

is likely dispersed by the wind as the 

seed pods open. As with other annual 

species that are sensitive to annual 

levels of rainfall, germination of 

resident seed banks may be low or 

nonexistent in unfavorable years, with 

little or no aboveground expression of 

the species visible. 

Mimulus fremontii var. 

vandenbergensis occurs only in western 

Santa Barbara County, California, at 

lower elevations and closer to the coast, 

in sandy openings of coastal scrub, 

chaparral, and woodlands on an old 

dune sheet known as Burton Mesa. 

Seven populations occur across the 

mesa over a distance of approximately 

6 miles, generally in alignment with the 

prevailing winds. Two populations 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69226 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

occur on Vandenberg Air Force Base, 

two occur on State Park lands at La 

Purisima State Historic Park, two occur 

primarily on Department of Fish and 

Game lands on Burton Mesa Ecological 

Reserve, and one occurs primarily on 

private lands. 

The threats currently facing Mimulus 

fremontii var. vandenbergensis include 

alteration and destruction of habitat 

from development and associated 

secondary impacts, including increased 

fragmentation, alteration of hydrology, 

competition with nonnative species, 

and alteration of fire regimes. The taxon 

is also threatened with stochastic 

extinction due to small population size: 

Of the 7 populations, 3 have supported 

fewer than 100 individuals based on at 

least 2 years of observations. We 

consider competition with nonnative 

plant species to be the largest and most 

immediate threat: Veldt grass, pampas 

grass, bromes, Sahara mustard, star 

thistle, Italian thistle, and bull thistle 

are present at various sites where 

Mimulus fremontii var. vandenbergensis 

occurs. Habitat for one population on 

private land was graded in 2007 in 

preparation for construction of a 

housing development. Construction has 

been stalled, and in the meantime, veldt 

grass has become established in the 

graded lot and has increased the rate at 

which this species is spreading in 

adjacent habitat for Mimulus fremontii 

var. vandenbergensis, including the 

Burton Mesa Ecological Reserve. Veldt 

grass is also present and rapidly 

spreading at population sites on 

Vandenberg Air Force Base and La 

Purisima State Historic Park. 

The threats are of a high magnitude 

because all three of the largest 

populations are at risk of being lost from 

the invasion of nonnative species. The 

third largest population is also 

threatened by secondary impacts from a 

planned development and firefighting 

activities. Losses of some or all of the 

three largest populations will increase 

the risk of extinction of the taxon as a 

whole because the remaining 

populations are smaller and more 

vulnerable to stochastic extirpation, 

which compounds the other threats 

these small populations face. The 

threats are ongoing and, therefore, 

imminent. Consequently, we have 

assigned a LPN of 3 to this plant variety. 

Listing Priority Changes in Candidates 

We reviewed the LPN for all 

candidate species and are changing the 

numbers for the following species 

discussed below. Some of the changes 

reflect actual changes in either the 

magnitude or immediacy of the threats. 

For some species, the LPN change 

reflects efforts to ensure national 

consistency as well as closer adherence 

to the 1983 guidelines in assigning these 

numbers, rather than an actual change 

in the nature of the threats. 

Snails 

Page springsnail (Pyrgulopsis 

morrisoni)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. The Page springsnail is known to 

exist only within a complex of springs 

located within an approximately 0.93- 

mi (1.5-km) stretch along the west side 

of Oak Creek around the community of 

Page Springs, and within springs 

located along Spring Creek, tributary to 

Oak Creek, Yavapai County, Arizona. 

The primary threat to the Page 

springsnail is modification of habitat by 

domestic, agricultural, ranching, fish 

hatchery, and recreational activities. 

Many of the springs where the species 

occurs have been subjected to some 

level of such modification. Based on 

recent survey data, it appears that the 

Page springsnail is abundant within 

natural habitats and persists in modified 

habitats, albeit at reduced densities. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department 

(AGFD) management plans for the 

Bubbling Ponds and Page Springs fish 

hatcheries include commitments to 

replace lost habitat and to monitor 

remaining populations of invertebrates 

such as the Page springsnail. The AGFD 

and the Service recently entered into a 

Candidate Conservation Agreement with 

Assurances that calls for evaluating the 

restoration and creation of natural 

springhead integrity, including springs 

on AGFD properties. In fact, several 

conservation measures have already 

been implemented. Also, the National 

Park Service recently acquired Shea 

Springs, a site that the Page springsnail 

occupied historically, and has expressed 

an interest in restoring natural 

springhead integrity to that site. 

Accordingly, implementation of the 

CCAA reduces the magnitude of threats 

to a moderate level and greatly reduces 

the chances of extirpation or extinction. 

The immediacy of the threat of 

groundwater withdrawal is uncertain, 

due to conflicting information regarding 

imminence. However, overall, the 

threats are imminent, because 

modification of the species’ habitat by 

threats other than groundwater 

withdrawal is currently occurring. 

Therefore, we are changing the LPN for 

the Page springsnail from a 2 to an 8. 

Flowering Plants 

Hibiscus dasycalyx (Neches River 

rose-mallow)—The following summary 

is based on information contained in 

our files. This species, found in eastern 

Texas, appears to be restricted to those 

portions of wetlands that are exposed to 

open sun and normally hold standing 

water early in the growing season, with 

water levels dropping during late 

summer and fall. This habitat has been 

affected by drainage or filling of 

floodplain depressions and oxbows, 

stream channelization, road 

construction, timber harvesting, 

agricultural activities (primarily 

mowing and grazing), and herbicide use. 

Threats that continue to affect the 

species include wetland alteration, 

herbicide use, grazing, mowing during 

the species’ growing and flowering 

period, and genetic swamping by other 

Hibiscus species. 

A 1995 status survey of 10 counties 

resulted in confirmation of the species 

at only three sites, but in three separate 

counties and three different watersheds, 

suggesting a relatively wide historical 

range. These three populations were all 

within highway rights-of-way and 

vulnerable to herbicides and adjacent 

agricultural activities. As of 2005, only 

20 plants remained at one of these sites. 

Additional surveys for Hibiscus 

dasycalyx discovered new populations. 

About 300 plants were found on land 

owned by Temple-Inland Corporation in 

east Trinity County. Smaller plant 

numbers have been seen at this site and 

in 2005 no plants were observed. This 

site may be too dry to support this 

species, possibly due to changes in the 

wetland’s hydrology. Another site 

discovered on land previously owned 

by Champion International Corporation 

(near White Rock Creek in west Trinity 

County) once supported 300–400 plants. 

This site was modified in 2007. In west 

Houston County, a population of 300 to 

400 plants discovered on private land 

has been purchased by the Natural Area 

Preservation Association in order to 

protect this land in perpetuity. In east 

Houston County, a population 

discovered in Compartment 55 in Davy 

Crockett National Forest numbered over 

1,000 in 2006. In 2000, nearly 800 

plants were introduced into 

Compartments 16 and 20 of Davy 

Crockett National Forest as part of a 

reintroduction effort. One population 

retained high numbers (350 in 2006), 

but was subjected to high water 

conditions in 2007 and may have been 

adversely affected. The second site was 

affected by a change in hydrology and 

had declined to 50 plants in 2006. In 

2004, 200 plants were placed in a 

wetland in Compartment 11 of Davy 

Crockett National Forest, but only 10 

plants were seen in 2006. High water 

from heavy spring and summer rains 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69227 

prevented further assessment of these 

rose-mallow sites. 

The threats to the species continue to 

be of a high magnitude because all of 

the populations are severely affected by 

some combination of the threats, and 

the effectiveness of the re-introduction 

and preservation efforts has not been 

established. After evaluating the current 

conditions of the species’ habitat, we 

now find that threats are imminent 

overall. Threats are currently occurring 

and ongoing for nearly all of the 

populations (herbicides and adjacent 

agricultural activities for the 3 

populations identified in 1995, and 

hydrology alteration and other 

modifications for the 2 populations in 

east Trinity County and the 3 

populations reintroduced in Davy 

Crockett National Forest). Thus, in light 

of this information and to ensure 

consistency in the application of our 

listing priority process we have changed 

the LPN from a 5 to a 2 for the Neches 

River rose-mallow to reflect imminent 

threats of high magnitude. 

Linum arenicola (Sand flax)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. Sand 

flax is found in pine rockland and marl 

prairie habitats, which require periodic 

wildfires in order to maintain an open, 

shrub-free subcanopy and reduce leaflitter levels. Based upon available data, 

there are 11 extant occurrences of sand 

flax; 11 others have been extirpated or 

destroyed. For the most part, only small 

and isolated occurrences remain in low 

lying areas in a restricted range of 

southern Florida and the Florida Keys. 

In general, viability is uncertain for 9 of 

11 occurrences. 

Sand flax is threatened by habitat loss 

and degradation due to development; 

climatic changes and sea-level rise, 

which ultimately are likely to 

substantially reduce the extent of 

available habitat; fire suppression and 

difficulty in applying prescribed fire; 

road maintenance activities; exotic 

species; illegal dumping; natural 

disturbances, such as hurricanes, 

tropical storms, and storm surges; and 

the small and fragmented nature of the 

current population. Reduced pollinator 

activity and suppression of pollinator 

populations from pesticides used in 

mosquito control and decreased seed 

production due to increased seed 

predation in a fragmented wildland 

urban interface may also affect sand 

flax; however, not enough information 

is known on this species’ reproductive 

biology or life history to assess these 

potential threats. Some of the threats to 

the species—including fire suppression, 

difficulty in applying prescribed fire, 

road maintenance activities, exotic 

species, and illegal dumping—threaten 

nearly all remaining populations. 

However, some efforts are under way to 

use prescribed fire to control exotics on 

conservation lands where this species 

occurs. 

There are some circumstances that 

may mitigate the impacts of the threats 

upon the species. For example, a survey 

conducted in 2009 showed 

approximately 74,000 plants on a nonconservation, public site in Miami-Dade 

County; this is far more plants than was 

previously known. Although a portion 

of the plants will be affected by 

development, approximately 60,000 are 

anticipated to be protected and managed 

through a Conservation Easement. 

Consequently, the majority of the largest 

occurrence in Miami-Dade County is 

expected to be conserved and managed. 

In addition, much of the pine rockland 

on Big Pine Key, the location of the 

largest occurrence in the Keys, is 

protected from development. 

Nevertheless, due to the small and 

fragmented nature of the current 

population, stochastic events, disease, 

or genetic bottlenecks may strongly 

affect this species in the Keys. One 

example is Hurricane Wilma, which 

inundated most of the species’ habitat 

on Big Pine Key in 2005, and plants 

were not found 8–9 weeks post-storm; 

the density of sand flax declined to zero 

in all management units at The Nature 

Conservancy’s preserve in 2006. In a 

2007 post-hurricane assessment, sand 

flax was found in northern plots, but not 

in any of the southern plots on Big Pine 

Key. More current data are not available. 

Overall, the magnitude of threats is 

high, because the threats affect all 11 

known occurrences of the species, and 

can result in a precipitous decline to the 

population levels, particularly when 

combined with the potential impacts 

from hurricanes or other natural 

disasters. Because development is not 

immediate for the majority of the largest 

population in Miami-Dade County and 

another population in the Keys is also 

largely protected from development 

since much of it is within public and 

private conservation lands, the threat of 

habitat loss is now nonimminent. In 

addition, sea level rise is a long-term 

threat since we do not have evidence 

that it is currently affecting any 

population of sand flax. Therefore, 

based upon new information (new 

survey date showing a much larger 

population of plants), and reduced 

immediacy of threats, we changed the 

LPN of this species from a 2 to a 5. 

Penstemon scariosus var. albifluvis 

(White River beardtongue)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files and 

the petition we received on October 27, 

1983. This species is restricted to 

calcareous soils derived from oil shale 

barrens of the Green River Formation in 

the Uinta Basin of northeastern Utah 

and adjacent Colorado. There are 14 

occurrences known in Utah and 1 in 

Colorado. Most of the occupied habitat 

of the White River beardtongue is 

within developed and expanding oil 

and gas fields. The location of the 

species’ habitat exposes it to destruction 

from road, pipeline, and well site 

construction in connection with oil and 

gas development. Recreational off-road 

vehicle use, heavy grazing by livestock, 

and wildlife and livestock trampling are 

additional threats. A future threat (and 

potentially the greatest threat) to the 

species is oil shale development. 

In the 2009 CNOR, we found the 

threats were nonimminent and high 

magnitude. However, traditional oil and 

gas energy development in the area has 

expanded into habitat for this species, 

and therefore the threat is now 

imminent. In addition, BLM has 

adopted a Special Status Species policy 

and has included in its current Resource 

Management Plan commitments to 

protect this species. These protections 

lessen the extent of traditional oil and 

gas development impacts to this species, 

so that the threat is now of moderate 

magnitude. The threat from off-road 

vehicles is also moderate because BLM 

limited all vehicles to designated routes, 

thus avoiding beardtongue habitat. 

Based on current information, we are 

changing the LPN from a 6 to a 9 for this 

plant variety. 

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 this species and its habitat. 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 the species is not 

likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all or a significant portion of its’ range. 

Therefore, we find that proposing a rule 

to list it is not warranted, and we no 

longer consider it to be a candidate 

species for listing. We will continue to 

monitor the status of 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 is of a 

considerably greater magnitude or 

imminence than identified through 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69228 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

assessments of information contained in 

our files, as summarized here. 

Mammals 

Palm Springs round-tailed ground 

squirrel (Xerospermophilus tereticaudus 

chlorus)—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 Palm Springs round-tailed 

ground squirrel was believed to be 

limited in range to the Coachella Valley 

region of Riverside County, California. 

The primary habitat in the Coachella 

Valley for round-tailed ground squirrel 

is the dunes and mesquite hummocks 

associated with Prosopis glandulosa var. 

torreyana (honey mesquite) and to a 

lesser extent those dunes and 

hummocks associated with Larrea 

tridentata (creosote), or other 

vegetation. The primary threat to 

X. t. chlorus in the Coachella Valley was 

from habitat loss due to urban 

development and drops in the 

groundwater table, which eliminated 

much of the honey mesquite in the 

Coachella Valley and fragmented habitat 

occupied by this subspecies. The 

Coachella Valley Association of 

Governments (CVAG) developed a 

Multiple Species Habitat Conservation 

Plan (MSHCP) that was reviewed and 

approved by the Service in 2008. 

Habitat conservation and monitoring 

actions that have been implemented 

since 2008 specifically for X. t. chlorus 

have significantly eliminated the threat 

of urban development to the taxon. To 

date, conservation for X. t. chlorus 

includes protection of 244 acres of 

mesquite hummocks as a result of the 

MSHCP, in addition to 104 acres of 

mesquite hummocks on conservation 

lands in existence prior to permitting 

the MSHCP. Protection of additional 

habitat (desert shrub communities and 

other sandy areas with appropriate 

vegetation known to harbor the 

subspecies at lower densities) is also 

anticipated in other portions of the plan 

area. Although we do not rely upon 

future implementation of the additional 

habitat protections anticipated in the 

MSHCP, we do expect conservation 

actions specific to X. t. chlorus to 

continue as a result of the commitment 

by CVAG and the MSHCP. 

More significant than the ongoing 

conservation measures is the fact that 

recent results of both morphological and 

genetic studies indicate its range is 

substantially larger than previously 

believed. Analysis of experimental 

samples show X. t. chlorus is found in 

Hinkley Valley and Death Valley, 

expanding the range at minimum 150 

miles northward. Because X. t. chlorus 

is more widespread in its range than 

was previously understood, and based 

on our review of the best available 

information, we no longer conclude that 

threats across this newly expanded 

range put the taxon in danger of 

extinction. Moreover, this subspecies is 

not endangered or threatened in a 

significant portion of the range because 

the conservation actions and current 

protections provided in Death Valley 

make it so it is not endangered or 

threatened in any portion of the range. 

In summary, the existing conservation 

provided by MSHCP in the Coachella 

Valley, along with the data showing the 

subspecies has an expanded range over 

which the threats are nonsignificant to 

the taxon as a whole, we find listing of 

the Palm Springs round-tailed ground 

squirrel (X. t. chlorus) throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range is no 

longer warranted. The subspecies no 

longer meets our definition of a 

candidate, and we have removed it from 

candidate status. 

Petition Findings 

The Act provides two mechanisms for 

considering species for listing. One 

method allows the Secretary, on his 

own initiative, to identify species for 

listing under the standards of section 

4(a)(1). We implement this through the 

candidate program, discussed above. 

The second method for listing a species 

provides a mechanism for the public to 

petition us to add a species to the Lists. 

The CNOR serves several purposes as 

part of the petition process: (1) In some 

instances (in particular, for petitions to 

list species that the Service has already 

identified as candidates on its own 

initiative), it serves as the petition 

finding; (2) it serves as a ‘‘resubmitted’’ 

petition finding that the Act requires the 

Service to make each year; and (3) it 

documents the Service’s compliance 

with the statutory requirement to 

monitor the status of species for which 

listing is warranted-but-precluded to 

ascertain if they need emergency listing. 

First, the CNOR serves as a petition 

finding in some instances. Under 

section 4(b)(3)(A), when we receive a 

listing petition, we must determine 

within 90 days, to the maximum extent 

practicable, whether the petition 

presents substantial information 

indicating that listing may be warranted 

(a ‘‘90-day finding’’). If we make a 

positive 90-day finding, we must 

promptly commence a status review of 

the species under section 4(b)(3)(A); we 

must then make and publish one of 

three possible findings within 

12 months of the receipt of the petition 

(a ‘‘12-month finding’’): 

1. The petitioned action is not 

warranted; 

2. The petitioned action is warranted 

(in which case we are required to 

promptly publish a proposed regulation 

to implement the petitioned action; 

once we publish a proposed rule for a 

species, section 4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) 

govern further procedures regardless of 

whether we issued the proposal in 

response to a petition); or 

3. The petitioned action is warranted 

but (a) the immediate proposal of a 

regulation and final promulgation of a 

regulation implementing the petitioned 

action is precluded by pending 

proposals to determine whether any 

species is endangered or threatened, and 

(b) expeditious progress is being made 

to add qualified species to the lists of 

endangered or threatened species. 

(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 6, 

1996). This standard for making a 

species a candidate through our own 

initiative is identical to the standard for 

making a warranted-but-precluded 

12-month petition finding on a petition 

to list, and we add all petitioned species 

for which we have made a warrantedbut-precluded 12-month finding to the 

candidate list. 

Therefore all candidate species 

identified through our own initiative 

already have received the equivalent of 

substantial 90-day and warranted-butprecluded 12-month findings. 

Nevertheless, we review the status of 

the newly petitioned candidate species 

and through this CNOR publish specific 

section 4(b)(3) findings (i.e., substantial 

90-day and warranted-but-precluded 

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. Since publication of the CNOR 

in 2009, we received petitions to list 

three candidate species, the Florida 

bonneted bat, headwater chub, and 

Rosemont talussnail (we received this 

petition after we initiated our 

assessment of this species for candidate 

status). We are making substantial 

90-day findings and warranted-butprecluded 12-month findings for these 

species as part of this notice. 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69229 

Second, the CNOR serves as a 

‘‘resubmitted’’ petition finding. Section 

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

when we make a warranted-butprecluded finding on a petition, we are 

to treat such a petition as one that is 

resubmitted on the date of such a 

finding. Thus, we must make a 12- 

month petition finding in compliance 

with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act at least 

once a year, until we publish a proposal 

to list the species or make a final notwarranted finding. We make these 

annual findings for petitioned candidate 

species through the CNOR. 

Third, through undertaking the 

analysis requires to complete the CNOR, 

the Service determines if any candidate 

species needs emergency listing. Section 

4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the Act requires us to 

‘‘implement a system to monitor 

effectively the status of all species’’ for 

which we have made a warranted-butprecluded 12-month finding, and to 

‘‘make prompt use of the [emergency 

listing] authority [under section 4(b)(7)] 

to prevent a significant risk to the well 

being of any such species.’’ The CNOR 

plays a crucial role in the monitoring 

system that we have implemented for all 

candidate species by providing notice 

that we are actively seeking information 

regarding the status of those species. We 

review all new information on 

candidate species as it becomes 

available, prepare an annual species 

assessment form that reflects monitoring 

results and other new information, and 

identify any species for which 

emergency listing may be appropriate. If 

we determine that emergency listing is 

appropriate for any candidate we will 

make prompt use of the emergency 

listing authority under section 4(b)(7). 

We have been reviewing and will 

continue to review, at least annually, 

the status of every candidate, whether or 

not we have received a petition to list 

it. Thus, the CNOR and accompanying 

species assessment forms constitute the 

Service’s annual finding on the status of 

petitioned species pursuant to section 

4(b)(3)(C)(i). 

A number of court decisions have 

elaborated on the nature and specificity 

of information that must be considered 

in making and describing the findings in 

the CNOR. The previous CNOR, which 

was 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, 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. 

Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(ii) and 

the Administrative Procedure Act (5 

U.S.C. 551 et seq.), any party with 

standing may challenge the merits of 

any not-warranted or warranted-butprecluded petition finding incorporated 

in this CNOR. The analysis included 

herein, together with the administrative 

record for the decision at issue 

(particularly the supporting species 

assessment form), will provide an 

adequate basis for a court to review the 

petition finding. 

Nothing in this document or any of 

our policies should be construed as in 

any way modifying the Act’s 

requirement that we make a resubmitted 

12-month petition finding for each 

petitioned candidate within 1 year of 

the date of publication of this CNOR. If 

we fail to make any such finding on a 

timely basis, whether through 

publication of a new CNOR or some 

other form of notice, any party with 

standing may seek judicial review. 

In this CNOR, we continue to address 

the concerns of the courts by including 

specific information in our discussion 

on preclusion (see below). In preparing 

this CNOR, we reviewed the current 

status of, and threats to, the 166 

candidates and 5 listed species for 

which we have received a petition and 

for which we have found listing or 

reclassification from threatened to 

endangered to be warranted but 

precluded. We also reviewed the current 

status of, and threats to, the Canada lynx 

in New Mexico for which we received 

a petition to add that State to the listed 

range. We find that the immediate 

issuance of a proposed rule and timely 

promulgation of a final rule for each of 

these species has been, for the preceding 

months, and continues to be, precluded 

by higher priority listing actions. 

Additional information that is the basis 

for this finding is found in the species 

assessments and our administrative 

record for each species. 

Our review included updating the 

status of, and threats to, petitioned 

candidate or listed species for which we 

published findings, pursuant to section 

4(b)(3)(B), 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, 2009, 

through September 30, 2010. 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 Act. 

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: http:// 

ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/Species

Report.do?listingType=C&mapstatus=1. 

As described above, under section 4 of 

the Act we may identify and propose 

species for listing based on the factors 

identified in section 4(a)(1), and section 

4 also provides a mechanism for the 

public to petition us to add a species to 

the lists of threatened species or 

endangered species under the Act. 

Below we describe the actions that 

continue to preclude the immediate 

proposal and final promulgation of a 

regulation implementing each of the 

petitioned actions for which we have 

made a warranted-but-precluded 

finding, and we describe the 

expeditious progress we are making to 

add qualified species to, and remove 

species from, the lists of endangered or 

threatened species. 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69230 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

process. The appropriation for the 

Listing Program is available to support 

work involving the following listing 

actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 

90-day and 12-month findings on 

petitions to add species to the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants (Lists) or to change the status 

of a species from threatened to 

endangered; annual ‘‘resubmitted’’ 

petition findings on prior warrantedbut-precluded petition findings as 

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

the 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’’ (H.R. 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 court-mandated 

designations of critical habitat, and 

consequently none of the critical habitat 

subcap funds have been available for 

other listing activities. In FY 2007, we 

were able to use some of the critical 

habitat subcap funds to fund proposed 

listing determinations for high-priority 

candidate species. In FY 2009, 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 2010, 

we are using some of the critical habitat 

subcap funds to fund listing actions 

with statutory deadlines. 

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, 

represent the resources we must take 

into consideration when we make our 

determinations of preclusion and 

expeditious progress. 

Congress identified the availability of 

resources as the only basis for deferring 

the initiation of a rulemaking that is 

warranted. The Conference Report 

accompanying Public Law 97–304, 

which established the current statutory 

deadlines and the warranted-butprecluded finding, states that the 

amendments were ‘‘not intended to 

allow the Secretary to delay 

commencing the rulemaking process for 

any reason other than that the existence 

of pending or imminent proposals to list 

species subject to a greater degree of 

threat would make allocation of 

resources to such a petition [that is, for 

a lower-ranking species] unwise.’’ 

Although that statement appeared to 

refer specifically to the ‘‘to the 

maximum extent practicable’’ limitation 

on the 90-day deadline for making a 

‘‘substantial information’’ finding, that 

finding is made at the point when the 

Service is deciding whether or not to 

commence a status review that will 

determine the degree of threats facing 

the species, and therefore the analysis 

underlying the statement is more 

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

the Service has already determined the 

degree of threats facing the species and 

is deciding whether or not to commence 

a rulemaking. 

In FY 2010, $10,471,000 is the 

amount of money that Congress 

appropriated for the Listing Program 

(that is, the portion of the Listing 

Program funding not related to critical 

habitat designations for species that are 

already listed). Therefore, a proposed 

listing is precluded if pending proposals 

with higher priority will require 

expenditure of at least $10,471,000, and 

expeditious progress is the amount of 

work that can be achieved with 

$10,471,000. Since court orders 

requiring critical habitat work will not 

require use of all of the funds within the 

critical habitat subcap, we are using 

$1,114,417 of our critical habitat subcap 

funds in order to work on as many of 

our required petition findings and 

listing determinations as possible. This 

brings the total amount of funds we 

have for listing action in FY 2010 to 

$11,585,417. 

The $11,585,417 is being used 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 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, a portion of our 

funding is being used to work on the 

actions described above as they apply to 

listing actions for foreign species. This 

has the potential to further reduce 

funding available for domestic listing 

actions. Although there are currently no 

foreign species issues included in our 

high-priority listing actions at this time, 

many actions have statutory or courtapproved settlement deadlines, thus 

increasing their priority. The budget 

allocations for each specific listing 

action are identified in the Service’s FY 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69231 

2010 Allocation Table (part of our 

administrative record). 

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 an LPN of 2. Under this guidance, 

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, 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). 

Because of the large number of highpriority 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 

through proposed and final listing rules 

for those 40 candidates, we apply the 

ranking criteria to the next group of 

candidates with LPNs 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 courtdetermined deadline. 

With our workload so much bigger 

than the amount of funds we have to 

accomplish it, it is important that we be 

as efficient as possible in our listing 

process. Therefore, as we work on 

proposed rules for the highest priority 

species in the next several years, we are 

preparing multi-species proposals when 

appropriate, and these may include 

species with lower priority if they 

overlap geographically or have the same 

threats as a species with an LPN of 2. 

In addition, we take into consideration 

the availability of staff resources when 

we determine which high-priority 

species will receive funding to 

minimize the amount of time and 

resources required to complete each 

listing action. 

Based on these prioritization factors, 

we continue to find that proposals to list 

the petitioned candidate species 

included in Table 1 are all warranted 

but precluded. 

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. Given the limited 

resources available for listing, we find 

that we made expeditious progress in 

FY 2010 in the Listing Program. 

(Although we do not discuss it in detail 

here, we are making expeditious 

progress in removing species from the 

list under the Recovery program in light 

of the resource available for delisting, 

which is funded by a separate line item 

in the budget of the Endangered Species 

Program. During FY 2010, we have 

completed two proposed delisting rules 

and two final delisting rules.) Progress 

in adding qualified species to the list 

included preparing and publishing the 

following determinations: 

FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS

Publication date Title Actions FR pages 

10/08/2009 ................... Listing Lepidium papilliferum (Slickspot Peppergrass) 

as a Threatened Species Throughout Its Range.

Final Listing Threatened .................. 74 FR 52013–52064. 

10/27/2009 ................... 90-day Finding on a Petition To List the American 

Dipper in the Black Hills of South Dakota as Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Not substantial.

74 FR 55177–55180. 

10/28/2009 ................... Status Review of Arctic Grayling (Thymallus arcticus) 

in the Upper Missouri River System.

Notice of Intent to Conduct Status 

Review for Listing Decision.

74 FR 55524–55525. 

11/03/2009 ................... Listing the British Columbia Distinct Population Segment of the Queen Charlotte Goshawk Under the 

Endangered Species Act: Proposed rule.

Proposed Listing Threatened .......... 74 FR 56757–56770. 

11/03/2009 ................... Listing the Salmon-Crested Cockatoo as Threatened 

Throughout Its Range with Special Rule.

Proposed Listing Threatened .......... 74 FR 56770–56791. 

11/23/2009 ................... Status Review of Gunnison sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus minimus).

Notice of Intent to Conduct Status 

Review for Listing Decision.

74 FR 61100–61102. 

12/03/2009 ................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Black-tailed 

Prairie Dog as Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Not warranted.

74 FR 63343–63366. 

12/03/2009 ................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Sprague’s Pipit as 

Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

74 FR 63337–63343. 

12/15/2009 ................... 90-Day Finding on Petitions To List Nine Species of 

Mussels From Texas as Threatened or Endangered 

With Critical Habitat.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

74 FR 66260–66271. 

12/16/2009 ................... Partial 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 475 Species in the Southwestern United States as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat Critical 

Habitat.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Not substantial and Substantial.

74 FR 66865–66905. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69232 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued 

Publication date Title Actions FR pages 

12/17/2009 ................... 12-month Finding on a Petition To Change the Final 

Listing of the Distinct Population Segment of the 

Canada Lynx To Include New Mexico.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Warranted but precluded.

74 FR 66937–66950. 

1/05/2010 ..................... Listing Foreign Bird Species in Peru and Bolivia as 

Endangered Throughout Their Range.

Proposed Listing Endangered ......... 75 FR 605–649. 

1/05/2010 ..................... Listing Six Foreign Birds as Endangered Throughout 

Their Range.

Proposed Listing Endangered ......... 75 FR 286–310. 

1/05/2010 ..................... Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List Cook’s Petrel ..... Proposed rule, withdrawal ............... 75 FR 310–316. 

1/05/2010 ..................... Final Rule to List the Galapagos Petrel and Heinroth’s 

Shearwater as Threatened Throughout Their 

Ranges.

Final Listing Threatened .................. 75 FR 235–250. 

1/20/2010 ..................... Initiation of Status Review for Agave eggersiana and 

Solanum conocarpum.

Notice of Intent to Conduct Status 

Review for Listing Decision.

75 FR 3190–3191. 

2/09/2010 ..................... 12-month Finding on a Petition to List the American 

Pika as Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Not warranted.

75 FR 6437–6471. 

2/25/2010 ..................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Sonoran 

Desert Population of the Bald Eagle as a Threatened or Endangered Distinct Population Segment.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Not warranted.

75 FR 8601–8621. 

2/25/2010 ..................... Withdrawal of Proposed Rule To List the Southwestern Washington/Columbia River Distinct Population Segment of Coastal Cutthroat Trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) as Threatened.

Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List 75 FR 8621–8644. 

3/18/2010 ..................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Berry Cave 

salamander as Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

75 FR 13068–13071. 

3/23/2010 ..................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Southern 

Hickorynut Mussel (Obovaria jacksoniana) as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Not substantial.

75 FR 13717–13720. 

3/23/2010 ..................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Striped Newt 

as Threatened.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

75 FR 13720–13726. 

3/23/2010 ..................... 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater 

Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as 

Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Warranted but precluded.

75 FR 13910–14014. 

3/31/2010 ..................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Tucson 

Shovel-Nosed Snake (Chionactis occipitalis 

klauberi) as Threatened or Endangered with Critical 

Habitat.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Warranted but precluded.

75 FR 16050–16065. 

4/5/2010 ....................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Thorne’s 

Hairstreak Butterfly as threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

75 FR 17062–17070. 

4/6/2010 ....................... 12-month Finding on a Petition To List the Mountain 

Whitefish in the Big Lost River, Idaho, as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Not warranted.

75 FR 17352–17363. 

4/6/2010 ....................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List a Stonefly 

(Isoperla jewetti) and a Mayfly (Fallceon eatoni) as 

Threatened or Endangered with Critical Habitat.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Not substantial.

75 FR 17363–17367. 

4/7/2010 ....................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to Reclassify the Delta 

Smelt From Threatened to Endangered Throughout 

Its Range.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Warranted but precluded.

75 FR 17667–17680. 

4/13/2010 ..................... Determination of Endangered Status for 48 Species 

on Kauai and Designation of Critical Habitat.

Final Listing Endangered ................. 75 FR 18959–19165. 

4/15/2010 ..................... Initiation of Status Review of the North American Wolverine in the Contiguous United States.Notice of Initiation of Status Review 

for Listing Decision.

75 FR 19591–19592. 

4/15/2010 ..................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Wyoming 

Pocket Gopher as Endangered or Threatened with 

Critical Habitat.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Not warranted.

75 FR 19592–19607. 

4/16/2010 ..................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List a Distinct Population Segment of the Fisher in Its United States 

Northern Rocky Mountain Range as Endangered or 

Threatened with Critical Habitat.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

75 FR 19925–19935. 

4/20/2010 ..................... Initiation of Status Review for Sacramento splittail 

(Pogonichthys macrolepidotus).

Notice of Initiation of Status Review 

for Listing Decision.

75 FR 20547–20548. 

4/26/2010 ..................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Harlequin Butterfly as Endangered.Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

75 FR 21568–21571. 

4/27/2010 ..................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Susan’s Pursemaking Caddisfly (Ochrotrichia susanae) as Threatened or Endangered.Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Not warranted.

75 FR 22012–22025. 

4/27/2010 ..................... 90-day Finding on a Petition to List the Mohave 

Ground Squirrel as Endangered with Critical Habitat.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

75 FR 22063–22070. 

5/4/2010 ....................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Hermes Copper 

Butterfly as Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

75 FR 23654–23663. 

6/1/2010 ....................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Castanea pumila 

var. ozarkensis.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

75 FR 30313–30318. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69233 

FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued 

Publication date Title Actions FR pages 

6/1/2010 ....................... 12-month Finding on a Petition to List the White-tailed 

Prairie Dog as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Not warranted.

75 FR 30338–30363. 

6/9/2010 ....................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List van Rossem’s 

Gull-billed Tern as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

75 FR 32728–32734. 

6/16/2010 ..................... 90-Day Finding on Five Petitions to List Seven Species of Hawaiian Yellow-faced Bees as Endangered.Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

75 FR 34077–34088. 

6/22/2010 ..................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Least Chub 

as Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Warranted but precluded.

75 FR 35398–35424. 

6/23/2010 ..................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Honduran 

Emerald Hummingbird as Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

75 FR 35746–35751. 

6/23/2010 ..................... Listing Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket) as 

Endangered Throughout Its Range, and Listing 

Penstemon debilis (Parachute Beardtongue) and 

Phacelia submutica (DeBeque Phacelia) as Threatened Throughout Their Range.

Proposed Listing Endangered .........

Proposed Listing Threatened 

75 FR 35721–35746. 

6/24/2010 ..................... Listing the Flying Earwig Hawaiian Damselfly and Pacific Hawaiian Damselfly As Endangered Throughout Their Ranges.Final Listing Endangered ................. 75 FR 35990–36012. 

6/24/2010 ..................... Listing the Cumberland Darter, Rush Darter, 

Yellowcheek Darter, Chucky Madtom, and Laurel 

Dace as Endangered Throughout Their Ranges.

Proposed Listing Endangered ......... 75 FR 36035–36057. 

6/29/2010 ..................... Listing the Mountain Plover as Threatened .................. Reinstatement of Proposed Listing 

Threatened.

75 FR 37353–37358. 

7/20/2010 ..................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Pinus albicaulis 

(Whitebark Pine) as Endangered or Threatened 

with Critical Habitat.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

75 FR 42033–42040. 

7/20/2010 ..................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Amargosa 

Toad as Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Not warranted.

75 FR 42040–42054. 

7/20/2010 ..................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Giant Palouse 

Earthworm (Driloleirus americanus) as Threatened 

or Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

75 FR 42059–42066. 

7/27/2010 ..................... Determination on Listing the Black-Breasted Puffleg 

as Endangered Throughout its Range; Final Rule.

Final Listing Endangered ................. 75 FR 43844–43853. 

7/27/2010 ..................... Final Rule to List the Medium Tree-Finch 

(Camarhynchus pauper) as Endangered Throughout Its Range.

Final Listing Endangered ................. 75 FR 43853–43864. 

8/3/2010 ....................... Determination of Threatened Status for Five Penguin 

Species.

Final Listing Threatened .................. 75 FR 45497–45527. 

8/4/2010 ....................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Mexican 

Gray Wolf as an Endangered Subspecies With Critical Habitat.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

75 FR 46894–46898. 

8/10/2010 ..................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Arctostaphylos 

franciscana as Endangered with Critical Habitat.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

75 FR 48294–48298. 

8/17/2010 ..................... Listing Three Foreign Bird Species from Latin America 

and the Caribbean as Endangered Throughout 

Their Range.

Final Listing Endangered ................. 75 FR 50813–50842. 

8/17/2010 ..................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Brian Head 

Mountainsnail as Endangered or Threatened with 

Critical Habitat.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Not substantial.

75 FR 50739–50742. 

8/24/2010 ..................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Oklahoma 

Grass Pink Orchid as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

75 FR 51969–51974. 

9/1/2010 ....................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the White-Sided 

Jackrabbit as Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Not warranted.

75 FR 53615–53629. 

9/8/2010 ....................... Proposed Rule To List the Ozark Hellbender Salamander as Endangered.Proposed Listing Endangered ......... 75 FR 54561–54579. 

9/8/2010 ....................... Revised 12-Month Finding to List the Upper Missouri 

River Distinct Population Segment of Arctic Grayling 

as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Warranted but precluded.

75 FR 54707–54753. 

9/9/2010 ....................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Jemez 

Mountains Salamander (Plethodon neomexicanus) 

as Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Warranted but precluded.

75 FR 54822–54845. 

9/15/2010 ..................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Sprague’s Pipit 

as Endangered or Threatened Throughout Its 

Range.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Warranted but precluded.

75 FR 56028–56050. 

9/22/2010 ..................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Agave 

eggersiana (no common name) as Endangered.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Warranted but precluded.

75 FR 57720–57734. 

9/28/2010 ..................... Determination of Endangered Status for the African 

Penguin.

Final Listing Endangered ................. 75 FR 59645–59656. 

9/28/2010 ..................... Determination for the Gunnison Sage-grouse as a 

Threatened or Endangered Species.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Warranted but precluded.

75 FR 59803–59863. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69234 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued 

Publication date Title Actions FR pages 

9/30/2010 ..................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Pygmy 

Rabbit as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Not warranted.

75 FR 60515–60561. 

Our expeditious progress also 

included work on listing actions that we 

funded in FY 2010 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 high-priority 

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, compared to preparing separate 

proposed rules for each of them in the 

future. 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED

Species Action 

Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement 

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

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

Mountain plover 3 .......................................................................................................................... Final listing determination. 

6 Birds from Peru ......................................................................................................................... Proposed listing determination. 

Sacramento splittail ...................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Pacific walrus ................................................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Wolverine ...................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Solanum conocarpum ................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Desert tortoise—Sonoran population ........................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

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

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

Actions with Statutory Deadlines 

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

Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail ......................................................... Final listing determination. 

7 Bird species from Brazil ............................................................................................................ Final listing determination. 

Southern rockhopper penguin—Campbell Plateau population .................................................... 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).

Final listing determination. 

Salmon crested cockatoo ............................................................................................................. Proposed listing determination. 

CA golden trout ............................................................................................................................ 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. 

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. 

2 CO plants (Astragalus microcymbus, Astragalus schmolliae) 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) .............................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

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

Wrights marsh thistle .................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

67 of 475 southwest species ........................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

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

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

Rattlesnake-master borer moth (from 475 species petition) ........................................................ 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69235 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued 

Species Action 

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 .................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

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

Ozark chinquapin (Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis) ................................................................. 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. 

Southeastern pop snowy plover & 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. 

Bay Springs salamander 1 ............................................................................................................ 90-day petition finding. 

32 species of snails and slugs 1 ................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

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

Red knot roselaari subspecies ..................................................................................................... 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 ................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

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

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

High-Priority Listing Actions 3

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. 

Dune sagebrush lizard (formerly Sand dune lizard) 3 (LPN = 2) ................................................. Proposed listing. 

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

New Mexico springsnail 2 (Pyrgulopsis chupaderae (LPN = 2)) .................................................. Proposed listing. 

2 mussels 2 (rayed bean (LPN = 2), snuffbox No LPN) ............................................................... Proposed listing. 

2 mussels 2 (sheepnose (LPN = 2), spectaclecase (LPN = 4)). Proposed listing. 

Altamaha spinymussel 2 (LPN = 2) .............................................................................................. Proposed listing. 

8 southeast 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)).

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; also will be funded with FY 2011 funds. 

We also funded work on resubmitted 

petitions findings for 162 candidate 

species (species petitioned prior to the 

last CNOR). We did not include new 

information in our resubmitted petition 

finding for the Columbia Basin 

population of the greater sage-grouse in 

this notice, as the significance of the 

Columbia Basin DPS to the greater sagegrouse will require further review and 

we will update our finding at a later 

date (see 75 FR 13909; March 23, 2010). 

We also did not include new 

information in our resubmitted petition 

findings for the 43 candidate species for 

which we are preparing proposed listing 

determinations; see summaries below 

regarding publication of these 

determinations (these species will 

remain on the candidate list until a 

proposed listing rule is published). We 

also funded a revised 12-month petition 

finding for the 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 species 

were already candidate species prior to 

our receipt of a petition to list them, we 

had already assessed their status using 

funds from our Candidate Conservation 

Program. We also continue to monitor 

the status of these species through our 

Candidate Conservation Program. The 

cost of updating the species assessment 

forms and publishing the joint 

publication of the CNOR and 

resubmitted petition findings is shared 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69236 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

between the Listing Program and the 

Candidate Conservation Program. 

During FY 2010, we also funded work 

on resubmitted petition findings for 

uplisting six listed species, for which 

petitions were previously received. 

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, the 

actions described above collectively 

constitute expeditious progress. 

Although we have not been able to 

resolve the listing status of many of the 

candidates, several programs in the 

Service contribute to the conservation of 

these species. In particular, the 

Candidate Conservation program, which 

is separately budgeted, focuses on 

providing technical expertise for 

developing conservation strategies and 

agreements to guide voluntary on-theground conservation work for candidate 

and other at-risk species. The main goal 

of this program is to address the threats 

facing candidate species. Through this 

program, we work with our partners 

(other Federal agencies, State agencies, 

Tribes, local governments, private 

landowners, and private conservation 

organizations) to address the threats to 

candidate species and other species atrisk. We are currently working with our 

partners to implement voluntary 

conservation agreements for more than 

140 species covering 5 million acres of 

habitat. In some instances, the sustained 

implementation of strategically 

designed conservation efforts 

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, pursuant to section 

4(b)(3)(B). We are making continued 

warranted-but-precluded 12-month 

findings on the petitions for these 

species (for our revised 12-month 

petition findings for species we are 

removing from candidate status, see 

summaries above under ‘‘Candidate 

Removals’’). 

Mammals 

Florida bonneted bat (Eumops 

floridanus)—The following summary is 

based on information in our files. No 

new information was presented in the 

petition received on January 29, 2010. 

Endemic to south Florida, this species 

has been found at 12 locations, 5 on 

private land and 7 on public land. The 

entire population may number less than 

a few hundred individuals. Results from 

a rangewide acoustical survey found a 

small number of locations where calls 

were recorded, and low numbers of calls 

were recorded at each location. Few 

active roost sites are known; all are 

artificial (i.e., bat houses). Prolonged 

cold temperatures in January and 

February 2010 affected one active roost; 

it is not clear what effect the prolonged 

cold had on the species. Efforts are 

under way to confirm presence at all 

previously documented sites. 

Occurrences are threatened by loss 

and conversion of habitat to other uses 

and habitat alteration (e.g., removal of 

old trees with cavities, removal of 

manmade structures with suitable 

roosting sites); this threat is expected to 

continue and increase. Although 

occurrences on conservation lands are 

inherently more protected than those on 

private lands, habitat alteration during 

management practices may affect 

natural roosting sites even on 

conservation lands if Florida bonneted 

bats are present but undetected. 

Therefore, occupied and potential 

habitat on forested or wooded lands, 

both private and public, continues to be 

at risk. The species is vulnerable to a 

wide array of natural and human 

factors: Low population size, restricted 

range, low fecundity, large distances 

between occupied locations, and small 

number of occupied locations. Such 

factors may make recolonization 

unlikely if any site is extirpated and 

may make the species vulnerable to 

extinction due to genetic drift, 

inbreeding depression, extreme weather 

events, and random or chance changes 

to the environment. Where the species 

occurs in or near human dwellings or 

structures, it is at risk to persecution, 

removal, and disturbance. Disturbance 

from humans, either intentional or 

inadvertent, can occur at any of the 

occurrences of this bat on either private 

or conservation lands. Disturbance of 

maternity roosts is of particular concern 

due to this species’ low fecundity and 

small population. Pesticide applications 

may be affecting its foraging base, 

especially in coastal areas. 

Due to its overall vulnerability, 

intense hurricanes are a significant 

threat; this threat is expected to 

continue or increase in the future. 

Intense storms can cause mortality 

during the storm, exposure to predation 

immediately following the storm, loss of 

roost sites, impacts on foraging areas 

and insect abundance, and disruption of 

the maternal period. Prolonged periods 

of cold temperatures may have severe 

impacts on the population and increase 

risks from other threats by weakening 

individuals, extirpating colonies, or 

further reducing colony sizes. Although 

disease is a significant threat for other 

bat species, it is not known to be a 

threat for the Florida bonneted bat at 

this time. The protection currently 

afforded the Florida bonneted bat is 

limited, provides little protection to the 

species’ occupied habitat, and includes 

no provisions to protect suitable but 

unoccupied habitat within the vicinity 

of known colony sites. Overall, we find 

the magnitude of threats is high due to 

the severity of the threats on this 

species. We find that most of the threats 

are currently occurring and, 

consequently, overall, threats are 

imminent. Therefore, we assigned an 

LPN of 2 to this species. 

Pacific Sheath-tailed Bat, American 

Samoa DPS (Emballonura semicaudata 

semicaudata)—The following summary 

is based on information contained in 

our files. No new information was 

provided in the petition we received on 

May 11, 2004. This small bat is a 

member of the Emballonuridae, an Old 

World bat family that has an extensive 

distribution, primarily in the tropics. 

The Pacific sheath-tailed bat was once 

common and widespread in Polynesia 

and Micronesia and it is the only 

insectivorous bat recorded from a large 

part of this area. The species as a whole 

(E. semicaudata) occurred on several of 

the Caroline Islands (Palau, Chuuk, and 

Pohnpei), Samoa (Independent and 

American), the Mariana Islands (Guam 

and the 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 distinct population segment (DPS) of 

E. s. semicaudata that occurs in 

American Samoa. 

E. s. semicaudata historically 

occurred in American and Independent 

Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, and Vanuatu. It is 

extant in Fiji and Tonga, but may be 

extirpated from Vanuatu and 

Independent Samoa. There is some 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69237 

concern that it is also extirpated from 

American Samoa, the location of this 

DPS, where surveys are currently 

ongoing to ascertain its status. The 

factors that led to the decline of this 

subspecies and the DPS are poorly 

understood; however, current threats to 

this subspecies and the DPS include 

habitat loss, predation by introduced 

species, and its small population size 

and distribution, which make the taxon 

extremely vulnerable to extinction due 

to typhoons and similar natural 

catastrophes. Thus, the threats are high 

in magnitude. The Pacific sheath-tailed 

bat may also by susceptible to 

disturbance to roosting caves. The LPN 

for E. s. semicaudata is 3 because the 

magnitude of the threats is high, the 

threats are ongoing, and therefore, 

imminent, and the taxon is a distinct 

population segment of a subspecies. 

Pacific Sheath-tailed Bat 

(Emballonura semicaudata rotensis), 

Guam and the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

This small bat is a member of the 

Emballonuridae, an Old World bat 

family that has an extensive 

distribution, primarily in the tropics. 

The Pacific sheath-tailed bat was once 

common and widespread in Polynesia 

and Micronesia and it is the only 

insectivorous bat recorded from a large 

part of this area. E. s. rotensis is 

historically known from the Mariana 

Islands and formerly occurred on Guam 

and in the CNMI on Rota, Aguiguan, 

Tinian (known from prehistoric records 

only), Saipan, and possibly Anatahan 

and Maug. Currently, E. s. rotensis 

appears to be extirpated from all but one 

island in the Mariana archipelago. The 

single remaining population of this 

subspecies occurs on Aguiguan, CNMI. 

Threats to this subspecies have not 

changed over the past year. The primary 

threats to the subspecies are ongoing 

habitat loss and degradation as a result 

of feral goat (Capra hircus) activity on 

the island of Aguiguan and the taxon’s 

small population size and limited 

distribution. Predation by nonnative 

species and human disturbance are also 

potential threats to the subspecies. The 

subspecies is believed near the point 

where stochastic events, such as 

typhoons, are increasingly likely to 

affect its continued survival. The 

disappearance of the remaining 

population on Aguiguan would result in 

the extinction of the subspecies. Thus, 

the threats are high in magnitude. The 

LPN for E. s. rotensis remains at 3 

because the magnitude of the threats is 

high, the threats are ongoing, and 

therefore, imminent, and the taxon is a 

subspecies. 

New England cottontail (Sylvilagus 

transitionalis)—The following summary 

is based on information contained in 

our files and information received in 

response to our notice published on 

June 30, 2004, when we announced our 

90-day petition finding and initiation of 

a status review (69 FR 39395). We 

received the petition on August 30, 

2000. The New England cottontail (NEC) 

is a medium-to-large sized cottontail 

rabbit that may reach 1,000 grams in 

weight, and is one of two species within 

the genus Sylvilagus occurring in New 

England. New England cottontails are 

considered habitat specialists, in so far 

as they are dependent upon earlysuccessional habitats typically 

described as thickets. The species is the 

only endemic cottontail in New 

England. Historically, the NEC occurred 

in seven States and ranged from 

southeastern New York (east of the 

Hudson River) north through the 

Champlain Valley, southern Vermont, 

the southern half of New Hampshire, 

southern Maine, and south throughout 

Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode 

Island. The current range of the NEC has 

declined substantially and occurrences 

have become increasingly separated. 

The species’ distribution is fragmented 

into five apparently isolated 

metapopulations. The area occupied by 

the cottontail has contracted from 

approximately 90,000 sq km to 12,180 

sq km. Recent surveys indicate that the 

longterm decline in NEC continues. For 

example, surveys for the species in early 

2008 documented the presence of NEC 

in 7 of the 23 New Hampshire locations 

that were known to be occupied in 2002 

and 2003. Similarly, surveys in Maine 

found the species present in 12 of 57 

sites identified in an extensive survey 

that spanned the years 2000 to 2004. 

Unlike the New Hampshire study, 

several new sites were documented in 

Maine during 2008. Some have 

suggested that the decline in NEC 

occurrences in 2008 may be attributed 

to persistent snow cover throughout 

northern New England during the 

winter of 2007–2008. Similar surveys 

were conducted during the winter of 

2009 in Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode 

Island, and New York. The results are 

pending further analysis. It is estimated 

that less than one-third of the occupied 

sites occur on lands in conservation 

status and fewer than 10 percent are 

being managed for early-successional 

forest species. 

The primary threat to the New 

England cottontail is loss of habitat 

through succession and alteration. 

Isolation of occupied patches by areas of 

unsuitable habitat and high predation 

rates are resulting in local extirpation of 

New England cottontails from small 

patches. The range of the New England 

cottontail has contracted by 75 percent 

or more since 1960 and current land 

uses in the region indicate that the rate 

of change, about 2 percent range loss per 

year, will continue. Additional threats 

include competition for food and habitat 

with introduced eastern cottontails and 

large numbers of native white-tailed 

deer; inadequate regulatory mechanisms 

to protect habitat; and mortality from 

predation. The magnitude of the threats 

continues to be high, because they occur 

rangewide, and have a severe negative 

effect on the survival of the species. 

They are imminent because they are 

ongoing. Thus, we retained an LPN of 2 

for this species. Conservation measures 

that address the threats to the species 

are being developed. 

Fisher, West Coast DPS (Martes 

pennanti)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files and in the Service’s initial 

warranted-but-precluded finding 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 8, 2004 (68 FR 18770). The fisher 

is a carnivore in the family Mustelidae 

and is the largest member of the genus 

Martes. Historically, the West Coast 

population of the fisher extended south 

from British Columbia into western 

Washington and Oregon, and in the 

North Coast Ranges, Klamath-Siskiyou 

Mountains, and Sierra Nevada in 

California. Because of a lack of 

detections with standardized survey 

efforts over much of the fisher’s 

historical range, the fisher is believed to 

be extirpated or reduced to scattered 

individuals from the lower mainland of 

British Columbia through Washington 

and northern Oregon and in the central 

and northern Sierra Nevada in 

California. Native extant populations of 

fisher are isolated to the North Coast of 

California, the Klamath-Siskiyou 

Mountains of northern California and 

southern Oregon, and the southern 

Sierra Nevada in California. 

Descendents of a fisher reintroduction 

effort also occur in the southern 

Cascades in Oregon. The Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife in 

conjunction with the Olympic National 

Park has completed the third year of a 

reintroduction effort as the State’s first 

step in implementing their recover goals 

for fisher. The California Department of 

Fish and Game and other collaborators 

began the first year of their translocation 

efforts into the northern Sierra Nevada 

during the winter of 2009–2010. 

Estimates of fisher numbers in native 

populations of the West Coast DPS vary 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69238 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

widely. A rigorous monitoring program 

is lacking for the northern California 

southern Oregon and southern Oregon 

Cascades populations, making estimates 

of fisher numbers for these two 

populations difficult. The fisher 

monitoring program in the southern 

Sierra Nevada population has provided 

preliminary estimates indicating no 

decline in the index of abundance 

within the monitored portion of the 

population. There is a high degree of 

genetic relatedness within some 

populations. The two populations of 

native fisher in the northern California 

southern Oregon and southern Sierra 

Nevada are separated by four times the 

species’ maximum dispersal distance. 

The extant fisher populations are either 

small (southern Sierra Nevada and 

southern Oregon Cascades) and are 

isolated from one another or both. 

Major threats that fragment or remove 

key elements of fisher habitat include 

various forest vegetation management 

practices such as timber harvest and 

fuels-reduction treatments. Other 

potential major threats in portions of the 

range include: Large stand-replacing 

wildfires, changes in forest composition 

and structure related to climate change 

effects, forest and fuels management, 

and urban and rural development. 

Threats to fishers that lead to direct 

mortality and injury include: Collisions 

with vehicles; predation; and viral 

borne diseases such as rabies, 

parvovirus, and canine distemper. 

Existing regulatory mechanisms on 

Federal, State, and private lands do not 

provide sufficient protection for the key 

elements of fisher habitat, or the 

certainty that conservation efforts will 

be effective or implemented. The 

magnitude of threats is high as they 

occur across the range of the DPS 

resulting in a negative impact on fisher 

distribution and abundance. However, 

the threats are nonimminent as the 

greatest long-term risks to the fisher in 

its west coast range are the subsequent 

ramifications of the isolation of small 

populations and their interactions with 

the listed threats. The three remaining 

areas containing fisher populations 

appear to be stable or not rapidly 

declining based on recent survey and 

monitoring efforts. Therefore, we 

assigned an LPN of 6 to this DPS. 

New Mexico meadow jumping mouse 

(Zapus hudsonius luteus)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files and 

the petition we received October 15, 

2008. The New Mexico meadow 

jumping mouse (jumping mouse) is 

endemic to New Mexico, Arizona, and 

a small area of southern Colorado. The 

jumping mouse nests in dry soils but 

uses moist, streamside, dense riparian/ 

wetland vegetation. Recent genetic 

studies confirm that the New Mexico 

meadow jumping mouse is a distinct 

subspecies from other Zapus hudsonius 

subspecies, confirming the currently 

accepted subspecies designation. 

The threats that have been identified 

are excessive grazing pressure, water 

use and management, highway 

reconstruction, development, recreation, 

and beaver removal. 

Since the early to mid-1990s over 100 

historical localities have been surveyed. 

Currently only 24 are extant, 11 in New 

Mexico (including one that is 

contiguous with the Colorado locality) 

and 13 in Arizona. Moreover, the highly 

fragmented nature of its distribution is 

also a major contributor to the 

vulnerability of this species and 

increases the likelihood of very small, 

isolated populations being extirpated. 

The insufficient number of secure 

populations, and the destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat, continue to pose the most 

immediate threats to this species. 

Because the threats affect the jumping 

mouse in all but two of the extant 

localities, the threats are of a high 

magnitude. These threats are currently 

occurring and, therefore, are imminent. 

Thus, we continue to assign an LPN of 

3 to this subspecies. 

Mazama pocket gopher (Thomomys 

mazama ssp. couchi, douglasii, 

glacialis, louiei, melanops, pugetensis, 

tacomensis, tumuli, yelmensis)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition received December 11, 2002. 

Seven of the nine subspecies of pocket 

gopher are associated with glacial 

outwash prairies in western Washington 

(T. m. melanops is found on alpine 

meadows in Olympic National Park, and 

T. m. oregonus is found in extreme 

southwest Washington). Of these seven 

subspecies, five are likely still extant 

(couchi, glacialis, pugetensis, tumuli, 

and yelmensis). Few of these glacial 

outwash prairies remain in Washington 

today. Historically, such prairies were 

patchily distributed, but the area they 

occupied totaled approximately 170,000 

acres (Stinson 2005). Now, residential 

and commercial development and ingrowth of woody and/or nonnative 

vegetation have further reduced their 

numbers. In addition, development in or 

adjacent to these prairies has likely 

increased predation on Mazama pocket 

gophers by dogs and cats. 

The magnitude of threat is high due 

to populations with patchy and isolated 

distributions in habitats highly desirable 

for development and subject to a wide 

variety of human activities that 

permanently alter the habitat. The threat 

of invasive plant species to the quality 

of a highly specific habitat requirement 

is high and constant. There are few 

known populations of each subspecies. 

A limited dispersal capability, and the 

loss and degradation of additional 

patches of appropriate habitat will 

further isolate populations and increase 

their vulnerability to extinction. Loss of 

any of the subspecies will reduce the 

genetic diversity and the likelihood of 

continued existence of the T. mazama 

subspecies complex in Washington. 

The threats are imminent. Two of the 

subspecies (Cathlamet and Tacoma) are 

likely extinct. The status of T. m. 

douglasii is unknown, but its location in 

a matrix of towns means it’s threatened 

by encroaching development. Two 

gravel pits are operating on part of the 

remaining Roy Prairie pocket gopher 

habitat, and another one occurs in the 

area of the Tenino pocket gopher. The 

largest populations of two other 

subspecies (Shelton and Olympia) are 

located on airports with planned 

development. Yelm pocket gophers are 

also threatened by proposed 

development. Due to its low genetic 

diversity, isolation, and potential for 

natural habitat alterations in the future, 

T. m. melanops (Olympic pocket 

gopher) is susceptible to stochastic 

events and small population effects 

such as genetic drift and founder effects. 

Thus, we assign an LPN of 3 to these 

subspecies. 

Gunnison’s prairie dog (Cynomys 

gunnisoni)—This species occurs in 

Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and 

Utah. However, only the significant 

portion of the range in the montane 

portions of central and south central 

Colorado and north central New Mexico 

is included on our list of candidates. 

Within this portion of the range, plague 

has significantly reduced the number 

and size of populations, resulting in 

considerable effects to the species. 

Populations within montane habitat 

have distinct disadvantages in resisting 

the effects of plague due to a high 

abundance of fleas that spread plague, 

small populations that cannot recover in 

numbers from plague epizootics, and 

isolated populations that limit the 

ability to recolonize. Poisoning and 

shooting continue to be threats to the 

Gunnison’s prairie dog within the 

montane portion of its range and 

contribute to the decline of the species 

when combined with the effects of 

disease. Agriculture, urbanization, 

roads, and oil and gas development each 

currently affect a small percentage of 

Gunnison’s prairie dog habitat. Plague is 

significantly affecting the remaining 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69239 

small, isolated populations. Plague 

epizootics can extirpate populations 

there within a short timeframe (3 to 10 

years). We have assigned an LPN of 3 to 

this species due to imminent threats of 

a high magnitude in a significant 

portion of its range. 

Southern Idaho ground squirrel 

(Spermophilus brunneus endemicus)— 

The following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

The southern Idaho ground squirrel is 

endemic to four counties in southwest 

Idaho; its total known range is 

approximately 425,630 hectares 

(1,051,752 acres). Threats to southern 

Idaho ground squirrels include: Habitat 

degradation and fragmentation; direct 

killing from shooting, trapping, or 

poisoning; predation; competition with 

Columbian ground squirrels; and 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms. Habitat degradation and 

fragmentation appear to be the primary 

threats to the species. Nonnative 

annuals now dominate much of this 

species’ range, have changed the species 

composition of vegetation used as forage 

for the southern Idaho ground squirrel, 

and have altered the fire regime by 

accelerating the frequency of wildfire. 

Habitat deterioration, destruction, and 

fragmentation contribute to the current 

patchy distribution of southern Idaho 

ground squirrels. Based on recent 

genetic work, southern Idaho ground 

squirrels are subject to more genetic 

drift and inbreeding than expected. 

Two Candidate Conservation 

Agreements with Assurances (CCAAs) 

have been completed for this species in 

recent years. Both CCAAs include 

conservation measures that provide 

additional protection to southern Idaho 

ground squirrels from recreational 

shooting and other direct killing on 

enrolled lands, and also allow the State 

of Idaho, the Service, and BLM to 

investigate ways of restoring currently 

degraded habitat. At this time, the 

acreage enrolled through these two 

CCAAs is 38,756 ha (95,767 ac), or 

9 percent of the known range 

approximately. While the ongoing 

conservation efforts have helped to 

reduce the magnitude of threats to 

moderate, habitat degradation remains 

the primary threat to the species 

throughout most of its range. This threat 

is imminent due to the ongoing and 

increasing prevalence and dominance of 

nonnative vegetation, and the current 

patchy distribution of the species. Thus, 

we assign an LPN of 9 to this 

subspecies. 

Washington ground squirrel 

(Spermophilus washingtoni)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files and 

in the petition we received on March 2, 

2000. The Washington ground squirrel 

is endemic to the Deschutes–Columbia 

Plateau sagebrush-steppe and grassland 

communities in eastern Oregon and 

south-central Washington. Although 

widely abundant historically, recent 

surveys suggest that its current range 

has contracted toward the center of its 

historical range. Approximately twothirds of the Washington ground 

squirrel’s total historical range has been 

converted to agricultural and residential 

uses. The most contiguous, leastdisturbed expanse of suitable habitat 

within the species’ range occurs on a 

site owned by Boeing, Inc. and on the 

Naval Weapons Systems Training 

Facility near Boardman, Oregon. In 

Washington, the largest expanse of 

known suitable habitat occurs on State 

and Federal lands. 

Agricultural, residential, and 

windpower development, among other 

forms of development, continue to 

eliminate Washington ground squirrel 

habitat in portions of its range. 

Throughout much of its range, 

Washington ground squirrels are 

threatened by the establishment and 

spread of invasive plant species, 

particularly cheatgrass, which alter 

available cover and food quantity and 

quality, and increase fire intervals. 

Additional threats include habitat 

fragmentation, recreational shooting, 

genetic isolation and drift, and 

predation. Potential threats include 

disease, drought, and possible 

competition with related species in 

disturbed habitat at the periphery of 

their range. In Oregon, some threats are 

being addressed as a result of the State 

listing of this species, and by 

implementation of the Threemile 

Canyon Farms Multi-Species Candidate 

Conservation Agreement with 

Assurances (CCAA). In Washington, 

there are currently no formal agreements 

with private landowners or with State or 

Federal agencies to protect the 

Washington ground squirrel. 

Additionally, no State or Federal 

management plans have been developed 

that specifically address the needs of the 

species or its habitat. Since current and 

potential threats are widespread and, in 

some cases, severe, we conclude the 

magnitude of threats remains high. The 

Washington ground squirrel has both 

imminent and nonimminent threats. At 

a range-wide scale, we conclude the 

threats are nonimminent based largely 

on the following: The CCAA addressed 

the imminent loss of a large portion of 

habitat to agriculture, there are no other 

large-scale efforts to convert suitable 

habitat to agriculture, and windpower 

project impacts can be minimized 

through compliance with the Oregon 

State Endangered Species Act (OESA) 

and/or the Columbia Basin Ecoregion 

wind energy siting and permitting 

guidelines. We also consider the 

potential development of shooting 

ranges on the Naval Weapons Systems 

Training Facility as nonimminent 

because the proposed action is still 

being developed, making us unable to 

assess its timing and impact, which 

could be minimized through 

compliance with the OESA. We, 

therefore, have retained an LPN of 5 for 

this species. 

Birds 

Spotless crake, American Samoa DPS 

(Porzana tabuensis)—The following 

summary is based on information 

contained in our files. No new 

information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Porzana tabuensis is a small, dark, 

cryptic rail found in wetlands and rank 

scrub or forest in the Philippines, 

Australia, Fiji, Tonga, Society Islands, 

Marquesas, Independent Samoa, and 

American Samoa (Ofu, Tau). The genus 

Porzana is widespread in the Pacific, 

where it is represented by numerous 

island-endemic and flightless species 

(many of which are extinct as a result 

of anthropogenic disturbances) as well 

as several more cosmopolitan species, 

including P. tabuensis. No subspecies of 

P. tabuensis are recognized. 

The American Samoa population is 

the only population of spotless crakes 

under U.S. jurisdiction. The available 

information indicates that distinct 

populations of the spotless crake, a 

species not noted for long-distance 

dispersal, are definable. The population 

of spotless crakes in American Samoa is 

discrete in relation to the remainder of 

the species as a whole, which is 

distributed in widely separated 

locations. Although the spotless crake 

(and other rails) have dispersed widely 

in the Pacific, island rails have tended 

to reduce or lose their power of flight 

over evolutionary time and so become 

isolated (and vulnerable to terrestrial 

predators such as rats). The population 

of this species in American Samoa is 

therefore distinct based on geographic 

and distributional isolation from 

spotless crake populations on other 

islands in the oceanic Pacific, the 

Philippines, and Australia. The 

American Samoa population of the 

spotless crake links the Central and 

Eastern Pacific portions of the species’ 

range. The loss of this population would 

result in an increase of roughly 500 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69240 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

miles (805 kilometers) in the distance 

between the central and eastern 

Polynesian portions of the spotless 

crake’s range, and could result in the 

isolation of the Marquesas and Society 

Islands populations by further limiting 

the potential for even rare genetic 

exchange. Based on the discreteness and 

significance of the American Samoa 

population of the spotless crake, we 

consider this population to be a distinct 

vertebrate population segment. 

Threats to this population have not 

changed over the past year. The 

population in American Samoa is 

threatened by small population size, 

limited distribution, predation by 

nonnative mammals, 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), along with the 

extremely restricted observed 

distribution and low numbers, indicate 

that the magnitude of the threats to the 

American Samoa DPS of the spotless 

crake continues to be high, because the 

threats significantly affect the species 

survival. The threats are ongoing, and 

therefore imminent. Based on this 

assessment of existing information 

about the imminence and high 

magnitude of these threats, we assigned 

the spotless crake an LPN of 3. 

Yellow-billed cuckoo, western U.S. 

DPS (Coccyzus americanus)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files and 

the petition we received on February 9, 

1998. See also our 12-month petition 

finding published on July 25, 2001 (66 

FR 38611). The yellow-billed cuckoo is 

a medium-sized bird of about 12 inches 

(30 centimeters) in length with a 

slender, long-tailed profile and a fairly 

stout and slightly down-curved bill. 

Plumage is grayish-brown above and 

white below, with rufous primary flight 

feathers with the tail feathers boldly 

patterned with black and white below. 

Western cuckoos breed in large blocks 

of riparian habitats (particularly 

woodlands with cottonwoods (Populus 

fremontii) and willows (Salix sp.). 

Dense understory foliage appears to be 

an important factor in nest-site 

selection, while cottonwood trees are an 

important foraging habitat in areas 

where the species has been studied in 

California. We consider the yellowbilled cuckoos that occur in the western 

United States as a distinct population 

segment (DPS). The area for this DPS is 

west of the crest of the Rocky 

Mountains. 

The threats currently facing the 

yellow-billed cuckoo include habitat 

loss, over-grazing, and pesticide 

application. Principal causes of riparian 

habitat losses are conversion to 

agricultural and other uses, dams and 

river-flow management, stream 

channelization and stabilization, and 

livestock grazing. Available breeding 

habitats for cuckoos have also been 

substantially reduced in area and 

quality by groundwater pumping and 

the replacement of native riparian 

habitats by invasive nonnative plants, 

particularly tamarisk. Overuse by 

livestock has been a major factor in the 

degradation and modification of 

riparian habitats in the western United 

States. The effects include changes in 

plant community structure and species 

composition and in relative abundance 

of species and plant density. These 

changes are often linked to more 

widespread changes in watershed 

hydrology. Livestock grazing in riparian 

habitats typically results in reduction of 

plant species diversity and density, 

especially of palatable broadleaf plants 

like willows and cottonwood saplings, 

and is one of the most common causes 

of riparian degradation. In addition to 

destruction and degradation of riparian 

habitats, pesticides may affect cuckoo 

populations. In areas where riparian 

habitat borders agricultural lands— e.g., 

in California’s Central Valley— 

pesticide use may indirectly affect 

cuckoos by reducing prey numbers, or 

by poisoning nestlings if sprayed 

directly in areas where the birds are 

nesting. A group comprised of Federal, 

State, and nongovernmental agencies 

organized by the Service (Region 8, 

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office) is 

in the process of completing a 

rangewide conservation assessment and 

strategy for the Western yellow-billed 

cuckoo. The assessment is in early 

stages of development, with work 

beginning on a conservation strategy 

expected in 2011. The LPN for the 

yellow-billed cuckoo remains a 3, with 

imminent threats of high magnitude. 

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 subspecies have 

not changed over the past year. 

Predation by nonnative species and 

natural catastrophes such as hurricanes 

are the primary threats to the 

subspecies. Of these, predation by 

nonnative species is thought to be 

occurring now and likely has been 

occurring for several decades. This 

predation may be an important 

impediment to increasing the 

population. Predation by introduced 

species has played a significant role in 

reducing, limiting, and extirpating 

populations of island birds, especially 

ground-nesters like the friendly grounddove, in the Pacific and other locations 

worldwide. Nonnative predators known 

or thought to occur in the range of the 

friendly ground-dove in American 

Samoa are feral cats (Felis catus), 

Polynesian rats (Rattus exulans), black 

rats (R. rattus), and Norway rats (R. 

norvegicus). 

In January 2004 and February of 2005, 

hurricanes virtually destroyed the 

habitat of G. stairi in the area on Olosega 

Island that the species had been most 

frequently recorded. Although this 

species has coexisted with severe storms 

for millennia, this example illustrates 

the potential for natural disturbance to 

exacerbate the 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 is poorly known, but is unlikely to 

number more than a few hundred pairs. 

The distribution of the friendly grounddove is limited to steep, forested slopes 

with an open understory and a substrate 

of fine scree or exposed earth; this 

habitat is not common in American 

Samoa. The threats are ongoing and, 

therefore, imminent and the magnitude 

is moderate because the relative 

abundance has remained the same for 

several years. Thus, we assign this 

subspecies an LPN of 9. 

Streaked horned lark (Eremophila 

alpestris strigata)—The following 

summary is based on information 

contained in our files. No new 

information was provided in the 

petition we received on December 11, 

2002. The streaked horned lark occurs 

in Washington and Oregon, and is 

thought to be extirpated in British 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69241 

Columbia, Canada. The streaked horned 

lark nests on bare ground in sparsely 

vegetated sites in short-grass dominated 

habitats, such as native prairies, coastal 

dunes, fallow and active agricultural 

fields, seasonal wetlands, moderately- to 

heavily-grazed pastures, seasonal 

mudflats, airports, and dredgedeposition sites in and along the tidal 

reach of the Columbia River. In 

Washington, surveys show that there are 

approximately 330 remaining breeding 

birds. In Oregon, the breeding 

population is estimated to be over 500 

birds. 

The streaked horned lark’s breeding 

habitat continues to be threatened by 

loss and degradation due to conversion 

of native grasslands to other uses (such 

as agriculture, homes, recreational areas, 

and industry), encroachment of woody 

vegetation, invasion of nonnative plant 

species (e.g., Scot’s broom, sod-forming 

grasses, and beachgrasses), and 

dredging-related activities. Native 

prairies have been nearly eliminated 

throughout the range of the species. It is 

estimated that less than 1 to 3 percent 

of the native grassland and savanna 

remains. And those that remain have 

been invaded by nonnative sod-forming 

grasses. Coastal nesting areas have 

suffered the same fate. A recent 

purchase of prairie lands in Washington 

has secured habitat that would have 

been developed. Its status as suitable 

lark nesting habitat is unknown. 

Wintering habitats are seemingly few, 

and are susceptible to unpredictable 

conversion to unsuitable over-wintering 

habitat, plant succession, and invasion 

by nonnative plants. Where larks 

inhabit manmade habitats similar in 

structure to native prairies (such as 

airports, military reservations, 

agricultural fields, and dredge-formed 

islands), or where they occur adjacent to 

human habitation, they are subjected to 

a variety of unintentional human 

disturbances. These include mowing, 

recreational and military activities, 

plowing, flooding, and dredge-material 

deposition during the nesting season, as 

well as intentional disturbances such as 

at the Joint Base Lewis–McChord Field 

where falcons and a dog are used to 

haze birds in order to avoid aircraft 

collisions, and the biennial (but 

opposite year) RODEO and Air Expo 

events that occur on or adjacent to lark 

nesting habitat. In some areas, 

landowners have taken steps to improve 

streaked horned lark nesting habitat. 

The magnitude of threat is high due 

to small populations with low genetic 

diversity, rapidly declining populations, 

and patchy and isolated habitats in 

areas desirable for development, many 

of which remain unsecured. The threat 

of invasive plant species is high and 

constant, aside from a few restoration 

sites. The numbers of individuals are 

low and the numbers of populations are 

few. In addition, estimates of lambda 

using data from all Washington sites 

suggest a rapidly declining population. 

Over-wintering birds are concentrated 

in larger flocks and subject to 

unpredictable wintering habitat loss 

(especially in Oregon), potentially 

affecting a large portion of the 

population at one time. In Washington, 

known populations occur on airports, 

military bases, coastal beaches, and 

Columbia River islands, where 

management, training activities, 

recreation, and dredge-material 

deposition continue to negatively 

impact streaked horned lark breeding 

and wintering (although current work 

being conducted by TNC may ultimately 

lessen this last threat). In Oregon, 

breeding and wintering sites occur on 

Columbia River islands, in cultivated 

grass fields, grazed pastures, fallow 

fields, roadside shoulders, Christmas 

tree farms, seasonal wetlands, restored 

wet prairie, and wetland mudflats. Such 

areas continue to be subject to negative 

impacts such as dredge material 

deposition, development, plowing, 

mowing, pesticide and herbicide 

applications, trampling, vehicle traffic, 

and recreation. 

The threats are imminent, as a result 

of continued loss of suitable lark 

habitat, high nest-predation rates, low 

adult survival, and low fecundity. Low 

adult survival and fecundity rates in the 

Puget lowlands are of particular 

concern. Loss of habitat is being caused 

by development on and adjacent to 

several of its nesting areas, including 

continued expansions of the Fort Lewis 

Gray Army Airfield West Ramp and the 

Olympia Airport. Wintering populations 

are at risk in Oregon due to the manner 

in which larks gather in large flocks that 

are vulnerable to stochastic events, and 

also due to the fact that their wintering 

habitat occurs on privately owned 

agricultural lands that are subject to 

unpredictable conversion. Other 

ongoing threats include those occurring 

on the Joint Base Lewis-McChord Field 

(hazing birds off the airfields, RODEO, 

and Air Expo). Based on imminent 

threats of a high magnitude, we 

continue to assign an LPN of 3 to this 

subspecies. 

Red knot (Calidris canutus rufa)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files and 

information provided by petitioners. 

Four petitions to emergency list the red 

knot have been received: One on August 

9, 2004, two others on August 5, 2005, 

and the most recent on February 27, 

2008. The rufa subspecies is one of six 

recognized subspecies of red knot, and 

one of three subspecies occurring in 

North America. This subspecies makes 

one of the longest-distance migrations 

known in the animal kingdom, as it 

travels between breeding areas in the 

central Canadian Arctic and wintering 

areas that are primarily in southern 

South America along the coast of Chile 

and Argentina. They migrate along the 

Atlantic coast of the United States, 

where they may be found from Maine to 

Florida. 

The Delaware Bay area (in Delaware 

and New Jersey) is the largest known 

spring migration stopover area, with far 

fewer migrants congregating elsewhere 

along the Atlantic coast. The 

concentration in the Delaware Bay area 

occurs from the middle of May to early 

June, corresponding to the spawning 

season of horseshoe crabs. The knots 

feed on horseshoe crab eggs, rebuilding 

energy reserves needed to complete 

migrations to the Arctic and arrive on 

the breeding grounds in good condition. 

In the past, horseshoe crab eggs at 

Delaware Bay were so numerous that a 

knot could dependably eat enough in 

two to three weeks to double its weight. 

Surveys at wintering areas and at 

Delaware Bay during spring migration 

indicate a substantial decline in the red 

knot in recent years. At the Delaware 

Bay area, peak counts between 1982 and 

1998 were as high as 95,360 individuals. 

Counts may vary considerably between 

years. Some of the fluctuations can be 

attributed to predator-prey cycles in the 

breeding grounds, and counts show that 

knots rebound from such reductions. 

Peak counts of red knots observed 

during aerial surveys flown in Delaware 

Bay from 2004 to 2008 were consistently 

below 16,000 birds, with an alltime low 

of only 12,375 red knots found in 2007. 

In recent years, the highest 

concentrations of red knots at the 

Delaware Bay stopover have been 

within Mispillion Harbor, Delaware, an 

area that has likely been undercounted 

during past aerial surveys. Beginning in 

2009, a new survey methodology was 

implemented for the Delaware Bay 

stopover area to include ground counts 

that more accurately reflect 

concentrations of red knots using 

Mispillion Harbor and to include aerial 

surveys of red knots using Atlantic 

coastal marshes near Stone Harbor, New 

Jersey. The highest count using the new 

methodology showed 27,187 red knots 

in Delaware and 900 in New Jersey, for 

a total count of 28,087 birds. Poor 

weather conditions in 2009 prevented 

aerial surveys during the period when 

red knots were thought to be at a peak, 

so no comparison with the past aerial 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69242 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

survey peak count method was possible. 

While the number of red knots using 

Delaware Bay likely increased in 2009, 

much of the increase is attributed to 

improved survey methods and an 

expanded area of coverage. 

Counts in recent years in South 

America also are substantially lower 

than in the past. In the mid-1980s, an 

estimated 67,500 red knots were 

observed from Tierra del Fuego, Chile 

and along the coast of Argentina to 

northern Patagonia. Since 2003, the 

largest concentrations of red knots have 

occurred at the principal wintering 

areas in Bahia Lomas and other portions 

of Tierra del Fuego and southern 

Patagonia, with few birds found further 

north along the coast of Argentina. More 

than 50,000 red knots were counted in 

the principal winter areas in 1985 and 

2000. Since 2005, fewer than 18,000 

have been counted within the same 

area, with only 16,260 red knots 

observed in 2010. 

The primary threat to the red knot has 

been attributed to destruction and 

modification of its habitat, particularly 

the reduction in key food resources 

resulting from reductions in horseshoe 

crabs, which are harvested primarily for 

use as bait and secondarily to support 

a biomedical industry. Commercial 

harvest increased substantially in the 

1990s. Research shows that since 1998, 

a high proportion of red knots leaving 

the Delaware Bay failed to achieve 

threshold departure masses needed to 

fly to breeding grounds and survive an 

initial few days of snow cover, and this 

corresponded to reduced annual 

survival rates and reduced reproductive 

success. Since 1999, to protect the 

Atlantic coast population of the 

horseshoe crab and to increase 

availability of horseshoe crab eggs in 

Delaware Bay for hemispheric migratory 

shorebird populations, a series of timing 

restrictions and substantially lower 

harvest quotas have been adopted by the 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission, as well as by the States of 

New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. In 

March 2008, New Jersey passed 

legislation imposing a moratorium on 

horseshoe crab harvest or landing 

within the State until such time as the 

red knot has fully recovered. 

The reductions in commercial 

horseshoe crab harvest by Atlantic 

coastal States since 1999 are substantial. 

From 2004 to 2009, annual landings of 

horseshoe crabs have been reduced by 

over 70 percent from the reference 

period landings of the mid- to late1990s. For Delaware and New Jersey, 

the decline in horseshoe crab landings 

for bait has decreased from 726,660 

reported in 1999 to a preliminary 

number of 102,659 crabs landed in 

Delaware in 2009 and no crabs 

harvested in New Jersey. No horseshoe 

crabs have been landed for bait in New 

Jersey since 2007 as a result of the Stateimposed harvest moratorium. In the 

Delaware Bay area, continued 

recruitment of small horseshoe crabs 

has been observed, with a substantial 

increase in numbers of the smallest 

sizes of immature males and females in 

2009 over previous years. The 

continued increase in immature males 

and females would be expected in a 

recovering population and suggests 

recent harvest restrictions may be 

having the desired effect, but it may be 

several more years until this increase is 

realized in spawning age adults, as 

horseshoe crabs need 8 to10 years to 

reach sexual maturity. 

Other identified threat factors include 

habitat destruction due to beach erosion 

and various shoreline protection and 

stabilization projects that are affecting 

areas used by migrating knots for 

foraging, the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms, human 

disturbance, and competition with other 

species for limited food resources. Also, 

the concentration of red knots in the 

Delaware Bay areas and at a relatively 

small number of wintering areas makes 

the species vulnerable to potential largescale events such as oil spills or severe 

weather. Overall, we conclude that the 

threats, in particular the modification of 

habitat through harvesting of horseshoe 

crabs, are severe enough to put the 

viability of the knot at substantial risk 

and is therefore of a high magnitude. 

The threats are currently occurring, and 

therefore imminent because of 

continuing suppressed horseshoe-crabegg forage conditions for red knot 

within the Delaware Bay stopover. 

Based on imminent threats of a high 

magnitude, we retain an LPN of 3 for 

this subspecies. 

Yellow-billed loon (Gavia adamsii)— 

The following summary is based on 

information contained in our files and 

the petition we received on April 5, 

2004. The yellow-billed loon is a 

migratory bird. Solitary pairs breed on 

lakes in the arctic tundra of the United 

States, Russia, and Canada from June to 

September. During the remainder of the 

year, the species winters in more 

southern coastal waters of the Pacific 

Ocean and the Norway and North Seas. 

During most of the year, individual 

yellow-billed loons are so widely 

dispersed that high adult mortality from 

any single factor is unlikely. However, 

during migration, yellow-billed loons 

are more concentrated and are subject to 

subsistence harvest that at current levels 

appears to be unsustainable, based on 

the best available information; the 

population could decline substantially 

if such harvest continues. Future 

subsistence harvests in Alaska, by 

themselves, constitute a threat to the 

species rangewide. This subsistence 

harvest is occurring despite the species 

being closed to hunting under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In addition, 

up to several hundred yellow-billed 

loons may be taken annually on Russian 

breeding grounds, and small numbers of 

yellow-billed loons are reported in 

harvests in other areas in Alaska outside 

of the subsistence harvest area and in 

Canada. 

Other risk factors evaluated, including 

oil and gas development (i.e., 

disturbance, changes in freshwater 

chemistry and pollutant loads, and 

changes in freshwater hydrology); 

pollution; overfishing; climate change; 

vessel traffic; commercial- and 

subsistence-fishery bycatch; and 

contaminants other than those 

associated with oil and gas, were not 

found to be threats to the species. 

Although these other risk factors may 

not rise to the level of a threat 

individually, when taken collectively 

with the effects of subsistence hunting 

in other areas, they may reduce the 

rangewide population even further. One 

or more of the threats discussed above 

is occurring throughout the range of the 

yellow-billed loon, either in its breeding 

or wintering grounds, or during 

migration; therefore, the threats are 

imminent. The magnitude of the 

primary threat to the species, 

subsistence harvest, is moderate. 

Although subsistence harvest is 

ongoing, the numbers taken have varied 

substantially between years. In addition, 

we have concerns about the precision of 

the numbers reported. Thus, we 

assigned the yellow-billed loon an LPN 

of 8. 

Kittlitz’s murrelet (Brachyramphus 

brevirostris)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files and the petition we received on 

May 9, 2001. Kittlitz’s murrelet is a 

small diving seabird whose entire North 

American population, and a majority of 

the world’s population, inhabits 

Alaskan coastal waters discontinuously 

from Point Lay south to northern 

portions of Southeast Alaska. Most 

Kittlitz’s murrelets are associated with 

tidewater glaciers, but some occur in 

areas not currently influenced by 

glaciers. Genetic analyses suggest very 

low rates of immigration and emigration 

between Kittlitz’s murrelets in the 

western Aleutian Islands, where there 

are no extant glaciers, and birds 

occupying mainland fjords, where there 

are glaciers today. For 2010, we estimate 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69243 

the world-wide abundance of Kittlitz’s 

murrelets to be between 30,900 and 

56,800 individuals. In some regions of 

Alaska, Kittlitz’s murrelets have 

declined at a rate of up to 20 percent 

between two decadal periods (1988– 

1999 and 2004–2007). 

Threats to Kittlitz’s murrelets include 

large-scale processes such as global 

climate change and marine regime 

shifts. These large-scale processes may 

influence Kittlitz’s murrelet survival 

and reproduction. Glacial retreat is a 

global phenomenon that affects many of 

the glaciers with which Kittlitz’s 

murrelets are associated. This glacial 

retreat may be changing forage fish 

availability, and may contribute to loss 

of nesting habitat and increased 

predation on Kittlitz’s murrelets. Other 

threats include oil spills, bycatch in 

commercial gillnet fisheries, and 

disturbance by tour boats. Catastrophic 

events such as oil spills could have a 

significant negative effect on the 

population of this already diminished 

species. Kittlitz’s murrelets are believed 

to have been negatively affected by the 

Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William 

Sound in 1989. Mortality as bycatch in 

commercial fishing may be a significant 

factor in their population decline. Tour 

boat visitation to glacial fjords is a 

growing industry, and this activity may 

increasingly disrupt Kittlitz’s murrelet 

feeding behavior; tour boats may also 

provide artificial perch sites for avian 

predators. 

Based on the observed population 

trajectory and the severity of ongoing 

threats (rapid glacial retreat, acute and 

chronic oil spills, commercial gillnet 

fishing, and human disturbance from 

tour boats), the threats to this species 

are high in magnitude and imminent. 

Therefore, we assigned an LPN of 2 to 

this species. 

Xantus’s murrelet (Synthliboramphus 

hypoleucus)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files and the petition we received on 

April 16, 2002. The Xantus’s murrelet is 

a small seabird in the family Alcidae 

that occurs along the west coast of North 

America in the United States, Mexico, 

and Canada. The species has a limited 

breeding distribution, only nesting on 

the Channel Islands in southern 

California and on islands off the west 

coast of Baja California, Mexico. 

Although data on population trends are 

scarce, the population is suspected to 

have declined greatly over the last 

century, mainly due to introduced 

predators such as rats (Rattus sp.) and 

feral cats (Felis catus) to nesting islands, 

with possible extirpations on three 

islands in Mexico. A dramatic decline 

(up to 70 percent) from 1977 to 1991 

was detected at the largest nesting 

colony in southern California, possibly 

due to high levels of predation on eggs 

by the endemic deer mouse (Peromyscus 

maniculatus elusus). Identified threats 

include introduced predators at nesting 

colonies, oil spills and oil pollution, 

reduced prey availability, human 

disturbance, and artificial light 

pollution. 

Although substantial declines in the 

Xantus’s murrelet population likely 

occurred over the last century, some of 

the largest threats are being addressed, 

and, to some degree, ameliorated. 

Declines and possible extirpations at 

several nesting colonies were thought to 

have been caused by nonnative 

predators, which have been removed 

from many of the islands where they 

once occurred. Most notably, since 

1994, Island Conservation and Ecology 

Group has systematically removed rats, 

cats, and dogs from every murrelet 

nesting colony in Mexico, with the 

exception of cats and dogs on 

Guadalupe Island. In 2002, rats were 

eradicated from Anacapa Island in 

southern California, which has resulted 

in improvements in reproductive 

success at that island. In southern 

California, efforts to restore nesting 

habitat on Santa Barbara Island through 

the Montrose Settlements Restoration 

Project may benefit the Xantus’s 

murrelet population at that island. 

Artificial lighting from squid fishing 

and other vessels, or lights on islands, 

remains a potential threat to the species. 

Bright lights make Xantus’s murrelets 

more susceptible to predation, and they 

can also become disoriented and 

exhausted from continual attraction to 

bright lights. Chicks can become 

disoriented and separated from their 

parents at sea, which could result in 

death of the dependent chicks. Highwattage lights on commercial market 

squid (Loligo opalescens) fishing vessels 

used at night to attract squid to the 

surface of the water in the Channel 

Islands was the suspected cause of 

unusually high predation on Xantus’s 

murrelets by western gulls (Larus 

occidentalis) and barn owls (Tyto alba) 

at Santa Barbara Island in 1999. To 

address this threat, in 2000, the 

California Fish and Game Commission 

required light shields and a limit of 

30,000 watts per boat; it is unknown if 

this is sufficient to reduce impacts. 

Since 1999, no significant squid fishing 

has occurred near any of the colonies in 

the Channel Islands; however, this 

remains a potential future threat. 

A proposal to build three liquid 

natural gas facilities near the Channel 

Islands could affect the nesting colonies 

due to bright lights at night from the 

facility and visiting tanker vessels, noise 

from the facilities or from helicopters 

visiting the facilities, and the threat of 

oil spills associated with visiting tanker 

vessels. However, these facilities are 

early in the complex and long-term 

planning processes, and it is possible 

that none of these facilities will be built. 

In addition, none of them are directly 

adjacent to nesting colonies, where their 

impacts would be expected to be more 

significant. The remaining threats to the 

species are of a high magnitude but 

nonimminent. Therefore, we retained an 

LPN of 5 for this species. 

Lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus 

pallidicinctus)—The following 

summary is based on information 

contained in our files and the petition 

received on October 5, 1995. Additional 

information can be found in the 

12-month finding published on June 7, 

1998 (63 FR 31400). Biologists estimate 

that the occupied range has declined by 

92 percent since the 1800s. The most 

serious threats to the lesser prairiechicken are loss of habitat from 

conversion of native rangelands to 

introduced forages and cultivated crops; 

conversion of suitable restored habitat 

in the Conservation Reserve Program to 

cropland; cumulative habitat 

degradation caused by severe grazing; 

and energy development, including 

transmission, and wind, oil, and gas 

development. Additional threats are 

woody plant invasion of open prairies 

due to fire suppression, herbicide use 

(including resumption of herbicide use 

in shinnery oak habitat), and habitat 

fragmentation caused by structural and 

transportation developments. Many of 

these threats may exacerbate the normal 

effects of periodic drought on lesser 

prairie-chicken populations. In many 

cases, the remaining suitable habitat has 

become fragmented by the spatial 

arrangement of these individual threats. 

Habitat fragmentation can be a threat to 

the species through several 

mechanisms: Remaining habitat patches 

may become smaller than necessary to 

meet the requirements of individuals 

and populations, necessary habitat 

heterogeneity may be lost to areas of 

homogeneous habitat structure, and the 

probability of recolonization decreases 

as the distance between suitable habitat 

patches expands. We have determined 

that the overall magnitude of threats to 

the lesser prairie-chicken throughout its 

range is high, and that the threats are 

ongoing, and thus imminent. 

Consequently, we have retained an LPN 

of 2 for this species. 

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus), Columbia Basin DPS— 

The following summary is based on 

information in our files and a petition, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69244 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

dated May 14, 1999, requesting the 

listing of the Washington population of 

the western sage-grouse (C. u. phaios). 

On May 7, 2001, we concluded that 

listing the Columbia Basin DPS of the 

western sage-grouse was warranted, but 

precluded by higher-priority listing 

actions (66 FR 22984); this population 

was historically found in northern 

Oregon and central Washington. 

Following our May 7, 2001, finding, the 

Service received additional petitions 

requesting listing actions for various 

other greater sage-grouse populations, 

including one for the nominal western 

subspecies, dated January 24, 2002, and 

three for the entire species, dated June 

18, 2002, and March 19 and December 

22, 2003. The Service subsequently 

found that the petition for the western 

subspecies did not present substantial 

information (68 FR 6500), and that 

listing the greater sage-grouse 

throughout its historical range was not 

warranted (70 FR 2244). These latter 

findings were remanded to the Service 

for further consideration. In response, 

we initiated a new range-wide status 

review for the entire species (73 FR 

10218). 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 

invalidity of the western sage-grouse 

subspecies, the significance of the 

Columbia Basin DPS to the greater sagegrouse will require further review. As 

priorities allow the Service intends to 

complete an analysis to determine if this 

population continues to warrant 

recognition as a DPS in accordance with 

our Policy Regarding the Recognition of 

Distinct Population (61 FR 4722; 

February 7, 1996). Until that time, the 

Columbia Basin DPS will remain a 

candidate for listing as a separate 

population of greater sage-grouse. Even 

if this population does not meet our 

DPS policy, the greater sage-grouse 

population in the Columbia Basin will 

remain a candidate for listing as part of 

the greater sage-grouse entity. 

Band-rumped storm-petrel, Hawaii 

DPS (Oceanodroma castro)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files and 

the petition we received on May 8, 

1989. No new information was provided 

in the second petition received on May 

11, 2004. The band-rumped storm-petrel 

is a small seabird that is found in 

several areas of the subtropical Pacific 

and Atlantic Oceans. In the Pacific, 

there are three widely separated 

breeding populations—one in Japan, 

one in Hawaii, and one in the 

Galapagos. Populations in Japan and the 

Galapagos are comparatively large and 

number in the thousands, while the 

Hawaiian birds represent a small, 

remnant population of possibly only a 

few hundred pairs. Band-rumped stormpetrels 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 stormpetrel to the east and west of the 

Hawaiian Islands, indicating that the 

distribution of birds in the central 

Pacific around Hawaii is disjunct from 

other nesting areas. The available 

information indicates that distinct 

populations of band-rumped stormpetrels are definable and that the 

Hawaiian population is distinct based 

on geographic and distributional 

isolation from other band-rumped 

storm-petrel populations in Japan, the 

Galapagos, and the Atlantic Ocean. A 

population also can be considered 

discrete if it is delimited by 

international boundaries that have 

differences in management control of 

the species. The Hawaiian population of 

the band-rumped storm-petrel is the 

only population within U.S. borders or 

under U.S. jurisdiction. Loss of the 

Hawaiian population would cause a 

significant gap in the distribution of the 

band-rumped storm-petrel in the 

Pacific, and could result in the complete 

isolation of the Galapagos and Japan 

populations without even occasional 

genetic exchanges. Therefore, the 

population is both discrete and 

significant, and constitutes a DPS. 

The band-rumped storm-petrel 

probably was common on all of the 

main Hawaiian Islands when 

Polynesians arrived about 1,500 years 

ago, based on storm-petrel bones found 

in middens on the island of Hawaii and 

in excavation sites on Oahu and 

Molokai. Nesting colonies of this 

species in the Hawaiian Islands 

currently are restricted to remote cliffs 

on Kauai and Lehua Island and highelevation lava fields on Hawaii. 

Vocalizations of the species were heard 

in Haleakala Crater on Maui as recently 

as 2006; however, no nesting sites have 

been located on the island to date. The 

significant reduction in numbers and 

range of the band-rumped storm-petrel 

is due primarily to predation by 

nonnative predators introduced by 

humans, including the domestic cat 

(Felis catus), small Indian mongoose 

(Herpestes auropunctatus), common 

barn owl (Tyto alba), black rat (R. 

rattus), Polynesian rat (R. exulans), and 

Norway rat (R. norvegicus), which occur 

throughout the main Hawaiian Islands, 

with the exception of the mongoose, 

which is not established on Kauai. 

Attraction of fledglings to artificial 

lights, which disrupts their night-time 

navigation, resulting in collisions with 

building and other objects, and 

collisions with artificial structures such 

as communication towers and utility 

lines are also threats. Erosion of nest 

sites caused by the actions of nonnative 

ungulates is a potential threat in some 

locations. Efforts are under way in some 

areas to reduce light pollution and 

mitigate the threat of collisions, but 

there are no large-scale efforts to control 

nonnative predators in the Hawaiian 

Islands. The threats are imminent 

because they are ongoing, and they are 

of a high magnitude because they can 

severely affect the survival of this DPS 

leading to a relatively high likelihood of 

extinction. Therefore, we assign this 

distinct population segment an LPN of 

3. 

Elfin-woods warbler (Dendroica 

angelae)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. No new information was provided 

in the petition we received on May 11, 

2004. Dendroica angelae, or elfin-woods 

warbler, is a small entirely black and 

white warbler, distinguished by its 

white eyebrow stripe, white patches on 

ear covers and neck, incomplete eye 

ring, and black crown. The elfin-woods 

warbler was at first thought to occur 

only in the high elevation dwarf or elfin 

forests, but has since been found at 

lower elevations including shade coffee 

plantations and secondary forests. This 

species builds a compact cup nest, 

usually close to the trunk and well 

hidden among the epiphytes of a small 

tree, and its breeding season extends 

from March to June. It forages in the 

middle part of trees, gleaning insects 

from leaves in the outer portion of the 

tree crown. The elfin-woods warbler has 

been documented from four locations in 

Puerto Rico: Luquillo Mountains (El 

Yunque National Forest), Sierra de 

Cayey, and the Commonwealth forests 

of Maricao and Toro Negro. However, it 

has not been recorded again in Toro 

Negro and Cayey, following the passing 

of Hurricane Hugo in 1989. In 2003 and 

2004, surveys were conducted for the 

elfin-woods warbler in the Carite 

Commonwealth Forest, Toro Negro 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69245 

Forest, Guilarte Forest, Bosque del 

Pueblo, Maricao Forest and the El 

Yunque National Forest, but only 

detected the species in the latter two. In 

the Maricao Commonwealth Forest, 778 

elfin woods warblers were recorded, 

and in the El Yunque National Forest, 

196 elfin-woods warblers were 

recorded. 

The elfin-woods warbler is currently 

threatened by habitat modification. 

Destruction of elfin forest and 

Podocarpus forest by the installation of 

infrastructure (e.g., telecommunication 

towers, recreational facilities) threatens 

the long-term survival of this species. 

Loss of this type of habitat has been 

curtailed but potential for loss still 

exists due to Commonwealth agencies 

other than DNER. Furthermore, 

restoration of this habitat would take 

decades to complete. Present regulatory 

processes, both Commonwealth and 

Federal, promote the protection of these 

areas. Conversion of elfin-woods 

warbler habitat of better quality (e.g., 

mature secondary forests, young 

secondary forests, and shaded-coffee 

plantations) along the periphery of the 

Maricao Commonwealth Forest to 

marginal habitat (e.g., pastures, dry 

slope forests, residential rural forests, 

gallery forests, and un-shaded coffee 

plantations) may result in ineffective 

corridors for dispersal and expansion of 

elfin-woods warbler populations. While 

there is an effort to restore sun-coffee 

plantations to shade-coffee habitat, 

other habitats adjacent to the Maricao 

Forest may still be affected by 

residential development. 

The listing priority number was 

originally assessed as a 5 (high 

magnitude, non-imminent threats). This 

was changed during the 2009 CNOR. 

Our analysis of the five listing factors 

revealed that only factors A and D 

applied to the species. Although habitat 

modification is occurring, it is limited, 

as the species is found mostly on 

protected lands managed by the 

Commonwealth and Federal agencies. 

We found no indication that the two 

populations of elfin-woods warbler are 

declining in numbers. We also found 

that it can thrive in disturbed and 

plantation habitats, and rebounds and 

recovers well, in a relatively short time, 

from the damaging effects of hurricanes 

to the forest structure. Therefore, the 

magnitude of threats is moderate to low. 

These threats are not imminent, because 

most of the range of the elfin-woods 

warbler is within protected lands. As a 

result, we assigned an LPN of 11 to this 

species. 

Reptiles 

Northern Mexican Gartersnake 

(Thamnophis eques megalops)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. The 

northern Mexican gartersnake generally 

occurs in three types of habitat: 

(1) Ponds and cienegas; (2) lowland 

river riparian forests and woodlands; 

and (3) upland stream gallery forests. 

Within the United States, the 

distribution of the northern Mexican 

gartersnake has been reduced by close to 

90 percent and it occurs in fragmented 

populations within the middle/upper 

Verde River drainage, middle/lower 

Tonto Creek, and the upper Santa Cruz 

River, as well as in a small number of 

isolated wetland habitats in 

southeastern Arizona; its status in New 

Mexico is uncertain. Within Mexico, the 

northern Mexican gartersnake is 

distributed along the Sierra Madre 

Occidental and the Mexican Plateau in 

the Mexican states of Sonora, 

Chihuahua, Durango, Coahila, 

Zacatecas, Guanajuato, Nayarit, Hidalgo, 

Jalisco, San Luis Potosı ́, Aguascalientes, 

Tlaxacala, Puebla, Me ́xico, Michoaca ́n, 

Oaxaca, Veracruz, and Quere ́taro. The 

primary threat to the northern Mexican 

gartersnake is competition and 

predation from nonnative species such 

as sportfish, bullfrogs, and crayfish. 

Degradation and elimination of its 

habitat and native prey base are also 

significant threats, most notably in areas 

where nonnative species co-occur. 

Threats, particularly competition and 

predation by nonnative species, are high 

in magnitude since they result in direct 

mortality or reduced reproductive 

capacity and may be irreversible in 

complex habitat resulting in a relatively 

high likelihood of extinction. The 

threats are ongoing and, therefore, 

imminent. Thus, we retained an LPN of 

3 for this subspecies. 

Sand dune lizard (Sceloporus 

arenicolus)—We continue to find that 

listing this species is warranted but 

precluded as of the date of publication 

of this notice. However, we are working 

on a proposed listing rule that we 

expect to publish prior to making the 

next annual resubmitted 12-month 

petition finding. 

Eastern massasauga rattlesnake 

(Sistrurus catenatus catenatus)—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 

eastern massasauga is one of three 

recognized subspecies of massasauga. It 

is a small, thick-bodied rattlesnake that 

occupies shallow wetlands and adjacent 

upland habitat in portions of Illinois, 

Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Missouri, New York, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ontario. 

Although the current range of S. c. 

catenatus resembles the subspecies’ 

historical range, the geographic 

distribution has been restricted by the 

loss of the subspecies from much of the 

area within the boundaries of that range. 

Approximately 40 percent of the 

counties that were historically occupied 

by S. c. catenatus no longer support the 

subspecies. S. c. catenatus is currently 

listed as endangered in every State and 

province in which it occurs, except for 

Michigan where it is designated as a 

species of special concern. Each State 

and Canadian province across the range 

of S. c. catenatus has lost more than 30 

percent, and for the majority more than 

50 percent, of their historical 

populations. Furthermore, less than 35 

percent of the remaining populations 

are considered secure. Approximately 

59 percent of the remaining S. c. 

catenatus populations occur wholly or 

in part on public land, and Statewide 

and/or site-specific Candidate 

Conservation Agreements with 

Assurances (CCAAs) are currently being 

developed for many of these areas in 

Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin. 

In 2004, a Candidate Conservation 

Agreement (CCA) with the Lake County 

Forest Preserve District in Illinois was 

completed. In 2005, a CCA with the 

Forest Preserve District of Cook County 

in Illinois was completed. In 2006, a 

CCAA with the Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources Division of Natural 

Areas and Preserves was completed for 

Rome State Nature Preserve in 

Ashtabula County. The magnitude of 

threats is moderate at this time. 

However, populations soon to be under 

CCAs and CCAAs have a low to 

moderate likelihood of persisting and 

remaining viable. Other populations are 

likely to suffer additional losses in 

abundance and genetic diversity and 

some will likely be extirpated unless 

threats are removed in the near future. 

Declines have continued or may be 

accelerating in several states. Thus, we 

are monitoring the status of this species 

to determine if a change in listing 

priority is warranted. Furthermore, we 

are working with several experts and 

partners in the development of an 

extinction risk model for the subspecies, 

and the results of this work may 

indicate that a change in listing priority 

number is appropriate. Threats of 

habitat modification, habitat succession, 

incompatible land management 

practices, illegal collection for the pet 

trade, and human persecution are 

ongoing and imminent threats to many 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69246 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

remaining populations, particularly 

those inhabiting private lands. We 

conclude that emergency listing is not 

warranted and have kept the LPN at 9 

for this subspecies. 

Black pine snake (Pituophis 

melanoleucus lodingi)—The following 

summary is based on information 

contained in our files. No new 

information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

There are historical records for the black 

pine snake from one parish in 

Louisiana, 14 counties in Mississippi, 

and 3 counties in Alabama west of the 

Mobile River Delta. Black pine snake 

surveys and trapping indicate that this 

species has been extirpated from 

Louisiana and from four counties in 

Mississippi. Moreover, the distribution 

of remaining populations has become 

highly restricted due to the destruction 

and fragmentation of the remaining 

longleaf pine habitat within the range of 

the subspecies. Most of the known 

Mississippi populations are 

concentrated on the DeSoto National 

Forest. Populations occurring on 

properties managed by State and other 

governmental agencies as gopher 

tortoise mitigation banks or wildlife 

sanctuaries represent the best 

opportunities for long-term survival of 

the subspecies in Alabama. Other 

factors affecting the black pine snake 

include vehicular mortality and low 

reproductive rates, which magnify the 

threats from destruction and 

fragmentation of longleaf pine habitat 

and increase the likelihood of local 

extinctions. Due to the imminent threats 

of high magnitude caused by the past 

destruction of most of the longleaf pine 

habitat of the black pine snake, and the 

continuing persistent degradation of 

what remains, we assigned an LPN of 3 

to this subspecies. 

Louisiana pine snake (Pituophis 

ruthveni)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files and the petition we received on 

July 19, 2000. The Louisiana pine snake 

historically occurred in the firemaintained 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, shortrotation silviculture, and grazing. In the 

absence of recurrent fire, suitable 

habitat conditions for the Louisiana 

pine snake and its primary prey, the 

Baird’s pocket gopher (Geomys 

breviceps), are lost due to vegetative 

succession. The loss and fragmentation 

of the longleaf pine ecosystem has 

resulted in extant Louisiana pine snake 

populations that are isolated and small. 

Trapping and occurrence data indicate 

the Louisiana pine snake is currently 

restricted to seven disjunct populations; 

five of the populations occur on federal 

lands and two occur mainly on private 

industrial timberlands. Currently 

occupied habitat in Louisiana and Texas 

is estimated to be approximately 

163,000 acres, with 53 percent occurring 

on public lands and 47 percent in 

private ownership. 

All remnant Louisiana pine snake 

populations have been affected by 

habitat loss and all require active habitat 

management. 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. On Federal lands, 

signatories of the Louisiana pine snake 

CCA currently conduct habitat 

management (i.e., prescribed burning 

and thinning) that is beneficial to the 

Louisiana pine snake. This proactive 

habitat management has likely slowed 

or reversed the rate of Louisiana pine 

snake habitat degradation on many 

portions of federal lands. The largest 

extant Louisiana pine snake population 

exists on private industrial timberlands. 

Although two conservation areas are 

managed to benefit Louisiana pine 

snakes on this property, the majority of 

the intervening occupied habitat is 

threatened by land management 

activities (habitat conversion to shortrotation pine plantations) that decrease 

habitat quality. 

Three of the remnant Louisiana pine 

snake populations may be vulnerable to 

decreased demographic viability or 

other factors associated with low 

population sizes and demographic 

isolation. Although these remnant 

Louisiana pine snake populations are 

intrinsically vulnerable and thus 

threatened by these factors, it is not 

known if they are presently actually 

facing these threats. Because all extant 

populations are currently isolated and 

fragmented by habitat loss in the matrix 

between populations, there is little 

potential for dispersal among remnant 

populations or for the natural recolonization of vacant habitat patches. 

Thus, the loss of any remnant 

population is likely to be permanent. 

Other factors affecting the Louisiana 

pine snake throughout its range include 

low fecundity, which magnifies other 

threats and increases the likelihood of 

local extirpations, and vehicular 

mortality, which may significantly affect 

Louisiana pine snake populations. 

While the extent of Louisiana pine 

snake habitat loss has been great in the 

past and much of the remaining habitat 

has been degraded, habitat loss does not 

represent an imminent threat, primarily 

because the rate of habitat loss appears 

to be declining on public lands. 

However, all populations require active 

habitat management, and the lack of 

adequate habitat remains a threat for 

several populations. The potential 

threats to a large percentage of extant 

Louisiana pine snake populations, 

coupled with the likely permanence of 

these effects and the species’ low 

fecundity and low population sizes 

(based on capture rates and occurrence 

data), lead us to conclude that the 

threats have significant effect on the 

survival of the species and therefore 

remain high in magnitude. Thus, based 

on nonimminent, high-magnitude 

threats, we assign a listing priority 

number of 5 to 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, is the primary 

threat 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 of the southwest. Continuing 

drought, irrigated agriculture, and 

development in the region, is expected 

to cause surface water in the Rio 

Sonoyta to dwindle further and 

therefore have a significant impact on 

the survival of this subspecies, which 

may also be vulnerable to aerial 

spraying of pesticides on nearby 

agricultural fields. We retained an LPN 

of 3 for this subspecies because threats 

are of a high magnitude and continue to 

date, and therefore are imminent. 

Amphibians 

Columbia spotted frog, Great Basin 

DPS (Rana luteiventris)—The following 

summary is based on information 

contained in our files and the petition 

we received on May 1, 1989. Currently, 

Columbia spotted frogs appear to be 

widely distributed throughout 

southwestern Idaho, southeastern 

Oregon, northeastern and central 

Nevada, but local populations within 

this general area appear to be small and 

isolated from each other. Recent work 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69247 

by researchers in Idaho and Nevada 

have documented the loss of historically 

known sites, reduced numbers of 

individuals within local populations, 

and declines in the reproduction of 

those individuals. Small, highly 

fragmented populations, characteristic 

of the majority of existing populations 

of Columbia spotted frogs in the Great 

Basin, are highly susceptible to 

extinction processes. 

Poor management of Columbia 

spotted frog habitat—including water 

development, improper grazing, mining 

activities, and nonnative species—has 

and continues to contribute to the 

degradation and fragmentation of 

habitat. Emerging fungal diseases such 

as chytridiomycosis and the spread of 

parasites may be contributing factors to 

Columbia spotted frog population 

declines throughout portions of its 

range. Effects of climate change, such as 

drought, and stochastic events such as 

fire often have detrimental effects to 

small isolated populations and can often 

exacerbate existing threats. A 10-year 

Conservation Agreement and Strategy 

was signed in September 2003 for both 

the Northeast and the Toiyabe 

subpopulations in Nevada. The goals of 

the conservation agreements are to 

reduce threats to Columbia spotted frogs 

and their habitat to the extent necessary 

to prevent populations from becoming 

extirpated throughout all or a portion of 

their historical range and to maintain, 

enhance, and restore a sufficient 

number of populations of Columbia 

spotted frogs and their habitat to ensure 

their continued existence throughout 

their historical range. Additionally, a 

Candidate Conservation Agreement with 

Assurances was completed in 2006 for 

the Owyhee subpopulation at Sam 

Noble Springs, Idaho. Several habitat 

enhancement projects have been 

conducted throughout their range which 

have benefitted these populations. 

Based on imminent threats of moderate 

magnitude, we assigned a listing 

priority number of 9 to this DPS of the 

Columbia spotted frog. 

Mountain yellow-legged frog, Sierra 

Nevada DPS (Rana muscosa)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files and 

the petition received on February 8, 

2000. Also see our 12-month petition 

finding published on January 16, 2003 

(68 FR 2283) and our amended 

12-month petition finding published on 

June 25, 2007 (72 FR 34657). The 

mountain yellow-legged frog inhabits 

the high-elevation lakes, ponds, and 

streams in the Sierra Nevada Mountains 

of California, from near 4,500 feet (ft) 

(1,370 meters (m)) to 12,000 ft (3,650 m). 

The distribution of the mountain 

yellow-legged frog is from Butte and 

Plumas Counties in the north to Tulare 

and Inyo Counties in the south. A 

separate population in southern 

California is already listed as 

endangered (67 FR 44382). Based on 

mitochondrial DNA, morphological, and 

acoustic studies, Vredenburg et al. 

recently recognized two distinct species 

of mountain yellow-legged frog in the 

Sierra Nevada, R. muscosa and R. 

sierrae. This taxonomic distinction has 

been recently adopted by the American 

Society of Ichthyologists and 

Herpetologists, the Herpetologists’ 

League, and the Society for the Study of 

Amphibians and Reptiles. The 

Vredenburg study determined that two 

species exist, as described by Camp, but 

have different geographical ranges than 

first described. Camp described R. 

muscosa as only occurring in southern 

California. A recent study determined 

that R. muscosa also occurs in the 

southern portion of the Sierra Nevada, 

and R. sierrae occurs both in the 

southern and northern portions of the 

Sierra Nevada, with no range overlap. 

At this time, we have not adopted this 

taxonomic distinction of two species 

and continue to recognize mountain 

yellow-legged frogs in the Sierra Nevada 

Mountains of California as R. muscosa 

and as the candidate entity. 

Predation by introduced trout is the 

best-documented cause of the decline of 

the Sierra Nevada mountain yellowlegged frog, because it has been 

repeatedly observed that fishes and 

mountain yellow-legged frogs rarely coexist. Mountain yellow-legged frogs and 

trout (native and nonnative) do co-occur 

at some sites, but these co-occurrences 

probably are mountain yellow-legged 

frog populations with negative 

population growth rates in the absence 

of immigration. To help reverse the 

decline of the mountain yellow-legged 

frog, the Sequoia and Kings Canyon 

National Parks have been removing 

introduced trout since 2001. Over 

18,000 introduced trout have been 

removed from 11 lakes since the project 

started in 2001. The lakes are 

completely-to-mostly fish-free and 

substantial mountain yellow-legged frog 

population increases have resulted. The 

California Department of Fish and Game 

has also removed or is in the process of 

removing nonnative trout from a total of 

between 10 and 20 water bodies in the 

Inyo, Humboldt-Toiyabe, Sierra, and El 

Dorado National Forests. In the El 

Dorado National Forest golden trout 

were removed from Leland Lakes, and 

attempts have been made to remove 

trout from two sites near Gertrude Lake, 

three lakes in the Pyramid Creek 

watershed, and a tributary of Cole 

Creek; no data showing increase in 

mountain yellow-legged frogs at these 

sites is available. 

In California, chytridiomycosis, more 

commonly known as chytrid fungus 

(Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) or 

Bd, has been detected in many 

amphibian species, including the 

mountain yellow-legged frog within the 

Sierra Nevada. Recent research has 

shown that this pathogenic fungus has 

become widely distributed throughout 

the Sierra Nevada, and that infected 

mountain yellow-legged frogs often die 

soon after metamorphosis. Several 

infected and uninfected populations 

were monitored in Sequoia and Kings 

Canyon National Parks over multiple 

years, documenting dramatic declines 

and extirpations in infected but not in 

uninfected populations. In the summer 

of 2005, 39 of 43 populations assayed in 

Yosemite National Park were positive 

for chytrid fungus. 

The current distribution of the Sierra 

Nevada mountain yellow-legged frog is 

restricted primarily to public lands at 

high elevations, including streams, 

lakes, ponds, and meadow wetlands 

located on national forests, including 

wilderness and non-wilderness on the 

forests, and national parks. In several 

areas where detailed studies of the 

effects of chytrid fungus on the 

mountain yellow-legged frog are ongoing, substantial declines have been 

observed over the past several years. For 

example, in 2007 surveys in Yosemite 

National Park, mountain yellow-legged 

frogs were not detectable at 37 percent 

of 285 sites where they had been 

observed in 2000–2002; in 2005 in 

Sequoia and Kings Canyon National 

Parks, mountain yellow-legged frogs 

were not detected at 54 percent of sites 

where they had been recorded 3 to 8 

years earlier. A compounding effect of 

disease-caused extinctions of mountain 

yellow-legged frogs is that 

recolonization may never occur, because 

streams connecting extirpated sites to 

extant populations now contain 

introduced fishes, which act as barriers 

to frog movement within 

metapopulations. The most recent 

assessment of the species status in the 

Sierra Nevada indicates that mountainyellow legged frogs occur at less than 8 

percent of the sites from which they 

were historically observed. A group of 

prominent scientists further suggest a 10 

percent decline per year in the number 

of remaining Rana mucosa populations 

is likely. Based on threats that are 

imminent (because they are ongoing) 

and high-magnitude (because they 

significantly affect the survival of the 

DPS throughout its range), we continue 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69248 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

to assign the population of mountain 

yellow-legged frog in the Sierra Nevada 

an LPN of 3. 

Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa)— 

The following summary is based on 

information contained in our files and 

the petition we received on May 4, 

1989. Historically, the Oregon spotted 

frog ranged from British Columbia to the 

Pit River drainage in northeastern 

California. Based on surveys of 

historical sites, the Oregon spotted frog 

is now absent from at least 76 percent 

of its former range. The majority of the 

remaining Oregon spotted frog 

populations are small and isolated. 

The threats to the species’ habitat 

include development, livestock grazing, 

introduction of nonnative plant species, 

vegetation succession, changes in 

hydrology due to construction of dams 

and alterations to seasonal flooding, 

lack of management of exotic vegetation, 

predators, and poor water quality. 

Additional threats to the species are 

predation by nonnative fish and 

introduced bullfrogs; competition with 

bullfrogs and nonnative fish for habitat; 

and diseases, such as oomycete water 

mold Saprolegnia and chytrid fungus 

infections. The magnitude of threat is 

high for this species because this wide 

range of threats to both individuals and 

their habitats could seriously reduce or 

eliminate any of these isolated 

populations and further reduce the 

species’ range and potential survival. 

Habitat restoration and management 

actions have not prevented population 

declines. The threats are imminent 

because each population is faced with 

multiple ongoing and potential threats 

as identified above. Therefore, we retain 

an LPN of 2 for the Oregon spotted frog. 

Relict leopard frog (Lithobates 

onca)—The following summary is based 

on information contained in our files 

and the petition we received on May 9, 

2002. Natural relict leopard frog 

populations are currently only known to 

occur in two general areas in Nevada: 

Near the Overton Arm area of Lake 

Mead and Black Canyon below Lake 

Mead. These two areas comprise a small 

fraction of the historical distribution of 

the species, which included: springs, 

streams, and wetlands found within the 

Virgin River drainage downstream from 

the vicinity of Hurricane, Utah; along 

the Muddy River, Nevada; and along the 

Colorado River from its confluence with 

the Virgin River downstream to Black 

Canyon below Lake Mead, Nevada and 

Arizona. 

Suggested factors contributing to the 

decline of the species include alteration 

of aquatic habitat due to agriculture and 

water development, including 

regulation of the Colorado River, and 

the introduction of exotic predators and 

competitors. In 2005, the National Park 

Service, in cooperation with the Service 

and various other Federal, State, and 

local partners, developed a conservation 

agreement and strategy intended to 

improve the status of the species 

through prescribed management actions 

and protection. Conservation actions 

identified for implementation in the 

agreement and strategy include captive 

rearing of tadpoles for translocation and 

refugium populations, habitat and 

natural history studies, habitat 

enhancement, population and habitat 

monitoring, and translocation. New sites 

within the historical range of the species 

have been successfully established with 

captive-reared frogs. Conservation is 

proceeding under the agreement and 

strategy; however, additional time is 

needed to determine whether or not the 

agreement and strategy will be effective 

in eliminating or reducing the threats to 

the point that the relict leopard frog can 

be removed from candidate status. 

However, because of these conservation 

efforts, the magnitude of existing threats 

is low to moderate. These threats remain 

nonimminent since there are no 

pending projects or actions that would 

adversely affect frog populations or 

threaten surface water associated with 

known sites occupied by the frog. 

Therefore, we assigned an LPN of 11 to 

this species. 

Austin blind salamander (Eurycea 

waterlooensis)—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 Austin blind 

salamander is known to occur in and 

around three of the four spring sites that 

comprise the Barton Springs complex in 

the City of Austin, Travis County, 

Texas. Primary threats to this species 

are degradation of water quality due to 

expanding urbanization. The Austin 

blind salamander depends on a constant 

supply of clean water in the Edwards 

Aquifer discharging from Barton Springs 

for its survival. Urbanization 

dramatically alters the normal 

hydrologic regime and water quality of 

an area. Increased impervious cover 

caused by development increases the 

quantity and velocity of runoff that 

leads to erosion and greater pollution 

transport. Pollutants and contaminants 

that enter the Edwards Aquifer are 

discharged in salamander habitat at 

Barton Springs and could have serious 

morphological and physiological effects 

to the salamander. 

The Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality adopted the 

Edwards Rules in 1995 and 1997, which 

require a number of water quality 

protection measures for new 

development occurring in the recharge 

and contributing zones of the Edwards 

Aquifer. However, Chapter 245 of the 

Texas Local Government Code permits 

‘‘grandfathering’’ of State regulations. 

Grandfathering allows developments to 

be exempted from any new local or 

State requirements for water quality 

controls and impervious cover limits if 

the developments were planned prior to 

the implementation of such regulations. 

As a result of the grandfathering law, 

very few developments have followed 

the Edwards Rules. New developments 

are still obligated to comply with 

regulations that were applicable at the 

time when project applications for 

development were first filed. In 

addition, it is significant that even if 

they were followed with every new 

development, the Edwards Rules do not 

span the entire watershed for Barton 

Springs. Consequently, development 

occurring outside these jurisdictions can 

have negative consequences on water 

quality and thus have an impact on the 

species. 

Water-quality impacts threaten the 

continued existence of the Austin blind 

salamander by altering physical aquatic 

habitats and the food sources of the 

salamander. We consider the threats to 

be imminent because urbanization is 

ongoing and continues to expand over 

the Barton Springs Segment of the 

Edwards Aquifer and water quality 

continues to degrade. While the City of 

Austin and many other partners are 

actively working on conservation of the 

Barton Springs salamander, and the 

Austin blind salamander benefits from 

all of the ongoing conservation actions 

that are being conducted for the Barton 

Springs salamander, these efforts have 

not yet been successful in improving 

water quality. In addition, the existence 

of the species continues to be threatened 

by hazardous chemical spills within the 

Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards 

Aquifer, which could result in direct 

mortality. Because the Austin blind 

salamander is known from only three 

clustered spring sites and must rely on 

clear, clean spring discharges from the 

Edwards Aquifer for its survival, 

degraded water quality poses a severe 

threat to the entire population, and is 

therefore a high-magnitude threat. Thus, 

we maintained the LPN of 2 for this 

species. 

Georgetown salamander (Eurycea 

naufragia)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. No new information was provided 

in the petition received on May 11, 

2004. The Georgetown salamander is 

known from spring outlets along five 

tributaries to the San Gabriel River and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69249 

one cave in the City of Georgetown, 

Williamson County, Texas. The 

Georgetown salamander has a very 

limited distribution and depends on a 

constant supply of clean water from the 

Northern Segment of the Edwards 

Aquifer for its survival. 

Primary threats to this species are 

degradation of water quality due to 

expanding urbanization. Increased 

impervious cover by development 

increases the quantity and velocity of 

runoff that leads to erosion and greater 

pollution transport. Pollutants and 

contaminants that enter the Edwards 

Aquifer are discharged from spring 

outlets in salamander habitat and have 

serious morphological and physiological 

effects to individuals of the species. 

The Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality adopted the 

Edwards Rules in 1995 and 1997, which 

require a number of water quality 

protection measures for new 

development occurring in the recharge 

and contributing zones of the Edwards 

Aquifer. New developments are still 

obligated to comply with regulations 

that were applicable at the time when 

project applications were first filed. 

However, Chapter 245 of the Texas 

Local Government Code permits 

‘‘grandfathering’’ of state regulations. 

Grandfathering allows developments to 

be exempted from any new local or state 

requirements for water quality controls 

and impervious cover limits if the 

developments were planned prior to the 

implementation of such regulations. As 

a result of the grandfathering law, very 

few developments have followed the 

Edwards Rules. In addition, it is 

significant that even if they were 

followed with every new development, 

the Edwards Rules do not span the 

entire watershed for the Edwards 

Aquifer. The TCEQ has developed 

voluntary water-quality protection 

measures for development in the 

Edwards Aquifer region of Texas; 

however, it is unknown if these 

measures will be implemented 

throughout a large portion of the 

watershed or if they will be effective in 

maintaining or improving water quality. 

Development occurring outside the 

TCEQ’s jurisdiction can have negative 

consequences on water quality and thus 

affect the species. Water-quality impacts 

threaten the continued existence of the 

Georgetown salamander by altering 

physical aquatic habitats and the food 

sources of the salamander. The threats 

are imminent because urbanization is 

ongoing and continues to expand over 

the Northern Segment of the Edwards 

Aquifer. However, Williamson County 

and the Williamson County 

Conservation Foundation are actively 

working to protect habitat and acquire 

land within the contributing watershed 

for the Georgetown salamander. Also, 

they are conducting monitoring and 

data collecting activities in an effort that 

is expected to lead to the development 

of a conservation strategy for this 

species. These conservation actions 

reduce the magnitude of the threat to 

the Georgetown salamander to a 

moderate level by reducing the amount 

of development occurring in the portion 

of the watershed that affects the species. 

Thus, we maintained the LPN of 8 for 

this species. 

Jollyville Plateau salamander (Eurycea 

tonkawae)—The following summary is 

based on information gathered during a 

status review of this species (72 FR 

71039, December 13, 2007). The 

Jollyville Plateau salamander occurs in 

the Jollyville Plateau and Brushy Creek 

areas of the Edwards Plateau in Travis 

and WilliamsonCounties, Texas. This 

species has a limited distribution and 

depends on a constant supply of clean 

water from the Northern Segment of the 

Edwards Aquifer for its survival. The 

primary threat to this species is 

degradation of water quality due to 

expanding urbanization. Increased 

impervious cover by development 

increases the quantity and velocity of 

runoff that leads to erosion and greater 

pollution transport. Pollutants and 

contaminants that enter the Edwards 

Aquifer are discharged from spring 

outlets in salamander habitat and have 

serious morphological and physiological 

effects on individual of the species. 

The Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality adopted the 

Edwards Rules in 1995 and 1997, which 

require a number of water quality 

protection measures for new 

development occurring in the recharge 

and contributing zones of the Edwards 

Aquifer. However, Chapter 245 of the 

Texas Local Government Code permits 

‘‘grandfathering’’ of state regulations. 

Grandfathering allows developments to 

be exempted from any new local or state 

requirements for water quality controls 

and impervious cover limits if the 

developments were planned prior to the 

implementation of such regulations. As 

a result of the grandfathering law, very 

few developments have followed the 

Edwards Rules. New developments are 

still obligated to comply with 

regulations that were applicable at the 

time when project applications for 

development were first filed. In 

addition, it is significant that even if 

they were followed with every new 

development, the Edwards Rules do not 

span the entire watershed for the 

Edwards Aquifer. The TCEQ has 

developed voluntary water quality 

protection measures for development in 

the Edwards Aquifer region of Texas; 

however, it is unknown if these 

measures will be implemented 

throughout a large portion of the 

watershed or if they will be effective in 

maintaining or improving water quality. 

Water-quality impacts threaten the 

continued existence of the Jollyville 

Plateau salamander by altering physical 

aquatic habitats and the food sources of 

the salamander, producing negative 

population responses. Such responses 

have been documented at both the 

individual level (mortalities and 

deformities) and the population level 

(significant declines in abundance over 

the last 10 years and extirpation at one 

site). We find the overall negative 

response by the salamander to be at a 

moderate level because deformities and 

deaths of salamanders have been limited 

in scope to a few localities and only one 

location may have experienced an 

extirpation. Otherwise, the current 

range of the salamander changed little 

from the known historical range. Thus, 

we maintained the LPN of 8 for this 

species. 

Salado salamander (Eurycea 

chisholmensis)—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 Salado salamander is historically 

known from two spring sites, Big 

Boiling Springs and Robertson Springs, 

near Salado, Bell County, Texas. We 

have received only one anecdotal report 

of a salamander sighting in Big Boiling 

Springs in 2008; prior to that, the 

salamander had not been sighted there 

since 1991. Texas Parks and Wildlife 

Department has been conducting regular 

surveys at Robertson Springs since June 

2009 and has rediscovered the Salado 

salamander at this site. 

Primary threats to this species are 

habitat modification and degradation of 

water quality due to expanding 

urbanization. The Salado salamander 

depends on a constant supply of clean 

water from the Northern Segment of the 

Edwards Aquifer for its survival. 

Pollutants and contaminants that enter 

the Edwards Aquifer discharge in 

salamander habitat and have 

morphological and physiological effects 

on the salamander. We do not know 

how likely spills are to occur within the 

contributing watersheds of the springs 

that support this species. However, 

several groundwater incidents have 

occurred within Salado salamander 

habitat in recent years. The salamander 

is reasonably expected to be vulnerable 

to catastrophic hazardous materials 

spills, groundwater contamination from 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69250 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

the Northern Segment of the Edwards 

Aquifer, and impacts to its surface 

habitat. In addition, Big Boiling Springs 

is located near Interstate Highway 35 

and in the center of the Village of 

Salado. Traffic and urbanization is 

likely to increase the threat of 

contamination of spills, higher levels of 

impervious cover, and subsequent 

impacts to groundwater. These threats 

significantly affect the survival of this 

species, and groundwater contamination 

and impacts to surface habitat are 

ongoing. Moreover, we do not have 

information that the magnitude or 

imminence of the threats to the species 

has changed since our previous 

assessment when we concluded there 

are ongoing, and therefore, imminent 

threats of a high magnitude. Therefore, 

we maintained the LPN of 2 for this 

species. 

Yosemite toad (Bufo canorus)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files and 

the petition we received on April 3, 

2000. See also our 12-month petition 

finding published on December 10, 2002 

(67 FR 75834). Yosemite toads are 

moderately sized toads, with females 

having black spots edged with white or 

cream that are set against a grey, tan, or 

brown background. Males have a nearly 

uniform coloration of yellow-green to 

olive drab to greenish brown. Yosemite 

toads are most likely to be found in 

areas with thick meadow vegetation or 

patches of low willows near or in water, 

and use rodent burrows for 

overwintering and temporary refuge 

during the summer. Breeding habitat 

includes the edges of wet meadows, 

slow-flowing streams, shallow ponds, 

and shallow areas of lakes. The 

historical range of Yosemite toads in the 

Sierra Nevada occurs from the Blue 

Lakes region north of Ebbetts Pass 

(Alpine County) to south of Kaiser Pass 

in the Evolution Lake/Darwin Canyon 

area (Fresno County). The historical 

elevational range of Yosemite toads is 

1,460 to 3,630 m (4,790 to 11,910 ft). 

The threats currently facing the 

Yosemite toad include cattle grazing, 

timber harvesting, recreation, disease, 

and climate change. Inappropriate 

grazing has been shown to cause loss in 

vegetative cover and destroys peat 

layers in meadows, which lowers the 

groundwater table and summer flows. 

This may increase the stranding and 

mortality of tadpoles, or make these 

areas completely unsuitable for 

Yosemite toads. Grazing can also 

degrade or destroy moist upland areas 

used as non-breeding habitat by 

Yosemite toads and collapse rodent 

burrows used by Yosemite toads as 

cover and hibernation sites. Timber 

harvesting and associated road 

development can severely alter the 

terrestrial environment and result in the 

reduction and occasional extirpation of 

amphibian populations in the Sierra 

Nevada. They also create habitat gaps 

that may act as dispersal barriers and 

contribute to the fragmentation of 

Yosemite toad habitat and populations. 

Trails (foot, horse, bicycle, or offhighway motor vehicle) compact soil in 

riparian habitat, which increases 

erosion, displaces vegetation, and can 

lower the water table. Trampling or the 

collapsing of rodent burrows by 

recreationists, pets, and vehicles could 

lead to direct mortality of all life stages 

of the Yosemite toad and disrupt their 

behavior. Various diseases have been 

confirmed in Yosemite toads. Mass dieoffs of amphibians have been attributed 

to: chytrid fungal infections of 

metamorphs and adults; Saprolegnia 

fungal infections of eggs; iridovirus 

infection of larvae, metamorphs, or 

adults; and bacterial infections. 

Yosemite toads probably are exposed to 

a variety of pesticides and other 

chemicals throughout their range. 

Environmental contaminants could 

negatively affect the species by causing 

direct mortality; suppressing the 

immune system; disrupting breeding 

behavior, fertilization, growth or 

development of young; and disrupting 

the ability to avoid predation. 

There is no indication that any of 

these threats are ongoing or planned and 

the threats are therefore nonimminent. 

In addition, since there are a number of 

substantial populations and these 

threats tend to have localized effects, 

the threats are moderate to low in 

magnitude. In addition, almost all of the 

species’ range occurs on Federal land, 

which protects the species from private 

development and facilitates 

management of the species by Federal 

agencies. We therefore retained an LPN 

of 11 for the Yosemite toad. 

Black Warrior waterdog (Necturus 

alabamensis)—The following summary 

is based on information contained in 

our files. No new information was 

provided in the petition we received on 

May 11, 2004. The Black Warrior 

waterdog is a salamander that inhabits 

streams above the Fall Line within the 

Black Warrior River Basin in Alabama. 

There is very little specific locality 

information available on the historical 

distribution of the Black Warrior 

waterdog since little attention was given 

to this species between its description 

in 1937 and the 1980s. At that time, 

there were a total of only 11 known 

historical records from 4 Alabama 

counties. Two of these sites have now 

been inundated by impoundments. 

Extensive survey work was conducted 

in the 1990s to look for additional 

populations. As a result of that work, 

the species was documented at 14 sites 

in 5 counties. 

Water-quality degradation is the 

biggest threat to the continued existence 

of the Black Warrior waterdog. Most 

streams that have been surveyed for the 

waterdog showed evidence of pollution 

and many appeared biologically 

depauperate. Sources of point and 

nonpoint pollution in the Black Warrior 

River Basin have been numerous and 

widespread. Pollution is generated from 

inadequately treated effluent from 

industrial plants, sanitary landfills, 

sewage treatment plants, poultry 

operations, and cattle feedlots. Surface 

mining represents another threat to the 

biological integrity of waterdog habitat. 

Runoff from old, abandoned coal mines 

generates pollution through 

acidification, increased mineralization, 

and sediment loading. The North River, 

Locust Fork, and Mulberry Fork, all 

streams that this species inhabits, are on 

the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

list of impaired waters. An additional 

threat to the Black Warrior waterdog is 

the creation of large impoundments that 

have flooded thousands of square 

hectares of its habitat. These 

impoundments are likely marginal or 

unsuitable habitat for the salamander. 

Suitable habitat for the Black Warrior 

waterdog is limited and available data 

indicate extant populations are small 

and their viability is questionable. This 

situation is pervasive and problematic; 

water quality issues are persistent and 

regulatory mechanisms are not 

ameliorating these threats, though we 

have no indication of population 

declines, at present. We hope additional 

surveys may clarify the status of 

populations in face of existing threats. 

Therefore, the overall magnitude of the 

threat is moderate. Water quality 

degradation in the Black Warrior basin 

is ongoing; therefore, the threats are 

imminent. We assigned an LPN of 8 to 

this species. 

Fishes 

Headwater chub (Gila nigra)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files, the 

12-month finding published in the 

Federal Register on May 3, 2006 (71 FR 

26007), and in the petition received 

November 9, 2009. The headwater chub 

is a moderate-sized cyprinid fish. The 

range of the headwater chub has been 

reduced by approximately 60 percent. 

Seventeen streams (125 miles (200 

kilometers) of stream) are thought to be 

occupied out of 27 streams (312 miles 

(500 kilometers) of stream) formerly 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69251 

occupied in the Gila River Basin in 

Arizona and New Mexico. All remaining 

populations are fragmented and isolated 

and threatened by a combination of 

factors. 

Headwater chub are threatened by 

introduced nonnative fish that prey on 

them and compete with them for food. 

Habitat destruction and modification 

have occurred and continue to occur as 

a result of dewatering, impoundment, 

channelization, and channel changes 

caused by alteration of riparian 

vegetation and watershed degradation 

from mining, grazing, roads, water 

pollution, urban and suburban 

development, groundwater pumping, 

and other human actions. Existing 

regulatory mechanisms do not appear to 

be adequate for addressing the impact of 

nonnative fish and also have not 

removed or eliminated the threats that 

continue to be posed through habitat 

destruction or modification. The 

fragmented nature and rarity of existing 

populations makes them vulnerable to 

other natural or manmade factors, such 

as drought and wildfire. Climate change 

is predicted to worsen these threats 

though increased aridity of the region, 

thus reducing stream flows and 

warming aquatic habitats, which makes 

them more suitable to nonnative 

species. 

The Arizona Game and Fish 

Department has finalized the Arizona 

Statewide Conservation Agreement for 

Roundtail Chub (G. robusta), Headwater 

Chub, Flannelmouth Sucker 

(Catostomus latipinnis), Little Colorado 

River Sucker (Catostomus spp.), 

Bluehead Sucker (C. discobolus), and 

Zuni Bluehead Sucker (C. discobolus 

yarrowi). The New Mexico Department 

of Game and Fish recently listed the 

headwater chub as endangered and 

created a recovery plan for the species: 

Colorado River Basin Chubs (Roundtail 

Chub, Gila Chub (G. intermedia), and 

Headwater Chub) Recovery Plan, which 

was approved by the New Mexico State 

Game Commission on November 16, 

2006. Both the Arizona Agreement and 

the New Mexico Recovery Plan 

recommend preservation and 

enhancement of extant populations and 

restoration of historical headwater-chub 

populations. The recovery and 

conservation actions prescribed by 

Arizona and New Mexico plans, which 

we predict will reduce and remove 

threats to this species, will require 

further discussions and authorizations 

before they can be implemented, 

although some actions have been 

completed and several are planned for 

the immediate future. Although threats 

are ongoing, existing information 

indicates long-term persistence and 

stability of existing populations. 

Currently 10 of the 17 extant stream 

populations are considered stable based 

on abundance and evidence of 

recruitment. Based on our assessment, 

threats (nonnative species, habitat loss 

from land uses) remain imminent and 

are of a moderate magnitude. Thus, we 

have retained an LPN of 8 for this 

species. 

Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta) Lower 

Colorado River Distinct Population 

Segment—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files and the 12-month finding 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 7, 2009 (74 FR 32352). The 

roundtail chub is a moderate to large 

cyprinid fish. The range of the roundtail 

chub has been reduced by 

approximately 68 to 82 percent. Thirtythree streams are currently occupied, 

representing approximately 18 to 32 

percent of the species’ former range, or 

800 km (500 miles) to 1350 km (840 mi) 

of 3050 km (1895 mi) of formerly 

occupied streams in the Gila River Basin 

in Arizona and New Mexico. Most of the 

remaining populations are fragmented 

and isolated, and all are threatened by 

a combination of factors. 

Roundtail chub are threatened by 

introduced nonnative fish that prey on 

them and compete with them for food. 

Habitat destruction and modification 

have occurred and continue to occur as 

a result of dewatering, impoundment, 

channelization, and channel changes 

caused by alteration of riparian 

vegetation and watershed degradation 

from mining, grazing, roads, water 

pollution, urban and suburban 

development, groundwater pumping, 

and other human actions. Existing 

regulatory mechanisms do not appear to 

be adequate for addressing the impact of 

nonnative fish and also have not 

removed or eliminated the threats that 

continue to be posed through habitat 

destruction or modification. The 

fragmented nature and rarity of existing 

populations makes them vulnerable to 

other natural or manmade factors, such 

as drought and wildfire. Climate change 

is predicted to worsen these threats 

though increased aridity of the region, 

thus reducing stream flows and 

warming aquatic habitats, which makes 

them more suitable to nonnative 

species. 

The Arizona Game and Fish 

Department has finalized the Arizona 

Statewide Conservation Agreement for 

Roundtail Chub, Headwater Chub (G. 

nigra), Flannelmouth Sucker 

(Catostomus latipinnis), Little Colorado 

River Sucker (Catostomus spp.), 

Bluehead Sucker (C. discobolus), and 

Zuni Bluehead Sucker (C. discobolus 

yarrowi). The New Mexico Department 

of Game and Fish lists the roundtail 

chub as endangered and has created a 

recovery plan for the species: Colorado 

River Basin Chubs (Roundtail Chub, 

Gila Chub (G. intermedia), and 

Headwater Chub) Recovery Plan, which 

was approved by the New Mexico State 

Game Commission on November 16, 

2006. Both the Arizona Agreement and 

the New Mexico Recovery Plan 

recommend preservation and 

enhancement of extant populations and 

restoration of historical roundtail-chub 

populations. The recovery and 

conservation actions prescribed by 

Arizona and New Mexico plans, which 

we predict will reduce and remove 

threats to this species, will require 

further discussions and authorizations 

before they can be implemented, 

although some actions have been 

completed and several are planned for 

the immediate future. Although threats 

are ongoing, existing information 

indicates long-term persistence and 

stability of existing populations. 

Currently 9 of the 33 extant stream 

populations are considered stable based 

on abundance and evidence of 

recruitment. Based on our assessment, 

threats (nonnative species, habitat loss 

from land uses) remain imminent and 

are of a moderate magnitude. Thus, we 

have retained an LPN of 9 for this 

distinct population segment. 

Arkansas darter (Etheostoma 

cragini)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. No new information was provided 

in the petition we received on May 11, 

2004. This fish species occurs in 

Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, 

and Oklahoma. The species is found 

most often in sand- or pebble-bottomed 

pools of small, spring-fed streams and 

marshes, with cool water and broadleaved aquatic vegetation. Its current 

distribution is indicative of a species 

that once was widely dispersed 

throughout its range, but has been 

relegated to isolated areas surrounded 

by unsuitable habitat that prevents 

dispersal. Factors influencing the 

current distribution include: Surface 

and groundwater irrigation resulting in 

decreased flows or stream dewatering; 

the dewatering of long reaches of 

riverine habitat necessary for species 

movement when surface flows do occur; 

conversion of prairie to cropland which 

influences groundwater recharge and 

spring flows; water quality degradation 

from a variety of sources; and the 

construction of dams which act as 

barriers preventing emigration upstream 

and downstream through the reservoir 

pool. The magnitude of threats facing 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69252 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

this species is moderate to low, given 

the number of different locations where 

the species occurs and the fact that no 

single threat or combination of threats 

affects more than a portion of the 

widespread population occurrences. 

Overall, the threats are nonimminent 

since groundwater pumping is declining 

and development, spills, and runoff are 

not currently affecting the species 

rangewide. Thus, we are retaining an 

LPN of 11 for the Arkansas darter. 

Pearl darter (Percina aurora)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. Little 

is known about the specific habitat 

requirements or natural history of the 

Pearl darter, a small fish in the Percidae 

family. 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 

two states. Currently, the Pearl darter is 

considered extirpated from the Pearl 

River drainage and rare in the 

Pascagoula River drainage. Since 1983, 

the range of the Pearl darter has 

decreased by 55 percent. 

The Pearl darter is vulnerable to nonpoint-source pollution caused by 

urbanization and other land use 

activities; gravel mining and resultant 

changes in river geomorphology, 

especially head cutting; and the 

possibility of water quantity decline 

from the proposed Department of 

Energy Strategic Petroleum Reserve 

project and a proposed dam on the 

Bouie River. Additional threats are 

posed by the apparent lack of adequate 

State and Federal water quality 

regulations due to the continuing 

degradation of water quality within the 

species’ habitat. The Pearl darter’s 

localized distribution and apparent low 

population numbers may indicate a 

species with lower genetic diversity 

which would also make this species 

more vulnerable to catastrophic events. 

Threats affecting the Pearl darter are 

localized in nature, affecting portions of 

the population within the drainage, 

thus, we assigned a threat magnitude of 

moderate to low for 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 

a listing priority number of 8 for this 

species. 

Grotto sculpin (Cottus sp., sp. nov.)— 

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 Grotto sculpin, a small fish, is 

restricted to two karst areas (limestone 

regions characterized by sink holes, 

abrupt ridges, caves, and underground 

streams), the Central Perryville Karst 

and Mystery-Rimstone Karst in Perry 

County, southeast Missouri. Grotto 

sculpins have been documented in only 

five cave systems (Burr et al. 2001, p. 

284). The current overall range of the 

grotto sculpin has been estimated to 

encompass approximately 260 square 

kilometers (100 square miles). 

The small population size and 

endemism of the grotto sculpin make it 

vulnerable to extinction due to genetic 

drift, inbreeding depression, and 

random or chance changes to the 

environment (Smith 1974, p. 350). The 

species’ karst habitat is located downgradient of the city of Perryville, 

Missouri, which poses a potential threat 

if contaminants from this urban area 

enter cave streams occupied by grotto 

sculpins. Various agricultural 

chemicals, such as ammonia, nitrite/ 

nitrate, acetochlor, dieldrin, and 

atrazine have been detected at levels 

high enough to be detrimental to aquatic 

life within the Perryville Karst area. 

Many of the sinkholes in Perry County 

contain anthropogenic refuse, ranging 

from household cleansers and sewage to 

used pesticide and herbicide containers. 

As a result, potential water 

contamination from various sources of 

point and non-point pollution poses a 

significant threat to the grotto sculpin. 

Of the five cave systems documented to 

have grotto sculpins, populations in two 

cave systems have had fish kills in 

recent times. Predatory fish such as 

common carp, fat-head minnow, yellow 

bullhead, green sunfish, bluegill, and 

channel catfish occur in all of the caves 

occupied by grotto sculpin. These 

potential predators may escape surface 

farm ponds that unexpectedly drain 

through sinkholes into the underground 

cave systems and enter Grotto sculpin 

habitat. No regulatory mechanisms are 

in place that would provide protection 

to the grotto sculpin. Current threats to 

the habitat of the grotto sculpin may 

exacerbate potential problems 

associated with its low population 

numbers and increase the likelihood of 

extinction. Due to the high magnitude of 

ongoing, and thus imminent, threats we 

assigned this species an LPN of 2. 

Sharpnose shiner (Notropis 

oxyrhynchus)—The following summary 

is based on information contained in 

our files. No new information was 

provided in the petition we received on 

May 11, 2004. The sharpnose shiner is 

a small, slender minnow, endemic to 

the Brazos River Basin in Texas. 

Historically, the sharpnose shiner 

existed throughout the Brazos River and 

several of its major tributaries. It has 

also been found in the Wichita River 

(within the Red River Basin), where it 

may have once naturally occurred but 

has since been extirpated. Current 

information indicates that the 

population upstream of Possum 

Kingdom Reservoir is apparently stable, 

while the population downstream of the 

reservoir may be extirpated, 

representing a reduction of 

approximately 69 percent of its 

historical range. 

The most significant threat to the 

existence of the sharpnose shiner is 

potential reservoir development within 

its current range. The current water plan 

for Texas provides several reservoir 

options that could be implemented 

within the Brazos River drainage. 

Additional threats include irrigation 

and water diversion, sedimentation, 

desalination, industrial and municipal 

discharges, agricultural activities, instream sand and gravel mining, and the 

spread of invasive saltcedar. The current 

limited distribution of the sharpnose 

shiner within the Upper Brazos River 

Basin makes it vulnerable to 

catastrophic events such as the 

introduction of competitive species or 

prolonged drought. State law does not 

provide protection for the sharpnose 

shiner. The magnitude of threat is 

considered high since reservoir 

development within the species’ current 

range may render remaining habitat 

unsuitable. The threats are 

nonimminent because the most 

significant threat—major reservoir 

projects—is not likely to occur in the 

near future, and there is potential for 

implementing other water-supply 

options that could preclude reservoir 

development. For these reasons, we 

assigned an LPN of 5 to this species. 

Smalleye shiner (Notropis buccula)— 

The following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

The smalleye shiner is a small, pallid 

minnow endemic to the Brazos River 

Basin in Texas. The population of 

smalleye shiners within the Upper 

Brazos River drainage (upstream of 

Possum Kingdom Reservoir) is 

apparently stable. However, the shiner 

may be extirpated downstream from the 

reservoir, representing a reduction of 

approximately 54 percent of its 

historical range. 

The most significant threat to the 

existence of the smalleye shiner is 

potential reservoir development within 

its current range. The current water plan 

for Texas provides several reservoir 

options that could be implemented 

within the Brazos River drainage. 

Additional threats include irrigation 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69253 

and water diversion, sedimentation, 

desalination, industrial and municipal 

discharges, agricultural activities, instream sand and gravel mining, and the 

spread of invasive saltcedar. The current 

limited distribution of the smalleye 

shiner within the Upper Brazos River 

drainage makes it vulnerable to 

catastrophic events such as the 

introduction of competitive species or 

prolonged drought. State law does not 

provide protection for the smalleye 

shiner. The magnitude of threat is high 

since the major threat of reservoir 

development within the species’ current 

range may render its remaining habitat 

unsuitable. The threats are 

nonimminent because major reservoir 

projects are not likely to occur in the 

near future and there is potential for 

implementing other water-supply 

options that could preclude reservoir 

development. For these reasons, we 

assigned a LPN of 5 to this species. 

Zuni bluehead sucker (Catostomus 

discobolus yarrowi)—The following 

summary is based on information 

contained in our files. No new 

information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

The Zuni bluehead sucker is a colorful 

fish less than 8 inches long. The range 

of the Zuni bluehead sucker has been 

reduced by over 95 percent. The Zuni 

bluehead sucker currently occupies 3 

river miles (4.8 kilometers) in three 

headwater streams of the Rio Nutria in 

New Mexico, and potentially occurs in 

27.5 miles in (44 kilometers) the 

Kinlichee drainage of Arizona. 

However, the number of occupied miles 

in Arizona is unknown and the genetic 

composition of these fish is still under 

investigation. 

Zuni bluehead sucker range reduction 

and fragmentation is caused by 

discontinuous surface-water flow, 

introduced species, and habitat 

degradation from fine sediment 

deposition. Zuni bluehead sucker 

persist in very small creeks that are 

subject to very low flows and drying 

during periods of drought. Because of 

climate change (warmer air 

temperatures), stream flow is predicted 

to decrease in the Southwest, even if 

precipitation were to increase 

moderately. Warmer winter and spring 

temperatures cause an increased 

fraction of precipitation to fall as rain, 

resulting in a reduced snow pack, an 

earlier snow melt, and a longer dry 

season leading to decreased stream flow 

in the summer and a longer fire season. 

These changes would have a negative 

effect on Zuni bluehead sucker. Another 

major impact to populations of Zuni 

bluehead sucker was the application of 

fish toxicants through at least two dozen 

treatments in the Nutria and Pescado 

rivers between 1960 and 1975. Large 

numbers of Zuni bluehead suckers were 

killed during these treatments. The Zuni 

bluehead sucker is most likely 

extirpated from Rio Pescado as none 

have been collected from that river since 

1993. 

The New Mexico Department of Game 

and Fish developed a recovery plan for 

Zuni bluehead sucker which was 

approved by the New Mexico State 

Game Commission on December 15, 

2004. The recovery plan recommends 

preservation and enhancement of extant 

populations and restoration of historical 

Zuni bluehead sucker populations. We 

predict that the recovery actions 

prescribed by the recovery plan will 

reduce and remove threats to this 

subspecies, but they will require further 

discussions and authorizations before 

they can be implemented and threats are 

reduced. Because of the ongoing threats 

of high magnitude, including loss of 

habitat (historical and current from 

beaver activity), degradation of 

remaining habitat (nonnative species 

and land development), drought, fire, 

and climate change, we maintained an 

LPN of 3 for this subspecies. 

Rio Grande cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files and 

our status review published on May 14, 

2008 (73 FR 27900). Rio Grande 

cutthroat trout is one of 14 subspecies 

of cutthroat trout found in the western 

United States. Populations of this 

subspecies are in New Mexico and 

Colorado in drainages of the Rio Grande, 

Pecos, and Canadian Rivers. Although 

once widely distributed in connected 

stream networks, Rio Grande cutthroat 

trout populations now occupy about 10 

percent of historical habitat, and the 

populations are fragmented and isolated 

from one another. The majority of 

populations occur in high elevation 

streams. 

Major threats include the loss of 

suitable habitat that has occurred and is 

likely to continue occurring due to 

water diversions, dams, stream drying, 

habitat quality degradation, and changes 

in hydrology, introduction of nonnative 

trout and ensuing competition, 

predation, and hybridization, and 

whirling disease. In addition, average 

air temperatures in the southwest have 

increased about 1 °C (2.5 °F) in the past 

30 years, and they are projected to 

increase by another 1.2 to 2.8 °C (3 to 

7 °F) by 2050. Because trout require cold 

water, and water temperatures depend 

in large part on air temperature, there is 

concern that the habitat of Rio Grande 

cutthroat trout will further decrease in 

response to warmer water temperatures 

caused by climate change. Wildfire and 

drought (stream drying) are additional 

threats to Rio Grande cutthroat trout 

populations that are likely to increase in 

magnitude in response to climate 

change. Research is occurring to assess 

the effects of climate change on this 

subspecies, and agencies are working to 

restore historically occupied streams. 

The threats are of moderate magnitude 

because there is good distribution and a 

comparatively large number of 

populations across the landscape, some 

populations have few threats present, 

and in other areas management actions 

are being taken to help control the threat 

of nonnative trout. Overall, the threats 

are ongoing and, therefore, imminent. 

Based on imminent threats of moderate 

magnitude, we assigned an LPN of 9 to 

this subspecies. 

Clams 

Texas hornshell (Popenaias popei)— 

The following summary is based on 

information contained in our files and 

information provided by the New 

Mexico Department of Game and Fish 

and Texas Parks and Wildlife 

Department. No new information was 

provided in the petition received on 

May 11, 2004. The Texas hornshell is a 

freshwater mussel found in the Black 

River in New Mexico, and the Rio 

Grande and the Devils River in Texas. 

Until March 2008, the only known 

extant populations were in New 

Mexico’s Black River and one locality in 

the Rio Grande near Laredo, Texas. In 

March 2008, two new localities were 

confirmed in Texas—one in the Devils 

River and one in the mainstem Rio 

Grande in the Rio Grande Wild and 

Scenic River segment downstream of 

Big Bend National Park. 

The primary threats to this species are 

habitat alterations such as stream bank 

channelization, impoundments, and 

diversions for agriculture and flood 

control; contamination of water by oil 

and gas activity; alterations in the 

natural riverine hydrology; and 

increased sedimentation and flood 

pulses from prolonged overgrazing and 

loss of native vegetation. Although 

riverine habitats throughout the species’ 

known occupied range are under 

constant threat from these ongoing or 

potential activities, numerous 

conservation actions that will benefit 

the species are under way in New 

Mexico, including the completion of a 

State recovery plan for the species and 

the drafting of a Candidate Conservation 

Agreement with Assurances, and are 

beginning in Texas on the Big Bend 

reach of the Rio Grande. Due to these 

ongoing conservation efforts, the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69254 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

magnitude of the threats is moderate. 

However, the threats to the species are 

ongoing, and remain imminent. Thus, 

we maintained the LPN of 8 for this 

species. 

Fluted kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus 

subtentum)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. No new information was provided 

in the petition we received on May 11, 

2004. The fluted kidneyshell is a 

freshwater mussel (Unionidae) endemic 

to the Cumberland and Tennessee River 

systems (Cumberlandian Region) in 

Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, and 

Virginia. It requires shoal habitats in 

free-flowing rivers to survive and 

successfully recruit new individuals 

into its populations. 

This species has been extirpated from 

numerous regional streams and is no 

longer found in the State of Alabama. 

Habitat destruction and alteration (e.g., 

impoundments, sedimentation, and 

pollutants) are the chief factors that 

contributed to its decline. The fluted 

kidneyshell was historically known 

from at least 37 streams but is currently 

restricted to no more than 12 isolated 

populations. Current status information 

for most of the 12 populations deemed 

to be extant is available from recent 

periodic sampling efforts (sometimes 

annually) and other field studies, 

particularly in the upper Tennessee 

River system. Some populations in the 

Cumberland River system have had 

recent surveys as well (e.g., Wolf, Little 

Rivers; Little South Fork; Horse Lick, 

Buck Creeks). Populations in Buck 

Creek, Little South Fork, Horse Lick 

Creek, Powell River, and North Fork 

Holston River have clearly declined 

over the past two decades. Based on 

recent information, the overall 

population of the fluted kidneyshell is 

declining rangewide. At this time, the 

species remains in large numbers and is 

viable in just the Clinch River/Copper 

Creek, although smaller, viable 

populations remain (e.g., Wolf, Little, 

North Fork Holston Rivers; Rock Creek). 

Most other populations are of 

questionable or limited viability, with 

some on the verge of extirpation (e.g., 

Powell River; Little South Fork; Horse 

Lick, Buck, Indian Creeks). We hope 

that newly reintroduced populations in 

the Little Tennessee, Nolichucky, and 

Duck Rivers will begin to reverse the 

downward population trend of this 

species. The threats are high in 

magnitude, since the majority of 

populations of this species are severely 

affected by numerous threats 

(impoundments, sedimentation, small 

population size, isolation of 

populations, gravel mining, municipal 

pollutants, agricultural runoff, nutrient 

enrichment, and coal processing 

pollution) which result in mortality or 

reduced reproductive output. Since the 

threats are ongoing, they are imminent. 

We assigned an LPN of 2 to this mussel 

species. 

Neosho mucket (Lampsilis 

rafinesqueana)—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 Neosho mucket is a freshwater 

mussel native to Arkansas, Kansas, 

Missouri, and Oklahoma. The species 

has been extirpated from approximately 

62 percent (835 river miles (1,334 river 

kilometers)) of its range. Most of this 

decline has occurred in Kansas and 

Oklahoma. The Neosho mucket survives 

in four river drainages; however, only 

one of these, the Spring River, currently 

supports a relatively large population. 

Significant portions of the historic 

range have been inundated by the 

construction of at least 11 dams. 

Channel instability downstream of these 

dams has further reduced suitable 

habitat and mussel distribution. Range 

restriction and population declines have 

occurred due to habitat degradation 

attributed to urbanization, 

impoundments, mining, sedimentation, 

and agricultural pollutants. Rapid 

development and urbanization in the 

Illinois River watershed will likely 

continue to increase channel instability, 

sedimentation, and eutrophication. The 

recent rapid decline of the entire mussel 

community in the Arkansas portion of 

the Illinois River, including Neosho 

mucket, is alarming, and it is possible 

the species will be extirpated from 

approximately 30 river miles (48 river 

kilometers) in the very near future. The 

Illinois River once represented one of 

the two viable populations, but 

continued viability of this stream 

population is doubtful and extirpation 

is imminent. The remaining extant 

populations are vulnerable to random 

catastrophic events (e.g., flood scour, 

drought, toxic spills), land use changes 

within the limited range, and genetic 

isolation and the deleterious effects of 

inbreeding. These threats have led to the 

species being intrinsically vulnerable to 

extirpation. Although state regulations 

limit harvest of this species, there is 

little protection for habitat. The threats 

are high in magnitude as they occur 

throughout the range of this species, and 

the majority of these threats are ongoing 

and imminent. Thus, we assigned a 

listing priority number of 2 to this 

species. 

Alabama pearlshell (Margaritifera 

marrianae)—We continue to find that 

listing this species is warranted but 

precluded as of the date of publication 

of this notice. However, we are working 

on a proposed listing rule that we 

expect to publish prior to making the 

next annual resubmitted 12-month 

petition finding. 

Slabside pearlymussel (Lexingtonia 

dolabelloides)—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 slabside 

pearlymussel is a freshwater mussel 

(Unionidae) endemic to the Cumberland 

and Tennessee River systems 

(Cumberlandian Region) in Alabama, 

Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia. It 

requires shoal habitats in free-flowing 

rivers to survive and successfully recruit 

new individuals into its populations. 

Habitat destruction and alteration 

(e.g., impoundments, sedimentation, 

and pollutants) are the chief factors 

contributing to the decline of this 

species, which has been extirpated from 

numerous regional streams and is no 

longer found in Kentucky. The slabside 

pearlymussel was historically known 

from at least 32 streams, but is currently 

restricted to no more than 10 isolated 

stream segments. Current status 

information for most of the 10 

populations deemed to be extant is 

available from recent periodic sampling 

efforts (sometimes annually) and other 

field studies. Comprehensive surveys 

have taken place in the Middle and 

North Forks Holston River, Paint Rock 

River, and Duck River in the past 

several years. Based on recent 

information, the overall population of 

the slabside pearlymussel is declining 

rangewide. Of the five streams in which 

the species remains in good numbers 

(e.g., Clinch, North and Middle Forks 

Holston, Paint Rock, Duck Rivers), the 

Middle and upper North Fork Holston 

Rivers have undergone drastic recent 

declines, while the Clinch population 

has been in a longer-term decline. Most 

of the remaining five populations (e.g., 

Powell River, Big Moccasin Creek, 

Hiwassee River, Elk River, Bear Creek) 

have doubtful viability, and several if 

not all of them may be on the verge of 

extirpation. 

The threats remain high in magnitude, 

since all populations of this species are 

severely affected in numerous ways 

(impoundments, sedimentation, small 

population size, isolation of 

populations, gravel mining, municipal 

pollutants, agricultural runoff, nutrient 

enrichment, and coal processing 

pollution) which result in mortality or 

reduced reproductive output leading to 

a relatively high likelihood of 

extinction. We assigned an LPN of 2 to 

this mussel species. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69255 

Snails 

Phantom Cave snail (Cochliopa 

texana) and Phantom springsnail 

(Tryonia cheatumi)—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. 

Phantom Cave snail and Phantom 

springsnail are small aquatic snails that 

occur in three spring outflows in the 

Toyah Basin in Reeves and Jeff Davis 

Counties, Texas. 

The primary threat to both species is 

the loss of surface flows due to 

declining groundwater levels from 

drought, pumping for agricultural 

production, and potentially climate 

change. Much of the land immediately 

surrounding their spring habitat is 

owned and managed by The Nature 

Conservancy, Bureau of Reclamation, 

and Texas Parks and Wildlife 

Department. However, the water needed 

to maintain their habitat has declined 

due to a reduction in spring flows, 

possibly as a result of private 

groundwater pumping in areas beyond 

that controlled by these landowners. As 

an example, Phantom Lake Spring, one 

of the sites of occurrence, has already 

ceased flowing and aquatic habitat is 

artificially supported only by a pumping 

system. The magnitude of the threats is 

high because spring flow loss would 

result in complete habitat destruction 

and permanent elimination of all 

populations of the species. The 

immediacy of the threats is imminent, 

as evidenced by the drastic decline in 

spring flow at Phantom Lake Spring that 

is currently happening and may 

extirpate these populations in the near 

future. Declining spring flows in San 

Solomon Spring are also becoming 

evident and will affect that spring site 

as well within the foreseeable future. 

Thus, we maintained the LPN of 2 for 

both species. 

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 in 

American Samoa has resulted, in part, 

from loss of habitat to forestry and 

agriculture and loss of forest structure to 

hurricanes and alien weeds that 

establish after these storms. All live sisi 

snails have been found in the leaf litter 

beneath remaining intact forest canopy. 

No snails were found in areas bordering 

agricultural plots or in forest areas that 

were severely damaged by three 

hurricanes (1987, 1990, and 1991). 

Under natural historical conditions, loss 

of forest canopy to storms did not pose 

a great threat to the long-term survival 

of these snails; enough intact forest with 

healthy populations of snails would 

support dispersal back into newly 

regrown canopy forest. However, the 

presence of alien weeds such as mile-aminute vine (Mikania micrantha) may 

reduce the likelihood that native forest 

will re-establish in areas damaged by 

the hurricanes. This loss of habitat to 

storms is greatly exacerbated by 

expanding agriculture. Agricultural 

plots on Tutuila have spread from low 

elevation up to middle and some high 

elevations, greatly reducing the forest 

area and thus reducing the resilience of 

native forests and its 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 canopy forest. In an effort to 

eradicate the giant African snail 

(Achatina fulica), the alien rosy 

carnivore snail (Euglandia rosea) was 

introduced in 1980. The rosy carnivore 

snail has spread throughout the main 

island of Tutuila. Numerous studies 

show that the rosy carnivore snail feeds 

on endemic island snails including the 

sisi, and is a major agent in their 

declines and extirpations. At present, 

the major threat to long-term survival of 

the native snail fauna in American 

Samoa is predation by nonnative 

predatory snails. These threats are 

ongoing and are therefore imminent. 

Since the threats occur throughout the 

entire range of the species, have a severe 

effect on the survival of the snails, 

leading to a relatively high likelihood of 

extinction, they are of a high magnitude. 

Therefore we assigned this species an 

LPN of 2. 

Diamond Y Spring snail 

(Pseudotryonia adamantina) and 

Gonzales springsnail (Tryonia 

circumstriata)—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. Diamond Y Spring snail 

and Gonzales springsnail are small 

aquatic snails endemic to Diamond Y 

Spring in Pecos County, Texas. The land 

surrounding the spring and its outflow 

channels are owned and managed by 

The Nature Conservancy. 

These snails are primarily threatened 

with habitat loss due to springflow 

declines from drought, pumping of 

groundwater, and potentially of climate 

change. Additional threats include 

water contamination from accidental 

releases of petroleum products, as their 

habitat is in an active oil and gas field. 

Also, a nonnative aquatic snail 

(Melanoides sp.) was introduced into 

the native snails’ habitat and may 

compete with endemic snails for space 

and resources. The magnitude of threats 

is high because limited distribution of 

these narrow endemics makes any 

impact from increasing threats (e.g., loss 

of springflow, contaminants, and 

nonnative species) likely to result in the 

extinction of the species. These species 

occur in one location in an arid region 

currently plagued by drought and 

ongoing aquifer withdrawals, making 

the eventual loss of spring flow an 

imminent threat of total habitat loss. 

Thus, we maintained the LPN of 2 for 

both species. 

Fragile tree snail (Samoana fragilis)— 

The following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

A tree-dwelling species, the fragile tree 

snail is a member of the Partulidae 

family of snails, and is endemic to the 

islands of Guam and Rota (Mariana 

Islands). Requiring cool and shaded 

native forest habitat, the species is now 

known from one population on Guam 

and from one population on Rota. 

This species is currently threatened 

by habitat loss and modification and by 

predation from nonnative predatory 

snails and flatworms. Large numbers of 

Philippine deer (Cervus mariannus) 

(Guam and Rota), pigs (Sus scrofra) 

(Guam), water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) 

(Guam), and cattle (Bos taurus) (Rota) 

directly alter the understory plant 

community and overall forest 

microclimate, making it unsuitable for 

snails. Predation by the alien rosy 

carnivore snail (Euglandina rosea) and 

the Manokwar flatworm (Platydemus 

manokwari) is a serious threat to the 

survival of the fragile tree snail. Field 

observations have established that the 

rosy carnivore snail and the Manokwar 

flatworm will readily feed on native 

Pacific island tree snails, including the 

Partulidae, such as those of the Mariana 

Islands. The rosy carnivore snail has 

caused the extirpation of many 

populations and species of native snails 

throughout the Pacific islands. The 

Manokwar flatworm has also 

contributed to the decline of native tree 

snails, in part due to its ability to ascend 

into trees and bushes that support 

native snails. Areas with populations of 

the flatworm usually lack partulid tree 

snails or have declining numbers of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69256 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

snails. Because all of the threats occur 

rangewide, have a significant effect on 

the survival of this snail species, leading 

to a relatively high likelihood of 

extinction, they are high in magnitude. 

The threats are also ongoing and thus 

are imminent. Therefore, we assigned 

this species an LPN of 2. 

Guam tree snail (Partula radiolata)— 

The following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

A tree-dwelling species, the Guam tree 

snail is a member of the Partulidae 

family of snails and is endemic to the 

island of Guam. Requiring cool and 

shaded native forest habitat, the species 

is now known from 22 populations on 

Guam. 

This species is primarily threatened 

by predation from nonnative predatory 

snails and flatworms. In addition, the 

species is also threatened by habitat loss 

and degradation. Predation by the alien 

rosy carnivore snail (Euglandina rosea) 

and the alien Manokwar flatworm 

(Platydemus manokwari) is a serious 

threat to the survival of the Guam tree 

snail (see summary for the fragile tree 

snail, above). On Guam, open 

agricultural fields and other areas prone 

to erosion were seeded with 

tangantangan (Leucaena leucocephala) 

by the U.S. Military. Tangantangan 

grows as a single species stand with no 

substantial understory. The 

microclimatic condition is dry with 

little accumulation of leaf litter humus 

and is particularly unsuitable as Guam 

tree snail habitat. In addition, native 

forest cannot reestablish and grow 

where this alien weed has become 

established. Because all of the threats 

occur rangewide, have a significant 

effect on the survival of this snail 

species, leading to a relatively high 

likelihood of extinction, they are high in 

magnitude. The threats are also ongoing 

and thus are imminent. Therefore, we 

assigned this species an LPN of 2. 

Humped tree snail (Partula gibba)— 

The following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

A tree-dwelling species, the humped 

tree snail is a member of the Partulidae 

family of snails, and was originally 

known from the island of Guam and the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands (islands of Rota, Aguiguan, 

Tinian, Saipan, Anatahan, Sarigan, 

Alamagan, and Pagan). Most recent 

surveys revealed a total of 13 

populations on the islands of Guam, 

Rota, Aguiguan, Sarigan, Saipan, 

Alamagan, and Pagan. Although still the 

most widely distributed tree snail 

endemic in the Mariana Islands, 

remaining population sizes are often 

small. 

This species is currently threatened 

by habitat loss and modification and by 

predation from nonnative predatory 

snails and flat worms. Throughout the 

Mariana Islands, feral ungulates (pigs 

(Sus scrofa), Philippine deer (Cervus 

mariannus), cattle (Bos taurus), water 

buffalo (Bubalus bubalis), and goats 

(Capra hircus)) have caused severe 

damage to native forest vegetation by 

browsing directly on plants, causing 

erosion, and retarding forest growth and 

regeneration. This in turn reduces the 

quantity and quality of forested habitat 

for the humped tree snail. Currently, 

populations of feral ungulates are found 

on the islands of Guam (deer, pigs, and 

water buffalo), Rota (deer and cattle), 

Aguiguan (goats), Saipan (deer, pigs, 

and cattle), Alamagan (goats, pigs, and 

cattle), and Pagan (cattle, goats, and 

pigs). Goats were eradicated from 

Sarigan in 1998 and the humped tree 

snail has increased in abundance on 

that island, likely in response to the 

removal of all the goats. However, the 

population of humped tree snails on 

Anatahan is likely extirpated due to the 

massive volcanic explosions of the 

island beginning in 2003 and still 

continuing, and the resulting loss of up 

to 95 percent of the vegetation on the 

island. Predation by the alien rosy 

carnivore snail (Euglandina rosea) and 

the alien Manokwar flatworm 

(Platydemus manokwari) is a serious 

threat to the survival of the humped tree 

snail (see summary for the fragile tree 

snail, above). The magnitude of threats 

is high because these alien predators 

cause significant population declines to 

the humped tree snail rangewide. These 

threats are ongoing and thus are 

imminent. Therefore, we assigned this 

species an LPN of 2. 

Lanai tree snail (Partulina 

semicarinata)—We continue to find that 

listing this species is warranted but 

precluded as of the date of publication 

of this notice. However, we are working 

on a proposed listing rule that we 

expect to publish prior to making the 

next annual resubmitted petition 

12-month finding. 

Lanai tree snail (Partulina 

variabilis)—We continue to find that 

listing this species is warranted but 

precluded as of the date of publication 

of this notice. However, we are working 

on a proposed listing rule that we 

expect to publish prior to making the 

next annual resubmitted petition 

12-month finding. 

Langford’s tree snail (Partula 

langfordi)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. No new information was provided 

in the petition we received on May 11, 

2004. A tree-dwelling species, 

Langford’s tree snail is a member of the 

Partulidae family of snails, and is 

known from one population on the 

island of Aguiguan. 

This species is currently threatened 

by habitat loss and modification and by 

predation from nonnative predatory 

snails. In the 1930s, the island of 

Aguiguan was mostly cleared of native 

forest to support sugar cane and 

pineapple production. The abandoned 

fields and airstrip are now overgrown 

with alien weeds. The remaining native 

forest understory has greatly suffered 

from large and uncontrolled populations 

of alien goats and the invasion of weeds. 

Goats (Capra hircus) have caused severe 

damage to native forest vegetation by 

browsing directly on plants, causing 

erosion, and retarding forest growth and 

regeneration. This in turn reduces the 

quantity and quality of forested habitat 

for Langford’s tree snail. Predation by 

the alien rosy carnivore snail 

(Euglandina rosea) and by the 

Manokwar flatworm (Platydemus 

manokwari) (see summary for the fragile 

tree snail, above) is also a serious threat 

to the survival of Langford’s tree snail. 

All of the threats are occurring 

rangewide and no efforts to control or 

eradicate the nonnative predatory snail 

species or to reduce habitat loss are 

being undertaken. The magnitude of 

threats is high because they result in 

direct mortality or significant 

population declines to Langford’s tree 

snail rangewide. A survey of Aguiguan 

in November 2006 failed to find any live 

Langford’s tree snails. These threats are 

also ongoing and thus are imminent. 

Therefore, we assigned this species an 

LPN of 2. 

Newcomb’s tree snail (Newcombia 

cumingi)—We continue to find that 

listing this species is warranted but 

precluded as of the date of publication 

of this notice. However, we are working 

on a proposed listing rule that we 

expect to publish prior to making the 

next annual resubmitted petition 12- 

month finding. 

Tutuila tree snail (Eua zebrina)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

A tree-dwelling species, the Tutuila tree 

snail is a member of the Partulidae 

family of snails, and is endemic to 

American Samoa. The species is known 

from 32 populations on the islands of 

Tutuila, Nuusetoga, and Ofu. 

This species is currently threatened 

by habitat loss and modification and by 

predation from nonnative predatory 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69257 

snails and rats. 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 

forest areas that were severely damaged 

by three hurricanes (1987, 1990, and 

1991). (See summary for the sisi snail, 

above, regarding impacts of alien weeds 

and of the rosy carnivore snail.) Rats 

(Rattus spp) have also been shown to 

devastate snail populations, and ratchewed snail shells have been found at 

sites where the Tutuila snail occurs. At 

present, the major threat to the longterm survival of the native snail fauna 

in American Samoa is predation by 

nonnative predatory snails and rats. The 

magnitude of threats is high because 

they result in direct mortality or 

significant population declines to the 

Tutuila tree snail rangewide. The threats 

are also ongoing and thus are imminent. 

Therefore, we assigned this species an 

LPN of 2. 

Chupadera springsnail (Pyrgulopsis 

chupaderae)—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. 

Elongate mud meadows springsnail 

(Pyrgulopsis notidicola)—The following 

summary is based on information 

contained in our files. No new 

information was provided in the 

petition received on May 11, 2004. 

Pyrgulopsis notidicola is endemic to 

Soldier Meadow, which is located at the 

northern extreme of the western arm of 

the Black Rock Desert in the transition 

zone between the Basin and Range 

Physiographic Province and the 

Columbia Plateau Province, Humboldt 

County, Nevada. The type locality, and 

the only known location of the species, 

occurs in four separate stretches of 

thermal (between 45° and 32° Celsius, 

113° and 90° Fahrenheit) aquatic 

habitat. The first stretch is the largest at 

approximately 600 m (1,968 ft) long and 

2 m (6.7 ft) wide. The other stretches 

where P. notidicola occurs are less than 

6 m (19.7 ft) long and 0.5 m (1.6 ft) 

wide. Pyrgulopsis notidicola occurs 

only in shallow, flowing water on gravel 

substrate. The species does not occur in 

deep water (i.e., impoundments) where 

water velocity is low, gravel substrate is 

absent, and sediment levels are high. 

The species and its habitat are 

threatened by recreational use in the 

areas where it occurs as well as the 

ongoing impacts of past water 

diversions and livestock grazing and 

current off-highway vehicle travel. 

Conservation measures implemented by 

the Bureau of Land Management 

include the installation of fencing to 

exclude livestock, wild horses, burros 

and other large mammals; closing of 

access roads to spring, riparian, and 

wetland areas and the limiting of 

vehicles to designated routes; the 

establishment of a designated 

campground away from the habitats of 

sensitive species; the installation of 

educational signage; and, increased staff 

presence, including law enforcement 

and a volunteer site steward during the 

6-month period of peak visitor use. 

These conservation measures have 

reduced the magnitude of threat to the 

species to moderate to low; all 

remaining threats are nonimminent and 

involve long-term changes to the habitat 

for the species resulting from past 

impacts. Until a monitoring program is 

in place that allows us to assess the 

long-term trend of the species, we have 

assigned an LPN of 11. 

Gila springsnail (Pyrgulopsis gilae)— 

The following summary is based on 

information contained in our files and 

the petition we received on November 

20, 1985. Also see our 12-month 

petition finding published in the 

Federal Register on October 4, 1988 (53 

FR 38969). The Gila springsnail is an 

aquatic species known from 13 

populations in New Mexico. Surveys 

conducted in 2008 and 2009 located 14 

additional populations bringing the total 

known to 27. Given the new population 

information, as well as new information 

on threats, we are currently assessing 

the status of this species. 

The long-term persistence of the Gila 

springsnail is contingent upon 

protection of the riparian corridor and 

maintenance of flow to ensure 

continuous, oxygenated flowing water 

within the species’ required thermal 

range. Occupied Gila springsnail 

localities on Federal lands surveyed in 

2008 and 2009 are subject to light levels 

of recreational use only at the thermal 

springs, and overall, recreational 

activities do not appear to be affecting 

springsnail populations. The level of 

recreational impacts at thermal springs 

on private lands is unknown. Sites 

visited in 2008 were excluded from 

grazing. Although elk use at some of the 

springs was evident, the level of impact 

was low. Of greatest concern are the 

very small size of the isolated occupied 

habitats and the potential effects of 

climate change. Although the effect 

climate change will have on the springs 

of the Southwest is unpredictable, mean 

annual temperature in New Mexico has 

increased by 0.6 degrees per decade 

since 1970. Higher temperatures lead to 

higher evaporation rates, increased 

evapotranspiration, and decreased soil 

moisture which may reduce the amount 

of groundwater recharge. Widespread, 

long-term drought could affect spring 

flow quantity and quality, negatively 

affecting the springsnail populations. 

Based on these nonimminent threats 

that are currently of a low magnitude, 

we retained a listing priority number of 

11 for this species. 

Gonzales springsnail (Tryonia 

circumstriata)—See summary above 

under Diamond Y Spring snail 

(Pseudotryonia adamantina). 

Huachuca springsnail (Pyrgulopsis 

thompsoni)—The following is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

The Huachuca springsnail inhabits 

approximately 16 springs and cienegas 

at elevations of 4,500 to 7,200 feet in 

southeastern Arizona (14 sites) and 

adjacent portions of Sonora, Mexico (2 

sites). The springsnail is typically found 

in the shallower areas of springs or 

cienegas, often in rocky seeps at the 

spring source. Ongoing threats include 

habitat modification and destruction 

through catastrophic wildfire; drought; 

streamflow alteration; and, potentially, 

grazing, recreation, military activities, 

and timber harvest. Overall, the threats 

are moderate in magnitude because 

threats are not occurring throughout the 

range of the species uniformly and not 

all populations would likely be affected 

simultaneously by any of the known 

threats. In addition, multiple 

landowners (U.S. Forest Service, Fort 

Huachuca, and The Nature 

Conservancy) are including 

consideration for the springsnail or 

other co-occurring listed species in their 

activities (reducing fuel loads, avoiding 

occupied sites during military 

operations). The threats are ongoing 

and, thus, imminent. Therefore, we have 

assigned an LPN of 8 to this species. 

New Mexico springsnail (Pyrgulopsis 

thermalis)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files and the petition received on 

November 20, 1985. Also see our 12- 

month petition finding published on 

October 4, 1988 (53 FR 38969). In 

addition, we have received new 

information on populations and threats 

to the species, which we are currently 

assessing. The New Mexico springsnail 

is an aquatic species known from twelve 

separate populations associated with a 

series of spring-brook systems along the 

Gila River in the Gila National Forest in 

Grant County, New Mexico. 

The long-term persistence of the New 

Mexico springsnail is contingent upon 

protection of the riparian corridor 

immediately adjacent to springhead and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69258 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

springrun habitats. Although the New 

Mexico springsnail populations may be 

stable, the sites inhabited by the species 

are subject to levels of recreational use 

and livestock grazing that can negatively 

affect this species. If these uses remain 

at the current or lower levels, they will 

not pose an imminent threat to the 

species. Of greater concern is drought, 

which could affect spring discharge and 

increases the potential for fire. Although 

the effect global climate change may 

have on streams and forests of the 

Southwest is unpredictable, mean 

annual temperature in New Mexico has 

increased by 0.6 degrees per decade 

since 1970. Higher temperatures lead to 

higher evaporation rates which may 

reduce the amount of runoff and 

groundwater recharge. Increased 

temperatures may also increase the 

extent of area influenced by drought and 

fire. Large fires have occurred in the 

Gila National Forest and subsequent 

floods and ash flows have severely 

affected aquatic life in streams. If the 

drought continues or worsens, the 

imminence of threats from decreased 

discharge and fire will increase. Based 

on these nonimminent threats of a low 

magnitude, we retain an LPN of 11 for 

this springsnail. 

Page springsnail (Pyrgulopsis 

morrisoni)—See above in ‘‘Listing 

Priority Changes in Candidates.’’ The 

above summary is based on information 

contained in our files. 

Phantom springsnail (Tyronia 

cheatumi)—See summary above under 

Phantom Cave snail (Cochliopa texana). 

Three Forks springsnail (Pyrgulopsis 

trivialis)—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. 

Insects 

Wekiu bug (Nysius wekiuicola)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

The wekiu bug belongs to the true bug 

family, Lygaeidae, and is endemic to the 

island of Hawaii. This species only 

occurs on the summit of Mauna Kea and 

feeds upon other insect species which 

are blown to the summit of this large 

volcano. The wekiu bug is primarily 

threatened by the loss of its habitat from 

astronomy development. In 2004 and 

early 2005, surveys found multiple new 

locations of the wekiu bug on cinder 

cones on the Mauna Kea summit. 

Several of these cinder cones within the 

Mauna Kea Science Reserve, as well as 

two cinder cones located in the State Ice 

Age Natural Area Reserve, are not 

currently undergoing development nor 

are they the site of any planned 

development. Thus, the threats, 

although ongoing, do not occur across 

the entire range of the wekiu bug. 

Because there are occupied locations 

that are not subject to the primary threat 

of astronomy development, the overall 

magnitude of the threat is moderate. The 

immediacy of the threats is imminent 

because there are still significant parts 

of the wekiu bug’s range where 

development is occurring. Therefore, we 

assigned this species an LPN of 8. 

Mariana eight spot butterfly 

(Hypolimnas octucula mariannensis)— 

The following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

The Mariana eight spot butterfly is a 

nymphalid butterfly species that feeds 

upon two host plants, Procris 

pedunculata and Elatostema calcareum. 

Endemic to the islands of Guam and 

Saipan, the species is now known from 

ten populations on Guam. This species 

is currently threatened by predation and 

parasitism. The Mariana eight spot 

butterfly has extremely high mortality of 

eggs and larvae due to predation by 

alien ants and wasps. Because the threat 

of parasitism and predation by 

nonnative insects occurs rangewide and 

can cause significant population 

declines to this species, they are high in 

magnitude. The threats are imminent 

because they are ongoing. Therefore, we 

assigned an LPN of 3 for this subspecies. 

Mariana wandering butterfly (Vagrans 

egestina)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. No new information was provided 

in the petition we received on May 11, 

2004. The Mariana wandering butterfly 

is a nymphalid butterfly species which 

feeds upon a single host plant species, 

Maytenus thompsonii. Originally known 

from and endemic to the islands of 

Guam and Rota, the species is now 

known from one population on Rota. 

This species is currently threatened by 

alien predation and parasitism. The 

Mariana wandering butterfly is likely 

predated by alien ants and parasitized 

by native and nonnative parasitoids. 

Because the threats of parasitism and 

predation by nonnative insects occur 

rangewide and can cause significant 

population declines to this species, 

leading to a relatively high likelihood of 

extinction, they are high in magnitude. 

These threats are imminent because 

they are ongoing. Therefore, we 

assigned an LPN of 2 for this species. 

Miami blue butterfly (Cyclargus 

thomasi bethunebakeri)—The following 

summary is based on information 

contained in our files and in the petition 

we received on June 15, 2000. 

Historically, the Miami blue was most 

common on the south Florida mainland 

and the Florida Keys, with a range 

extending north to Hillsborough and 

Volusia Counties. It is presently located 

at two sites in the Keys. In 1999, a 

metapopulation was discovered at Bahia 

Honda State Park (BHSP) on Bahia 

Honda Key, and in 2006 a second 

metapopulation was discovered on the 

outer islands of Key West National 

Wildlife Refuge (KWNWR). The BHSP 

metapopulation appears restricted to a 

couple hundred individuals at most; the 

KWNWR metapopulation was believed 

to be several hundred in 2006–2007, but 

appears to be lower in abundance now. 

Capacity to expand at either site or 

successfully emigrate from either site 

appears to be very low due to the 

sedentary nature of the butterfly and 

isolation of habitats. Reintroduction 

efforts have not been successful. The 

Miami blue is predominantly a coastal 

species, occurring in disturbed and 

early successional habitats such as the 

edges of tropical hardwood hammock, 

coastal berm forest, coastal prairie, and 

along trails and other open sunny areas, 

and historically in pine rockland. These 

habitats provide hostplants for larvae 

and nectar sources for adults in close 

proximity, as the species requires. 

Major threats to the butterfly include 

few occurrences, limited population 

size and range, hurricanes, mosquito 

control activities, and herbivory of 

hostplants by iguanas. Damage to host 

plants from iguanas at BHSP is an 

ongoing and significant threat; although 

active steps are being taken by the State 

and partners to reduce this threat, this 

metapopulation is now at risk. Climatic 

changes and sea level rise are long-term 

threats that will reduce the extent of 

habitat. Accidental harm or habitat 

destruction and illegal collection may 

also pose threats to the survival due to 

small population sizes. Loss of genetic 

diversity within the small and isolated 

populations may be occurring. The 

survival of the Miami blue depends on 

protecting the species’ currently 

occupied habitat from further 

degradation and fragmentation; 

restoring potentially suitable habitat 

within its historical range; avoiding or 

removing threats from fire suppression, 

iguanas, mosquito control, accidental 

harm from humans; increasing the 

current population in size; and 

establishing populations at other 

locations. Exotic predatory ants and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69259 

parasitoids may also be potential 

threats, given the species’ small 

population size and few occurrences. 

Most threats are high in magnitude, 

because they constitute a significant risk 

to the subspecies, leading to a relatively 

high likelihood of extinction; most 

threats are imminent. As a result, we 

retained an LPN of 3 for this subspecies. 

Sequatchie caddisfly (Glyphopsyche 

sequatchie)—The following summary is 

based on information in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

The Sequatchie caddisfly is known from 

two spring runs that emerge from caves 

in Marion County, Tennessee—Owen 

Spring Branch (the type locality) and 

Martin Spring run in the Battle Creek 

system. In 1998, biologists estimated 

population sizes at 500 to 5,000 

individuals for Owen Spring Branch 

and 2 to 10 times higher at Martin 

Spring, due to the greater amount of 

apparently suitable habitat. In spite of 

greater amounts of suitable habitat at the 

Martin Spring run, Sequatchie 

caddisflies are more difficult to find at 

this site, and in 2001 (the most recent 

survey) the Sequatchie caddisfly was 

‘‘abundant’’ at the Owen Spring Branch 

location, while only two individuals 

were observed at the Martin Spring. 

Threats to the Sequatchie caddisfly 

include siltation, point and nonpoint 

discharges from municipal and 

industrial activities, and introduction of 

toxicants during episodic events. These 

threats, coupled with the extremely 

limited distribution of the species, its 

apparent small population size, the 

limited amount of occupied habitat, 

ease of accessibility, and the annual life 

cycle of the species, are all factors that 

leave the Sequatchie caddisfly 

vulnerable to extirpation. Therefore, the 

magnitude of the threat is high. These 

threats are gradual and not necessarily 

imminent. Based on high-magnitude, 

nonimminent threats, we assigned this 

species a listing priority number of 5. 

Clifton Cave beetle 

(Pseudanophthalmus caecus)—The 

following summary is based upon 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Clifton Cave beetle is a small, eyeless, 

reddish-brown predatory insect that 

feeds upon small cave invertebrates. It 

is cave dependent, and is not found 

outside the cave environment. Clifton 

Cave beetle is only known from two 

privately owned Kentucky caves. Soon 

after the species was first collected in 

1963 in one cave, the cave entrance was 

enclosed due to road construction. We 

do not know whether the species still 

occurs at the original location or if it has 

been extirpated from the site by the 

closure of the cave entrance. Other 

caves in the vicinity of this cave were 

surveyed for the species during 1995 to 

1996 and only one additional site 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 the more wideranging insects. Events such as toxic 

chemical spills, discharges of large 

amounts of polluted water or indirect 

impacts from off-site construction 

activities, closure of entrances, 

alteration of entrances, or the creation of 

new entrances could have serious 

adverse impacts on this species. 

Therefore, the magnitude of threat is 

high for this species. The threats are 

nonimminent because there are no 

known projects planned that would 

affect the species in the near future. We 

therefore have assigned a listing priority 

number of 5 to this species. 

Icebox Cave beetle 

(Pseudanophthalmus frigidus)—The 

following summary is based upon 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Icebox Cave beetle is a small, eyeless, 

reddish-brown predatory insect that 

feeds upon small cave invertebrates. It 

is not found outside the cave 

environment, and is only known from 

one privately owned Kentucky cave. 

The limestone cave in which this 

species is found provides a unique and 

fragile environment that supports a 

variety of species that have evolved to 

survive and reproduce under the 

demanding conditions found in cave 

ecosystems. The species has not been 

observed since it was originally 

collected, but species experts believe 

that it may still exist in the cave in low 

numbers. The limited distribution of the 

species makes it vulnerable to isolated 

events that would only have a minimal 

effect on the more wide-ranging insects. 

Events such as toxic chemical spills or 

discharges of large amounts of polluted 

water, or indirect impacts from off-site 

construction activities, closure of 

entrances, alteration of entrances, or the 

creation of new entrances, could have 

serious adverse impacts on this species. 

Therefore, the magnitude of threat is 

high for this species because it is 

limited in distribution and the threats 

would result in a high level of mortality 

or reduced reproductive capacity. The 

threats are nonimminent because there 

are no known projects planned that 

would affect the species in the near 

future. We therefore have assigned an 

LPN of 5 to this species. 

Inquirer Cave beetle 

(Pseudanophthalmus inquisitor)—The 

following summary is based upon 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

The Inquirer Cave beetle is a fairly 

small, eyeless, reddish-brown predatory 

insect that feeds upon small cave 

invertebrates. It is not found outside the 

cave environment, and is only known 

from one privately owned Tennessee 

cave. The limestone cave in which this 

species is found provides a unique and 

fragile environment that supports a 

variety of species that have evolved to 

survive and reproduce under the 

demanding conditions found in cave 

ecosystems. The species was last 

observed in 2006. The limited 

distribution of the species makes it 

vulnerable to isolated events that would 

only have a minimal effect on the more 

wide-ranging insects. The area around 

the only known site for the species is in 

a rapidly expanding urban area. The 

entrance to the cave is protected by the 

landowner through a cooperative 

management agreement with the 

Service, The Nature Conservancy and 

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency; 

however, a sinkhole that drains into the 

cave system is located away from the 

protected entrance and is near a 

highway. Events such as toxic chemical 

spills, discharges of large amounts of 

polluted water, or indirect impacts from 

off-site construction activities, could 

severely affect the species and the cave 

habitat. The magnitude of threat is high 

for this species because it is limited in 

distribution and the threats would have 

severe impacts on its continued 

existence. The threats are nonimminent 

because there are no known projects 

planned that would affect the species in 

the near future and it receives some 

protection under a cooperative 

management agreement. We therefore 

have assigned a listing priority number 

of 5 to this species. 

Louisville Cave beetle 

(Pseudanophthalmus troglodytes)—The 

following summary is based upon 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

The Louisville Cave beetle is a small, 

eyeless, reddish-brown predatory insect 

that feeds upon cave invertebrates. It is 

not found outside the cave environment, 

and is only known from two privately 

owned Kentucky caves. The limestone 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69260 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 the more wide-ranging insects. 

Events such as toxic chemical spills, 

discharges of large amounts of polluted 

water or indirect impacts from off-site 

construction activities, closure of 

entrances, alteration of entrances, or the 

creation of new entrances could have 

serious adverse impacts on this species. 

The magnitude of threat is high for this 

species, because it is limited in 

distribution and the threats would have 

severe negative impacts on the species. 

The threats are nonimminent because 

there are no known projects planned 

that would affect the species in the near 

future. We therefore have assigned an 

LPN of 5 to this species. 

Tatum Cave beetle 

(Pseudanophthalmus parvus)—The 

following summary is based upon 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Tatum Cave beetle is a small, eyeless, 

reddish-brown predatory insect that 

feeds upon cave invertebrates. It is not 

found outside the cave environment, 

and is only known from one privately 

owned Kentucky cave. The limestone 

cave in which this species is found 

provides a unique and fragile 

environment that supports a variety of 

species that have evolved to survive and 

reproduce under the demanding 

conditions found in cave ecosystems. 

The species has not been observed since 

1965, but species experts believe that it 

still exists in low numbers. The limited 

distribution of the species makes it 

vulnerable to isolated events that would 

only have a minimal effect on the more 

wide-ranging insects. Events such as 

toxic chemical spills or discharges of 

large amounts of polluted water, or 

indirect impacts from off-site 

construction activities, closure of 

entrances, alteration of entrances, or the 

creation of new entrances could have 

serious adverse impacts on this species. 

The magnitude of threat is high for this 

species, because its limited numbers 

mean that any threats could severely 

affect its continued existence. The 

threats are nonimminent because there 

are no known projects planned that 

would affect the species in the near 

future. We therefore have assigned an 

LPN of 5 to this species. 

Taylor’s (Whulge, Edith’s) 

checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas 

editha taylori)—The following summary 

is based on information contained in 

our files and in the petition received on 

December 11, 2002. Historically, the 

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly was 

known from 70 locations: 23 in British 

Columbia, 34 in Washington, and 13 in 

Oregon. Based on the results of surveys 

during the 2009 flight period, butterflies 

were detected at just 9 populations. No 

reports were received for the Canada 

sites. The total number of Taylor’s 

checkerspot butterflies was considerably 

reduced in current surveys with 

approximately 2,500 individuals 

observed rangewide. The latest decline 

observed was from the Joint Base Lewis 

McChord population where fewer than 

200 butterflies were counted in 2008; 

only 77 adult butterflies were detected 

during 2009 surveys. Currently, just 

seven populations had adult butterflies 

flying in Washington, two in the 

Willamette Valley of Oregon, and one 

on Denman Island, British Columbia, 

Canada. A new population (metapopulation) was observed on the 

Olympic National Forest. During 2009, 

six additional locations have been found 

on suitable habitat on Olympic National 

Forest land; at one location 69 

butterflies were detected and the 

remainder had up to 40 butterflies with 

several of the sites having fewer than 

5 adult butterflies. 

Threats include degradation and 

destruction of native grasslands due to 

agriculture; residential and commercial 

development; encroachment by 

nonnative plants; succession from 

grasslands to native shrubs and trees; 

and fire. The threat of military training 

has greatly increased during this last 

assessment period and the site where 

Taylor’s checkerspot were known to 

thrive on Fort Lewis was severely 

affected by Armored Vehicle training. 

The result of that training on the 

population at the site will not be 

determined until after this year’s 

monitoring has been completed. 

The grassland ecosystem on which 

this subspecies depends requires annual 

management to maintain suitable 

grassland habitat for the species. 

Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstake 

(Btk) was routinely applied for Asian 

gypsy moth control in Pierce County, 

Washington for many years. This 

pesticide is documented to have 

deleterious effects on non-target 

lepidopteron species, including all 

moths and butterflies. Because of the 

timing and close proximity of the Btk 

application to native prairies where 

Taylors’ checkerspot adults, or their 

larvae, were historically known to 

occur, it is likely that the spraying 

contributed to the extirpation of the 

subspecies at three locations in Pierce 

County, Washington. 

Threats also include the loss of 

prairies to development or the 

conversion of native grasslands to 

agriculture; the threat of vehicle and 

foot traffic that crushes larvae and larval 

host plants on roads where host plants 

have become established, thus acting as 

a mortality sink (this has occurred at 

several of the north Olympic Peninsula 

sites). Other important threats include 

changes to the structure and 

composition of prairie habitat brought 

on by the invasion of shrubs and trees 

(Scot’s broom and Douglas-fir) or 

nonnative pasture grasses that quickly 

invade onto prairies when processes 

like fire, or its surrogate mowing, are not 

implemented. 

These changes to prairie habitat 

threaten Taylor’s checkerspot by 

degrading prairie habitat and making it 

unsuitable for the butterfly. The threats 

that lead to habitat degradation and loss 

are ubiquitous, occurring rangewide, 

and severely affect the survival of the 

subspecies, leading to a relatively high 

likelihood of extinction. Therefore, the 

threats are high in magnitude. The 

threats are imminent because they are 

ongoing and occur simultaneously at all 

of the known locations for the 

subspecies. Based on the high 

magnitude and the imminent nature of 

threats, we retain an LPN of 3 for the 

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. 

Blackline Hawaiian damselfly 

(Megalagrion nigrohamatum 

nigrolineatum)—We continue to find 

that listing this species is warranted but 

precluded as of the date of publication 

of this notice. However, we are working 

on a proposed listing rule that we 

expect to publish prior to making the 

next annual resubmitted 12-month 

petition finding. 

Crimson Hawaiian damselfly 

(Megalagrion leptodemas)—We 

continue to find that listing this species 

is warranted but precluded as of the 

date of publication of this notice. 

However, we are working on a proposed 

listing rule that we expect to publish 

prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted 12-month petition finding. 

Oceanic Hawaiian damselfly 

(Megalagrion oceanicum)—We continue 

to find that listing this species is 

warranted but precluded as of the date 

of publication of this notice. However, 

we are working on a proposed listing 

rule that we expect to publish prior to 

making the next annual resubmitted 

12-month petition finding. 

Orangeblack Hawaiian damselfly 

(Megalagrion xanthomelas)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69261 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

The Orangeblack Hawaiian damselfly is 

a stream-dwelling species endemic to 

the Hawaiian Islands of Kauai, Oahu, 

Molokai, Maui, Lanai, and Hawaii. The 

species no longer is found on Kauai, and 

is now restricted to 16 populations on 

the islands of Oahu, Maui, Molokai, 

Lanai, and Hawaii. This species is 

threatened by predation from alien 

aquatic species such as fish and 

predacious insects, and habitat loss 

through dewatering of streams and 

invasion by nonnative plants. Nonnative 

fish and insects prey on the naiads of 

the damselfly, and loss of water reduces 

the amount of suitable naiad habitat 

available. Invasive plants (e.g., 

California grass (Brachiaria mutica)) 

also contribute to loss of habitat by 

forming dense, monotypic stands that 

completely eliminate any open water. 

Nonnative fish and plants are found in 

all the streams the Orangeblack 

damselfly occur in, except the Oahu 

location, where there are no nonnative 

fish. We assigned this species an LPN of 

8 because, although the threats are 

ongoing and therefore imminent, they 

affect the survival of the species in 

varying degrees throughout the range of 

the species and are of moderate 

magnitude. 

Picture-wing fly (Drosophila 

digressa)—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, but new information was 

provided by one Drosophila expert in 

2006. This picture-wing fly, a member 

of the family Drosophilidae, feeds only 

upon species of Charpentiera, and is 

endemic to the Hawaiian Island of 

Hawaii. Never abundant in number of 

individuals observed, D. digressa was 

originally known from 5 population 

sites and may now be limited to as few 

as 1 or 2 sites. Due to the small 

population size of the species and its 

small known habitat area, Drosophila 

researchers believe this species and its 

habitat are particularly vulnerable to a 

myriad of threats. Feral ungulates (pigs, 

goats, and cattle) degrade and destroy D. 

digressa host plants and habitat by 

directly trampling plants, facilitating 

erosion, and spreading nonnative plant 

seeds. Nonnative plants degrade host 

plant habitat and compete for light, 

space, and nutrients. Direct predation of 

D. digressa by nonnative social insects, 

particularly yellow jacket wasps, is also 

a serious threat. Additionally, this 

species faces competition at the larval 

stage from nonnative tipulid flies, 

which feed within the same portion of 

the decomposing host plant area 

normally occupied by the D. digressa 

larvae during their development with a 

resulting reduction in available host 

plant material. Because the threats to 

the native forest habitat of D. digressa, 

and to individuals of this species, occur 

throughout its range and are expected to 

continue or increase unless efforts at 

control or eradication are undertaken, 

they are high in magnitude. In addition, 

because of the limited distribution and 

small population of the species, any of 

the threats would significantly impair 

survival of the species. The threats are 

also imminent, because they are 

ongoing. No known conservation 

measures have been taken to date to 

specifically address these threats, and 

we have therefore assigned this species 

an LPN of 2. 

Stephan’s riffle beetle (Heterelmis 

stephani)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. No new information was provided 

in the petition received on May 11, 

2004. The Stephan’s riffle beetle is an 

endemic riffle beetle found in limited 

spring environments within the Santa 

Rita Mountains, Pima County, Arizona. 

The beetle is known from Sylvester 

Spring in Madera Canyon, within the 

Coronado National Forest. Threats to 

that spring are largely from habitat 

modification, from recreational 

activities in the springs, and potential 

changes in water quality and quantity 

due to catastrophic natural events and 

climate change. The threats are of low 

to moderate magnitude based on our 

current knowledge of the permanence of 

threats and the likelihood that the 

species will persist in areas that are 

unaffected by the threats. Although the 

threats from climate change are 

expected to occur over many years, the 

threats from recreational use are 

ongoing. Therefore, the threats are 

imminent. Thus, we retained an LPN of 

8 for the Stephan’s riffle beetle. 

Dakota skipper (Hesperia dacotae)— 

The following summary is based on 

information contained in our files, 

including information from the petition 

received on May 12, 2003. The Dakota 

skipper is a small- to mid-sized butterfly 

that inhabits high-quality tallgrass and 

mixed-grass prairie in Minnesota, North 

Dakota, South Dakota, and the provinces 

of Manitoba and Saskatchewan in 

Canada. The species is presumed to be 

extirpated from Iowa and Illinois and 

from many sites within occupied States. 

The Dakota skipper is threatened by 

degradation of its native prairie habitat 

by overgrazing, invasive species, gravel 

mining, and herbicide applications; 

inbreeding, population isolation, and 

prescribed fire threaten some 

populations. Prairie succeeds to 

shrubland or forest without periodic 

fire, grazing, or mowing; thus, the 

species is also threatened at sites where 

such disturbances are not applied. The 

Service and other Federal agencies, 

State agencies, the Sisseton-Wahpeton 

Sioux Tribe, and some private 

organizations (e.g., The Nature 

Conservancy) protect and manage some 

Dakota skipper sites. Proper 

management is always necessary to 

ensure its persistence, even at protected 

sites. The species may be secure at a few 

sites where public and private 

landowners manage native prairie in 

ways that conserve Dakota skipper, but 

approximately half of the inhabited sites 

are privately owned with little or no 

protection. A few private sites are 

protected from conversion by 

easements, but these do not prevent 

adverse effects from overgrazing. 

Overall, the threats are moderate in 

magnitude because they are not 

occurring rangewide and have a 

moderate effect on the viability of the 

species. They are, however, ongoing and 

therefore imminent, particularly on 

private lands. Thus, we assigned an LPN 

of 8 to this species. 

Mardon skipper (Polites mardon)— 

The following summary is based on 

information contained in our files and 

the petition we received on December 

24, 2002. The Mardon skipper is a 

northwestern butterfly with a disjunct 

range. Currently this species is known 

from four widely separated regions: 

South Puget Sound region, southern 

Washington Cascades, Siskiyou 

Mountains of southern Oregon, and 

coastal northwestern California/ 

southern Oregon. The number of 

documented locations for the species 

has increased from fewer than 10 in 

1997 to more than 130 rangewide in 

2010. New site locations have been 

documented in each year that targeted 

surveys have been conducted since 

1999. In the past 9 years, significant 

local populations have been located in 

the Washington Cascades and in 

Southern Oregon, with a few local sites 

supporting populations of hundreds of 

Mardon skippers. 

The Mardon skipper spends its entire 

life cycle in one location, often on the 

same grassland patch. The dispersal 

ability of Mardon skipper is restricted. 

The greatest threats currently posed to 

Mardon skippers are stochastic events 

such as a catastrophic wildfire or 

unseasonable weather events. Other 

threats to the Mardon skipper include 

direct impacts to individuals and local 

populations by livestock grazing, 

pesticide drift, and off-road-vehicle use. 

Habitat destruction or modification 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69262 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

through conifer encroachment, invasive 

nonnative plants, roadside maintenance, 

and grassland/meadow management 

activities such as prescribed burning 

and mowing are also threats. However, 

these threats have been substantially 

reduced due to protections provided by 

State and Federal special status species 

programs. The magnitude of the threats 

is moderate because current regulatory 

mechanisms associated with State and 

Federal special status species programs 

afford a relatively high level of 

protection from additional habitat loss 

or destruction across most of the 

species’ range. Threats are imminent 

because all sites within the species’ 

range currently have one or more 

identified threats that are resulting in 

direct impacts to individuals within the 

populations, or a gradual loss or 

degradation of the species’ habitats. 

Mardon skippers face a variety of threats 

that may occur at any time at any of the 

locations. Low numbers of individuals 

have been found at most of the known 

locations. Only a few locations are 

known to harbor greater than 100 

individuals, and specific locations 

could easily be lost by changes in 

vegetation composition or from the 

threat of wildfire. The great distances 

between the known locations for the 

species would not allow for dispersal of 

the species between populations; thus, 

loss of any population could lead to 

extirpation of the species at any of these 

locations. However, the discovery of 

new populations and the wide 

geographic range for the Mardon skipper 

provides a buffer against threats that 

could destroy all existing habitat 

simultaneously or jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species. 

Thus, based on imminent threats of 

moderate magnitude, we retain an LPN 

of 8 to this species. 

Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle 

(Cicindela limbata albissima)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files, 

including information from the petition 

we received on April 21, 1994. This 

species of beetle occurs only at the Coral 

Pink Sand Dunes. This area is 

approximately 7 miles west of Kanab, 

Kane County, in south-central Utah. It is 

restricted to approximately 234 hectares 

(577 acres) of protected habitat within 

the dune field, situated at an elevation 

of about 1,820 meters (6,000 feet). 

Continuing drought is negatively 

affecting tiger beetle populations. 

Drought conditions have suppressed the 

beetle’s reproductive capabilities. The 

continued survival of the beetle 

depends on the preservation of its 

habitat and favorable rainfall amounts. 

In addition, the beetle’s habitat is being 

adversely affected by ongoing, 

recreational off-road-vehicle use that is 

limiting expansion of the species. The 

two agencies that manage the dune 

field, the Utah Department of Parks and 

Recreation and the BLM, have restricted 

recreational off-road vehicle use in some 

areas, which reduces impacts. However, 

continued drought may prevent the 

population from increasing in size. The 

beetle’s population also is vulnerable to 

over-collecting by professional and 

hobby tiger beetle collectors. We 

retained an LPN of 2 due to the high 

magnitude and imminence of drought 

conditions. 

Highlands tiger beetle (Cicindela 

highlandensis)—The following 

summary is based on information 

contained in our files. No new 

information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

The Highlands tiger beetle is narrowly 

distributed and restricted to areas of 

bare sand within scrub and sandhill on 

ancient sand dunes of the Lake Wales 

Ridge in Polk and Highlands Counties, 

Florida. Adult tiger beetles have been 

most recently found at 40 sites at the 

core of the Lake Wales Ridge. In 2004– 

2005 surveys, a total of 1,574 adults 

were found at 40 sites, compared with 

643 adults at 31 sites in 1996, 928 adults 

at 31 sites in 1995, and 742 adults at 21 

sites in 1993. Of the 40 sites in the 

2004–2005 surveys with one or more 

adults, results ranged from 3 sites with 

large populations of over 100 adults, to 

13 sites with fewer than 10 adults. 

Results from a limited removal study at 

four sites and similar studies suggest 

that the actual population size at some 

survey sites can be as much as two 

times as high as indicated by the visual 

index counts. If assumptions are correct 

and unsurveyed habitat is included, 

then the total number of adults at all 

survey sites might be 3,000 to 4,000. 

Habitat loss and fragmentation and 

lack of fire and disturbances to create 

open habitat conditions are serious 

threats; remaining patches of suitable 

habitat are disjunct and isolated. 

Populations occupy relatively small 

patches of habitat and are small and 

isolated; individuals have difficulty 

dispersing between suitable habitats. 

These factors pose serious threats to the 

species. Although significant progress in 

implementing prescribed fire has 

occurred over the last ten years through 

collaborative partnerships and the Lake 

Wales Ridge Prescribed Fire Team, a 

backlog of long-unburned habitat within 

conservation areas remains. 

Overcollection and pesticide use are 

additional concerns. Because this 

species is narrowly distributed with 

specific habitat requirements and small 

populations, any of the threats could 

have a significant impact on the survival 

of the species, leading to a relatively 

high likelihood of extinction. Therefore, 

the magnitude of threats is high. 

Although the majority of its historical 

range has been lost, degraded, and 

fragmented, numerous sites are 

protected and land managers are 

implementing prescribed fire at some 

sites; these actions are expected to 

restore habitat and help reduce threats 

and have already helped stabilize and 

improve the populations. Overall, the 

threats are nonimminent. Therefore, we 

assigned the Highlands tiger beetle an 

LPN of 5. 

Arachnids 

Warton’s cave meshweaver (Cicurina 

wartoni)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. No new information was provided 

in the petition received on May 11, 

2004. Warton’s Cave meshweaver is an 

eyeless, cave-dwelling, unpigmented, 

0.23-inch-long invertebrate known only 

from female specimens. This 

meshweaver is known to occur in only 

one cave (Pickle Pit) in Travis County, 

Texas. Primary threats to the species 

and its habitat are predation and 

competition from fire ants, surface and 

subsurface effects from runoff from an 

adjacent subdivision, unauthorized 

entry into the area surrounding the cave, 

modification of vegetation near the cave 

from human use, and trash dumping 

that may include toxic materials near 

the feature. The magnitude of threats is 

high because the single location for this 

species makes it highly vulnerable to 

extinction. The threats are imminent 

because fire ants are known to occur in 

the vicinity of the cave, and impacts to 

the cave from runoff and human 

activities are an imminent threat. Thus, 

we retain an LPN of 2 for this 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 an 

anchialine pool-inhabiting species of 

shrimp belonging to the family 

Alpheidae. This species is endemic to 

the Hawaiian Islands and is currently 

known from populations on the islands 

of Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii. The 

primary threats to this species are 

predation by fish (which do not 

naturally occur in the pools inhabited 

by this species) and habitat loss from 

degradation (primarily from illegal trash 

dumping). The pools where this species 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69263 

occurs on the islands of Maui and 

Hawaii are located within State Natural 

Area Reserves (NAR) and in a National 

Park. Both the State NARs and the 

National Park prohibit the collection of 

the species and the disturbance of the 

pools. However, enforcement of 

collection and disturbance prohibitions 

is difficult, and the negative effects from 

the introduction of fish are extensive 

and happen quickly. On Oahu, one pool 

is located in a National Wildlife Refuge 

and is protected from collection and 

disturbance to the pool, however, on 

State-owned land where the species 

occurs, there is no protection from 

collection or disturbance of the pools. 

Therefore, threats to this species could 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

survival of the species, leading to a 

relatively high likelihood of extinction, 

and are of a high magnitude. However, 

the primary threats of predation from 

fish and loss of habitat due to 

degradation are nonimminent overall, 

because on the islands of Maui and 

Hawaii no fish were observed in any of 

the pools where this species occurs and 

there has been no documented trash 

dumping in these pools. Only one site 

on Oahu had a trash dumping instance, 

and in that case the trash was cleaned 

up immediately and the species 

subsequently observed. No additional 

dumping events are known to have 

occurred. Therefore, we assigned this 

species an LPN of 5. 

Anchialine pool shrimp 

(Palaemonella burnsi)—The following 

summary is based on information 

contained in our files. No new 

information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Palaemonella burnsi is an anchialine 

pool-inhabiting species of shrimp 

belonging to the family Palaemonidae. 

This species is endemic to the Hawaiian 

Islands and is currently known from 3 

pools on the island of Maui and 22 

pools on the island of Hawaii. The 

primary threats to this species are 

predation by fish (which do not 

naturally occur in the pools inhabited 

by this species) and habitat loss due to 

degradation (primarily from illegal trash 

dumping). The pools where this species 

occurs on Maui are located within a 

State Natural Area Reserve (NAR). 

Hawaii’s State statutes prohibit the 

collection of the species and the 

disturbance of the pools in State NARs. 

On the island of Hawaii, the species 

occurs within a State NAR and a 

National Park, and collection and 

disturbance are also prohibited. 

However, enforcement of these 

prohibitions is difficult, and the 

negative effects from the introduction of 

fish are extensive and happen quickly. 

Therefore, threats to this species could 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

survival of the species, leading to a 

relatively high likelihood of extinction, 

and are of a high magnitude. However, 

the threats are nonimminent, because 

surveys in 2004 and 2007 did not find 

fish in the pools where these shrimp 

occur on Maui or the island of Hawaii. 

Also, there was no evidence of recent 

habitat degradation at those pools. We 

assigned this species an LPN of 5. 

Anchialine pool shrimp (Procaris 

hawaiana)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. No new information was provided 

in the petition we received on May 11, 

2004. Procaris hawaiana is an 

anchialine pool-inhabiting species of 

shrimp belonging to the family 

Procarididae. This species is endemic to 

the Hawaiian Islands, and is currently 

known from two pools on the island of 

Maui and thirteen pools on the island of 

Hawaii. The primary threats to this 

species are predation from fish (which 

do not naturally occur in the pools 

inhabited by this species) and habitat 

loss due to degradation (primarily from 

illegal trash dumping). The pools where 

this species occurs on Maui are located 

within a State Natural Area Reserve 

(NAR). Hawaii’s State statutes prohibit 

the collection of the species and the 

disturbance of the pools in State NARs. 

Twelve of the pools on the island of 

Hawaii are also located within a State 

NAR. However, enforcement of these 

prohibitions is difficult and the negative 

effects from the introduction of fish are 

extensive and happen quickly. In 

addition, there are no prohibitions for 

either removal of the species or 

disturbance to the pool for the one pool 

located outside a NAR on the island of 

Hawaii. Therefore, threats to this 

species could have a significant adverse 

effect on the survival of the species, 

leading to a relatively high likelihood of 

extinction, and thus remain at a high 

magnitude. However, the threats to the 

species are nonimminent because, 

during 2004 and 2007 surveys, no fish 

were observed in the pools where these 

shrimp occur on Maui, and no fish were 

observed in the one pool on the island 

of Hawaii during a site visit in 2005. In 

addition, there were no signs of trash 

dumping or fill in any of the pools 

where the species occurs. Therefore, we 

assigned this species an LPN of 5. 

Anchialine pool shrimp (Vetericaris 

chaceorum)—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. Vetericaris chaceorum is an 

anchialine pool-inhabiting species of 

shrimp belonging to the family 

Procarididae; it is the only species in its 

genus. This species is endemic to the 

Hawaiian Islands, and is only known 

from one population in a single pool on 

the island of Hawaii. The primary 

threats to this species are predation 

from nonnative fish and habitat 

degradation (primarily by 

contamination from illegal trash 

dumping). This species would be highly 

vulnerable to predation by any 

intentionally or accidentally introduced 

fish, or contamination from illegal 

dumping into its single known location. 

This pool lies within lands 

administered by the State of Hawaii 

Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. 

The threats to V. chaceorum from 

habitat degradation and destruction, as 

well as from predation by nonnative fish 

are of high magnitude, because this 

species occurs in only one pool; thus, 

the threats could significantly impair 

the survival of the species, leading to a 

relatively high likelihood of extinction. 

All individuals of this species may be 

severely affected by a single dumping of 

trash or release of nonnative fish in the 

species’ only known pool. However, the 

threats are nonimminent, as fish have 

not been introduced into the pool (nor 

is there any reason to believe that 

introduction is imminent) and a site 

visit in early 2005 showed there were no 

signs of dumping or fill. Therefore we 

assigned this species an LPN of 4 

because the threats are of high 

magnitude but nonimminent, and the 

species is in a monotypic genus. 

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 known 

from one main population center in 

Ramshaw Meadow and a smaller 

population in adjacent Templeton 

Meadow on the Kern Plateau of the 

Sierra Nevada, 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 from 1985–1994 range from a 

low of 69,652 plants in 1986 to 132,215 

plants in 1987. Surveys conducted since 

1994 indicate that no significant 

changes have occurred in population 

size or location, although, the 2003 

survey showed population numbers to 

be at the low end of the range. The 

population was last monitored in 2009, 

and results from those studies are still 

being analyzed. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69264 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

The factors currently threatening 

Abronia alpina include natural and 

human habitat alteration, hydrologic 

changes to the water table, and 

recreational use within meadow 

habitats. Lodgepole pine encroachment 

has altered the meadow, and trees are 

becoming established within A. alpina 

habitat. 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 Ramshaw Meadow ecosystem is 

subject to potential alteration by 

lowering of the water table due to 

downcutting of the South Fork of the 

Kern River (SFKR). The SFKR flows 

through Ramshaw Meadow, at times 

coming within 15 m (50 ft) of A. alpina 

habitat, particularly in the vicinity of 

five subpopulations. The habitat 

occupied by A. alpina directly borders 

the meadow system supported by the 

SFKR. Drying out of the meadow system 

could potentially affect A. alpina 

pollinators and/or seed dispersal agents. 

Established hiker, packstock, and 

cattle trails pass through A. alpina 

subpopulations. Two main hiker trails 

pass through Ramshaw Meadow, but 

were rerouted out of A. alpina 

subpopulations where feasible, in 1988 

and 1997. Remnants of cattle trails that 

pass through subpopulations in several 

places receive occasional incidental use 

by horses and sometimes hikers. Cattle 

use, however, currently is not a threat 

due to the 2001 implementation of a 10- 

year moratorium on the Templeton 

allotment which prohibits cattle from all 

A. alpina locations. The Service is 

funding studies to determine 

appropriate conservation measures and 

working with the U.S. Forest Service on 

developing a conservation strategy for 

the species. The threats are of a low 

magnitude and nonimminent because of 

the conservation actions already 

implemented. The LPN for A. alpina 

remains an 11, with nonimminent 

threats of moderate to low magnitude. 

Arabis georgiana (Georgia 

rockcress)—The following summary is 

based on information in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

The Georgia rockcress grows in a variety 

of dry situations, including shallow soil 

accumulations on rocky bluffs, ecotones 

of gently sloping rock outcrops, and in 

sandy loam along eroding river banks. It 

is occasionally found in adjacent mesic 

woods, but it will not persist in heavily 

shaded conditions. Currently, 17 

populations are known from the Gulf 

Coastal Plain, Piedmont, and Ridge and 

Valley physiographic provinces of 

Alabama and Georgia. Populations of 

this species typically have a limited 

number of individuals over a small area. 

Habitat degradation, more than 

outright habitat destruction, is the most 

serious threat to the continued existence 

of this species. Disturbance, associated 

with timber harvesting, road building, 

and grazing has created favorable 

conditions for the invasion of exotic 

weeds, especially Japanese honeysuckle 

(Lonicera japonica), in this species’ 

habitat. A large number of the 

populations are currently or potentially 

threatened by the presence of exotics. 

The heritage programs in Alabama and 

Georgia have initiated plans for exotic 

control at several populations. The 

magnitude of threats to this species is 

moderate to low due to the number of 

populations (17) across multiple 

counties in two states and due to the 

fact that several sites are protected. 

However, since a number of the 

populations are currently being affected 

by nonnative plants, the threat is 

imminent. Thus, we assigned an LPN of 

8 to this species. 

Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett’s 

silverbush)—The following summary is 

based on information in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Blodgett’s silverbush occurs in Florida 

and is found in open, sunny areas in 

pine rockland, edges of rockland 

hammock, edges of coastal berm, and 

sometimes in disturbed areas at the 

edges of natural areas. Plants can be 

found growing from crevices on 

limestone, or on sand. The pinerockland habitat where the species 

occurs in Miami-Dade County and the 

Florida Keys requires periodic fires to 

maintain habitat with a minimum 

amount of hardwoods. There are 

approximately 22 extant occurrences, 12 

in Monroe County and 10 in MiamiDade County; many occurrences are on 

conservation lands. However, 4 to 5 

sites are recently thought to be 

extirpated. The estimated population 

size of Blodgett’s silverbush in the 

Florida Keys, excluding Big Pine Key, is 

roughly 11,000; the estimated 

population in Miami-Dade County is 

375 to 13,650 plants. 

Blodgett’s silverbush is threatened by 

habitat loss, which is exacerbated by 

habitat degradation due to fire 

suppression, the difficulty of applying 

prescribed fire to pine rocklands, and 

threats from exotic plants. Remaining 

habitats are fragmented. Threats such as 

road maintenance and enhancement, 

infrastructure, and illegal dumping 

threaten some occurrences. Blodgett’s 

silverbush is vulnerable to natural 

disturbances, such as hurricanes, 

tropical storms, and storm surges. 

Climatic change, particularly sea-level 

rise, is a long-term threat that is 

expected to continue to affect pine 

rocklands and ultimately substantially 

reduce the extent of available habitat, 

especially in the Keys. Overall, the 

magnitude of threats is moderate 

because not all of the occurrences are 

affected by the threats. In addition, land 

managers are aware of the threats from 

exotic plants and lack of fire, and are, 

to some extent, working to reduce these 

threats where possible. While a number 

of threats are occurring in some areas, 

the threat from development is 

nonimminent since most occurrences 

are on public land, and sea level rise is 

not currently affecting this species. 

Overall, the threats are nonimminent. 

Thus, we assigned an LPN of 11 to this 

species. 

Artemisia campestris var. 

wormskioldii (Northern wormwood)— 

The following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Historically known from eight sites, 

northern wormwood is currently known 

from two populations in Klickitat and 

Grant Counties, Washington. This plant 

is restricted to exposed basalt, cobblysandy terraces, and sand habitat along 

the shore and on islands in the 

Columbia River. The two populations 

are separated by 200 miles (322 

kilometers) of the Columbia River and 

three large hydroelectric dams. The 

Klickitat County population is 

declining; the status is unclear for the 

Grant County population; however, both 

are vulnerable to environmental 

variability. Surveys have not detected 

any additional plants. 

Threats to northern wormwood 

include direct loss of habitat through 

regulation of water levels in the 

Columbia River and placement of riprap 

along the river bank; human trampling 

of plants from recreation; competition 

with nonnative invasive species; burial 

by wind- and water-borne sediments; 

small population sizes; susceptibility to 

genetic drift and inbreeding; and the 

potential for hybridization with two 

other species of Artemisia. Ongoing 

conservation actions have reduced 

trampling, but have not eliminated or 

reduced the other threats at the Grant 

County site. Active conservation 

measures are not currently in place at 

the Klickitat County site. The magnitude 

of threat is high for this subspecies 

because, although the two remaining 

populations are widely separated and 

distributed, one or both populations 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69265 

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 are random, naturally 

occurring events that may occur 

unpredictably in any year. Therefore, 

we have retained an LPN of 3 for this 

subspecies. 

Astragalus anserinus (Goose Creek 

milkvetch)—The following summary is 

based on information in our files and in 

the petition received on February 3, 

2004. The majority (over 80 percent) of 

Astragalus anserinus sites in Idaho, 

Utah, and Nevada occur on Federal 

lands managed by the BLM. The rest of 

the sites occur as small populations on 

private and State lands in Utah and on 

private land in Idaho and Nevada. A. 

anserinus occurs in a variety of habitats, 

but is typically associated with dry 

tuffaceous soils from the Salt Lake 

Formation. The species grows on steep 

or flat sites, with soil textures ranging 

from silty to sandy to somewhat 

gravelly. The species tolerates some 

level of disturbance, based on its 

occurrence on steep slopes where 

downhill movement of soil is common. 

Threats to remaining A. anserinus 

individuals include future habitat 

degradation and modifications to the 

ecosystem in which it occurs because of 

an altered wildfire regime. 

Approximately 98 percent of the 

individual plants that were previously 

documented in the areas burned by a 

2007 wildfire were killed. Other factors 

that may threaten A. anserinus to a 

lesser extent include livestock use and 

the inadequacy of regulatory 

mechanisms. Climate change effects to 

Goose Creek drainage habitats are 

possible, but we are unable to predict 

the specific impacts of this change to A. 

anserinus at this time. Threats are high 

in magnitude since these threats have 

the potential to destroy whole 

populations. The threats are 

nonimminent since they may occur in 

the foreseeable future but not in the near 

future. Thus, we have assigned A. 

anserinus an LPN of 5. 

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, 3,744 plants 

were recorded at 24 locations covering 

500 acres within an overall range of 

64,000 acres. Available information 

from 2000 indicates that the species 

remains stable. Previous and ongoing 

threats from borrow pit excavation, offhighway 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-highway-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 whether there is development 

within plant habitat. The Tribe reported 

that the status of the species remains 

unchanged, the population is healthy, 

and that a management plan for the 

species is currently in draft form. 

Despite these positive indications, we 

have no documentation concerning the 

current status of the plants, condition of 

habitat, and terms of the species 

management plan being drafted by the 

Tribe. Thus, at this time, we cannot 

accurately assess whether populations 

are being adequately protected from 

previously existing threats. The threats 

are moderate in magnitude, since they 

have had minor impacts. Based on 

information we have, the population 

appears to be stable. Until the 

management plan is completed and 

made available, there are no regulatory 

mechanisms in place to protect the 

species. Overall, we conclude threats 

are nonimminent. Therefore, we 

assigned an LPN of 11 to this species. 

Bidens amplectens (Kookoolau)—We 

continue to find that listing this species 

is warranted but precluded as of the 

date of publication of this notice. 

However, we are working on a proposed 

listing rule that we expect to publish 

prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted 12-month petition finding. 

Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera 

(Kookoolau)—We continue to find that 

listing this species is warranted but 

precluded as of the date of publication 

of this notice. However, we are working 

on a proposed listing rule that we 

expect to publish prior to making the 

next annual resubmitted 12-month 

petition finding. 

Bidens campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis 

(Kookoolau)—We continue to find that 

listing this species is warranted but 

precluded as of the date of publication 

of this notice. However, we are working 

on a proposed listing rule that we 

expect to publish prior to making the 

next annual resubmitted 12-month 

petition finding. 

Bidens conjuncta (Kookoolau)—We 

continue to find that listing this species 

is warranted but precluded as of the 

date of publication of this notice. 

However, we are working on a proposed 

listing rule that we expect to publish 

prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted 12-month petition finding. 

Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla 

(Kookoolau)—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. Bidens micrantha ssp. 

ctenophylla is a perennial herb found in 

open mixed shrubland to dry 

Metrosideros (ohia) forest, and in 

recently deposited a‘a lava, on the 

island of Hawaii, Hawaii. This 

subspecies is known from 4 populations 

totaling approximately 360 individuals. 

Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla is 

threatened by competition with 

nonnative plants, and is potentially 

threatened by habitat loss due to urban 

development and fire. One wild 

population of 5 individuals is protected 

by an exclosure, and three outplanted 

populations are protected by exclosures. 

The remaining natural populations are 

not protected or managed and are 

subject to development. The threats are 

high in magnitude because the largest 

population of this subspecies is highly 

threatened by urban development and 

all populations are threatened by fire 

and nonnative plants, leading to a 

relatively high likelihood of extinction. 

Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla is 

represented in ex situ collections. 

Threats to this subspecies from 

competition with nonnative plants are 

imminent. Urban development and fire 

are potential threats and are nonimminent. Therefore, we retained an 

LPN of 3 for this subspecies. 

Brickellia mosieri (Florida brickellbush)—The following summary is based 

on information contained in our files. 

No new information was provided in 

the petition we received on May 11, 

2004. This species is restricted to pine 

rocklands of Miami-Dade County, 

Florida. This habitat requires periodic 

prescribed fires to maintain the low 

understory and prevent encroachment 

by native tropical hardwoods and exotic 

plants, such as Brazilian pepper. Only 

one large occurrence is known to exist; 

15 other occurrences contain less than 

100 individuals. Eleven occurrences are 

on conservation lands, while the rest of 

the extant populations are on private 

land and are currently vulnerable to 

habitat loss and degradation. 

Climatic changes and sea-level rise 

are long-term threats that will reduce 

the extent of habitat. This species is 

threatened by habitat loss, which is 

exacerbated by habitat degradation due 

to fire suppression, the difficulty of 

applying prescribed fire to pine 

rocklands, and threats from exotic 

plants. Remaining habitats are 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69266 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

fragmented. The species is vulnerable to 

natural disturbances, such as 

hurricanes, tropical storms, and storm 

surges. Due to its restricted range and 

the small sizes of most isolated 

occurrences, this species is vulnerable 

to environmental (catastrophic 

hurricanes), demographic (potential 

episodes of poor reproduction), and 

genetic (potential inbreeding 

depression) threats. Ongoing 

conservation efforts include projects 

aimed at facilitating restoration and 

management of public and private lands 

in Miami-Dade County and projects to 

reintroduce and establish new 

populations at suitable sites within the 

species’ historical range. The Service is 

also pursuing additional habitat 

restoration projects, which could help 

further improve the status of the 

species. Because of these efforts, the 

overall magnitude of threats is 

moderate. The threats are ongoing and 

thus imminent. We assigned this species 

an LPN of 8. 

Calamagrostis expansa (Maui 

reedgrass)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. No new information was provided 

in the petition we received on May 11, 

2004. Calamagrostis expansa is a 

perennial grass found in wet forest and 

bogs, and in bog margins, on the islands 

of Maui and Hawaii, Hawaii. This 

species is known from 13 populations 

totaling fewer than 750 individuals. 

Calamagrostis expansa is threatened by 

habitat degradation and loss by feral 

pigs, and by competition with nonnative 

plants. Predation by feral pigs is a 

potential threat to this species. All of 

the known populations of C. expansa on 

Maui occur in managed areas. Pig 

exclusion fences have been constructed 

and control of nonnative plants is 

ongoing within the exclosures. On the 

island of Hawaii, fencing is planned for 

the population in the Upper Waiakea 

Forest Reserve. This species is 

represented in an ex situ collection. 

Threats to this species from feral pigs 

and nonnative plants are ongoing, or 

imminent, and of high magnitude 

because they significantly affect the 

species throughout its range, leading to 

a relatively high likelihood of 

extinction. Predation is a nonimminent 

threat. Therefore, we retained an LPN of 

2 for this species. 

Calamagrostis hillebrandii 

(Hillebrand’s reedgrass)—We continue 

to find that listing this species is 

warranted but precluded as of the date 

of publication of this notice. However, 

we are working on a proposed listing 

rule that we expect to publish prior to 

making the next annual resubmitted 

12-month petition finding. 

Calochortus persistens (Siskiyou 

mariposa lily)—The following summary 

is based on information contained in 

our files and the petition we received on 

September 10, 2001. The Siskiyou 

mariposa lily is a narrow endemic that 

is restricted to three disjunct ridge tops 

in the Klamath-Siskiyou Range on the 

California-Oregon border. The 

southernmost occurrence of this species 

is composed of nine separate sites on 

approximately 10 hectares (ha) (24.7 

acres (ac)) of Klamath National Forest 

and privately owned lands that stretch 

for 6 kilometers (km) (3.7 miles (mi)) 

along the Gunsight-Humbug Ridge, 

Siskiyou County, California. In 2007, a 

new occurrence was confirmed in the 

locality of Cottonwood Peak and Little 

Cottonwood Peak, Siskiyou County, 

where several populations are 

distributed over 164 ha (405 ac) on three 

individual mountain peaks in the 

Klamath National Forest and on private 

lands. The northernmost occurrence 

consists of not more than five Siskiyou 

mariposa lily plants that were 

discovered in 1998, on Bald Mountain, 

west of Ashland, Jackson County, 

Oregon. 

Major threats include competition and 

shading by native and nonnative species 

fostered by suppression of wild fire; 

increased fuel loading and subsequent 

risk of wild fire; fragmentation by roads, 

fire breaks, tree plantations, and radiotower facilities; maintenance and 

construction around radio towers and 

telephone relay stations located on 

Gunsight Peak and Mahogany Point; and 

soil disturbance, direct damage, and 

exotic weed and grass species 

introduction as a result of heavy 

recreational use and construction of fire 

breaks. Dyer’s woad (Isatis tinctoria), an 

invasive, nonnative plant that may 

prevent germination of Siskiyou 

mariposa lily seedlings, is now found 

throughout the southernmost California 

occurrence, affecting 75 percent of the 

known lily habitat on Gunsight-Humbug 

Ridge. Forest Service staff and the 

Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center cite 

competition with dyer’s woad as a 

significant and chronic threat to the 

survival of Siskiyou mariposa lily. 

The combination of restricted range, 

extremely low numbers (five plants) in 

one of three disjunct populations, poor 

competitive ability, short seed dispersal 

distance, slow growth rates, low seed 

production, apparently poor survival 

rates in some years, herbivory, habitat 

disturbance, and competition from 

exotic plants threaten the continued 

existence of this species. These threats 

are of high magnitude because of their 

potential to severely reduce the overall 

survival of the species. Because the 

threats of competition from exotic 

plants are being addressed, they are not 

anticipated to overwhelm a large 

portion of the species’ range in the 

immediate future, and the threats from 

low seed production and survival are 

longer-term threats, overall the threats 

are nonimminent. Therefore, we 

assigned a listing priority number of 5 

to this species. 

Canavalia pubescens (Awikiwiki)— 

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. 

Canavalia pubescens is a perennial 

climber found in open lava fields and 

lowland dryland forest in Hawaii on the 

island of Maui, last observed on the 

island of Lanai in 1998, and was last 

observed on the island of Niihau in 

1949. This species is known from 5 

populations totaling 360 to 500 

individuals. Canavalia pubescens is 

threatened by development (Maui), 

goats (Maui) and axis deer (Maui and 

Lanai) that degrade and destroy habitat, 

and by nonnative plants that 

outcompete and displace native plants 

(both islands). Fire is a possible threat 

at the Keokea population on Maui. 

Ungulate exclosure fences protect 6 

individuals of C. pubescens at Papaka 

Kai and 20 to 30 individuals at AhihiKinau NAR, and weed control is 

ongoing at these locations on Maui. This 

species is represented in ex situ 

collections. Threats to this species from 

feral goats, axis deer, and nonnative 

plants are ongoing, or imminent, and of 

high magnitude because they severely 

affect the species throughout its range, 

leading to a relatively high likelihood of 

extinction. Fire is a nonimminent threat. 

Therefore, we retained an LPN of 2 for 

this species. 

Castilleja christii (Christ’s 

paintbrush)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files and the petition we received on 

January 2, 2001. Castilleja christii is 

found in one population covering 

approximately 85 ha (220 ac) on the 

summit of Mount Harrison in Cassia 

County, Idaho. This endemic species is 

considered a hemiparasite (dependent 

on the health of their surrounding 

native plant community), and it grows 

in association with subalpine-meadow 

and sagebrush habitats. The population 

may be large (greater than 10,000 

individual plants); however, the species 

is considered to be subject to large 

variations in annual abundance and an 

accurate current population estimate is 

not available. Monitoring indicates that 

reproductive stems per plant and plant 

density declined between 1995 and 

2007. Fluctuations have occurred since 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69267 

2007, with slight increases in 

reproductive output and density in 2008 

and decreases in 2009. 

The primary threat to the species is 

the nonnative invasive plant smooth 

brome (Bromus inermis). Despite 

cooperative Forest Service and Service 

efforts to control smooth brome in 2007, 

2008, and 2009, it still persists in C. 

christii habitats. Other threats to C. 

christii from recreational use and 

livestock trespass appear to be mostly 

seasonal and affect only a small portion 

of the population, and may not occur 

every year. The magnitude of the threats 

to this species is moderate at this time 

because, although the smooth brome 

control efforts have not eliminated the 

invasive plant, the Service and Forest 

Service are continuing their efforts in 

order to conserve this species. The 

threat from smooth brome is imminent 

because the threat still persists at a level 

that affects the native plant 

communities that provide habitat for C. 

christii. Thus, we assign an LPN of 8 to 

this species. 

Chamaecrista lineata var. keyensis 

(Big Pine partridge pea)—The following 

summary is based on information 

contained in our files. No new 

information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

This pea is endemic to the lower Florida 

Keys, and restricted to pine rocklands, 

hardwood hammock edges, and 

roadsides and firebreaks within these 

ecosystems. Historically, it was known 

from Big Pine, Cudjoe, No Name, 

Ramrod, and Little Pine Keys (Monroe 

County, Florida). In 2005, a small 

population was detected on lower 

Sugarloaf Key, but this population was 

apparently extirpated later in 2005, due 

to the effects of Hurricane Wilma. It 

presently occurs on Big Pine Key, with 

a very small population on Cudjoe Key. 

It is fairly well distributed in Big Pine 

Key pine rocklands, which encompass 

approximately 580 hectares (1,433 

acres), approximately 360 hectares (890 

acres) of which are within the Service’s 

National Key Deer Refuge (NKDR). Over 

80 percent of the population probably 

exists on NKDR, with the remainder 

distributed among State, County, and 

private properties. Hurricane Wilma 

(October 2005) resulted in a storm surge 

that covered most of Big Pine Key with 

sea water. The surge reduced the 

population by as much as 95 percent in 

some areas. 

Pine rockland communities are 

maintained by relatively frequent fires. 

In the absence of fire, shrubs and trees 

encroach on pine rockland and this 

subspecies is eventually shaded out. 

NKDR has a prescribed fire program, 

although with many constraints on 

implementation. Habitat loss due to 

development was historically the 

greatest threat to the pea. Much of the 

remaining habitat is now protected on 

public lands. Absence of fire now 

appears to be the greatest of the 

deterministic threats. Given the recent 

increase in hurricane activity, storm 

surges are the greatest of the stochastic 

threats. The small range and patchy 

distribution of the subspecies increase 

risk from stochastic events. Climatic 

changes and sea level rise are serious 

long-term threats. Models indicate that 

even under the best of circumstances, a 

significant proportion of upland habitat 

will be lost on Big Pine Key by 2100. 

Additional threats include restricted 

range, invasive exotic plants, roadside 

dumping, loss of pollinators, seed 

predators, and development. 

We maintain the previous assessment 

that hurricane storm surges, lack of fire, 

and limited distribution results in a 

moderate magnitude of threat because a 

large part of the range is on conservation 

lands wherein threats are being 

controlled, although fire management is 

at much slower rate than is required. 

The immediacy of hurricane threats is 

difficult to characterize, but imminence 

is considered high given that hurricanes 

(and storm surges) of various 

magnitudes are frequent and recurrent 

events in the area. Sea-level rise remains 

uncontrolled, but overall, is 

nonimminent. Overall, the threats from 

limited distribution and inadequate fire 

management are imminent since they 

are ongoing. In addition, the most 

consequential threats (hurricanes, storm 

surges) are frequent, recurrent, and 

imminent. Therefore, we retained an 

LPN of 9 for Big Pine partridge pea. 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum 

(Pineland sandmat)—The following 

summary is based on information 

contained in our files. No new 

information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

The pineland sandmat in only known 

from Miami-Dade County, Florida. The 

largest occurrence, estimated at more 

than 10,000 plants, is located on Long 

Pine Key within Everglades National 

Park. All other occurrences are smaller 

and are in isolated pine rockland 

fragments in heavily urbanized MiamiDade County. 

Occurrences on private (nonconservation) lands and on one Countyowned parcel are at risk from 

development and habitat degradation 

and fragmentation. Conditions related to 

climate change, particularly sea-level 

rise, will be a factor over the long term. 

All occurrences of the species are 

threatened by habitat loss and 

degradation due to fire suppression, the 

difficulty of applying prescribed fire, 

and exotic plants. These threats are 

severe within small and unmanaged 

fragments in urban areas. However, the 

threats of fire suppression and exotics 

are reduced on lands managed by the 

National Park Service. Hydrologic 

changes are considered to be another 

threat. Hydrology has been altered 

within Long Pine Key due to artificial 

drainage, which lowered ground water, 

and by the construction of roads, which 

either impounded or diverted water. 

Regional water management intended to 

restore the Everglades could negatively 

affect the pinelands of Long Pine Key in 

the future. At this time, we do not know 

whether the proposed restoration and 

associated hydrological modifications 

will have a positive or negative effect on 

pineland sandmat. This narrow endemic 

may be vulnerable to catastrophic 

events and natural disturbances, such as 

hurricanes. Overall, the magnitude of 

threats to this species is moderate; by 

applying regular prescribed fire, the 

National Park Service has kept Long 

Pine Key’s pineland vegetation intact 

and relatively free of exotic plants, and 

partnerships are in place to help address 

the continuing threat of exotics on other 

pine rockland fragments. Overall, the 

threats are non-imminent since fire 

management at the largest occurrence is 

regularly conducted and sea-level rise 

and hurricanes are longer-term threats. 

Therefore, we assigned an LPN of 12 to 

this subspecies. 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. serpyllum 

(Wedge spurge)—The following 

summary is based on information 

contained in our files. No new 

information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Systematic surveys of publicly owned 

pine rockland throughout this plant’s 

range were conducted during 2005– 

2006 and 2007–2008 to determine 

population size and distribution. Wedge 

spurge is a small prostrate herb. It was 

historically, and remains, restricted to 

pine rocklands on Big Pine Key in 

Monroe County, Florida. Pine rocklands 

encompass approximately 580 hectares 

(1,433 acres) on Big Pine Key, 

approximately 360 hectares (890 acres) 

of which are within the Service’s 

National Key Deer Refuge (NKDR). Most 

of the species’ range falls within the 

NKDR, with the remainder on State, 

County, and private properties. It is not 

widely dispersed within the limited 

range. Occurrences are sparser in the 

southern portion of Big Pine Key, which 

contains smaller areas of NKDR lands 

than does the northern portion. Wedge 

spurge inhabits sites with low woody 

cover (e.g., low palm and hardwood 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69268 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

densities) and usually, exposed rock or 

gravel. 

Pine rockland communities are 

maintained by relatively frequent fires. 

In the absence of fire, shrubs and trees 

encroach on pine rockland and the 

subspecies is eventually shaded out. 

NKDR has a prescribed fire program, 

although with many constraints on 

implementation. Habitat loss due to 

development was historically the 

greatest threat to the wedge spurge. 

Much of the remaining habitat is now 

protected on public lands. Absence of 

fire now appears to be the greatest of the 

deterministic threats. Given the recent 

increase in hurricane activity, storm 

surges are the greatest of the stochastic 

threats. The small range and patchy 

distribution of the subspecies increases 

risk from stochastic events. Climatic 

changes and sea-level rise are serious 

long-term threats. Models indicate that 

even under the best of circumstances, a 

significant proportion of upland habitat 

will be lost on Big Pine Key by 2100. 

Additional threats include restricted 

range, invasive exotic plants, roadside 

dumping, loss of pollinators, seed 

predators, and development. 

We maintain the previous assessment 

that low fire return intervals plus 

hurricane-related storm surges, in 

combination with a limited, fragmented 

distribution and threats from sea level 

rise, result in a moderate magnitude of 

threat, in part, because a large part of 

the range is on conservation lands, 

where some threats can be substantially 

controlled. The immediacy of hurricane 

threats is difficult to categorize, but in 

this case threats are imminent given that 

hurricanes (and storm surges) of various 

magnitudes are frequent and recurrent 

events in the area. Sea level rise remains 

uncontrolled, but over much of the 

range is nonimminent compared to 

other prominent threats. Threats 

resulting from limited fire occurrences 

are imminent. Since major threats are 

ongoing, overall, the threats are 

imminent. Therefore, we retained an 

LPN of 9 for this subspecies. 

Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina 

(San Fernando Valley spineflower)— 

The following summary is based on 

information contained in our files and 

the petition we received on December 

14, 1999. Chorizanthe parryi var. 

fernandina is a low-growing herbaceous 

annual plant in the buckwheat family. 

Germination occurs following the onset 

of late-fall and winter rains and 

typically represents different cohorts 

from the seed bank. Flowering occurs in 

the spring, generally between April and 

June. The plant currently is known from 

two disjunct localities: The first is in the 

southeastern portion of Ventura County 

on a site within the Upper Las Virgenes 

Canyon Open Space Preserve, formerly 

known as Ahmanson Ranch, and the 

second is in an area of southwestern Los 

Angeles County known as Newhall 

Ranch. Investigations of historical 

locations and seemingly suitable habitat 

within the range of the species have not 

revealed any other occurrences. 

The threats currently facing 

Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina 

include threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range, and other natural or 

manmade factors. The threats to 

Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina from 

habitat destruction or modification are 

slightly less than they were 6 years ago. 

One of the two populations (Upper Las 

Virgenes Canyon Open Space Preserve) 

is in permanent, public ownership and 

is being managed by an agency that is 

working to conserve the plant; however, 

the use of adjacent habitat for filming 

movies was brought to our attention last 

year; while we are monitoring the 

situation, we have not yet completed 

our evaluation of the potential impacts 

to Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina. 

We will be working with the 

landowners to manage the site for the 

benefit of Chorizanthe parryi var. 

fernandina. The other population 

(Newhall Ranch) is under the threat of 

development; however, a Candidate 

Conservation Agreement (CCA) is being 

developed with the landowner, and it is 

possible that the remaining plants can 

also be conserved. Until such an 

agreement is finalized, the threat of 

development and the potential damage 

to the Newhall Ranch population still 

exists, as shown by the destruction of 

some plants during installation of an 

agave farm. Furthermore, cattle grazing 

on Newhall Ranch may be current 

threat. Cattle grazing may harm 

Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina by 

trampling and soil compaction. Grazing 

activity could also alter the nutrient 

content of the soils Chorizanthe parryi 

var. fernandina habitat through fecal 

inputs, which in turn may favor the 

growth of other plant species that would 

otherwise not grow so readily on the 

mineral-based soils. Over time, changes 

in species composition may render the 

sites less favorable for the persistence of 

Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina. 

Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina may 

be threatened by invasive nonnative 

plants, including grasses, which could 

potentially displace it from available 

habitat; compete for light, water, and 

nutrients; and reduce survival and 

establishment. 

Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina is 

particularly vulnerable to extinction due 

to its concentration in two isolated 

areas. The existence of only two areas of 

occurrence, and a relatively small range, 

makes the variety highly susceptible to 

extinction or extirpation from a 

significant portion of its range due to 

random events such as fire, drought, 

erosion, or other occurrences. We 

retained a listing priority number of 6 

for Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina 

due to high magnitude of nonimminent 

threats. 

Chromolaena frustrata (Cape Sable 

thoroughwort)—The following summary 

is based on information contained in 

our files. No new information was 

provided in the petition we received on 

May 11, 2004. This species is found 

most commonly in open sun to partial 

shade at the edges of rockland tropical 

hammock and in coastal rock barrens. 

There are nine extant occurrences 

located on five islands in the Florida 

Keys and one small area in Everglades 

National Park (ENP). In the Keys, the 

plant has been extirpated from half of 

the islands where it occurred. Prior to 

Hurricane Wilma in 2005, the 

population was estimated at roughly 

5,000 individuals, with all but 500 

occurring on one privately owned 

island. An estimated 1,500 plants occur 

on the mainland within ENP. 

This species is threatened by habitat 

loss and modification, even on public 

lands, and habitat loss and degradation 

due to threats from exotic plants at 

almost all sites. The species is 

vulnerable to natural disturbances, such 

as hurricanes, tropical storms, and 

storm surges. While these factors may 

also work to maintain coastal rock 

barren habitat in the long term, 

Hurricane Wilma affected occurrences 

and habitat, at least in the short term. 

Occurrences probably initially declined 

due to inundation of its coastal barren 

and rockland hammock habitats; longterm effects on this species are 

unknown. Cape Sable thoroughwort 

appears to be vulnerable to cold 

temperatures. It is not known to what 

extent cold temperatures in January 

2010 may have affected the species at 

most locations, or what, if any, longterm effect this may have on the 

population. Sea level rise is considered 

a major threat over the long term. 

Potential effects from other changes in 

freshwater deliveries and the 

construction of the Buttonwood Canal 

are unknown. Problems associated with 

small population size and isolation are 

likely major factors, as occurrences may 

not be large enough to be viable; this 

narrowly endemic plant has uncertain 

viability at most locations. Thus, these 

factors constitute a high magnitude of 

threat. The threats of small population 

size, isolation, and uncertain viability 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69269 

are imminent because they are ongoing. 

As a result, we assigned an LPN of 2 to 

this species. 

Consolea corallicola (Florida 

semaphore cactus)—The following 

summary is based on information in our 

files. No new information was provided 

in the petition we received on May 11, 

2004. The Florida semaphore cactus is 

endemic to the Florida Keys, and was 

discovered on Big Pine Key in 1919, but 

that population was extirpated as a 

result of road building and poaching. 

This cactus grows close to salt water on 

bare rock with a minimum of humus 

soil cover in or along the edges of 

hammocks near sea level. The species is 

known to occur naturally only in two 

areas, Swan Key within Biscayne 

National Park and Little Torch Key. 

Outplantings have been attempted in 

several locations in the upper and lower 

Keys; however, success has been low. 

Few plants remain in the population at 

The Nature Conservancy’s Torchwood 

Hammock Preserve on Little Torch Key. 

During monitoring work conducted in 

2005, a total of 655 plants were 

documented at the Swan Key 

population. In 2008 and 2009 the 

population was estimated by Biscayne 

National Park staff to consist of 

approximately 600 individuals. Asexual 

reproduction is the main life history 

strategy of this species. Recent genetic 

studies have shown no variation within 

populations and very limited variation 

between populations. Findings support 

the conclusion that the Swan Key 

(upper Keys) and Little Torch Key 

(lower Keys) populations and an 

individual plant from Big Pine Key 

(single plant in ex situ collection; lower 

Keys) are clonally derived. Studies 

examining the reproductive biology of 

the species indicate that all extant wild 

and cultivated plants are male. 

The causes for the population decline 

of this species include destruction or 

modification of habitat, predation from 

nonnative Cactoblastis cactorum moths 

and disease, poaching and vandalism, 

sea level rise, and hurricanes. Sea level 

rise is considered a serious threat to the 

species and its habitat; all extant 

populations are located in low-lying 

areas. All remaining populations are 

under threat of predation from the 

exotic moth and are susceptible to rootrot disease. Competition from invasive 

exotic plants is a threat at Swan Key; 

however, efforts by Biscayne National 

Park are underway to address this 

threat. This species is inherently 

vulnerable to stochastic losses, 

especially at its smaller populations. A 

lack of variation and limited sexual 

reproduction makes the remaining small 

population even more susceptible to 

natural or manmade factors. Overall, the 

magnitude of threats is high. The 

numerous threats are ongoing and 

therefore, are imminent. Thus, we 

assigned this species an LPN of 2. 

Cordia rupicola (no common name)— 

The following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Cordia rupicola, a small shrub, has been 

described from southwestern Puerto 

Rico, Vieques Island, and Anegada 

Island (British Virgin Islands). All sites 

lay within the subtropical dry forest life 

zone overlying a limestone substrate. 

Cordia rupicola has a restricted 

distribution. Currently, approximately 

226 individuals are known from 3 

locations in Puerto Rico: Pen ̃uelas and 

Gua ́nica Commonwealth Forests and 

Vieques National Wildlife Refuge. The 

species is reported as common in 

Anegada. 

This species is threatened by 

maintenance of trails and power line 

right-of-ways in the Gua ́nica 

Commonwealth Forest, residential 

development in Pen ̃uelas, and 

residential and commercial 

development in Anegada Island. This 

species is also vulnerable to natural 

(e.g., hurricanes) or manmade (e.g., 

human-induced fires) threats. 

Approximately 68 percent of the 

currently known reproductive adults are 

located in the Gua ́nica Commonwealth 

Forest where, due to the difficulty in 

identifying this species, it is threatened 

by management and maintenance 

activities; another 32 percent of the 

currently known reproductive adults in 

Puerto Rico are located on privately 

owned property currently threatened by 

habitat destruction or modification. For 

these reasons, we conclude that the 

magnitude of the current threats is high. 

The threats this species faces are ones 

that are likely to increase in the future 

if conservation measures are not 

implemented and long-term impacts are 

not averted. For these reasons, we 

conclude threats to the species as a 

whole are nonimminent, and therefore 

have assigned an LPN of 5. 

Cyanea asplenifolia (Haha)—We 

continue to find that listing this species 

is warranted but precluded as of the 

date of publication of this notice. 

However, we are working on a proposed 

listing rule that we expect to publish 

prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted 12-month petition finding. 

Cyanea calycina (Haha)—We 

continue to find that listing this species 

is warranted but precluded as of the 

date of publication of this notice. 

However, we are working on a proposed 

listing rule that we expect to publish 

prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted petition 12-month finding. 

Cyanea kunthiana (Haha)—We 

continue to find that listing this species 

is warranted but precluded as of the 

date of publication of this notice. 

However, we are working on a proposed 

listing rule that we expect to publish 

prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted 12-month petition finding. 

Cyanea lanceolata (Haha)—We 

continue to find that listing this species 

is warranted but precluded as of the 

date of publication of this notice. 

However, we are working on a proposed 

listing rule that we expect to publish 

prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted 12-month petition finding. 

Cyanea obtusa (Haha)—We continue 

to find that listing this species is 

warranted but precluded as of the date 

of publication of this notice. However, 

we are working on a proposed listing 

rule that we expect to publish prior to 

making the next annual resubmitted 12- 

month petition finding. 

Cyanea tritomantha (’Aku)—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. 

Cyanea tritomantha is a palm-like tree 

found in Metrosideros-Cibotium (ohiahapuu) montane wet forest on the island 

of Hawaii, Hawaii. This species is 

known from 16 populations totaling 

fewer than 300 individuals. Cyanea 

tritomantha is threatened by feral pigs 

and cattle that degrade and destroy 

habitat, and nonnative plants that 

outcompete and displace it. Potential 

threats to this species include predation 

by feral pigs, cattle, rats, and slugs, and 

human trampling of plants located near 

trails. Feral pigs and cattle have been 

fenced out of three outplanted 

populations of C. tritomantha, and 

nonnative plants have been reduced in 

the fenced areas; however, there are no 

efforts to control the ongoing and 

imminent threats to the remaining 

populations. The threats continue to be 

of a high magnitude to C. tritomantha 

because they significantly affect the 

species resulting in direct mortality or 

reduced reproductive capacity, leading 

to a relatively high likelihood of 

extinction. They are ongoing and 

therefore imminent for more than 75 

percent of the population where no 

control measures have been 

implemented. Because the threats 

continue to be of a high magnitude and 

are imminent for the unmanaged 

populations, we retained an LPN of 2 for 

this species. 

Cyrtandra filipes (Haiwale)—We 

continue to find that listing this species 

is warranted but precluded as of the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69270 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

date of publication of this notice. 

However, we are working on a proposed 

listing rule that we expect to publish 

prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted 12-month petition finding. 

Cyrtandra kaulantha (Haiwale)—We 

continue to find that listing this species 

is warranted but precluded as of the 

date of publication of this notice. 

However, we are working on a proposed 

listing rule that we expect to publish 

prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted 12-month petition finding. 

Cyrtandra oxybapha (Haiwale)—We 

continue to find that listing this species 

is warranted but precluded as of the 

date of publication of this notice. 

However, we are working on a proposed 

listing rule that we expect to publish 

prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted 12-month petition finding. 

Cyrtandra sessilis (Haiwale)—We 

continue to find that listing this species 

is warranted but precluded as of the 

date of publication of this notice. 

However, we are working on a proposed 

listing rule that we expect to publish 

prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted 12-month petition finding. 

Dalea carthagenensis ssp. floridana 

(Florida prairie-clover)—The following 

summary is based on information 

contained in our files. No new 

information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 

occurs in Big Cypress National Preserve 

(BCNP) in Monroe and Collier Counties 

and at six locations within Miami-Dade 

County, Florida, albeit mostly in limited 

numbers. There are a total of nine extant 

occurrences, seven of which are on 

conservation lands. 

Existing occurrences are extremely 

small and may not be viable, especially 

some of the occurrences in Miami-Dade 

County. Remaining habitats are 

fragmented. Climatic changes and sealevel rise are long-term threats that are 

expected to reduce the extent of habitat. 

This plant is threatened by habitat loss 

and degradation due to fire suppression, 

the difficulty of applying prescribed fire 

to pine rocklands, and threats from 

exotic plants. Damage to plants by offroad vehicles is a serious threat within 

the BCNP; damage attributed to illegal 

mountain biking at the R. Hardy 

Matheson Preserve has been reduced. 

One location within BCNP is threatened 

by changes in mowing practices; this 

threat is low in magnitude. This species 

is being parasitized by the introduced 

insect lobate lac scale (Paratachardina 

pseudolobata) at some localities (e.g., R. 

Hardy Matheson Preserve), but we do 

not know the extent of this threat. This 

plant is vulnerable to natural 

disturbances, such as hurricanes, 

tropical storms, and storm surges. Due 

to its restricted range and the small sizes 

of most isolated occurrences, this 

species is vulnerable to environmental 

(catastrophic hurricanes), demographic 

(potential episodes of poor 

reproduction), and genetic (potential 

inbreeding depression) threats. The 

magnitude of threats is high because of 

the limited number of occurrences and 

the small number of individual plants at 

each occurrence. The threats are 

imminent; even though many sites are 

on conservation lands, these plants still 

face significant ongoing threats. 

Therefore, we have assigned an LPN of 

3 to this subspecies. 

Dichanthelium hirstii (Hirsts’ panic 

grass)—The following summary is based 

on information contained in our files. 

No new information was provided in 

the petition we received on May 11, 

2004. Dichanthelium hirstii is a 

perennial grass that produces erect leafy 

flowering stems from May to October. 

Dichanthelium hirstii occurs in coastal 

plain intermittent ponds, usually in wet 

savanna or pine barren habitats and is 

found at only two sites in New Jersey, 

one site in Delaware, and one site in 

North Carolina. While all four extant D. 

hirstii populations are located on public 

land or privately owned conservation 

lands, natural threats to the species from 

encroaching vegetation and fluctuations 

in climatic conditions remain of 

concern and may be exacerbated by 

anthropomorphic factors occurring 

adjacent to the species’ wetland habitat. 

Given the low numbers of plants found 

at each site, even minor changes in the 

species’ habitat could result in local 

extirpation. Loss of any known sites 

could result in a serious contraction of 

the species’ range. However, the most 

immediate and severe of the threats to 

this species (i.e., ditching of the 

Labounsky Pond site, and encroachment 

of aggressive vegetative competitors) 

have been curtailed or are being actively 

managed by The Nature Conservancy at 

one New Jersey site and by the Delaware 

Division of Fish and Wildlife and 

Delaware Natural Heritage Program at 

the Assawoman Pond, Delaware site. 

Based on nonimminent threats of a high 

magnitude, we retain an LPN of 5 for 

this species. 

Digitaria pauciflora (Florida pineland 

crabgrass)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. No new information was provided 

in the petition we received on May 11, 

2004. Pine rocklands in Miami-Dade 

County have largely been destroyed by 

residential, commercial, and urban 

development and agriculture. With most 

remaining habitat having been 

negatively altered, this species has been 

extirpated from much of its historical 

range, including extirpation from all 

areas outside of National Parks. Two 

large occurrences remain within 

Everglades National Park and Big 

Cypress National Preserve; plants on 

Federal lands are protected from the 

threat of habitat loss due to 

development. However, any unknown 

plants, indefinite occurrences, and 

suitable habitat remaining on private or 

non-conservation land are threatened by 

development. Continued development 

of suitable habitat diminishes the 

potential for reintroduction into its 

historical range. Extant occurrences are 

in low-lying areas and will be affected 

by climate change and rising sea level. 

Fire suppression, the difficulty of 

applying prescribed fire to pine 

rocklands, and threats from exotic 

plants are ongoing threats. Since the 

only known remaining occurrences are 

on lands managed by the National Park 

Service, the threats of fire suppression 

and exotics are somewhat reduced. The 

presence of the exotic Old World 

climbing fern is of particular concern 

due to its ability to spread rapidly. In 

Big Cypress National Preserve, plants 

are threatened by off-road-vehicle use. 

Changes to hydrology are a potential 

threat. Hydrology has been altered 

within Long Pine Key due to artificial 

drainage, which lowered ground water, 

and construction of roads, which either 

impounded or diverted water. Regional 

water management intended to restore 

the Everglades has the potential to affect 

the pinelands of Long Pine Key, where 

a large population occurs. At this time, 

it is not known whether Everglades 

restoration will have a positive or 

negative effect. This narrow endemic 

may be vulnerable to catastrophic 

events and natural disturbances, such as 

hurricanes. Overall, the magnitude of 

threats is high. Only two known 

occurrences remain and the likelihood 

of establishing a sizable population on 

other lands is diminished due to 

continuing habitat loss. Impacts from 

climate change and sea level rise are 

currently low, but expected to be severe 

in the future. The majority of threats are 

nonimminent as they are long-term in 

nature (water management, hurricanes, 

and sea-level rise). Therefore, we 

assigned an LPN of 5 for this species. 

Echinomastus erectocentrus var. 

acunensis (Acuna cactus)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files and 

the petition we received on October 30, 

2002. The Acuna cactus is known from 

six sites on well-drained gravel ridges 

and knolls on granite soils in Sonoran 

Desert scrub association at 1,300 to 

2,000 feet in elevation. Habitat 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69271 

destruction has been a threat in the past 

and is a potential future threat to this 

species. New roads and illegal activities 

have not yet directly affected the cactus 

populations at Organ Pipe Cactus 

National Monument, but areas in close 

proximity to these known populations 

have been altered. Cactus populations 

located in the Florence area have not 

been monitored and these populations 

may be in danger of habitat loss due to 

recent urban growth in the area. Urban 

development near Ajo, Arizona, as well 

as that near Sonoyta, Mexico, is a 

significant threat to the Acuna cactus. 

Populations of the Acuna cactus within 

the Organ Pipe Cactus National 

Monument have shown a 50-percent 

mortality rate in recent years. The 

reason(s) for the mortality are not 

known, but continuing drought 

conditions are thought to play a role. 

The Arizona Plant Law and the 

Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora provide some protection for the 

Acuna cactus. However, illegal 

collection is a primary threat to this 

cactus variety and has been documented 

on the Organ Pipe Cactus National 

Monument in the past. The threats 

continue to be of a high magnitude 

because drought, as the main threat, 

severely affects the long-term viability 

of this variety. The threats are 

imminent, mainly due to the continued 

decline of the species, most likely from 

effects from the ongoing drought. 

Conditions in 2006 to 2008 worsened, 

and the drought is prevalent throughout 

the range of this variety. Therefore, we 

assigned an LPN of 3 to this cactus 

variety. 

Erigeron lemmonii (Lemmon 

fleabane)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files and the petition we received in July 

1975. The species is known from one 

site in a canyon in the Fort Huachuca 

Military Reservation (Fort Huachuca) of 

southeastern Arizona. In the 1990s, 

surveys found approximately 450 

plants. A survey in 2006 found 

approximately 950 plants; occupied 

habitat encompasses about 1 square 

kilometer. The threats to this species are 

from catastrophic wildfire in the canyon 

and on-going drought conditions. We do 

not know if this species has any 

adaptations to fire. Due to its location 

on cliffs, we suspect that fires that may 

have occurred at more regular intervals 

and burned at low intensities may have 

had little to no effect on this species. 

Lack of fire and the accumulated fuel 

load that lead to high fire intensity and 

associated heat may now damage or kill 

plants on adjacent cliffs, especially near 

the ground. Plants that are much higher 

on the cliff face would probably not be 

affected. The magnitude of threats is 

moderate rather than high because it is 

likely that not all of the population 

would be adversely affected by a 

wildfire or drought. The threats are still 

imminent because the likelihood of a 

fire is high. The LPN for Lemmon 

fleabane remains an 8 due to moderate, 

imminent threats. 

Eriogonum codium (Umtanum Desert 

buckwheat)—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 long-lived, slowgrowing, woody perennial plant that 

forms low dense mats. The species 

occupies a single location on the 

Hanford National Monument in 

Washington State. It is found only on an 

exposed basalt ridge; we do not know if 

this association is related to the 

chemical or physical characteristics of 

the bedrock or other factors. Individual 

plants may exceed 100 years of age, 

based on counts of annual growth rings. 

A count in 1997 reported 5,228 

individuals; by 2005 the figure had 

dropped to 4,418, declining 15 percent 

over 8 years. In the summer of 2011, 

another full population census will 

likely be undertaken, providing a useful 

measure of change over the last 14 

years. 

A population viability analysis in 

2006 based on 9 years of demographic 

data estimated that that there is a 72 

percent chance of a decline of 50 

percent within the next 100 years. 

Another analysis is expected in 2010, 

based on 12 years of demographic 

monitoring. 

The major threats to the species are 

wildfire, firefighting activities, 

trampling, and invasive weeds. 

However, the relationship between the 

decline in population numbers and the 

known threats is not understood at this 

time. With the possible exception of 

wildfire, the observed decline in 

population numbers and recruitment 

since 1997 is not directly attributable to 

the currently known threats. Because 

the population is small, limited to a 

single site, and sensitive to fire and 

disturbance, the species remains 

vulnerable to the identified threats. The 

magnitude of threats is high because, 

given the limited range of the species, 

any of the threats could adversely affect 

its continued existence. The threats are 

ongoing and, therefore, imminent. 

Because the species continues to remain 

vulnerable to these threats, we retained 

an LPN of 2 for this species. 

Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii 

(Las Vegas buckwheat)—The following 

summary is based on information 

contained in our files and the petition 

we received on April 23, 2008. 

Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii is a 

woody perennial shrub up to 4 feet high 

with a mounding shape. The flowers of 

this plant are numerous, small, and 

yellow with small bract-like leaves at 

the base of each flower. Eriogonum 

corymbosum var. nilesii is very 

conspicuous when flowering in late 

September and early October. It is 

restricted to gypsum soil outcroppings 

in Clark County, Nevada. In 2004, 

morphometrics (the study of variation 

and change in the form (size and shape) 

of organisms) were used to classify this 

plant as the unique variety nilesii, and 

its unique taxonomy was verified using 

molecular genetic analyses in 2007. 

Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii 

was added to the candidate list in 

December 2007 due to continued loss of 

habitat from development of over 95 

percent of its core historical range and 

potential habitat. In addition, offhighway vehicle activity and other 

public-land uses (casual public use, 

mining, and illegal dumping) directly 

threaten over 95 percent of the 

remaining habitat. It was petitioned for 

listing in April 2008 and a warrantedbut-precluded determination was made 

in December 2008. To date, regulatory 

mechanisms to protect E. corymbosum 

var. nilesii are inadequate. Its 

designation as a Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) special status 

species has not provided adequate 

protection on lands managed by BLM. 

Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii is 

not protected by the State of Nevada or 

any other regulatory mechanisms on 

other Federal lands. We have 

determined that candidate status is 

warranted for this variety as a result of 

threats to the remaining habitat and 

inadequate regulatory mechanisms. 

Conservation measures are being 

developed that could reduce the risks to 

occupied habitat, but these measures are 

not sufficiently complete as to remove 

these threats. The magnitude of threats 

is high since the more significant threats 

(urban development and surface 

mining) would result in direct mortality 

of the plants in over half of the known 

habitat. While both development and 

mining are very likely to occur in the 

future, they are not expected to happen 

in the immediate future, and thus, the 

threats are nonimminent. Accordingly, 

we assigned E. corymbosum var. nilesii 

an LPN of 6. 

Eriogonum kelloggii (Red Mountain 

buckwheat)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files and information provided by the 

California Department of Fish and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69272 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Game. No new information was 

provided in the petition we received on 

May 11, 2004. Red Mountain buckwheat 

is a perennial herb endemic to 

serpentine habitat of lower montane 

forests found between 1,900 and 4,100 

feet. Its distribution is limited to the Red 

Mountain and Little Red Mountain areas 

of Mendocino County, California, where 

it occupies in excess of 81 acres, and 

900 square feet, respectively. Occupied 

habitat at Red Mountain is scattered 

over 4 square miles. Total population 

size has not been determined, but a 

preliminary estimate suggests the 

population may be in excess of 63,000 

plants, occupying more than 44 discrete 

habitat polygons. Intensive monitoring 

of permanent plots on three study sites 

in Red Mountain suggests considerable 

annual variation in plant density and 

reproduction, but no discernable 

population trend was evident in two of 

three study sites. One study site showed 

a 65-percent decline in plant density 

over 11 years. 

The primary threat to this species is 

the potential for surface mining for 

chromium and nickel. Virtually the 

entire distribution of Red Mountain 

buckwheat is either owned by mining 

interests, or is covered by existing 

mining claims, none of which are 

currently active. Surface mining would 

destroy habitat suitability for this 

species. The species is also believed 

threatened by tree and shrub 

encroachment into its habitat, due to the 

absence of fire. Some 42 percent of its 

known distribution occurred within the 

boundary of the Red Mountain Fire of 

June, 2008. However, the extent and 

manner in which Eriogonum kelloggii 

and its habitat were affected by that fire 

is not yet known. The single population 

located at Little Red Mountain appears 

to have been affected, and perhaps 

eliminated by fire-control efforts. The 

known species distribution by 

ownership is described as follows: 

Federal (Bureau of Land Management), 

83 percent; private, 17 percent; State of 

California, less than 1 percent. Given 

the magnitude (high) and immediacy 

(nonimminent) of the threat to the 

small, scattered populations, and its 

taxonomy (species), we assigned a 

listing priority number of 5 to this 

species. 

Festuca hawaiiensis (no common 

name)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. No new information was provided 

in the petition we received on May 11, 

2004. This species is a cespitose 

(growing in dense, low tufts) annual 

found in dry forest on the island of 

Hawaii, Hawaii. Festuca hawaiiensis is 

known from 4 populations totaling 

approximately 1,000 individuals in and 

around the Pohakuloa Training Area. 

Historically, this species was also found 

on Hualalai and Puu Huluhulu, but it no 

longer occurs at these sites. 

Festuca hawaiiensis is threatened by 

pigs, goats, mouflon, and sheep that 

degrade and destroy habitat; fire; 

military training activities; and 

nonnative plants that outcompete and 

displace it. Feral pigs, goats, mouflon, 

and sheep have been fenced out of a 

portion of the populations of F. 

hawaiiensis, and nonnative plants have 

been reduced in the fenced area, but the 

majority of the populations are still 

affected by threats from ungulates. The 

threats are imminent because they are 

not controlled and are ongoing in the 

remaining, unfenced populations. 

Firebreaks have been established at two 

populations, but fire is an imminent 

threat to the remaining populations that 

have no firebreaks. The threats are of a 

high magnitude because they could 

adversely affect the majority of F. 

hawaiiensis populations resulting in 

direct mortality or reduced reproductive 

capacity, leading to a relatively high 

likelihood of extinction. Therefore, we 

retained an LPN of 2 for this species. 

Festuca ligulata (Guadalupe fescue)— 

The following summary is based on 

information obtained from the original 

species petition, received in 1975, and 

from our files, on-line herbarium 

databases, and scientific publications. 

Six small populations of Guadalupe 

fescue, a member of the Poaceae (grass 

family), have been documented in 

mountains of the Chihuahuan desert in 

Texas and in Coahuila, Mexico. Only 

two extant populations have been 

confirmed in the last 5 years, in the 

Chisos Mountains, Big Bend National 

Park, Texas, and in the privately owned 

Area de Proteccio ́n de Flora y Fauna 

(Protected Area for Flora and Fauna— 

APFF) Maderas del Carmen in northern 

Coahuila. Despite intensive searches, a 

population known from Guadalupe 

Mountains National Park in Texas has 

not been found since 1952 and is 

presumed extirpated. In 2009, Mexican 

botanists confirmed Guadalupe fescue at 

one site in APFF Maderas del Carmen, 

but could not find the species at the 

original site, known as Sierra El Jardı ́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 

has never been surveyed. The potential 

threats to Guadalupe fescue include 

changes in the wildfire cycle and 

vegetation structure, trampling from 

humans and pack animals, grazing, trail 

runoff, fungal infection of seeds, small 

sizes and isolation of populations, and 

limited genetic diversity. The Service 

and the National Park Service 

established a Candidate Conservation 

Agreement 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 Candidate 

Conservation Agreement and other 

conservation efforts, as well as the 

likelihood that other populations exist 

in mountains of Coahuila that have not 

been surveyed. Thus, we maintained the 

LPN of 11 for this species. 

Gardenia remyi (Nanu)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Gardenia remyi is a tree found in mesic 

to wet forest on the islands of Kauai, 

Molokai, Maui, and Hawaii, Hawaii. 

Gardenia remyi is known from 19 

populations totaling between 85 and 87 

individuals. 

This species is threatened by pigs, 

goats, and deer that degrade and destroy 

habitat and possibly prey upon the 

species, and by nonnative plants that 

outcompete and displace it. Gardenia 

remyi is also threatened by landslides 

on the island of Hawaii. This species is 

represented in ex situ collections. Feral 

pigs have been fenced out of the west 

Maui populations of G. remyi, and 

nonnative plants have been reduced in 

those areas. However, these threats are 

not controlled and are ongoing in the 

remaining, unfenced populations, and 

are, therefore, imminent. In addition, 

the threat from goats and deer is 

ongoing and imminent throughout the 

range of the species, because no goat or 

deer control measures have been 

undertaken for any of the populations of 

G. remyi. All of the threats are of a high 

magnitude because habitat destruction, 

predation, and landslides could 

significantly affect the entire species, 

resulting in direct mortality or reduced 

reproductive capacity, leading to a 

relatively high likelihood of extinction. 

Therefore, we retained an LPN of 2 for 

this species. 

Geranium hanaense (Nohoanu)—We 

continue to find that listing this species 

is warranted but precluded as of the 

date of publication of this notice. 

However, we are working on a proposed 

listing rule that we expect to publish 

prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted 12-month petition finding. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69273 

Geranium hillebrandii (Nohoanu)— 

We continue to find that listing this 

species is warranted but precluded as of 

the date of publication of this notice. 

However, we are working on a proposed 

listing rule that we expect to publish 

prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted 12-month petition finding. 

Gonocalyx concolor (no common 

name)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. No new information was provided 

in the petition we received on May 11, 

2004. Gonocalyx concolor is a small 

evergreen epiphytic or terrestrial shrub. 

Currently, G. concolor is known from 

two populations in Puerto Rico: One at 

Cerro La Santa and the other at Charco 

Azul, both in the Carite Commonwealth 

Forest. The forest is located in the Sierra 

de Cayey and extends through the 

municipalities of Guayama, Cayey, 

Caguas, San Lorenzo, and Patillas in 

southeastern Puerto Rico. The 

population previously reported in the 

Caribbean National Forest is apparently 

no longer extant. In 1996, approximately 

172 plants were reported at Cerro La 

Santa. However, in 2006 only 25 

individuals were reported at Cerro La 

Santa and 4 individuals located at 

Charco Azul. 

The species is currently threatened by 

habitat disturbance related to the 

maintenance of existing 

telecommunication facilities at Cerro La 

Santa, limited distribution (2 sites) and 

low population numbers (less than 30 

individuals total), and hurricanes. 

Although the species is located in the 

Carite Commonwealth Forest, a public 

forest managed by DNER, applicable 

laws and regulations are not effectively 

enforced and Service personnel has 

documented damages to the population 

located adjacent to existing 

communication towers at the forest. 

Because of extremely low population 

numbers and the vulnerability to 

current threats (maintenance activities 

and hurricanes), the magnitude of 

current threats on the species is high. 

Overall, threats are nonimminent since 

G. concolor is only known from the 

Carite Commonwealth Forest, 

administered and managed by the DNER 

for conservation and recreation. 

Therefore, we have assigned a listing 

priority number of 5 for the Gonocalyx 

concolor. 

Hazardia orcuttii (Orcutt’s 

hazardia)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files and the petition we received on 

March 8, 2001. Hazardia orcuttii is an 

evergreen shrubby species in the 

Asteraceae (sunflower family). The erect 

shrubs are 50–100 centimeters (20–40 

inches) high. The only known extant 

native occurrence of this species in the 

U.S. is in the Manchester Conservation 

Area in northwestern San Diego County, 

California. This site is managed by 

Center for Natural Lands Management 

(CNLM). Using material derived from 

the native population, the CNLM 

facilitated the establishment of test 

populations at five additional sites in 

northwest San Diego County, California, 

including a second site in the 

Manchester Conservation Area, Kelly 

Ranch Habitat Conservation Area, 

Rancho La Costa Habitat Conservation 

Area, San Elijo Lagoon, and San Diego 

Botanical Garden. Hazardia orcuttii also 

occurs at a few coastal sites in Mexico, 

where it has no conservation 

protections. The total number of plants 

at the only native site in the United 

States is approximately 668 native adult 

plants and 50 seedlings. The five 

additional test populations collectively 

support approximately 500 adult plants 

and 350 seedlings. 

The population in Mexico is 

estimated to be 1300 plants. The 

occurrences in Mexico are threatened by 

coastal development from Tijuana to 

Ensenada. The native population in the 

U.S. is within an area that receives 

public use; however, management at 

this site has minimized impacts from 

trampling, dumping, and other 

unintentionally destructive impacts. 

This species has a very low 

reproductive output, although the 

causes are as-yet unknown. Competition 

from invasive nonnative plants may 

pose a threat to the reproductive 

potential of this species. In one study, 

95 percent of the flowers examined were 

damaged by insects or fungal agents or 

aborted prematurely, and insects or 

fungal agents damaged 50 percent of the 

seeds produced. All of the populations 

in the U.S. are small and two of the test 

populations are declining. Small 

populations are considered subject to 

random events and reductions in fitness 

due to low genetic variability. Threats 

associated with small population size 

are further exacerbated by the limited 

range and low reproductive output of 

this species. However, if low seed 

production is because of ecosystem 

disruptions, such as loss of effective 

pollinators, there could be additional 

threats that need to be addressed. 

Overall, the threats to Hazardia orcuttii 

are of a high magnitude because they 

have the potential to significantly 

reduce the reproductive potential of this 

species. The threats are nonimminent 

overall because the most significant 

threats (invasive, nonnative plants and 

low reproductive output) are 

nonimminent and long-term in nature. 

This species faces high-magnitude 

nonimminent threats; therefore, we 

assigned this species a listing priority of 

5. 

Hedyotis fluviatilis (Kamapuaa)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Hedyotis fluviatilis is a scandent shrub 

found in mixed shrubland to wet 

lowland forest on the islands of Oahu 

and Kauai, Hawaii. This species is 

known from 11 populations totaling 

between 400 and 900 individuals. 

Hedyotis fluviatilis is threatened by pigs 

and goats that degrade and destroy 

habitat, and by nonnative plants that 

outcompete and displace it. Landslides 

are a potential threat to populations on 

Kauai. Predation by pigs and goats is a 

likely threat. This species is represented 

in an ex situ collection; however, there 

are no other conservation actions 

implemented for this species. We 

retained an LPN of 2 because the 

severity of the threats to the species is 

high and the threats are ongoing and, 

therefore, imminent. 

Helianthus verticillatus (Whorled 

sunflower)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. No new information was provided 

in the petition we received on May 11, 

2004. The whorled sunflower is found 

in moist, prairie-like openings in 

woodlands and along adjacent creeks. 

Despite extensive surveys throughout its 

range, only five populations are known 

for this species. There are two 

populations documented for Cherokee 

County, Alabama; one population in 

Floyd County, Georgia; and one 

population each in Madison and 

McNairy Counties, Tennessee. This 

species appears to have restricted 

ecological requirements and is 

dependent upon the maintenance of 

prairie-like openings for its survival. 

Active management of habitat is needed 

to keep competition and shading under 

control. Much of its habitat has been 

degraded or destroyed for agricultural, 

silvicultural, and residential purposes. 

Populations near roadsides or 

powerlines are threatened by herbicide 

usage in association with right-of-way 

maintenance. The majority of the 

Georgia population is protected due to 

its location within a conservation 

easement; however, only 15 to 20 plants 

are estimated to occur at this site. The 

remaining four sites are not formally 

protected, but efforts have been taken to 

abate threats associated with highway 

right-of-way maintenance at one 

Alabama population; and, despite past 

concerns about threats from timber 

removal degrading H. verticillatus 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69274 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

habitat, the other Alabama population 

has responded favorably to canopy 

removal that took place circa 2001. 

Therefore, threats are of moderate 

magnitude, though imminent because 

they are ongoing. Thus, we assigned this 

species an LPN of 8. 

Hibiscus dasycalyx (Neches River 

rose-mallow)—See above in ‘‘Listing 

Priority Changes in Candidates.’’ The 

above summary is based on information 

contained in our files. 

Ivesia webberi (Webber ivesia)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Ivesia webberi is a low, spreading, 

perennial herb that occurs very 

infrequently in Lassen, Plumas, and 

Sierra Counties in California, and in 

Douglas and Washoe Counties, Nevada. 

The species is restricted to sites with 

sparse vegetation and shallow, rocky 

soils composed of volcanic ash or 

derived from andesitic rock (a gray, finegrained volcanic rock). Occupied sites 

generally occur on mid-elevation flats, 

benches, or terraces on mountain slopes 

above large valleys along the transition 

zone between the eastern edge of the 

northern Sierra Nevada and the 

northwestern edge of the Great Basin. 

Currently, the global population is 

estimated at approximately 5 million 

individuals at 16 known sites. The 

Nevada sites support nearly 98 percent 

of the total number of individuals (4.9 

million) on about 27 acres (11 hectares) 

of occupied habitat. The California sites 

are larger in area, totaling about 157 

acres (63 hectares), but support fewer 

individuals (approximately 120,000). 

The primary threats to I. webberi 

include urban development, authorized 

and unauthorized roads, off-roadvehicle activities and other dispersed 

recreation, livestock grazing and 

trampling, fire and fire suppression 

activities including fuels reduction and 

prescribed fires, and displacement by 

noxious weeds. Despite the high 

numbers of individuals, observations in 

2002 and 2004 confirmed that direct 

and indirect impacts to the species and 

its habitat, specifically from urban 

development and off-highway-vehicle 

activity remain high and are likely to 

increase. However, the U.S. Forest 

Service has developed a conservation 

strategy that commits to management, 

monitoring, and research to protect this 

species on National Forest lands where 

most populations are found, and the 

State of Nevada has listed the species as 

critically endangered, which provides a 

mechanism to track future impacts on 

private lands. In addition, both the U.S. 

Forest Service and State of Nevada have 

agreed to coordinate closely with the 

Fish and Wildlife Service on all 

activities that may affect this species. In 

light of these conservation 

commitments, we have determined that 

the threats to I. webberi are 

nonimminent and are maintaining the 

LPN of 5. 

Joinvillea ascendens ssp. ascendens 

(Ohe)—The following summary is based 

on information contained in our files. 

No new information was provided in 

the petition we received on May 11, 

2004. Joinvillea ascendens ssp. 

ascendens is an erect herb found in wet 

to mesic Metrosideros polymorphaAcacia koa (ohia-koa) lowland and 

montane forest on the islands of Kauai, 

Oahu, Molokai, Maui, and Hawaii, 

Hawaii. This subspecies is known from 

43 widely scattered populations totaling 

fewer than 200 individuals. Plants are 

typically found as only one or two 

individuals, with miles between 

populations. This subspecies is 

threatened by destruction or 

modification of habitat by pigs, goats, 

and deer, and by nonnative plants that 

outcompete and displace native plants. 

Predation by pigs, goats, deer, and rats 

is a likely threat to this species. 

Landslides are a potential threat to 

populations on Kauai and Molokai. 

Seedlings have rarely been observed in 

the wild. Seeds germinate in cultivation, 

but most die soon thereafter. It is 

uncertain if this rarity of reproduction is 

typical of this subspecies, or if it is 

related to habitat disturbance. Feral pigs 

have been fenced out of a few of the 

populations of this subspecies, and 

nonnative plants have been reduced in 

those populations that are fenced. 

However, these threats are not 

controlled and are ongoing in the 

remaining, unfenced populations. This 

species is represented in ex situ 

collections. The threats are of high 

magnitude because habitat degradation, 

nonnative plants, and predation result 

in mortality or severely affect the 

reproductive capacity of the majority of 

populations of this species, leading to a 

relatively high probability of extinction. 

The threats are ongoing, and thus are 

imminent. Therefore, we retained an 

LPN of 3 for this subspecies. 

Korthalsella degeneri (Hulumoa)—We 

continue to find that listing this species 

is warranted but precluded as of the 

date of publication of this notice. 

However, we are working on a proposed 

listing rule that we expect to publish 

prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted 12-month petition finding. 

Leavenworthia crassa (Gladecress)— 

The following information is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

This species of gladecress is a 

component of glade flora, occurring in 

association with limestone 

outcroppings. Leavenworthia crassa is 

endemic to a 13-mile radius area in 

north central Alabama in Lawrence and 

Morgan Counties, where only six 

populations of this species are 

documented. Glade habitats today have 

been reduced to remnants fragmented 

by agriculture and development. 

Populations of this species are now 

located in glade-like areas exhibiting 

various degrees of disturbance including 

pastureland, roadside rights-of-way, and 

cultivated or plowed fields. The most 

vigorous populations of this species are 

located in areas which receive full, or 

near full, sunlight with limited 

herbaceous competition. The magnitude 

of threat is high for this species, because 

with the limited number of populations, 

the threats could result in direct 

mortality or reduced reproductive 

capacity of the species, leading to a 

relatively high likelihood of extinction. 

This species appears to be able to adjust 

to periodic disturbances and the 

potential impacts to populations from 

competition, exotics, and herbicide use 

are nonimminent. Thus, we assigned an 

LPN of 5 to this species. 

Leavenworthia texana (Texas golden 

gladecress)—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. Leavenworthia texana occurs only 

on the Weches outcrops of east Texas in 

San Augustine and Sabine counties. The 

Weches geologic formation consists of a 

layer of calcareous sediment, lying 

above a layer of glauconite clay 

deposited up to 50 million years ago. 

Erosion of this complex has produced 

topography of steep, flat-topped hills 

and escarpments, as well as the unique 

ecology of Weches glades: Islands of 

thin, loamy, seepy, alkaline soils that 

support open-sun, herbaceous, and 

highly diverse and specialized plant 

communities. 

Leavenworthia texana was 

historically recorded at eight sites, all in 

a narrow region along north San 

Augustine and Sabine Counties. All 

sites are on private land. Three sites 

have been lost to glauconite mining and 

two sites are currently closed to visitors. 

The Sabine County site supported 1,000 

plants within 9 square meters (97 square 

feet) in 2007. The Tiger Creek site in 

San Augustine County (less than 0.1 

hectare (.2 acre) in size) was found to 

have about 200 plants in 2007. The 

Kardell site (less than 9 square meters 

(97 square feet)) has supported 400–500 

plants in past years, but none in 2005. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69275 

An introduced population in 

Nacogdoches County numbered about 

1,000 within an area of about 18 square 

meters (194 square feet) in 2007. 

Historical habitat has been affected by 

highway construction, residential 

development, conversion to pasture and 

cropland, widespread use of herbicide, 

overgrazing, and glauconite mining. 

However, the primary threat to existing 

Leavenworthia texana populations is 

the invasion of nonnative and weedy 

shrubs and vines (primarily Macartney 

rose (Rosa bracteata) and Japanese 

honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). All 

known sites are undergoing severe 

degradation by the incursion of 

nonnative shrubs and vines, which 

restrict both growth and reproduction of 

the gladecress. Brushclearing carried out 

in 1995 resulted in the reappearance of 

L. texana after a 10-year absence at one 

site. However, nonnative shrubs have 

again invaded this area. More effective 

control measures, such as burning and 

selective herbicide use, need to be 

tested and monitored. The small 

number of known sites also makes L. 

texana vulnerable to extreme natural 

disturbance events. A severe drought in 

1999 and 2000 had a pronounced 

adverse effect on L. texana 

reproduction. Since the threat from 

nonnative plants severely affects all 

known sites, the magnitude is high. The 

threats are imminent since they are 

ongoing. Therefore, we retain an LPN of 

2 for L. texana. 

Lesquerella globosa (Desvaux) Watson 

(Short’s bladderpod)—The following 

summary is based on information 

contained in our files. No new 

information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Short’s bladderpod is a perennial 

member of the mustard family that 

occurs in Indiana (1 location), Kentucky 

(6 locations), and Tennessee (22 

locations). It grows on steep, rocky, 

wooded slopes; on talus areas; along 

cliff tops and bases; and on cliff ledges. 

It is usually associated with south to 

west facing calcareous outcrops adjacent 

to rivers or streams. Road construction 

and road maintenance have played a 

significant role in the decline of L. 

globosa. Specific activities that have 

affected the species in the past and may 

continue to threaten it include bank 

stabilization, herbicide use, mowing 

during the growing season, grading of 

road shoulders, and road widening or 

repaving. Sediment deposition during 

road maintenance or from other 

activities also potentially threatens the 

species. Because the natural processes 

that maintained habitat suitability and 

competition from invasive nonnative 

vegetation have been interrupted at 

many locations, active habitat 

management is necessary at those sites. 

While threats associated with roadside 

maintenance activities and habitat 

alterations by invasive plant 

encroachment are imminent because 

they are ongoing, this threat is of 

moderate magnitude as they are not 

affecting all locations of this species at 

this time. Therefore, we assigned an 

LPN of 8 to this species. 

Linum arenicola (Sand flax)—See 

above in ‘‘Listing Priority Changes in 

Candidates.’’ That summary is based on 

information contained in our files. 

Linum carteri var. carteri (Carter’s 

small-flowered flax)—The following 

summary is based on information 

contained in our files. No new 

information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

This plant occupies open and disturbed 

sites in pinelands of Miami-Dade 

County, Florida. Currently, there are 

nine known occurrences. Occurrences 

with fewer than 100 individuals are 

located on 3 county-owned preserves. A 

site with more than 100 plants is owned 

by the U.S. government, but the site is 

not managed for conservation. 

Climatic changes and sea level rise are 

long-term threats that will likely reduce 

the extent of habitat. The nine existing 

occurrences are small and vulnerable to 

habitat loss, which is exacerbated by 

habitat degradation due to fire 

suppression, the difficulty of applying 

prescribed fire to pine rocklands, and 

threats from exotic plants. Remaining 

habitats are fragmented. Non-compatible 

management practices are also a threat 

at most protected sites; several sites are 

mowed during the flowering and 

fruiting season. In the absence of fire, 

periodic mowing can, in some cases, 

help maintain open, shrub-free 

understory and provide benefits to this 

plant. However, mowing can also 

eliminate reproduction entirely in very 

young plants, delay reproductive 

maturation, and kill adult plants. With 

flexibility in timing and proper 

management, threats from mowing 

practices can be reduced or negated. 

Carter’s small-flowered flax is 

vulnerable to natural disturbances, such 

as hurricanes, tropical storms, and 

storm surges. This species exists in such 

small numbers at so few sites, that it 

may be difficult to develop and 

maintain viable occurrences on the 

available conservation lands. Although 

no population viability analysis has 

been conducted for this plant, 

indications are that existing occurrences 

are at best marginal, and it is possible 

that none are truly viable. As a result, 

the magnitude of threats is high. The 

threats are ongoing, and thus are 

imminent. Therefore, we assigned an 

LPN of 3 to this plant variety. 

Melicope christophersenii (Alani)— 

We continue to find that listing this 

species is warranted but precluded as of 

the date of publication of this notice. 

However, we are working on a proposed 

listing rule that we expect to publish 

prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted 12-month petition finding. 

Melicope hiiakae (Alani)—We 

continue to find that listing this species 

is warranted but precluded as of the 

date of publication of this notice. 

However, we are working on a proposed 

listing rule that we expect to publish 

prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted 12-month petition finding. 

Melicope makahae (Alani)—We 

continue to find that listing this species 

is warranted-but-precluded as of the 

date of publication of this notice. 

However, we are working on a proposed 

listing rule that we expect to publish 

prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted 12-month petition finding. 

Myrsine fosbergii (Kolea)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Myrsine fosbergii is a branched shrub or 

small tree found in lowland mesic and 

wet forest, on watercourses or stream 

banks, on the islands of Kauai and 

Oahu, Hawaii. This species is currently 

known from 14 populations totaling a 

little more than 100 individuals. 

Myrsine fosbergii is threatened by feral 

pigs and goats that degrade and destroy 

habitat and may prey upon the plant, 

and by nonnative plants that compete 

for light and nutrients. This species is 

represented in an ex situ collection. 

Although there are plans to fence and 

remove ungulates from the Helemano 

area of Oahu, which may benefit this 

species, no conservation measures have 

been taken to date to alleviate these 

threats for this species. Feral pigs and 

goats are found throughout the known 

range of M. fosbergii, as are nonnative 

plants. The threats from feral pigs, goats, 

and nonnative plants are of a high 

magnitude because they pose a severe 

threat throughout the limited range of 

this species, and they are ongoing and 

therefore imminent. We retained an LPN 

of 2 for this species. 

Myrsine vaccinioides (Kolea)—We 

continue to find that listing this species 

is warranted-but-precluded as of the 

date of publication of this notice. 

However, we are working on a proposed 

listing rule that we expect to publish 

prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted 12-month petition finding. 

Narthecium americanum (Bog 

asphodel)—The following summary is 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69276 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

based on information contained in our 

files. No new information was provided 

in the petition we received on May 11, 

2004. Bog asphodel is a perennial herb 

that is found in savanna areas, usually 

with water moving through the 

substrate, as well as in sandy bogs along 

streams and rivers. The historical range 

of bog asphodel included New York, 

New Jersey, Delaware, North Carolina, 

and South Carolina, although the 

taxonomic identity of the historic North 

Carolina specimens is now in question. 

Extant populations of bog asphodel are 

now only found within the Pine Barrens 

region of New Jersey. 

Curtailment of its historical range is a 

primary threat to bog asphodel, 

representing a loss of habitat and 

genetic diversity and leaving the species 

vulnerable to localized threats, natural 

disasters, and climate change. The Pine 

Barrens savannas that support bog 

asphodel provide a scarce, specialized 

habitat that has declined from several 

thousand acres around 1900 to only a 

thousand acres in recent decades. This 

species has been lost from at least 3 

States, and now occurs on less than 80 

acres of land confined to an area only 

about 30 miles in diameter. Of the 14 

New Jersey watersheds that historically 

supported bog asphodel, the species is 

extirpated from six watersheds and 

persists in four additional watersheds 

only as a single occurrence. The 4 

remaining watersheds are unevenly 

distributed among the 3 river systems 

supporting the species, with nearly 88 

percent of bog asphodel (by area) 

concentrated in the greater Mullica 

River drainage. 

Other significant threats include 

unauthorized use of off-road vehicles, 

future increases in water extraction for 

human use, natural succession possibly 

accelerated by fire suppression, and 

potentially climate change. Lesser 

threats include indirect effects of 

upland development, impacts from 

recreational activities, collection, 

herbivory, and beaver activity. Because 

the range of bog asphodel is currently 

limited to New Jersey’s Pinelands Area 

and Coastal Zone, regulatory protections 

are generally adequate. More than 75 

percent of bog asphodel occurs on 

protected lands, although enforcement 

of illegal activity can be lacking. 

Outright habitat destruction from 

wetland filling, draining, flooding, and 

conversion to commercial cranberry 

bogs likely contributed to the 

curtailment of this species’ range, but 

these historical threats to bog asphodel 

are generally no longer occurring. 

Current threats to bog asphodel are 

low to moderate in magnitude. Several 

threats are imminent because they are 

ongoing and expected to continue. 

Overall, based on these imminent, 

moderate threats, we retain a listing 

priority number of 8 for this species. 

Nothocestrum latifolium (’Aiea)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Nothocestrum latifolium is a small tree 

found in dry to mesic forest on the 

islands of Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Molokai, 

and Lanai, Hawaii. Nothocestrum 

latifolium is known from 17 steadily 

declining populations totaling fewer 

than 1,200 individuals. 

This species is threatened by feral 

pigs, goats, and axis deer that degrade 

and destroy habitat and may prey upon 

it; by nonnative plants that compete for 

light and nutrients; and by the loss of 

pollinators that negatively affect the 

reproductive viability of the species. 

This species is represented in an ex situ 

collection. Ungulates have been fenced 

out of four areas where N. latifolium 

currently occurs, and nonnative plants 

have been reduced in some populations 

that are fenced. However, these ongoing 

conservation efforts for this species 

benefit only a few of the known 

populations. The threats are not 

controlled and are ongoing in the 

remaining unfenced populations. In 

addition, little regeneration is observed 

in this species. The threats are of a high 

magnitude, since they are severe enough 

to affect the continued existence of the 

species, leading to a relatively high 

likelihood of extinction. The threats are 

imminent, since they are ongoing. 

Therefore, we retained an LPN of 2 for 

this species. 

Ochrosia haleakalae (Holei)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Ochrosia haleakalae is a tree found in 

dry to mesic forest, often on lava, on the 

islands of Hawaii and Maui, Hawaii. 

This species is currently known from 8 

populations totaling between 64 and 76 

individuals. 

Ochrosia haleakalae is threatened by 

fire; by feral pigs, goats, and cattle that 

degrade and destroy habitat and may 

directly prey upon it; and by nonnative 

plants that compete for light and 

nutrients. This species is represented in 

ex situ collections. Feral pigs, goats, and 

cattle have been fenced out of one wild 

and one outplanted population on 

private lands on the island of Maui and 

one outplanted population in Hawaii 

Volcanoes National Park on the island 

of Hawaii. Nonnative plants have been 

reduced in the fenced areas. The threat 

from fire is of a high magnitude and 

imminent because no control measures 

have been undertaken to address this 

threat that could adversely affect O. 

haleakalae as a whole. The threats from 

feral pigs, goats, and cattle are ongoing 

to the unfenced populations of O. 

haleakalae. The threat from nonnative 

plants is ongoing and imminent and of 

a high magnitude to the wild 

populations on both islands as this 

threat adversely affects the survival and 

reproductive capacity of the majority of 

the species, leading to a relatively high 

likelihood of extinction. Therefore, we 

retained an LPN of 2 for this species. 

Pediocactus peeblesianus 

var.fickeiseniae (Fickeisen plains 

cactus)—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. Pediocactus peeblesianus var. 

fickeiseniae is a small cactus known 

from the Gray Mountain vicinity to the 

Arizona strip in Coconino, Navajo, and 

Mohave Counties, Arizona. The cactus 

grows on exposed layers of Kaibab 

limestone on canyon margins and welldrained hills in Navajoan desert or 

grassland. In 1999, the Arizona Game 

and Fish Department noted 23 

occurrences for the species, including 

historical ones. The species is located 

on Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

U.S. Forest Service, tribal, and possibly 

State lands. Recent reports from the 

BLM and Navajo Nation describe 

populations of the species as being in 

decline. The main human-induced 

threats to this cactus are activities 

associated with road maintenance, offroad vehicles, and trampling associated 

with livestock grazing. Monitoring data 

has detected mortality associated with 

livestock grazing. Illegal collection of 

this species has been noted in the past, 

but we do not know if it is a continuing 

threat. The populations that have been 

monitored have been affected, in part, 

by the continuing drought. There has 

been very low recruitment, and rabbits 

and rodents have consumed adult plants 

because there is reduced forage 

available during these dry conditions. 

Given that there are only a few known 

populations, that the range of this taxon 

is limited, and that the majority of the 

known populations on BLM lands and 

the Navajo Nation are experiencing 

declines, we conclude that the threats 

are of a high magnitude. The threats are 

ongoing and, therefore, are imminent. 

Thus, we have retained an LPN of 3 for 

this plant variety. 

Penstemon scariosus var. albifluvis 

(White River beardtongue)—See above 

in ‘‘Listing Priority Changes in 

Candidates.’’ That summary is based on 

information contained in our files. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69277 

Peperomia subpetiolata (‘Ala ‘ala wai 

nui)—We continue to find that listing 

this species is warranted but precluded 

as of the date of publication of this 

notice. However, we are working on a 

proposed listing rule that we expect to 

publish prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted 12-month petition finding. 

Phyllostegia bracteata (no common 

name)—We continue to find that listing 

this species is warranted but precluded 

as of the date of publication of this 

notice. However, we are working on a 

proposed listing rule that we expect to 

publish prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted 12-month petition finding. 

Phyllostegia floribunda (no common 

name)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. No new information was provided 

in the petition we received on May 11, 

2004. This species is an erect subshrub 

found in mesic to wet forest on the 

island of Hawaii, Hawaii. This species 

is known from 7 populations totaling 

fewer than 25 individuals. Phyllostegia 

floribunda is threatened by feral pigs 

that degrade and destroy habitat, and by 

nonnative plants that compete for light 

and nutrients. This species is 

represented in ex situ collections. The 

National Park Service, The Nature 

Conservancy, and the State have fenced 

and outplanted more than 170 

individuals at Olaa Forest Reserve, Kona 

Hema, and Waiakea Forest Reserve 

(more than 50, 20 individuals, and 100 

individuals, respectively). Nonnative 

plants have been reduced in these 

fenced areas. However, no conservation 

efforts have been implemented for the 

unfenced populations. Overall, the 

threats are moderate because 

conservation efforts for over half of the 

populations reduce the severity of the 

threats. The threats are ongoing in the 

unfenced portions and must be 

constantly managed in the fenced 

portions. Therefore, the threats are 

imminent. We retained an LPN of 8 

because the threats are of moderate 

magnitude and are imminent for the 

majority of the populations. 

Physaria douglasii ssp. tuplashensis 

(White Bluffs bladder-pod)—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. 

White Bluffs bladder-pod is a lowgrowing, herbaceous, short-lived, 

perennial plant in the Brassicaceae 

(mustard) family. Historically and 

currently, White Bluffs bladder-pod is 

only known from a single population 

that occurs along the White Bluffs of the 

Columbia River in Franklin County, 

Washington. The entire range of the 

species is a narrow band, approximately 

33 feet (10 meters) wide by 10.6 miles 

(17 kilometers) long, at the upper edge 

of the bluffs. The species occurs only on 

cemented, highly alkaline, calcium 

carbonate paleosol (a ‘‘caliche’’ soil) and 

is believed to be a ‘‘calciphile.’’ 

Approximately 35 percent of the 

known range of the species has been 

moderately to severely affected by 

landslides, an apparently permanent 

destruction of the habitat. The entire 

population of the species is down-slope 

of irrigated agricultural land, the source 

of the water seepage causing the mass 

failures and landslides, but the southern 

portion of the population is the closest 

to the agricultural land and the most 

affected by landslides. Other significant 

threats include use of the habitat by 

recreational off-road vehicles which 

destroys plants, and the presence of 

invasive nonnative plants that compete 

with P. douglasii tuplashensis for 

resources (light, water, nutrients). 

Additionally, the increasing presence of 

invasive nonnative plants may alter fire 

regimes and potentially increase the 

threat of fire to the P. douglasii 

tuplashensis population. The threats to 

the population from landslides and the 

recreational off-road-vehicle use are 

currently occurring and will continue to 

occur in the future. In addition, 

invasion by nonnative plants is 

currently occurring, and with the 2007 

fire that occurred in the area of the 

existing population, invasive plants will 

likely spread or increase throughout the 

burned area of the population. We have 

therefore determined that these threats 

are imminent. Although approximately 

35 percent of the population is severely 

affected by landslides in the southern 

portion of the range, the likelihood of 

the persistence of the population in the 

unaffected northern portion appears to 

be fairly high. Currently, we know of no 

plans to expand or significantly modify 

the existing agriculture activities in 

areas adjacent to the population. In 

addition, deliberate modification of the 

species’ immediate habitat is unlikely 

due to its location and ownership (85 

percent federal). Intermittent use of offroad vehicles does occur on the 

Monument, although it is prohibited. 

These activities are mainly confined to 

the upper portion of the White Bluffs 

where few P. douglasii tuplashensis 

plants occur, so there is low to moderate 

threat to the species from these 

activities. Invasive plants are present in 

the vicinity, but have not yet been 

determined to be a significant problem. 

As a result of the 2007 fire, there is a 

higher probability that invasion of these 

nonnatives will occur. While P. 

douglasii tuplashensis is inherently 

vulnerable because it is a narrow 

endemic, the magnitude of the ongoing 

threats to the population is moderate; 

therefore we retain an LPN of 9 for this 

species. 

Platanthera integrilabia (Correll) Leur 

(White fringeless orchid)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Platanthera integrilabia is a perennial 

herb that grows in partially, but not 

fully, shaded, wet, boggy areas at the 

head of streams and on seepage slopes 

in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, 

Mississippi, South Carolina and 

Tennessee. Historically, there were at 

least 90 populations of P. integrilabia. It 

is presumed extirpated from North 

Carolina and Virginia. Currently there 

are about 50 extant sites supporting the 

species. 

Several populations have been 

destroyed due to road, residential, and 

commercial construction, and to 

projects that altered soil and site 

hydrology such that suitability for the 

species was reduced. Several of the 

known populations are in or adjacent to 

powerline rights-of-way. Mechanical 

clearing of these areas may benefit the 

species by maintaining adequate light 

levels; however, the indiscriminant use 

of herbicides in these areas could pose 

a significant threat to the species. Allterrain vehicles have damaged several 

sites and pose a threat at most sites. 

Most of the known sites for the species 

occur in areas that are managed 

specifically for timber production. 

Timber management is not necessarily 

incompatible with the protection and 

management of the species, but care 

must be taken during timber 

management to ensure the hydrology of 

bogs supporting the species is not 

altered. Natural succession can result in 

decreased light levels. Because of the 

species dependence upon moderate-tohigh light levels, some type of active 

management to prevent complete 

canopy closure is required at most 

locations. Collecting for commercial and 

other purposes is a potential threat. 

Herbivory (primarily deer) threatens the 

species at several sites. Due to the 

alteration of habitat and changes in 

natural conditions, protection and 

recovery of this species is dependent 

upon active management rather than 

just preservation of habitat. Invasive, 

nonnative plants such as Japanese 

honeysuckle and kudzu also threaten 

several sites. The threats are 

widespread; however, the impact of 

those threats on the species survival is 

moderate in magnitude. Several of the 

sites are protected to some degree from 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69278 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

the threats by being within State parks, 

national forests, wildlife management 

areas, or other protected land. The 

threats however are imminent since 

they are ongoing, and we have therefore 

assigned an LPN of 8 to this species. 

Platydesma cornuta var. cornuta (no 

common name)—We continue to find 

that listing this species is warranted but 

precluded as of the date of publication 

of this notice. However, we are working 

on a proposed listing rule that we 

expect to publish prior to making the 

next annual resubmitted 12-month 

petition finding. 

Platydesma cornuta var. decurrens 

(no common name)—We continue to 

find that listing this species is 

warranted but precluded as of the date 

of publication of this notice. However, 

we are working on a proposed listing 

rule that we expect to publish prior to 

making the next annual resubmitted 

12-month petition finding. 

Platydesma remyi (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. Platydesma remyi is a shrub or 

shrubby tree found in wet forests on old 

volcanic slopes on the island of Hawaii, 

Hawaii. This species is known from 2 

populations totaling fewer than 50 

individuals. Platydesma remyi is 

threatened by feral pigs and cattle that 

degrade and destroy habitat, nonnative 

plants that compete for light and 

nutrients, reduced reproductive vigor, 

and stochastic extinction due to 

naturally occurring events. This species 

is represented in an ex situ collection, 

and by one individual included in a rare 

plant exclosure in the Laupahoehoe 

Natural Area Reserve. The threats are 

ongoing and therefore imminent, and of 

a high magnitude because of their 

severity; the threats cause direct 

mortality or significantly reduce the 

reproductive capacity of the species 

throughout its limited range, leading to 

a relatively high likelihood of 

extinction. Therefore, we retained an 

LPN of 2 for this species. 

Pleomele forbesii (Hala pepe)—We 

continue to find that listing this species 

is warranted-but-precluded as of the 

date of publication of this notice. 

However, we are working on a proposed 

listing rule that we expect to publish 

prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted 12-month petition finding. 

Potentilla basaltica (Soldier Meadow 

cinquefoil or basalt cinquefoil)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files; the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004, 

provided no additional information on 

the species. Potentilla basaltica is a low 

growing, rhizomatous, herbaceous 

perennial that is associated with alkali 

meadows, seeps, and occasionally 

marsh habitats bordering perennial 

thermal springs, outflows, and meadow 

depressions. In Nevada, the species is 

known only from Soldier Meadow in 

Humboldt County. In northeastern 

California, a single population occurs in 

Lassen County. At Soldier Meadow, 

there are 11 discrete known occurrences 

within an area of about 24 acres (9.6 

hectares) that support about 130,000 

individuals. The California population 

occurs on private and public land and 

supports fewer than 1,000 plants. The 

public land has been designated as an 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

by the Bureau of Land Management. 

The species and its habitat are 

threatened by recreational use in the 

areas where it occurs as well as the 

ongoing impacts of past water 

diversions, livestock grazing, and offroad-vehicle travel. Conservation 

measures implemented recently by the 

Bureau of Land Management in Nevada 

include the installation of fencing to 

exclude livestock, wild horses, burros, 

and other large mammals; the closure of 

access roads to spring, riparian, and 

wetland areas and the limiting of 

vehicles to designated routes; the 

establishment of a designated 

campground away from the habitats of 

sensitive species; the installation of 

educational signage; and, an increased 

staff presence, including law 

enforcement, a volunteer site steward 

during the 6-month period of peak 

visitor use, and noxious weed control. 

In California, public land management 

actions include not allowing livestock 

salting in the vicinity of springs, a 

proposed long-term monitoring plot, 

limitations on camping near springs, 

withdrawal from salable mineral 

leasing, recommendations to 

withdrawal the land from mineral entry, 

and noxious weed control treatments. 

These conservation measures have 

reduced the magnitude of threat to the 

species to moderate; all remaining 

threats are nonimminent and involve 

long-term changes to the habitat for the 

species resulting from past impacts. 

Until a monitoring program is in place 

that allows us to assess the long-term 

trend of the species, we have assigned 

an LPN of 11. 

Pseudognaphalium (Gnaphalium 

sandwicensium var. molokaiense 

(Enaena)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. No new information was provided 

in the petition we received on May 11, 

2004. Pseudognaphalium 

sandwicensium var. molokaiense is a 

perennial herb found in strand 

vegetation in dry consolidated dunes on 

the islands of Molokai and Maui, 

Hawaii. This variety is known from 5 

populations totaling approximately 200 

to 20,000 individuals (depending upon 

rainfall) in the Moomomi area on the 

island of Molokai, and from 2 

populations of a few individuals at 

Waiehu dunes and at Puu Kahulianapa 

on west Maui. Pseudognaphalium 

sandwicensium var. molokaiense is 

threatened by feral goats and axis deer 

that degrade and destroy habitat and 

possibly prey upon it, and by nonnative 

plants that compete for light and 

nutrients. Potential threats also include 

collection for lei-making, and off-road 

vehicles that directly damage plants and 

degrade habitat. Weed control protects 

one population on Molokai; however, 

no conservation 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 Molokai 

populations, and the threats result in 

direct mortality or significantly reduce 

reproductive capacity for the majority of 

the populations, leading to a relatively 

high likelihood of extinction. Therefore, 

we retained an LPN of 3 for this plant 

variety. 

Psychotria hexandra ssp. oahuensis 

var. oahuensis (Kopiko)—We continue 

to find that listing this species is 

warranted-but-precluded as of the date 

of publication of this notice. However, 

we are working on a proposed listing 

rule that we expect to publish prior to 

making the next annual resubmitted 

12-month petition finding. 

Pteralyxia macrocarpa (Kaulu)—We 

continue to find that listing this species 

is warranted-but-precluded as of the 

date of publication of this notice. 

However, we are working on a proposed 

listing rule that we expect to publish 

prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted 12-month petition finding. 

Ranunculus hawaiensis (Makou)— 

The following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Ranunculus hawaiensis is an erect or 

ascending perennial herb found in 

mesic to wet forest dominated by 

Metrosideros polymorpha (ohia) and 

Acacia koa (koa) with scree substrate 

(loose stones or rocky debris on a slope) 

on the islands of Maui and Hawaii, 

Hawaii. This species is currently known 

from 20 individuals in 5 populations on 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69279 

the island of Hawaii. One population on 

Maui (Kukui planeze) was not relocated 

on a survey conducted in 2006. In 

addition, one wild population at 

Waikamoi (also on Maui) has not been 

observed since 1995. Ranunculus 

hawaiensis is threatened by direct 

predation by slugs, feral pigs, goats, 

cattle, mouflon, and sheep; by pigs, 

goats, cattle, mouflon, and sheep that 

degrade and destroy habitat; and by 

nonnative plants that compete for light 

and nutrients. Three populations have 

been outplanted into protected 

exclosures; however, feral ungulates and 

nonnative plants are not controlled in 

the remaining, unfenced populations. In 

addition, the threat from introduced 

slugs is of a high magnitude because 

slugs occur throughout the limited range 

of this species and no effective measures 

have been undertaken to control them or 

prevent them from causing significant 

adverse impacts to this species. Overall, 

the threats from pigs, goats, cattle, 

mouflon, sheep, slugs, and nonnative 

plants are of a high magnitude, and 

ongoing (imminent) for R. hawaiensis. 

We retained an LPN of 2 for this species. 

Ranunculus mauiensis (Makou)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Ranunculus mauiensis is an erect to 

weakly ascending perennial herb found 

in open sites in mesic to wet forest and 

along streams on the islands of Maui, 

Kauai, and Molokai, Hawaii. This 

species is currently known from 14 

populations totaling 198 individuals. 

Ranunculus mauiensis is threatened by 

feral pigs, goats, mule deer, axis deer, 

and slugs that consume it; by habitat 

degradation and destruction by feral 

pigs, goats, and deer; and by nonnative 

plants that compete for light and 

nutrients. This species is represented in 

ex situ collections. Feral pigs have been 

fenced out of one Maui population of R. 

mauiensis, and nonnative plants have 

been reduced in the fenced area. One 

individual occurs in the Kamakou 

Preserve on Molokai, managed by The 

Nature Conservancy. However, ongoing 

conservation efforts benefit only two 

populations. The threats are of high 

magnitude and imminent because they 

are ongoing in the Kauai and the 

majority of the Maui populations. 

Therefore, we retained an LPN of 2 for 

this species. 

Rorippa subumbellata (Tahoe yellow 

cress)—The following summary is based 

on information contained in our files 

and the petition we received on 

December 27, 2000. Rorippa 

subumbellata is a small 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. During 

the 2003 and 2004 annual survey 

period, the lake level was approximately 

6,224 feet (ft) (1,898 meters (m)); 2004 

was the fourth consecutive year of low 

water. Rorippa subumbellata was 

present at 45 of the 72 sites surveyed (65 

percent occupied), up from 15 sites (19 

percent occupied) in 2000 when the 

lake level was high at 6,228 ft (1,898 m). 

Approximately 25,200 stems were 

counted or estimated in 2003, whereas 

during the 2000 annual survey, the 

estimated number of stems was 4,590. 

Lake levels began to rise again in 2005 

and less habitat was available. Lake 

levels began to drop again in 2006 

though 2008 leading to an increase in 

both occupied sites and estimated stem 

counts. During very low lake levels in 

2009, an estimated 27,522 stems were 

observed at 47 sites, equal to the highest 

number of occupied sites previously 

recorded. 

Many Rorippa subumbellata sites are 

intensively used for commercial and 

public purposes and are subject to 

various activities such as erosion 

control, marina developments, pier 

construction, and recreation. The U.S. 

Forest Service, California Tahoe 

Conservancy, and California Department 

of Parks and Recreation have 

management programs for R. 

subumbellata 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 UnderstandingConservation Agreement. The 

conservation strategy, completed in 

2003, contains goals and objectives for 

recovery and survival, a research and 

monitoring agenda, and serves as the 

foundation for an adaptive management 

program. Because of the continued 

commitments to conservation 

demonstrated by regulatory and land 

management agencies participating in 

the conservation strategy, we have 

determined the threats to R. 

subumbellata from various land uses 

have been reduced to a moderate 

magnitude. In high-lake-level years such 

as 2005, however, recreational use is 

concentrated within R. subumbellata 

habitat, and we consider this threat in 

particular to be ongoing and imminent. 

Therefore, we are maintaining an LPN of 

8 for this species. 

Schiedea pubescens (Maolioli)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Schiedea pubescens is a reclining or 

weakly climbing vine found in diverse 

mesic to wet forest on the islands of 

Maui, Molokai, and Hawaii, Hawaii. It 

is presumed extirpated from Lanai. 

Currently, this species is known from 8 

populations totaling between 30 and 32 

individuals on Maui, from 4 

populations totaling between 21 and 22 

individuals on Molokai, and from 1 

population of 4 to 6 individuals on the 

island of Hawaii. Schiedea pubescens is 

threatened by feral pigs and goats that 

consume it and degrade and destroy 

habitat, and by nonnative plants that 

compete for light and nutrients. Feral 

ungulates have been 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. Fire is a 

potential threat to the Hawaii Island 

population. In light of the extremely low 

number of individuals of this species, 

the threats from goats and nonnative 

plants are of a high magnitude because 

they result in mortality and reduced 

reproductive capacity for the majority of 

the populations, leading to a relatively 

high likelihood of extinction. The 

threats are imminent because they are 

ongoing with respect to most of the 

populations. Therefore, we retained an 

LPN of 2 for this species. 

Schiedea salicaria (no common 

name)—We continue to find that listing 

this species is warranted but precluded 

as of the date of publication of this 

notice. However, we are working on a 

proposed listing rule that we expect to 

publish prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted 12-month petition finding. 

Sedum eastwoodiae (Red Mountain 

stonecrop)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files and information provided by the 

California Department of Fish and 

Game. The petition we received on May 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69280 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

11, 2004 provided no new information 

on the species. Red Mountain stonecrop 

is a perennial succulent which occupies 

relatively barren, rocky openings and 

cliffs in lower montane coniferous 

forests, between 1,900 and 4,000 feet 

elevation. Its distribution is limited to 

Red Mountain, Mendocino County, 

California, where it occupies in excess 

of 54 acres scattered over 4 square 

miles. Total population size has not 

been determined, but a preliminary 

estimate suggests the population may be 

in excess of 29,000 plants, occupying 

more than 27 discrete habitat polygons. 

Intensive monitoring suggests 

considerable annual variation in plant 

seedling success and inflorescence 

production. 

The primary threat to the species is 

the potential for surface mining for 

chromium and nickel. The entire 

distribution Red Mountain stonecrop is 

either owned by mining interests, or is 

covered by mining claims, none of 

which are currently active. Surface 

mining would destroy habitat suitability 

for this species. The species is also 

believed threatened by tree and shrub 

encroachment into its habitat, in 

absence of fire. Some 25 percent of its 

known distribution occurred within the 

boundary of the Red Mountain Fire of 

June 2008. However, the extent and 

manner in which Red Mountain 

stonecrop and its habitat were affected 

by that fire is not yet known. The 

species distribution by ownership is 

described as follows: Federal (Bureau of 

Land Management), 95 percent; private, 

5 percent. Given the magnitude (high) 

and immediacy (non-imminent) of the 

threat to the small, scattered 

populations, and its taxonomy (species), 

we assigned a listing priority number of 

5 to this species. 

Sicyos macrophyllus (‘Anunu)—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. 

Sicyos macrophyllus is a perennial vine 

found in wet Metrosideros polymorpha 

(ohia) forest and subalpine Sophora 

chrysophylla-Myoporum sandwicense 

(mamane-naio) forest. This species is 

known from 10 populations totaling 

between 24 and 26 individuals in the 

Kohala and Mauna Kea areas, and in 

Hawaii Volcanoes National Park (Puna 

area) on the island of Hawaii, Hawaii. It 

appears that a naturally occurring 

population at Kipuka Ki in Hawaii 

Volcanoes National Park is reproducing 

by seeds, but seeds have not been 

successfully germinated under nursery 

conditions. 

This species is threatened by feral 

pigs, cattle, and mouflon sheep that 

degrade and destroy habitat, and by 

nonnative plants that compete for light 

and nutrients. This species is 

represented in ex situ collections. Feral 

pigs have been fenced out of some of the 

areas where S. macrophyllus currently 

occurs, but the fences do not exclude 

sheep. Nonnative plants have been 

reduced in the populations that are 

fenced. However, the threats are not 

controlled and are ongoing in the 

remaining, unfenced populations, and 

are, therefore, imminent. Similarly the 

threat from mouflon sheep is ongoing 

and imminent in all populations, 

because the current fences do not 

exclude sheep. In addition, all of the 

threats are of a high magnitude because 

habitat degradation and competition 

from nonnative plants present a risk to 

the species, resulting in direct mortality 

or significantly reducing the 

reproductive capacity, leading to a 

relatively high likelihood of extinction. 

Therefore, we retained an LPN of 2 for 

this species. 

Solanum nelsonii (popolo)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Solanum nelsonii is a sprawling or 

trailing shrub found in coral rubble or 

sand in coastal sites. This species is 

known from populations on Molokai 

(approximately 300 plants), the island of 

Hawaii (5 plants), and the northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), Hawaii. The 

current populations in the NWHI are 

found on Midway (approximately 260 

plants), Laysan (approximately 490 

plants), Pearl and Hermes (unknown 

number of individuals), and Nihoa 

(8,000 to 15,000 adult plants). On 

Molokai, S. nelsonii is moderately 

threatened by ungulates that degrade 

and destroy habitat, and may eat S. 

nelsonii. On Molokai and the NWHI, 

this species is threatened by nonnative 

plants that outcompete and displace it. 

Solanum nelsonii is threatened by 

predation by a nonnative grasshopper in 

the NWHI. This species is represented 

in ex situ collections. Ungulate 

exclusion fences, routine fence 

monitoring and maintenance, and weed 

control protect the population of S. 

nelsonii on Molokai. Limited weed 

control is conducted in the NWHI. 

These threats are of moderate magnitude 

because of the relatively large number of 

plants, and the fact that this species is 

found on more than one island. The 

threats are imminent for the majority of 

the populations because they are 

ongoing and are not being controlled. 

We therefore retained an LPN of 8 for 

this species. 

Sphaeralcea gierischii (Gierisch 

mallow)—The following information is 

based on information contained in our 

files, including site visits by species 

experts. There are nine known 

populations of this species on a 

combined total of approximately 59.5 ac 

(24.12 ha) in Arizona and Utah. Seven 

populations are found on approximately 

55 ac (22.3 ha) managed by the Bureau 

of Land Management in Arizona. One 

population occurs on approximately 2 

ac (0.81 ha) on land managed by the 

Arizona State Land Department. One 

population occurs on approximately 2.5 

ac (1.01 ha) in Utah. The primary threat 

to the species in Arizona is ongoing 

gypsum mining and associated 

activities. The primary threat to the 

species in Utah is potential impacts 

from off-road vehicle use. The threats 

are high in magnitude, since survival of 

the species is threatened throughout its 

entire range in Arizona by gypsum 

mining, with the two largest 

populations in active mining operations. 

Loss of those two populations would 

significantly reduce the total number of 

individuals throughout the range, 

threatening the long-term viability of 

this species. The threats are imminent, 

since they are ongoing in Arizona. 

Therefore, we assigned an LPN of 2 to 

this species. 

Stenogyne cranwelliae (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. Stenogyne cranwelliae is a 

creeping vine found in wet forest 

dominated by Metrosideros polymorpha 

(ohia) on the island of Hawaii, Hawaii. 

Stenogyne cranwelliae is known from 10 

populations totaling fewer than 110 

individuals. This species is threatened 

by feral pigs that degrade and destroy 

habitat, and by nonnative plants that 

compete for light and nutrients. In 

addition, S. cranwelliae is potentially 

threatened by feral pigs and rats that 

may directly prey upon it, and by 

randomly occurring natural events such 

as hurricanes and landslides. This 

species is represented in an ex situ 

collection. All of the threats are ongoing 

rangewide, and no efforts for control or 

eradication are being undertaken for 

feral pigs, nonnative plants, or rats. 

These threats significantly affect the 

entire species particularly in light of its 

small population size. We retained an 

LPN of 2 because these imminent 

threats are of a high magnitude. 

Symphyotrichum georgianum 

(Georgia aster)—The following summary 

is based on information contained in 

our files. No new information was 

provided in the petition we received on 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69281 

May 11, 2004. Georgia aster is a relict 

species of post oak savanna/prairie 

communities that existed in the 

southeast prior to widespread fire 

suppression and extirpation of large 

native grazing animals. Georgia aster 

currently occurs in the States of 

Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina and 

South Carolina. The species is 

presumed extant in 8 counties in 

Alabama, 22 counties in Georgia, 9 

counties in North Carolina, and 15 

counties in South Carolina. The species 

appears to have been eliminated from 

Florida. 

Most remaining populations survive 

adjacent to roads, utility rights-of-way 

and other openings where current land 

management mimics natural 

disturbance regimes. Most populations 

are small (10–100 stems), and since the 

species’ main mode of reproduction is 

vegetative, each isolated population 

may represent only a few genotypes. 

Many populations are currently 

threatened by one or more of the 

following factors: Woody succession 

due to fire suppression, development, 

highway expansion or improvement, 

and herbicide application. However, the 

species is still relatively widely 

distributed, and recent information 

indicates the species is more abundant 

than when we initially identified it as 

a candidate for listing. Taking into 

account its distribution and abundance, 

the magnitude of threats is moderate. 

Thus we assigned an LPN of 8 for this 

species. 

Zanthoxylum oahuense (Ae)—We 

continue to find that listing this species 

is warranted-but-precluded as of the 

date of publication of this notice. 

However, we are working on a proposed 

listing rule that we expect to publish 

prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted 12-month petition finding. 

Ferns and Allies 

Christella boydiae (no common 

name)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. No new information was provided 

in the petition we received on May 11, 

2004. This species is a small- to 

medium-sized fern found in mesic to 

wet forest along stream banks on the 

islands of Oahu and Maui, Hawaii. 

Historically, this species was also found 

on the island of Hawaii, but it has been 

extirpated there. Currently, this species 

is known from 7 populations totaling 

approximately 300 individuals. This 

species is threatened by feral pigs that 

degrade and destroy habitat and may eat 

this plant, and by nonnative plants that 

compete for light and nutrients. Feral 

pigs have been fenced out of the largest 

population on Maui, and nonnative 

plants have been reduced in the fenced 

area. No conservation efforts are under 

way to alleviate threats to the other two 

populations on Maui, or for the two 

populations on Oahu. This species is 

represented in an ex situ collection. The 

magnitude of the threats acting upon the 

currently extant populations is 

moderate because the largest population 

is protected from pigs, and nonnative 

plants have been reduced in this area. 

The threats are ongoing and therefore 

imminent. Therefore, we retained an 

LPN of 8 for this species. 

Doryopteris takeuchii (no common 

name)—We continue to find that listing 

this species is warranted but precluded 

as of the date of publication of this 

notice. However, we are working on a 

proposed listing rule that we expect to 

publish prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted 12-month petition finding. 

Huperzia stemmermanniae 

(Waewaeiole)—The following summary 

is based on information contained in 

our files. No new information was 

provided in the petition we received on 

May 11, 2004. This species is an 

epiphytic pendant clubmoss found in 

mesic-to-wet Metrosideros polymorphaAcacia koa (ohia-koa) forests on the 

islands of Maui and Hawaii, Hawaii. 

Only 3 populations are known, on Maui 

and Hawaii, totaling approximately 30 

individuals. The Maui population has 

not been relocated since 1995. Huperzia 

stemmermanniae is threatened by feral 

pigs, goats, cattle, and axis deer that 

degrade and destroy habitat, and by 

nonnative plants that compete for light, 

space, and nutrients. Huperzia 

stemmermanniae is also threatened by 

randomly occurring natural events due 

to its small population size. One 

individual at Waikamoi Preserve may 

benefit from fencing for axis deer and 

pigs. This species is represented in ex 

situ collections. The threats from pigs, 

goats, cattle, axis deer, and nonnative 

plants are of a high magnitude because 

they are sufficiently severe to adversely 

affect the species throughout its limited 

range, resulting in direct mortality or 

significantly reducing reproductive 

capacity, leading to a relatively high 

likelihood of extinction. The threats are 

imminent because they are ongoing. 

Therefore, we retained an LPN of 2 for 

this species. 

Microlepia strigosa var. mauiensis 

(Palapalai)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. No new information was provided 

in the petition we received on May 11, 

2004. Microlepia strigosa var. mauiensis 

is a terrestrial fern found in mesic-towet forests. It is currently found in 

Hawaii on the islands of Maui, Oahu, 

and Hawaii, from at least 9 populations 

totaling at least 50 individuals. There is 

a possibility that the range of this plant 

variety could be larger and include the 

other main Hawaiian Islands. 

Microlepia strigosa var. mauiensis is 

threatened by feral pigs that degrade 

and destroy habitat, and by nonnative 

plants that compete for light and 

nutrients. Pigs have been fenced out of 

some areas on east and west Maui, and 

on Hawaii, where M. strigosa var. 

mauiensis currently occurs, and 

nonnative plants have been reduced in 

the fenced areas. However, the threats 

are not controlled and are ongoing in 

the remaining unfenced populations on 

Maui, Oahu, and Hawaii. Therefore, the 

threats from feral pigs and nonnative 

plants are imminent. The threats are of 

a high magnitude because they are 

sufficiently severe to adversely affect 

the species throughout its range, 

resulting in direct mortality or 

significantly reducing reproductive 

capacity, leading to a relatively high 

likelihood of extinction. We therefore 

retained an LPN of 3 for M. strigosa var. 

mauiensis. 

Petitions To Reclassify Species Already 

Listed or Add to the Listed Range 

We previously made warranted-butprecluded findings on seven petitions 

seeking to reclassify threatened species 

to endangered status, and one petition 

seeking to add New Mexico to the listed 

range of the Canada lynx. The taxa 

involved in the reclassification petitions 

are three populations of the grizzly bear 

(Ursus arctos horribilis), delta smelt 

(Hypomesus transpacificus), the 

spikedace (Meda fulgida), the loach 

minnow (Tiaroga cobitis), and 

Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette 

cactus). Because these species are 

already listed under the Act, they are 

not candidates for listing and are not 

included in Table 1. However, this 

notice and associated species 

assessment forms also constitute the 

resubmitted petition findings for these 

species. For the three grizzly bear 

populations, we have not updated the 

information in our assessments through 

this notice as explained below. 

Although we are completing an ongoing 

review of the status of the grizzly bear 

in the lower 48 States outside of the 

Greater Yellowstone Areas (see below), 

we continue to find that reclassification 

to endangered for each of the three 

populations (described below) is 

warranted but precluded by work 

identified above (see ‘‘Petition Findings 

for Candidate Species’’). We also have 

not updated the information in our 

assessments for the spikedace and loach 

minnow through this notice as 

explained below. For delta smelt, we 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69282 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

have not updated the information 

included in the 12-month finding 

(published April 7, 2010), which serves 

as our assessment; we are currently 

conducting a 5-year review, which will 

provide updated information when we 

complete it later this year. For 

Sclerocactus brevispinus and Canada 

lynx in New Mexico, our updated 

assessments are provided below. We 

find that reclassification to endangered 

status for the delta smelt, spikedace, 

loach minnow, and Sclerocactus 

brevispinus and adding New Mexico to 

the listed range of the Canada lynx are 

all currently warranted but precluded 

by work identified above (see ‘‘Petition 

Findings for Candidate Species’’). One 

of the primary reasons that the work 

identified above is considered higher 

priority is that the grizzly bear 

populations, delta smelt, spikedace, 

loach minnow, and Sclerocactus 

brevispinus are currently listed as 

threatened, and therefore already 

receive certain protections under the 

Act. We promulgated regulations 

extending take prohibitions for 

endangered species under section 9 to 

threatened species (50 CFR 17.31). 

Prohibited actions under section 9 

include, but are not limited to, take (i.e., 

to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or 

attempt to engage in such activity). For 

plants, prohibited actions under section 

9 include removing or reducing to 

possession any listed plant from an area 

under Federal jurisdiction (50 CFR 

17.61). Other protections include those 

under section 7(a)(2) of the Act whereby 

Federal agencies must insure that any 

action they authorize, fund, or carry out 

is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species. 

Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) 

North Cascades ecosystem, CabinetYaak, and Selkirk populations (Region 

6)—We have not updated the 

information in our uplisting findings 

with regard to the grizzly bear (Ursus 

arctos horribilis) populations in the 

North Cascade, the Cabinet-Yaak, or the 

Selkirk Ecosystems in this notice. 

Between 1991 and 1999, we issued 

warranted-but-precluded findings to 

reclassify grizzly bears as endangered in 

the North Cascades (56 FR 33892, July 

24, 1991; 63 FR 30453, June 4, 1998), 

the Cabinet-Yaak (58 FR 8250, February 

12, 1993; 64 FR 26725, May 17, 1999), 

and the Selkirk Ecosystems (64 FR 

26725, May 17, 1999). 

On April 18, 2007, We initiated a 

5-year review to evaluate the current 

status of grizzly bears in the lower 48 

States (72 FR 19549–19551). This status 

review will fully evaluate the biological 

conservation status of each population 

according to the 5 factors in Section 4 

of the Act. Although there is sufficient 

evidence to support multiple DPSs 

within the lower 48 State listing, we do 

not intend to complete a DPS analysis 

of each of these populations 

individually within the 5-year review. 

Instead, any DPS analyses would be 

completed prior to or concurrent with 

any rulemakings. We expect this 5-year 

review to be completed in late 2010. 

Delta smelt (Hypomesus 

transpacificus) (Region 8) (see 75 FR 

17667; April 7, 2010, for additional 

information on why reclassification to 

endangered is warranted but 

precluded)—In March 2004, we 

completed a 5-year review for delta 

smelt in which we determined a change 

in status from threatened to endangered 

was not recommended. While none of 

the threats, other than apparent 

abundance, show significant differences 

from 2004, we now have strong 

evidence, not available at the time of 

our 5-year review, that at least some of 

those factors are endangering the 

species. The primary evidence is the 

continuing downward trend in delta 

smelt abundance indices since a 

significant decline that occurred in 

2002. The most recent fall midwater 

trawl abundance index is the lowest 

ever recorded—less than one-tenth the 

level it was in 2003. In addition, a 2005 

population viability analysis calculated 

a 50-percent likelihood that the species 

could reach effective extinction (8,000 

individuals) within 20 years. 

There are many primary threats to the 

species including: Direct entrainments 

by State and Federal water export 

facilities; summer and fall increases in 

salinity and water clarity, and effects 

from introduced species. Additional 

threats are predation by striped and 

largemouth bass and inland silversides, 

entrainment into power plants, 

contaminants, and small population 

size. Existing regulatory mechanisms 

have not proven adequate to halt the 

decline of delta smelt since the time of 

listing as a threatened species. 

As a result of our analysis of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we have assigned uplisting 

the delta smelt an LPN of 2, based on 

high magnitude and immediacy of 

threats. The magnitude of the threats is 

high, because they occur rangewide and 

result in mortality or significantly 

reduce the reproductive capacity of the 

species, leading to a relatively high 

likelihood of extinction. They are 

imminent because these threats are 

ongoing and, in some cases (e.g., 

nonnative species), considered 

irreversible. 

Spikedace (Meda fulgida) (Region 2)— 

We continue to find that uplisting this 

species to endangered is warranted but 

precluded as of the date of publication 

of this notice. However, we are working 

on a proposed uplisting rule, in 

combination with a proposed 

designation of critical habitat, that we 

expect to publish prior to making the 

next annual resubmitted 12-month 

petition finding. 

Loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis) 

(Region 2)—We continue to find that 

uplisting this species to endangered is 

warranted but precluded as of the date 

of publication of this notice. However, 

we are working on a proposed uplisting 

rule, in combination with a proposed 

designation of critical habitat, that we 

expect to publish prior to making the 

next annual resubmitted 12-month 

petition finding. 

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)—The Pariette 

cactus is restricted to clay badlands of 

the Wagon Hound member of the Uinta 

Formation in the Uinta Basin of 

northeastern Utah. The species is 

restricted to one population with an 

overall range of approximately 10 miles 

by 5 miles in extent. The species’ entire 

population is within a developed and 

expanding oil and gas field. The 

location of the species’ habitat exposes 

it to destruction from road, pipeline, 

and well-site construction in connection 

with oil and gas development. The 

species may be collected as a specimen 

plant for horticultural use. Recreational 

off-road vehicle use and livestock 

trampling are additional potential 

threats. The species is currently 

federally listed as threatened by its 

previous inclusion within the species 

Sclerocactus glaucus. Based on current 

information, we are assigning the 

Pariette cactus the LPN of 6 for uplisting 

to endangered. The threats are of a high 

magnitude since any one of the threats 

has the potential to severely affect this 

species because it is a narrow endemic 

species with a highly limited range and 

distribution, but the threats are not 

currently ongoing. 

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) within 

the State of New Mexico—In our finding 

of December 17, 2009 (74 FR 66937), we 

determined that lynx in New Mexico 

were warranted for listing due to their 

presence in the state as a result of the 

Colorado reintroduction effort and we 

assigned an LPN of 12 to amending the 

listing of lynx to include New Mexico 

in the listing. We reconfirm that 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69283 

assigning an LPN of 12 is appropriate 

based on nonimminent threats of a low 

magnitude to the lynx DPS. Humancaused mortality does not occur at a 

level such that it creates a significant 

threat to lynx in the contiguous United 

States. The magnitude of threats to the 

lynx DPS, inclusive of those lynx in 

New Mexico, is low. The threats occur 

infrequently and are nonimminent. We 

do not consider lynx in New Mexico to 

be essential to the survival or recovery 

of the DPS. Furthermore, the amount of 

suitable habitat for lynx in New Mexico 

is considered negligible relative to the 

amount of habitat within the listed 

range. Potential impacts to the habitat 

have not been documented to threaten 

lynx, either in New Mexico or outside 

of it. The areas outside the currently 

listed area are not essential to the 

conservation of the species. The 

majority of lynx habitats within the 

contiguous United States are already 

protected by the Act. Because lynx in 

the lower 48 are listed as a DPS, the 

appropriate LPN for this level of 

magnitude and immediacy of threats is 

12. 

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. 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 Act. We emphasize 

that in this notice we are not proposing 

to list any of the candidate species; 

rather, we will develop and publish 

proposed listing rules for these species 

in the future. We encourage State 

agencies, other Federal agencies, and 

other parties to give consideration to 

these species in environmental 

planning. 

In Table 1, the ‘‘category’’ column on 

the left side of the table identifies the 

status of each species according to the 

following codes: 

PE—Species proposed for listing as 

endangered. Proposed species are those 

species for which we have published a 

proposed rule to list as endangered or 

threatened in the Federal Register. This 

category does not include species for 

which we have withdrawn or finalized 

the proposed rule. 

PT—Species proposed for listing as 

threatened. 

PSAT—Species proposed for listing as 

threatened due to similarity of 

appearance. 

C—Candidates: Species for which we 

have on file sufficient information on 

biological vulnerability and threats to 

support proposals to list them as 

endangered or threatened. Issuance of 

proposed rules for these species is 

precluded at present by other higher 

priority listing actions. This category 

includes species for which we made a 

12-month warranted-but-precluded 

finding on a petition to list. We made 

new findings on all petitions for which 

we previously made ‘‘warranted-butprecluded’’ findings. We identify the 

species for which we made a continued 

warranted-but-precluded finding on a 

resubmitted petition by the code ‘‘C*’’ in 

the category column (see ‘‘Findings for 

Petitioned Candidate Species’’ section 

for additional information). 

The ‘‘Priority’’ column indicates the 

LPN for each candidate species, which 

we use to determine the most 

appropriate use of our available 

resources. The lowest numbers have the 

highest priority. We assign LPNs based 

on the immediacy and magnitude of 

threats as well as on taxonomic status. 

We published a complete description of 

our listing priority system in the 

Federal Register (48 FR 43098, 

September 21, 1983). 

The third column, ‘‘Lead Region,’’ 

identifies the Regional Office to which 

you should direct information, 

comments, or questions (see addresses 

under Request for Information at the 

end of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section). 

Following the scientific name (fourth 

column) and the family designation 

(fifth column) is the common name 

(sixth column). The seventh column 

provides the known historical range for 

the species or vertebrate population (for 

vertebrate populations, this is the 

historical range for the entire species or 

subspecies and not just the historical 

range for the distinct population 

segment), indicated by postal code 

abbreviations for States and U.S. 

territories. Many species no longer 

occur in all of the areas listed. 

Species in Table 2 of this notice are 

those we included either as proposed 

species or as candidates in the previous 

CNOR (published November 9, 2009) 

that are no longer proposed species or 

candidates for listing. Since November 

9, 2009, we listed 54 species and 

removed 1 species from candidate status 

for the reason indicated by the code. 

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 the 

candidate list because we have 

withdrawn the proposed listing. 

The second column indicates why we 

no longer regard the species as 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 to warrant 

continuing candidate status, or issuing a 

proposed or final listing. 

F—Species whose range no longer 

includes a U.S. territory. 

I—Species for which we have 

insufficient information on biological 

vulnerability and threats to support 

issuance of a proposed rule to list. 

L—Species we added to the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. 

M—Species we mistakenly included 

as candidates or proposed species in the 

last notice of review. 

N—Species that are not listable 

entities based on the Act’s definition of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69284 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

‘‘species’’ and current taxonomic 

understanding. 

U—Species that are not subject to the 

degree of threats sufficient to warrant 

issuance of a proposed listing or 

continuance of candidate status due, in 

part or totally, to conservation efforts 

that remove or reduce the threats to the 

species. 

X—Species we believe to be extinct. 

The columns describing lead region, 

scientific name, family, common name, 

and historical range include information 

as previously described for Table 1. 

Request for Information 

We request you submit any further 

information on the species named in 

this notice as soon as possible or 

whenever it becomes available. We are 

particularly interested in any 

information: 

(1) Indicating that we should add a 

species to the list of candidate species; 

(2) Indicating that we should remove 

a species from candidate status; 

(3) Recommending areas that we 

should designate as critical habitat for a 

species, or indicating that designation of 

critical habitat would not be prudent for 

a species; 

(4) Documenting threats to any of the 

included species; 

(5) Describing the immediacy or 

magnitude of threats facing candidate 

species; 

(6) Pointing out taxonomic or 

nomenclature changes for any of the 

species; 

(7) Suggesting appropriate common 

names; and 

(8) Noting any mistakes, such as 

errors in the indicated historical ranges. 

Submit information, materials, or 

comments regarding a particular species 

to the Regional Director of the Region 

identified as having the lead 

responsibility for that species. The 

regional addresses follow: 

Region 1. Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, 

Washington, American Samoa, Guam, 

and Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands. Regional Director (TE), 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Eastside 

Federal Complex, 911 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, Bishop 

Henry Whipple Federal Building, One 

Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, MN 55111– 

4056 (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 

pursuant to section 4(b)(7) of the Act is 

appropriate). Information and comments 

we receive will become part of the 

administrative record for the species, 

which we maintain at the appropriate 

Regional Office. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

submission, be advised that your entire 

submission—including your personal 

identifying information—may be made 

publicly available at any time. Although 

you can ask us in your submission to 

withhold from public review your 

personal indentifying information, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Authority: This notice is published under 

the authority of the Endangered Species Act 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: October 22, 2010. 

Rowan W. Gould, 

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 range 

Category Priority 

MAMMALS: 

C* ...................... 2 R4 Eumops floridanus ..... Molossidae ................. Bat, Florida bonneted U.S.A. (FL). 

C* ...................... 3 R1 Emballonura 

semicaudata 

rotensis.

Emballonuridae .......... Bat, Pacific sheathtailed (Mariana Islands subspecies).U.S.A. (GU, CNMI). 

C* ...................... 3 R1 Emballonura 

semicaudata 

semicaudata.

Emballonuridae .......... Bat, Pacific sheathtailed (American 

Samoa DPS).

U.S.A. (AS), Fiji, Independent Samoa, 

Tonga, Vanuatu. 

C* ...................... 2 R5 Sylvilagus 

transitionalis.

Leporidae ................... Cottontail, New England.U.S.A. (CT, MA, ME, 

NH, NY, RI, VT). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69285 

TABLE 1—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued 

[Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.] 

Status Lead 

region Scientific name Family Common name Historical range 

Category Priority 

C* ...................... 6 R8 Martes pennanti ......... Mustelidae .................. Fisher (west coast 

DPS).

U.S.A. (CA, CT, IA, 

ID, IL, IN, KY, MA, 

MD, ME, MI, MN, 

MT, ND, NH, NJ, 

NY, OH, OR, PA, 

RI, TN, UT, VA, VT, 

WA, WI, WV, WY), 

Canada. 

C* ...................... 3 R2 Zapus hudsonius 

luteus.

Zapodidae .................. Mouse, New Mexico 

meadow jumping.

U.S.A. (AZ, CO, NM). 

C* ...................... 3 R1 Thomomys mazama 

couchi.

Geomyidae ................. Pocket gopher, 

Shelton.

U.S.A. (WA). 

C ....................... 3 R1 Thomomys mazama 

douglasii.

Geomyidae ................. Pocket gopher, Brush 

Prairie.

U.S.A. (WA). 

C* ...................... 3 R1 Thomomys mazama 

glacialis.

Geomyidae ................. Pocket gopher, Roy 

Prairie.

U.S.A. (WA). 

C* ...................... 3 R1 Thomomys mazama 

louiei.

Geomyidae ................. Pocket gopher, 

Cathlamet.

U.S.A. (WA). 

C* ...................... 3 R1 Thomomys mazama 

melanops.

Geomyidae ................. Pocket gopher, Olympic.U.S.A. (WA). 

C* ...................... 3 R1 Thomomys mazama 

pugetensis.

Geomyidae ................. Pocket gopher, Olympia.U.S.A. (WA). 

C* ...................... 3 R1 Thomomys mazama 

tacomensis.

Geomyidae ................. Pocket gopher, Tacoma.U.S.A. (WA). 

C* ...................... 3 R1 Thomomys mazama 

tumuli.

Geomyidae ................. Pocket gopher, Tenino U.S.A. (WA). 

C* ...................... 3 R1 Thomomys mazama 

yelmensis.

Geomyidae ................. Pocket gopher, Yelm U.S.A. (WA). 

C* ...................... 3 R6 Cynomys gunnisoni ... Sciuridae .................... Prairie dog, Gunnison’s (central and 

south-central Colorado, north-central 

New Mexico SPR).

U.S.A. (CO, NM). 

C* ...................... 9 R1 Spermophilus 

brunneus 

endemicus.

Sciuridae .................... Squirrel, Southern 

Idaho ground.

U.S.A. (ID). 

C* ...................... 5 R1 Spermophilus 

washingtoni.

Sciuridae .................... Squirrel, Washington 

ground.

U.S.A. (WA, OR). 

BIRDS: 

C* ...................... 3 R1 Porzana tabuensis ..... Rallidae ...................... Crake, spotless 

(American Samoa 

DPS).

U.S.A. (AS), Australia, 

Fiji, Independent 

Samoa, Marquesas, 

Philippines, Society 

Islands, Tonga. 

C* ...................... 3 R8 Coccyzus americanus Cuculidae ................... Cuckoo, yellow-billed 

(Western U.S. DPS).

U.S.A. (Lower 48 

States), Canada, 

Mexico, Central and 

South America. 

C* ...................... 9 R1 Gallicolumba stairi ..... Columbidae ................ Ground-dove, friendly 

(American Samoa 

DPS).

U.S.A. (AS), Independent Samoa. 

C* ...................... 3 R1 Eremophila alpestris 

strigata.

Alaudidae ................... Horned lark, streaked U.S.A. (OR, WA), 

Canada (BC). 

C* ...................... 3 R5 Calidris canutus rufa .. Scolopacidae ............. Knot, red .................... U.S.A. (Atlantic coast), 

Canada, South 

America. 

C* ...................... 8 R7 Gavia adamsii ............ Gaviidae ..................... Loon, yellow-billed ..... U.S.A. (AK), Canada, 

Norway, Russia, 

coastal waters of 

southern Pacific and 

North Sea. 

C* ...................... 2 R7 Brachyramphus 

brevirostris.

Alcidae ....................... Murrelet, Kittlitz’s ....... U.S.A. (AK), Russia. 

C* ...................... 5 R8 Synthliboramphus 

hypoleucus.

Alcidae ....................... Murrelet, Xantus’s ...... U.S.A. (CA), Mexico. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69286 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued 

[Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.] 

Status Lead 

region Scientific name Family Common name Historical range 

Category Priority 

C* ...................... 2 R6 Anthus spragueii ........ Motacillidae ................ Pipit, Sprauge’s .......... U.S.A. (AL, AR, AZ, 

CA, GA, LA, MA, 

MI, MN, MS, MT, 

ND, OH, OK, SC, 

SD, TX), Canada, 

Mexico. 

PT ..................... — R6 Charadrius montanus Charadriidae .............. Plover, mountain ........ U.S.A. (AZ, CA, CO, 

KS, MT, ND, NE, 

NM, NN, OK, SD, 

TX, UT, WY), Canada (AB, SK), Mexico. 

C* ...................... 2 R2 Tympanuchus 

pallidicinctus.

Phasianidae ............... Prairie-chicken, lesser U.S.A. (CO, KA, NM, 

OK, TX). 

C* ...................... 8 R6 Centrocercus 

urophasianus.

Phasianidae ............... Sage-grouse, greater U.S.A. (AZ, CA, CO, 

ID, MT, ND, NE, 

NV, OR, SD, UT, 

WA, WY), Canada 

(AB, BC, SK). 

C* ...................... 3 R8 Centrocercus 

urophasianus.

Phasianidae ............... Sage-grouse, greater 

(Bi-State DPS).

U.S.A. (AZ, CA, CO, 

ID, MT, ND, NE, 

NV, OR, SD, UT, 

WA, WY), Canada 

(AB, BC, SK). 

C* ...................... 6 R1 Centrocercus 

urophasianus.

Phasianidae ............... Sage-grouse, greater 

(Columbia Basin 

DPS).

U.S.A. (AZ, CA, CO, 

ID, MT, ND, NE, 

NV, OR, SD, UT, 

WA, WY), Canada 

(AB, BC, SK). 

C* ...................... 2 R6 Centrocercus minimus Phasianidae ............... Sage-grouse, Gunnison.U.S.A. (AZ, CO, NM, 

UT). 

C* ...................... 3 R1 Oceanodroma castro Hydrobatidae .............. Storm-petrel, bandrumped (Hawaii 

DPS).

U.S.A. (HI), Atlantic 

Ocean, Ecuador 

(Galapagos Islands), Japan. 

C* ...................... 11 R4 Dendroica angelae ..... Emberizidae ............... Warbler, elfin-woods .. U.S.A. (PR). 

REPTILES: 

C* ...................... 3 R2 Thamnophis eques 

megalops.

Colubridae .................. Gartersnake, northern 

Mexican.

U.S.A. (AZ, NM, NV), 

Mexico. 

C* ...................... 2 R2 Sceloporus arenicolus Iguanidae ................... Lizard, sand dune ...... U.S.A. (TX, NM). 

C* ...................... 9 R3 Sistrurus catenatus 

catenatus.

Viperidae .................... Massasauga 

(=rattlesnake), eastern.

U.S.A. (IA, IL, IN, MI, 

MO, MN, NY, OH, 

PA, WI), Canada. 

C* ...................... 3 R4 Pituophis 

melanoleucus 

lodingi.

Colubridae .................. Snake, black pine ...... U.S.A. (AL, LA, MS). 

C* ...................... 5 R4 Pituophis ruthveni ...... Colubridae .................. Snake, Louisiana pine U.S.A. (LA, TX). 

C* ...................... 3 R2 Chionactis occipitalis 

klauberi.

Colubridae .................. Snake, Tucson shovel-nosed.U.S.A. (AZ). 

C* ...................... 3 R2 Kinosternon 

sonoriense 

longifemorale.

Kinosternidae ............. Turtle, Sonoyta mud .. U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico. 

AMPHIBIANS: 

C* ...................... 9 R8 Rana luteiventris ........ Ranidae ...................... Frog, Columbia spotted (Great Basin 

DPS).

U.S.A. (AK, ID, MT, 

NV, OR, UT, WA, 

WY), Canada (BC). 

C* ...................... 3 R8 Rana muscosa ........... Ranidae ...................... Frog, mountain yellow-legged (Sierra 

Nevada DPS).

U.S.A. (CA, NV). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Rana pretiosa ............ Ranidae ...................... Frog, Oregon spotted U.S.A. (CA, OR, WA), 

Canada (BC). 

C* ...................... 11 R8 Lithobates onca ......... Ranidae ...................... Frog, relict leopard ..... U.S.A. (AZ, NV, UT). 

PE ..................... 3 R3 Cryptobranchus 

alleganiensis 

bishopi.

Crytobranchidae ......... Hellbender, Ozark ...... U.S.A. (AR, MO). 

C* ...................... 2 R2 Eurycea waterlooensis Plethodontidae ........... Salamander, Austin 

blind.

U.S.A. (TX). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69287 

TABLE 1—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued 

[Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.] 

Status Lead 

region Scientific name Family Common name Historical range 

Category Priority 

C* ...................... 8 R2 Eurycea naufragia ...... Plethodontidae ........... Salamander, Georgetown.U.S.A. (TX). 

C* ...................... 2 R2 Plethodon 

neomexicanus.

Plethodontidae ........... Salamander, Jemez 

Mountains.

U.S.A. (NM). 

C* ...................... 8 R2 Eurycea tonkawae ..... Plethodontidae ........... Salamander, Jollyville 

Plateau.

U.S.A. (TX). 

C* ...................... 2 R2 Eurycea 

chisholmensis.

Plethodontidae ........... Salamander, Salado .. U.S.A. (TX). 

C* ...................... 11 R8 Bufo canorus .............. Bufonidae ................... Toad, Yosemite .......... U.S.A. (CA). 

C ....................... 3 R2 Hyla wrightorum ......... Hylidae ....................... Treefrog, Arizona 

(Huachuca/Canelo 

DPS).

U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico 

(Sonora). 

C* ...................... 8 R4 Necturus alabamensis Proteidae .................... Waterdog, black warrior (=Sipsey Fork).U.S.A. (AL). 

FISHES: 

C* ...................... 8 R2 Gila nigra ................... Cyprinidae .................. Chub, headwater ....... U.S.A. (AZ, NM). 

C* ...................... 7 R6 Iotichthys 

phlegethontis.

Cyprinidae .................. Chub, least ................. U.S.A. (UT). 

C* ...................... 9 R2 Gila robusta ............... Cyprinidae .................. Chub, roundtail 

(Lower Colorado 

River Basin DPS).

U.S.A. (AZ, CO, NM, 

UT, WY). 

PE ..................... 5 R4 Phoxinus saylori ......... Cyprinidae .................. Dace, laurel ................ U.S.A. (TN). 

C* ...................... 11 R6 Etheostoma cragini .... Percidae ..................... Darter, Arkansas ........ U.S.A. (AR, CO, KS, 

MO, OK). 

PE ..................... 5 R4 Etheostoma susanae Percidae ..................... Darter, Cumberland ... U.S.A. (KY, TN). 

C ....................... 2 R5 Crystallaria cincotta ... Percidae ..................... Darter, diamond ......... U.S.A. (KY, OH, TN, 

WV). 

C ....................... 3 R4 Etheostoma sagitta 

spilotum.

Percidae ..................... Darter, Kentucky 

arrow.

U.S.A. (KY). 

C* ...................... 8 R4 Percina aurora ........... Percidae ..................... Darter, Pearl .............. U.S.A. (LA, MS). 

PE ..................... 2 R4 Etheostoma 

phytophilum.

Percidae ..................... Darter, rush ................ U.S.A. (AL). 

PE ..................... 2 R4 Etheostoma moorei .... Percidae ..................... Darter, yellowcheek ... U.S.A. (AR). 

C* ...................... 3 R6 Thymallus arcticus ..... Salmonidae ................ Grayling, Arctic (upper 

Missouri River DPS).

U.S.A. (AK, MI, MT, 

WY), Canada, 

northern Asia, 

northern Europe. 

PE ..................... 2 R4 Noturus crypticus ....... Ictaluridae .................. Madtom, chucky ......... U.S.A. (TN). 

C ....................... 5 R4 Moxostoma sp ........... Catostomidae ............. Redhorse, sicklefin .... U.S.A. (GA, NC, TN). 

C* ...................... 2 R3 Cottus sp .................... Cottidae ...................... Sculpin, grotto ............ U.S.A. (MO). 

C* ...................... 5 R2 Notropis oxyrhynchus Cyprinidae .................. Shiner, sharpnose ...... U.S.A. (TX). 

C* ...................... 5 R2 Notropis buccula ........ Cyprinidae .................. Shiner, smalleye ........ U.S.A. (TX). 

C* ...................... 3 R2 Catostomus 

discobolus yarrowi.

Catostomidae ............. Sucker, Zuni bluehead U.S.A. (AZ, NM). 

PSAT ................ N/A R1 Salvelinus malma ....... Salmonidae ................ Trout, Dolly Varden .... U.S.A. (AK, WA), 

Canada, East Asia. 

C* ...................... 9 R2 Oncorhynchus clarki 

virginalis.

Salmonidae ................ Trout, Rio Grande cutthroat.U.S.A. (CO, NM). 

CLAMS: 

C ....................... 5 R4 Villosa choctawensis .. Unionidae ................... Bean, Choctaw .......... U.S.A. (AL, FL). 

PE ..................... 2 R3 Villosa fabalis ............. Unionidae ................... Bean, rayed ............... U.S.A. (IL, IN, KY, MI, 

NY, OH, TN, PA, 

VA, WV), Canada 

(ON). 

C ....................... 2 R4 Fusconaia rotulata ..... Unionidae ................... Ebonyshell, round ...... U.S.A. (AL, FL). 

C* ...................... 8 R2 Popenaias popei ........ Unionidae ................... Hornshell, Texas ........ U.S.A. (NM, TX), Mexico. 

C* ...................... 2 R4 Ptychobranchus 

subtentum.

Unionidae ................... Kidneyshell, fluted ...... U.S.A. (AL, KY, TN, 

VA). 

C ....................... 2 R4 Ptychobranchus jonesi Unionidae ................... Kidneyshell, southern U.S.A. (AL, FL). 

C* ...................... 2 R4 Lampsilis 

rafinesqueana.

Unionidae ................... Mucket, Neosho ......... U.S.A. (AR, KS, MO, 

OK). 

C ....................... 2 R3 Plethobasus cyphyus Unionidae ................... Mussel, sheepnose .... U.S.A. (AL, IA, IL, IN, 

KY, MN, MO, MS, 

OH, PA, TN, VA, 

WI, WV). 

C* ...................... 2 R4 Margaritifera 

marrianae.

Margaritiferidae .......... Pearlshell, Alabama ... U.S.A. (AL). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69288 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued 

[Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.] 

Status Lead 

region Scientific name Family Common name Historical range 

Category Priority 

C* ...................... 2 R4 Lexingtonia 

dolabelloides.

Unionidae ................... Pearlymussel, 

slabside.

U.S.A. (AL, KY, TN, 

VA). 

C ....................... 5 R4 Pleurobema 

strodeanum.

Unionidae ................... Pigtoe, fuzzy .............. U.S.A. (AL, FL). 

C ....................... 5 R4 Fusconaia escambia .. Unionidae ................... Pigtoe, narrow ............ U.S.A. (AL, FL). 

C ....................... 11 R4 Fusconaia 

(=Quincuncina) 

burkei.

Unionidae ................... Pigtoe, tapered .......... U.S.A. (AL, FL). 

C ....................... 9 R4 Quadrula cylindrica 

cylindrica.

Unionidae ................... Rabbitsfoot ................. U.S.A. (AL, AR, GA, 

IN, IL, KS, KY, LA, 

MS, MO, OK, OH, 

PA, TN, WV). 

C ....................... 5 R4 Hamiota (=Lampsilis) 

australis.

Unionidae ................... Sandshell, southern ... U.S.A. (AL, FL). 

PE ..................... – R3 Epioblasma triquetra .. Unionidae ................... Snuffbox ..................... U.S.A. (IN, MI, NY, 

OH, PA, WV), Canada (ON). 

C ....................... 4 R3 Cumberlandia 

monodonta.

Margaritiferidae .......... Spectaclecase ............ U.S.A. (AL, AR, IA, 

IN, IL, KS, KY, MO, 

MN, NE, OH, TN, 

VA, WI, WV). 

PE ..................... 2 R4 Elliptio spinosa ........... Unionidae ................... Spinymussel, Altamaha.U.S.A. (GA). 

SNAILS: 

C ....................... 8 R4 Elimia melanoides ...... Pleuroceridae ............. Mudalia, black ............ U.S.A. (AL). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Ostodes strigatus ....... Potaridae .................... Sisi snail ..................... U.S.A. (AS). 

C* ...................... 2 R2 Pseudotryonia 

adamantina.

Hydrobiidae ................ Snail, Diamond Y 

Spring.

U.S.A. (TX). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Samoana fragilis ........ Partulidae ................... Snail, fragile tree ........ U.S.A. (GU, MP). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Partula radiolata ......... Partulidae ................... Snail, Guam tree ........ U.S.A. (GU). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Partula gibba .............. Partulidae ................... Snail, Humped tree .... U.S.A. (GU, MP). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Partulina semicarinata Achatinellidae ............. Snail, Lanai tree ......... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Partulina variabilis ...... Achatinellidae ............. Snail, Lanai tree ......... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Partula langfordi ......... Partulidae ................... Snail, Langford’s tree U.S.A. (MP). 

C* ...................... 2 R2 Cochliopa texana ....... Hydrobiidae ................ Snail, Phantom cave .. U.S.A. (TX). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Newcombia cumingi ... Achatinellidae ............. Snail, Newcomb’s tree U.S.A. (Hl). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Eua zebrina ................ Partulidae ................... Snail, Tutuila tree ....... U.S.A. (AS). 

C* ...................... 2 R2 Pyrgulopsis 

chupaderae.

Hydrobiidae ................ Springsnail, 

Chupadera.

U.S.A. (NM). 

C* ...................... 11 R8 Pyrgulopsis notidicola Hydrobiidae ................ Springsnail, elongate 

mud meadows.

U.S.A. (NV). 

C* ...................... 11 R2 Pyrgulopsis gilae ........ Hydrobiidae ................ Springsnail, Gila ......... U.S.A. (NM). 

C* ...................... 2 R2 Tryonia circumstriata 

(=stocktonensis).

Hydrobiidae ................ Springsnail, Gonzales U.S.A. (TX). 

C* ...................... 8 R2 Pyrgulopsis thompsoni Hydrobiidae ................ Springsnail, Huachuca U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico. 

C* ...................... 11 R2 Pyrgulopsis thermalis Hydrobiidae ................ Springsnail, New Mexico.U.S.A. (NM). 

C* ...................... 8 R2 Pyrgulopsis morrisoni Hydrobiidae ................ Springsnail, Page ....... U.S.A. (AZ). 

C* ...................... 2 R2 Tryonia cheatumi ....... Hydrobiidae ................ Springsnail (=Tryonia), 

Phantom.

U.S.A. (TX). 

C ....................... 2 R2 Pyrgulopsis 

bernardina.

Hydrobiidae ................ Springsnail, San 

Bernardino.

U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico 

(Sonora). 

C* ...................... 2 R2 Pyrgulopsis trivialis .... Hydrobiidae ................ Springsnail, Three 

Forks.

U.S.A. (AZ). 

C* ...................... 5 R2 Sonorella 

rosemontensis.

Helminthoglyptidae .... Talussnail, Rosemont U.S.A. (AZ). 

INSECTS: 

C* ...................... 8 R1 Nysius wekiuicola ...... Lygaeidae .................. Bug, Wekiu ................ U.S.A. (HI). 

C ....................... 3 R4 Strymon acis bartrami Lycaenidae ................. Butterfly, Bartram’s 

hairstreak.

U.S.A. (FL). 

C ....................... 3 R4 Anaea troglodyta 

floridalis.

Nymphalidae .............. Butterfly, Florida 

leafwing.

U.S.A. (FL). 

C* ...................... 3 R1 Hypolimnas octucula 

mariannensis.

Nymphalidae .............. Butterfly, Mariana 

eight-spot.

U.S.A. (GU, MP). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Vagrans egistina ........ Nymphalidae .............. Butterfly, Mariana 

wandering.

U.S.A. (GU, MP). 

C* ...................... 3 R4 Cyclargus thomasi 

bethunebakeri.

Lycaenidae ................. Butterfly, Miami blue .. U.S.A. (FL), Bahamas. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69289 

TABLE 1—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued 

[Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.] 

Status Lead 

region Scientific name Family Common name Historical range 

Category Priority 

C* ...................... 5 R4 Glyphopsyche 

sequatchie.

Limnephilidae ............. Caddisfly, Sequatchie U.S.A. (TN). 

C ....................... 5 R4 Pseudanophthalmus 

insularis.

Carabidae .................. Cave beetle, Baker 

Station (= insular).

U.S.A. (TN). 

C* ...................... 5 R4 Pseudanophthalmus 

caecus.

Carabidae .................. Cave beetle, Clifton ... U.S.A. (KY). 

C ....................... 11 R4 Pseudanophthalmus 

colemanensis.

Carabidae .................. Cave beetle, Coleman U.S.A. (TN). 

C ....................... 5 R4 Pseudanophthalmus 

fowlerae.

Carabidae .................. Cave beetle, Fowler’s U.S.A. (TN). 

C* ...................... 5 R4 Pseudanophthalmus 

frigidus.

Carabidae .................. Cave beetle, icebox ... U.S.A. (KY). 

C ....................... 5 R4 Pseudanophthalmus 

tiresias.

Carabidae .................. Cave beetle, Indian 

Grave Point (= 

Soothsayer).

U.S.A. (TN). 

C* ...................... 5 R4 Pseudanophthalmus 

inquisitor.

Carabidae .................. Cave beetle, inquirer U.S.A. (TN). 

C* ...................... 5 R4 Pseudanophthalmus 

troglodytes.

Carabidae .................. Cave beetle, Louisville U.S.A. (KY). 

C ....................... 5 R4 Pseudanophthalmus 

paulus.

Carabidae .................. Cave beetle, Noblett’s U.S.A. (TN). 

C* ...................... 5 R4 Pseudanophthalmus 

parvus.

Carabidae .................. Cave beetle, Tatum ... U.S.A. (KY). 

C* ...................... 3 R1 Euphydryas editha 

taylori.

Nymphalidae .............. Checkerspot butterfly, 

Taylor’s (= Whulge).

U.S.A. (OR, WA), 

Canada (BC). 

C* ...................... 9 R1 Megalagrion 

nigrohamatum 

nigrolineatum.

Coenagrionidae .......... Damselfly, blackline 

Hawaiian.

U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Megalagrion 

leptodemas.

Coenagrionidae .......... Damselfly, crimson 

Hawaiian.

U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Megalagrion 

oceanicum.

Coenagrionidae .......... Damselfly, oceanic 

Hawaiian.

U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 8 R1 Megalagrion 

xanthomelas.

Coenagrionidae .......... Damselfly, 

orangeblack Hawaiian.

U.S.A. (HI). 

PE ..................... 2 R8 Dinacoma caseyi ....... Scarabidae ................. June beetle, Casey’s U.S.A. (CA). 

C ....................... 5 R8 Ambrysus funebris ..... Naucoridae ................. Naucorid bug 

(=Furnace Creek), 

Nevares Spring.

U.S.A. (CA). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Drosophila digressa ... Drosophilidae ............. fly, Hawaiian Picturewing.U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 8 R2 Heterelmis stephani ... Elmidae ...................... Riffle beetle, 

Stephan’s.

U.S.A. (AZ). 

C* ...................... 8 R3 Hesperia dacotae ....... Hesperiidae ................ Skipper, Dakota ......... U.S.A. (MN, IA, SD, 

ND, IL), Canada. 

C* ...................... 8 R1 Polites mardon ........... Hesperiidae ................ Skipper, Mardon ........ U.S.A. (CA, OR, WA). 

C* ...................... 2 R6 Cicindela albissima .... Cicindelidae ............... Tiger beetle, Coral 

Pink Sand Dunes.

U.S.A. (UT). 

C* ...................... 5 R4 Cicindela 

highlandensis.

Cicindelidae ............... Tiger beetle, highlands.U.S.A. (FL). 

ARACHNIDS: 

C* ...................... 2 R2 Cicurina wartoni ......... Dictynidae .................. Meshweaver, Warton’s cave.U.S.A. (TX). 

CRUSTACEANS: 

C ....................... 2 R2 Gammarus 

hyalleloides.

Gammaridae .............. Amphipod, diminutive U.S.A. (TX). 

C ....................... 8 R5 Stygobromus kenki .... Crangonyctidae .......... Amphipod, Kenk’s ...... U.S.A. (DC, MD). 

C* ...................... 5 R1 Metabetaeus lohena .. Alpheidae ................... Shrimp, anchialine 

pool.

U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 5 R1 Palaemonella burnsi .. Palaemonidae ............ Shrimp, anchialine 

pool.

U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 5 R1 Procaris hawaiana ..... Procarididae ............... Shrimp, anchialine 

pool.

U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 4 R1 Vetericaris chaceorum Procaridae .................. Shrimp, anchialine 

pool.

U.S.A. (HI). 

FLOWERING 

PLANTS: 

C* ...................... 11 R8 Abronia alpina ............ Nyctaginaceae ........... Sand-verbena, 

Ramshaw Meadows.

U.S.A. (CA). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69290 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued 

[Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.] 

Status Lead 

region Scientific name Family Common name Historical range 

Category Priority 

C* ...................... 8 R4 Agave eggersiana ...... Agavaceae ................. No common name ..... U.S.A. (VI). 

C* ...................... 8 R4 Arabis georgiana ........ Brassicaceae ............. Rockcress, Georgia ... U.S.A. (AL, GA). 

C* ...................... 11 R4 Argythamnia blodgettii Euphorbiaceae ........... Silverbush, Blodgett’s U.S.A. (FL). 

C* ...................... 3 R1 Artemisia campestris 

var. wormskioldii.

Asteraceae ................. Wormwood, northern U.S.A. (OR, WA). 

C* ...................... 5 R1 Astragalus anserinus Fabaceae ................... Milkvetch, Goose 

Creek.

U.S.A. (ID, NV, UT). 

C ....................... 3 R1 Astragalus cusickii 

var. packardiae.

Fabaceae ................... Milkvetch, Packard’s .. U.S.A. (ID). 

C* ...................... 11 R6 Astragalus tortipes ..... Fabaceae ................... Milkvetch, Sleeping 

Ute.

U.S.A. (CO). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Bidens amplectens .... Asteraceae ................. Ko‘oko‘olau ................ U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 3 R1 Bidens campylotheca 

pentamera.

Asteraceae ................. Ko‘oko‘olau ................ U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 3 R1 Bidens campylotheca 

waihoiensis.

Asteraceae ................. Ko‘oko‘olau ................ U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 8 R1 Bidens conjuncta ....... Asteraceae ................. Ko‘oko‘olau ................ U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 3 R1 Bidens micrantha 

ctenophylla.

Asteraceae ................. Ko‘oko‘olau ................ U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 8 R4 Brickellia mosieri ........ Asteraceae ................. Brickell-bush, Florida U.S.A. (FL). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Calamagrostis 

expansa.

Poaceae ..................... Reedgrass, Maui ........ U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Calamagrostis 

hillebrandii.

Poaceae ..................... Reedgrass, 

Hillebrand’s.

U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 5 R8 Calochortus 

persistens.

Liliaceae ..................... Mariposa lily, Siskiyou U.S.A. (CA, OR). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Canavalia pubescens Fabaceae ................... ‘Awikiwiki .................... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 8 R1 Castilleja christii ......... Scrophulariaceae ....... Paintbrush, Christ’s .... U.S.A. (ID). 

C* ...................... 9 R4 Chamaecrista lineata 

var. keyensis.

Fabaceae ................... Pea, Big Pine partridge.U.S.A. (FL). 

C* ...................... 12 R4 Chamaesyce 

deltoidea pinetorum.

Euphorbiaceae ........... Sandmat, pineland ..... U.S.A. (FL). 

C* ...................... 9 R4 Chamaesyce 

deltoidea serpyllum.

Euphorbiaceae ........... Spurge, wedge ........... U.S.A. (FL). 

C* ...................... 6 R8 Chorizanthe parryi 

var. fernandina.

Polygonaceae ............ Spineflower, San Fernando Valley.U.S.A. (CA). 

C* ...................... 2 R4 Chromolaena frustrata Asteraceae ................. Thoroughwort, Cape 

Sable.

U.S.A. (FL). 

C* ...................... 2 R4 Consolea corallicola ... Cactaceae .................. Cactus, Florida semaphore.U.S.A. (FL). 

C* ...................... 5 R4 Cordia rupicola ........... Boraginaceae ............. No common name ..... U.S.A. (PR), Anegada. 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Cyanea asplenifolia ... Campanulaceae ......... Haha .......................... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Cyanea calycina ........ Campanulaceae ......... Haha .......................... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Cyanea kunthiana ...... Campanulaceae ......... Haha .......................... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Cyanea lanceolata ..... Campanulaceae ......... Haha .......................... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Cyanea obtusa ........... Campanulaceae ......... Haha .......................... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Cyanea tritomantha ... Campanulaceae ......... ‘Aku ............................ U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Cyrtandra filipes ......... Gesneriaceae ............. Ha‘iwale ..................... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Cyrtandra kaulantha .. Gesneriaceae ............. Ha‘iwale ..................... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Cyrtandra oxybapha .. Gesneriaceae ............. Ha‘iwale ..................... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Cyrtandra sessilis ...... Gesneriaceae ............. Ha‘iwale ..................... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 3 R4 Dalea carthagenensis 

var. floridana.

Fabaceae ................... Prairie-clover, Florida U.S.A. (FL). 

C* ...................... 5 R5 Dichanthelium hirstii ... Poaceae ..................... Panic grass, Hirsts’ .... U.S.A. (DE, GA, NC, 

NJ). 

C* ...................... 5 R4 Digitaria pauciflora ..... Poaceae ..................... Crabgrass, Florida 

pineland.

U.S.A. (FL). 

C* ...................... 3 R2 Echinomastus 

erectocentrus var. 

acunensis.

Cactaceae .................. Cactus, Acuna ........... U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico. 

C* ...................... 8 R2 Erigeron lemmonii ...... Asteraceae ................. Fleabane, Lemmon .... U.S.A. (AZ). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Eriogonum codium ..... Polygonaceae ............ Buckwheat, Umtanum 

Desert.

U.S.A. (WA). 

C* ...................... 6 R8 Eriogonum 

corymbosum var. 

nilesii.

Polygonaceae ............ Buckwheat, Las 

Vegas.

U.S.A. (NV). 

C ....................... 5 R8 Eriogonum 

diatomaceum.

Polygonaceae ............ Buckwheat, Churchill 

Narrows.

U.S.A. (NV). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69291 

TABLE 1—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued 

[Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.] 

Status Lead 

region Scientific name Family Common name Historical range 

Category Priority 

C* ...................... 5 R8 Eriogonum kelloggii ... Polygonaceae ............ Buckwheat, Red 

Mountain.

U.S.A. (CA). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Festuca hawaiiensis .. Poaceae ..................... No common name ..... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 11 R2 Festuca ligulata .......... Poaceae ..................... Fescue, Guadalupe ... U.S.A. (TX), Mexico. 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Gardenia remyi .......... Rubiaceae .................. Nanu .......................... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 8 R1 Geranium hanaense .. Geraniaceae .............. Nohoanu .................... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 8 R1 Geranium hillebrandii Geraniaceae .............. Nohoanu .................... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 5 R4 Gonocalyx concolor ... Ericaceae ................... No common name ..... U.S.A. (PR). 

C ....................... 2 R4 Harrisia aboriginum .... Cactaceae .................. Pricklyapple, aboriginal (shellmound 

applecactus).

U.S.A. (FL). 

C* ...................... 5 R8 Hazardia orcuttii ......... Asteraceae ................. Orcutt’s hazardia ........ U.S.A. (CA), Mexico. 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Hedyotis fluviatilis ...... Rubiaceae .................. Kampua‘a ................... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 8 R4 Helianthus verticillatus Asteraceae ................. Sunflower, whorled .... U.S.A. (AL, GA, TN). 

C* ...................... 2 R2 Hibiscus dasycalyx .... Malvaceae .................. Rose-mallow, Neches 

River.

U.S.A. (TX). 

PE ..................... 2 R6 Ipomopsis polyantha .. Polemoniaceae .......... Skyrocket, Pagosa ..... U.S.A. (CO). 

C* ...................... 5 R8 Ivesia webberi ............ Rosaceae ................... Ivesia, Webber ........... U.S.A. (CA, NV). 

C* ...................... 3 R1 Joinvillea ascendens 

ascendens.

Joinvilleaceae ............ ‘Ohe ........................... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Korthalsella degeneri Viscaceae .................. Hulumoa ..................... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 5 R4 Leavenworthia crassa Brassicaceae ............. Gladecress, unnamed U.S.A. (AL). 

C ....................... 3 R4 Leavenworthia exigua 

var. laciniata.

Brassicaceae ............. Gladecress, Kentucky U.S.A. (KY). 

C* ...................... 2 R2 Leavenworthia texana Brassicaceae ............. Gladecress, Texas 

golden.

U.S.A. (TX). 

C* ...................... 8 R4 Lesquerella globosa ... Brassicaceae ............. Bladderpod, Short’s ... U.S.A. (IN, KY, TN). 

C* ...................... 5 R4 Linum arenicola ......... Linaceae .................... Flax, sand .................. U.S.A. (FL). 

C* ...................... 3 R4 Linum carteri var. 

carteri.

Linaceae .................... Flax, Carter’s smallflowered.U.S.A. (FL). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Melicope 

christophersenii.

Rutaceae .................... Alani ........................... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Melicope hiiakae ........ Rutaceae .................... Alani ........................... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Melicope makahae ..... Rutaceae .................... Alani ........................... U.S.A. (HI). 

C ....................... 3 R8 Mimulus fremontii var. 

vandenbergensis.

Phrymaceae ............... Monkeyflower, Vandenberg.U.S.A. (CA). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Myrsine fosbergii ........ Myrsinaceae ............... Kolea .......................... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Myrsine vaccinioides .. Myrsinaceae ............... Kolea .......................... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 8 R5 Narthecium 

americanum.

Liliaceae ..................... Asphodel, bog ............ U.S.A. (DE, NC, NJ, 

NY, SC). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Nothocestrum 

latifolium.

Solanaceae ................ ‘Aiea ........................... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Ochrosia haleakalae .. Apocynaceae ............. Holei ........................... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 3 R2 Pediocactus 

peeblesianus var. 

fickeiseniae.

Cactaceae .................. Cactus, Fickeisen 

plains.

U.S.A. (AZ). 

PT ..................... 2 R6 Penstemon debilis ..... Scrophulariaceae ....... Beardtongue, Parachute.U.S.A. (CO). 

C* ...................... 9 R6 Penstemon scariosus 

var. albifluvis.

Scrophulariaceae ....... Beardtongue, White 

River.

U.S.A. (CO, UT). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Peperomia 

subpetiolata.

Piperaceae ................. ‘Ala ‘ala wai nui .......... U.S.A. (HI). 

C ....................... 5 R8 Phacelia stellaris ........ Hydrophyllaceae ........ Phacelia, Brand’s ....... U.S.A. (CA), Mexico. 

PT ..................... 8 R6 Phacelia submutica .... Hydrophyllaceae ........ Phacelia, DeBeque .... U.S.A. (CO). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Phyllostegia bracteata Lamiaceae ................. No common name ..... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 8 R1 Phyllostegia floribunda Lamiaceae ................. No common name ..... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 9 R1 Physaria douglasii 

tuplashensis.

Brassicaceae ............. Bladderpod, White 

Bluffs.

U.S.A. (WA). 

C* ...................... 8 R4 Platanthera 

integrilabia.

Orchidaceae ............... Orchid, white 

fringeless.

U.S.A. (AL, GA, KY, 

MS, NC, SC, TN, 

VA). 

C* ...................... 3 R1 Platydesma cornuta 

var. cornuta.

Rutaceae .................... No common name ..... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 3 R1 Platydesma cornuta 

var. decurrens.

Rutaceae .................... No common name ..... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Platydesma remyi ...... Rutaceae .................... No common name ..... U.S.A. (HI). 

C ....................... 2 R1 Pleomele fernaldii ...... Agavaceae ................. Hala pepe .................. U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Pleomele forbesii ....... Agavaceae ................. Hala pepe .................. U.S.A. (HI). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69292 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued 

[Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.] 

Status Lead 

region Scientific name Family Common name Historical range 

Category Priority 

C* ...................... 11 R8 Potentilla basaltica ..... Rosaceae ................... Cinquefoil, Soldier 

Meadow.

U.S.A. (NV). 

C* ...................... 3 R1 Pseudognaphalium 

(=Gnaphalium) 

sandwicensium var. 

molokaiense.

Asteraceae ................. ‘Ena‘ena ..................... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 3 R1 Psychotria hexandra 

ssp. oahuensis var. 

oahuensis.

Rubiaceae .................. Kopiko ........................ U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Pteralyxia macrocarpa Apocynaceae ............. Kaulu .......................... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Ranunculus 

hawaiensis.

Ranunculaceae .......... Makou ........................ U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Ranunculus mauiensis Ranunculaceae .......... Makou ........................ U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 8 R8 Rorippa subumbellata Brassicaceae ............. Cress, Tahoe yellow .. U.S.A. (CA, NV). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Schiedea pubescens Caryophyllaceae ........ Ma‘oli‘oli ..................... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Schiedea salicaria ...... Caryophyllaceae ........ No common name ..... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 5 R8 Sedum eastwoodiae .. Crassulaceae ............. Stonecrop, Red Mountain.U.S.A. (CA). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Sicyos macrophyllus .. Cucurbitaceae ............ ‘Anunu ........................ U.S.A. (HI). 

C ....................... 12 R4 Sideroxylon reclinatum 

austrofloridense.

Sapotaceae ................ Bully, Everglades ....... U.S.A. (FL). 

C* ...................... 8 R1 Solanum nelsonii ....... Solanaceae ................ Popolo ........................ U.S.A. (HI). 

C ....................... 8 R4 Solidago plumosa ...... Asteraceae ................. Goldenrod, Yadkin 

River.

U.S.A. (NC). 

C* ...................... 2 R2 Sphaeralcea gierischii Malvaceae .................. Mallow, Gierisch ........ U.S.A. (AZ, UT). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Stenogyne cranwelliae Lamiaceae ................. No common name ..... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 8 R4 Symphyotrichum 

georgianum.

Asteraceae ................. Aster, Georgia ............ U.S.A. (AL, FL, GA, 

NC, SC). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Zanthoxylum 

oahuense.

Rutaceae .................... A‘e .............................. U.S.A. (HI). 

FERNS AND 

ALLIES: 

C* ...................... 8 R1 Christella boydiae (= 

Cyclosorus boydiae 

var. boydiae + 

Cyclosorus boydiae 

kipahuluensis).

Thelypteridaceae ....... No common name ..... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Doryopteris takeuchii Pteridaceae ................ No common name ..... U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 2 R1 Huperzia (= 

Phlegmariurus) 

stemmermanniae.

Lycopodiaceae ........... Wawae‘iole ................. U.S.A. (HI). 

C* ...................... 3 R1 Microlepia strigosa 

var. mauiensis (= 

Microlepia 

mauiensis).

Dennstaedtiaceae ...... Palapalai .................... U.S.A. (HI). 

C ....................... 3 R4 Trichomanes 

punctatum 

floridanum.

Hymenophyllaceae .... Florida bristle fern ...... U.S.A. (FL). 

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 range 

Code Expl. 

MAMMALS: 

Rc ..................... A, U R8 Xerospermophilus 

tereticaudus chlorus.

Sciuridae .................... Squirrel, Palm Springs 

(= Coachella Valley) 

round-tailed ground.

U.S.A. (CA). 

BIRDS: 

E ....................... L R1 Loxops caeruleirostris Fringillidae .................. Akekee 

(honeycreeper).

U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Oreomystis bairdi ....... Fringillidae .................. Akikiki (Kauai creeper) U.S.A. (HI). 

CLAMS: 

E ....................... L R4 Pleurobema 

hanleyianum.

Unionidae ................... Pigtoe, Georgia .......... U.S.A. (AL, GA, TN). 

SNAILS: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69293 

TABLE 2—ANIMALS AND PLANTS FORMERLY CANDIDATES OR FORMERLY PROPOSED FOR LISTING—Continued 

[Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.] 

Status Lead 

region Scientific name Family Common name Historical range 

Code Expl. 

E ....................... L R4 Pleurocera foremani ... Pleuroceridae ............. Hornsnail, rough ......... U.S.A. (AL). 

E ....................... L R4 Leptoxis foremani (= 

downei).

Pleuroceridae ............. Rocksnail, Interrupted 

(= Georgia).

U.S.A. (GA, AL). 

INSECTS: 

E ....................... L R1 Megalagrion nesiotes Coenagrionidae .......... Damselfly, flying 

earwig Hawaiian.

U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Megalagrion pacificum Coenagrionidae .......... Damselfly, Pacific Hawaiian.U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Drosophila attigua ...... Drosophilidae ............. Fly, Hawaiian picturewing.U.S.A. (HI). 

FLOWERING 

PLANTS: 

E ....................... L R1 Astelia waialealae ...... Liliaceae ..................... Pa‘iniu ......................... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Canavalia napaliensis Fabaceae ................... ‘Awikiwiki .................... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Chamaesyce 

eleanoriae.

Euphorbiaceae ........... ‘Akoko ......................... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Chamaesyce remyi 

var. kauaiensis.

Euphorbiaceae ........... ‘Akoko ......................... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Chamaesyce remyi 

var. remyi.

Euphorbiaceae ........... ‘Akoko ......................... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Charpentiera 

densiflora.

Amaranthaceae .......... Papala ........................ U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Cyanea dolichopoda .. Campanulaceae ......... Haha ........................... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Cyanea eleeleensis .... Campanulaceae ......... Haha ........................... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Cyanea kolekoleensis Campanulaceae ......... Haha ........................... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Cyanea kuhihewa ....... Campanulaceae ......... Haha ........................... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Cyrtandra oenobarba Gesneriaceae ............. Ha‘iwale ...................... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Cyrtandra paliku ......... Gesneriaceae ............. Ha‘iwale ...................... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Dubautia imbricata 

imbricata.

Asteraceae ................. Na‘ena‘e ..................... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Dubautia kalalauensis Asteraceae ................. Na‘ena‘e ..................... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Dubautia kenwoodii .... Asteraceae ................. Na‘ena‘e ..................... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Dubautia plantaginea 

magnifolia.

Asteraceae ................. Na‘ena‘e ..................... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Dubautia waialealae ... Asteraceae ................. Na‘ena‘e ..................... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Geranium kauaiense .. Geraniaceae ............... Nohoanu ..................... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Keysseria erici ............ Asteraceae ................. No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Keysseria helenae ...... Asteraceae ................. No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Labordia helleri ........... Loganiaceae ............... Kamakahala ............... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Labordia pumila .......... Loganiaceae ............... Kamakahala ............... U.S.A. (HI). 

T ....................... L R1 Lepidium papilliferum Brassicaceae .............. Peppergrass, slickspot U.S.A. (ID). 

E ....................... L R1 Lysimachia 

daphnoides.

Myrsinaceae ............... Lehua makanoe ......... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Lysimachia iniki .......... Myrsinaceae ............... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Lysimachia pendens .. Myrsinaceae ............... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Lysimachia 

scopulensis.

Myrsinaceae ............... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Lysimachia venosa ..... Myrsinaceae ............... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Melicope degeneri ...... Rutaceae .................... Alani ........................... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Melicope paniculata ... Rutaceae .................... Alani ........................... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Melicope puberula ...... Rutaceae .................... Alani ........................... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Myrsine knudsenii ...... Myrsinaceae ............... Kolea .......................... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Myrsine mezii ............. Myrsinaceae ............... Kolea .......................... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Phyllostegia renovans Lamiaceae .................. No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Pittosporum 

napaliense.

Pittosporaceae ........... Ho‘awa ....................... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Platydesma rostrata ... Rutaceae .................... Pilo kea lau li‘i ............ U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Pritchardia hardyi ....... Asteraceae ................. Lo‘ulu .......................... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Psychotria grandiflora Rubiaceae .................. Kopiko ........................ U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Psychotria hobdyi ....... Rubiaceae .................. Kopiko ........................ U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Schiedea attenuata .... Caryophyllaceae ......... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Stenogyne kealiae ...... Lamiaceae .................. No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Tetraplasandra 

bisattenuata.

Araliaceae .................. No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Tetraplasandra flynnii Araliaceae .................. No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Diellia mannii .............. Aspleniaceae .............. No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). 

E ....................... L R1 Doryopteris angelica .. Pteridaceae ................ No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
69294 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—ANIMALS AND PLANTS FORMERLY CANDIDATES OR FORMERLY PROPOSED FOR LISTING—Continued 

[Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.] 

Status Lead 

region Scientific name Family Common name Historical range 

Code Expl. 

E ....................... L R1 Dryopteris crinalis var. 

podosorus.

Dryopteridaceae ......... Palapalai aumakua ..... U.S.A. (HI). 

[FR Doc. 2010–27686 Filed 11–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3