Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67925 

TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued 

Facility Address Waste description 

5. Reopener Language—(A) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste, Owosso possesses or is otherwise made aware of any data (including but not limited to leachate data 

or groundwater monitoring data) relevant to the delisted waste indicating that any constituent is at a concentration in the leachate higher than the specified delisting concentration, or is in the groundwater at a concentration higher than the maximum allowable 

groundwater concentration in paragraph (1), then Owosso must report such data, in writing, 

to the Regional Administrator within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of 

that data. (B) Based on the information described in paragraph (A) and any other information received from any source, the Regional Administrator will make a preliminary determination as to whether the reported information requires Agency action to protect human 

health or the environment. Further action may include suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to protect human health and the environment. (C) If the Regional Administrator determines that the reported information does require Agency action, the Regional Administrator will notify Owosso in writing of the actions 

the Regional Administrator believes are necessary to protect human health and the environment. The notice shall include a statement of the proposed action and a statement providing Owosso with an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed Agency 

action is not necessary or to suggest an alternative action. Owosso shall have 30 days 

from the date of the Regional Administrator’s notice to present the information. (D) If after 

30 days Owosso presents no further information or after a review of any submitted information, the Regional Administrator will issue a final written determination describing the 

Agency actions that are necessary to protect human health or the environment. Any required action described in the Regional Administrator’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless the Regional Administrator provides otherwise. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–27886 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2009–0060; MO 

92210–0–0008] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition to List Cirsium wrightii 

(Wright’s Marsh Thistle) as 

Endangered or Threatened 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, announce a 12-month 

finding on a petition to list Cirsium 

wrightii (Wright’s marsh thistle) as 

endangered or threatened and to 

designate critical habitat under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended. After review of all available 

scientific and commercial information, 

we find that listing C. wrightii as 

endangered or threatened throughout its 

range is warranted. Currently, however, 

listing of C. wrightii is precluded by 

higher priority actions to amend the 

Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication 

of this 12-month petition finding, we 

will add C. wrightii to our candidate 

species list. We will develop a proposed 

rule to list C. wrightii as our priorities 

allow. We will make any determination 

on critical habitat during development 

of the proposed rule. In the interim 

period, we will address the status of the 

candidate taxon through our annual 

Candidate Notice of Review. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on November 4, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket Number 

FWS–R2–ES–2009–0060. Supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

this finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours by contacting the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New 

Mexico Ecological Services Office, 2105 

Osuna NE, Albuquerque, NM 87113. 

Please submit any new information, 

materials, comments, or questions 

concerning this finding to the above 

address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wally ‘‘J’’ Murphy, Field Supervisor, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New 

Mexico Ecological Services Field Office 

(see ADDRESSES); by telephone at 505– 

346–4781; or by facsimile at 505–346– 

2542. If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), please call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered 

Species Act (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.) requires that, for any petition to 

revise the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife that contains 

substantial scientific and commercial 

information that listing may be 

warranted, we make a finding within 

12 months of the date of receipt of the 

petition on whether the petitioned 

action is: (a) Not warranted, (b) 

warranted, or (c) warranted, but the 

immediate proposal of a regulation 

implementing the petitioned action is 

precluded by other pending proposals to 

determine whether species are 

threatened or endangered, and 

expeditious progress is being made to 

add or remove qualified species from 

the Federal Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 

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

treat a petition for which the requested 

action is found to be warranted but 

precluded as though resubmitted on the 

date of such finding, that is, requiring a 

subsequent finding to be made within 

12 months. We must publish these 

findings in the Federal Register. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On October 15, 2008, we received a 

petition from the WildEarth Guardians, 

dated October 9, 2008, requesting that 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

67926 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

we list Cirsium wrightii (Wright’s marsh 

thistle) as endangered or threatened 

under the Act. Additionally, the 

petitioner requested that critical habitat 

be designated concurrent with listing of 

C. wrightii. In a November 26, 2008, 

letter to the petitioner, we responded 

that we had reviewed the petition and 

determined that an emergency listing 

was not necessary. We also stated that, 

to the maximum extent practicable, we 

would address their petition within 90 

days. 

The petition asserted that water 

diversion, habitat loss and degradation 

through current livestock grazing, 

inadequate regulatory mechanisms, 

weed control, nonnative species, 

drought, and climate change threaten C. 

wrightii. During our review of the 

petition, we found that the majority of 

information cited in the petition was not 

readily available to us. Therefore, on 

December 18, 2008, we requested that 

the petitioner provide references. On 

February 13, 2009, the petitioner 

provided additional references. 

On September 10, 2009, we published 

a 90-day finding in the Federal Register 

that the petition presented substantial 

information that listing C. wrightii may 

be warranted. That document also 

initiated a status review of the 

subspecies (74 FR 46542). On February 

11, 2010, WildEarth Guardians filed suit 

against the Service for failure to issue a 

12-month finding on the petition 

(WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, No. 

10-cv-00122 BRB–DJS (D.N.M.)). 

Pursuant to a stipulated settlement 

agreement, the 12-month finding is due 

to the Federal Register by October 31, 

2010. This notice constitutes our 12- 

month finding for the petition to list C. 

wrightii as threatened or endangered 

with critical habitat. 

Species Information 

Cirsium wrightii is a biennial (a plant 

completing development in 2 years, 

flowering its second year) or a weak 

monocarpic perennial (a plant that 

flowers, sets seed, then dies), in the 

sunflower family (Asteraceae). The 

plant is prickly with short black spines 

and a 3- to 8-foot (ft) (0.9- to 2.4-meter 

(m)) single stalk covered with succulent 

leaves (Sivinski 1996, p. 1; Arizona 

Game and Fish Department (AGFD) 

2001, p. 1). Numerous slender flowering 

branches emerge from the stalk, starting 

about one-third up the length of the 

plant. Branches are terminated by one or 

a few small flowering heads, which 

have numerous slender phyllaries (a 

modified leaf associated with the 

flower) (Sivinski 1996, p. 1). Flowers are 

white to pale pink in areas of the 

Sacramento Mountains of New Mexico, 

but are vivid pink in the Santa Rosa, 

New Mexico, locality (Sivinski 1996, p. 

1). In New Mexico, the species occurs in 

wet, alkaline soils in spring seeps and 

marshy edges of streams and ponds 

between 3,450 and 7,850 ft (1,152 and 

2,393 m) in elevation (Sivinski 1996, p. 

1; 2005a, pp. 3–4; Worthington 2002a). 

Cirsium wrightii is a wetland obligate 

(occurs only in water-saturated soils) 

that was originally collected in 1851 at 

San Bernardino Cienaga, Cochise 

County, Arizona (Gray 1853, p. 101; 

Smithsonian 1849, p. 1). Historically, 

the species was found in Arizona, New 

Mexico, and Chihuahua, Mexico (Gray 

1853, p. 101; Coulter 1891, p. 244; 

Kearney and Peebles 1951, p. 952; 

Correll and Johnston 1970, p. 1719; U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

1995, p. 1). Recently it was learned that 

an occurrence of another sunflower, 

Cirsium texanum (Texas thistle), in 

Presidio County, Texas, had been 

incorrectly identified as C. wrightii 

(Poole 2010, p. 1). All of the previously 

presumed specimens of C. wrightii from 

Texas have now been correctly 

identified as Cirsium texanum (Texas 

thistle), rather than C. wrightii (Sivinski 

1994a, p. 1; 1996, p. 2; 2006a, p. 1; 

Worthington 2002a, p. 4). These species 

are easily confused on herbarium sheets 

(Sivinski 1996, p. 2). However, in the 

field, C. wrightii differs from C. texanum 

in physical appearance (New Mexico 

Rare Plant Technical Council 

(NMRPTC) 2009, p. 1)). The presumed 

Texas specimens of C. wrightii that were 

previously identified from herbarium 

sheets, rather than field identification, 

have been found to be C. texanum 

(Sivinski 1996, p. 2). 

In the New Mexico portion of the 

species’ range, Cirsium wrightii appears 

to be an obligate of seeps, springs, and 

wetlands that have saturated soils with 

surface or subsurface water flow 

(Sivinski 1996; Service 1998; 

Worthington 2002a, p. 2; NMRPTC 

2009). Plants commonly found in areas 

inhabited by this species include 

Scirpus spp. (bulrush), Salix spp. 

(willow), Baccharis glutinosa 

(seepwillow), Helianthus paradoxus 

(Pecos sunflower), Juncus spp. (rush), 

and Typha spp. (cattail) (Sivinski 1996, 

pp. 2–5; Sivinski and Bleakly 2004, p. 

2; Worthington 2002a, pp. 1–2). 

Distribution and Range 

Cirsium wrightii currently occurs in 

New Mexico; however, it has been 

extirpated from all previously known 

locations in Arizona (Sivinski 1996, pp. 

1, 4, 9, 2006a, 2009a, p. 1; Worthington 

2002a, p. 4), and was misidentified and 

likely not ever present in Texas (Poole 

1992; 2010; Sivinski 1996, p. 2). The 

status of the species in Mexico is 

uncertain, with few verified collections 

of the plant. Numerous surveys of 

potential habitat have been conducted 

over the years with few new localities 

documented (e.g., Poole 1992, 2010; 

Sivinski 1994, 1996, 2005, 2009a; 

Worthington 2002a). 

Cirsium wrightii is ranked by 

NatureServe as a G2 (imperiled) species. 

It was changed from G3 (vulnerable) to 

G2 in 2003 (NatureServe 2009, p. 1). 

Similarly, its National Status ranking for 

the United States is N2 (imperiled due 

to a restricted range and very few 

populations) (NatureServe 2009, p. 2). 

Though these rankings do not provide 

any regulatory protections, the 

NatureServe designations do serve to 

notify the public of the species’ status. 

In New Mexico, there are eight 

general confirmed locations of Cirsium 

wrightii: Santa Rosa, Guadalupe County; 

Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

(BLNWR), Chaves County; Blue Spring, 

Eddy County; La Luz Canyon, Karr 

Canyon, Silver Springs, and Tularosa 

Creek, Otero County; and Alamosa 

Creek, Socorro County (Bridge 2001, p. 

1; Sivinski and Bleakly 2004, p. 2; 

NMRPTC 2009, p. 1; Sivinski 1994, p. 

1; 1996, p. 2; 2005, p. 1; 2005a, pp. 3– 

5; 2009, 2009a; Service 1998, p. 1; 

Worthington 2002, p. 1; 2002a, pp. 1–3). 

Four of the eight localities are clustered 

within about 10 miles (mi) (16 

kilometers (km)) of each other on the 

west slope of the Sacramento 

Mountains, Otero County, whereas the 

remaining four localities are widely 

disjunct, separated from the Sacramento 

localities by about 75 to 140 mi (120 to 

225 km) and from each other by about 

75 to 215 mi (120 to 345 km). In the 

Sacramento Mountains, two of these 

four localities occur on the Lincoln 

National Forest, one locality is on 

private land and the remaining locality 

is on the Mescalero Apache Reservation. 

In the Pecos River Valley, one locality 

is on public lands on the BLNWR, 

Chaves County; one is on private land 

near the Black River, Eddy County; and 

one is in the vicinity of Santa Rosa, 

Guadalupe County, on private, 

municipal, and State lands. The 

remaining locality is on private land on 

Alamosa Creek, Socorro County. 

Localities vary in relative population 

size from less than 20 individuals 

covering only about 50 square feet (ft2) 

((5 square meters (m2)) at the Silver 

Springs locality, to several thousand 

individuals on BLNWR. 

Within New Mexico, historic 

localities from the City of Roswell land, 

Chaves County, Lake Valley in Sierra 

County, and La Luz and Haynes 

Canyons in Otero County are extirpated 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67927 

(NMRPTC 2009, p. 2; Sivinski 2005, p. 

1; 2005a p. 4; 2009a, p. 2). Finally, a 

Cirsium species at Rattlesnake Springs, 

Eddy County, is thought to be a hybrid 

between C. wrightii and C. texanum 

(NMRPTC 2009, p. 2). This population 

blooms in May rather than the typical 

season of C. wrightii from August to 

October (NMRPTC 2009, p. 2). 

We are unaware of specific long-term 

monitoring data on absolute abundance 

estimates for Cirsium wrightii in New 

Mexico, but have estimates of relative 

abundance for most extant localities (see 

also Sivinski 1996, 2005a, 2006a, 2009, 

2009a). In 1996, Sivinski completed a 

status assessment of C. wrightii in New 

Mexico (Sivinski 1996). He 

subsequently continued to survey and 

monitor C. wrightii localities. 

Worthington (2002a) conducted surveys 

at 12 sites that contained suitable 

habitat in Karr Canyon, the Rio Penasco 

drainage, and in the vicinity of 

Sacramento Lake in the Sacramento 

Mountains on U.S. Forest Service 

(Forest Service) land in 2002. Moreover, 

he surveyed additional springs, but 

found most springs were capped or 

captured for municipal use by the City 

of Alamogordo (Worthington 2002a, p. 

3). No new C. wrightii populations were 

found, although one possible new 

locality with plants that lacked the 

characteristic black tips and had 

different looking leaves was noted 

(Worthington 2002). However, the 

locality was not photographed, 

collected, or verified and the accuracy 

of its identification is unknown. 

In Arizona, the Service has similarly 

contracted surveys of potential Cirsium 

wrightii habitat to verify whether any 

populations are extant. These will be 

completed by October 2010. Below, we 

present information on all of the known 

historic and extant localities of C. 

wrightii rangewide, including those that 

have been extirpated. 

New Mexico 

Tularosa Creek 

The Tularosa Creek, Otero County, 

population of Cirsium wrightii occurs on 

private land and the Mescalero Apache 

Reservation. This population has 

significantly declined since 1995, from 

an estimated several thousand 

individual plants along 3.5 mi (5.6 km) 

of nearly continuous occupied marsh 

and wet meadows, to four scattered 

occupied locales of less than 50 

individual flowering plants total along 

the same stretch in 2009 (Sivinski 1996, 

p. 3; 2009a, p. 2). In 1995, this was the 

most extensive population in the 

Sacramento Mountains, but it has 

become drier and dominated by the 

invasive plant Phragmites australis 

(common reed) since the 1995 survey 

(Sivinski 1996, p. 3; 2009a, p. 2). This 

population likely includes additional 

small adjacent localities of scattered 

individual plants on the Mescalero 

Apache Reservation, but we were 

unable to survey these Tribal lands (e.g., 

see Bridge 2001; Worthington 2002a). 

Moreover, the possible new locality 

found by Worthington (2002) occurs in 

the area. 

La Luz Canyon 

The small La Luz Canyon population 

of Cirsium wrightii that occurs within 

about 540 ft2 (50 m2) of spring habitat 

on Forest Service lands was stable at an 

estimated 50 plants both in 1995 and 

2005 (Sivinski 1996, p. 3; 2005a, p. 4). 

However, an adjacent small population 

of 10 plants in the same general area on 

private land 3 mi (5.8 km) east of La Luz 

Canyon was extirpated between 1995 

and 2005, most likely from a severe 

scouring flood and alteration of the 

spring hydrology that led to the drying 

of habitat (Sivinski 2005a, p. 4; 2009a, 

p. 2). 

Karr Canyon 

The Karr Canyon/Haynes Creek 

population of Cirsium wrightii 

previously included a cluster of a 

hundred plants within about 1000 ft2

(100 m2) of spring habitat within a 

highway right-of-way that was stable 

between 1995 and 2005 (Sivinski 1996, 

p. 2, 2005a, p. 4). Nevertheless, a small 

population of a few dozen mature plants 

in the same general area on private land 

was extirpated between 1995 and 2005 

and replaced by Phragmites australis 

(Sivinski 1996, p. 2, 2005a, p. 4; 2009a, 

p. 2). 

Silver Springs Canyon 

The small Silver Springs Canyon 

population of Cirsium wrightii occurs on 

Forest Service land in a wet meadow 

and was estimated at 16 mature plants 

in 2002 (Worthington 2002, p. 4; 2002a, 

p. 15). The population was observed in 

July 2010 and appears to be 

approximately the same size (Service 

2010b, p. 1). This population is growing 

within a seep and is adjacent to C. 

vinaceum (Sacramento Mountains 

thistle) (Worthington 2002, p. 4). 

Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

A large population of Cirsium wrightii 

was found at BLNWR in 1998 and is 

associated with cienagas (wet meadows) 

and marshes in Units 3, 5, and 6 of the 

refuge (Service 1998, p. 1; 2010, p. 1). 

All known populations of C. wrightii on 

BLNWR grow within designated critical 

habitat of Helianthus paradoxus 

(Service 2010a, p. 6). When C. wrightii 

was discovered on BLNWR, the 

population was estimated between 

1,680 and 2,130 flowering plants 

(Service 1998, p. 1; 1999, p. 25). 

Sivinski (2005a, p. 3) found there was 

no change in this population’s 

distribution and abundance between 

1999 and 2005. In 2009, the population 

was estimated to be thousands of 

individuals, the largest known 

population of C. wrightii (Sivinski 

2009a, p. 2). 

Roswell 

Cirsium wrightii historically occurred 

in North Spring, at the Roswell Country 

Club, Roswell, New Mexico (Sivinski 

1996, p. 4). However, the population has 

been extirpated following the alteration 

and loss of all vegetation, including C. 

wrightii, as a result of the enclosure of 

North Spring with bricks and cement 

(Sivinski 1996, p. 4; New Mexico 

Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF) 

2005a, p. 18). Sivinski surveyed most of 

the springs in the vicinity of Roswell in 

1995 looking for C. wrightii populations 

(Sivinski 1996, p. 4). All but one spring 

had been capped and diverted for 

domestic water, and no extant or new 

populations were found (Sivinski 1996, 

p. 4). 

Santa Rosa Wetlands 

The Santa Rosa area is a zone of karst 

topography (an area of erosive 

limestone), with numerous sinkhole 

lakes and artesian springs (ground water 

that is under pressure) within a 6-mi 

(9.7-km) diameter circular depression. 

The localities of C. wrightii are scattered 

within some of the marshes, spring 

seeps, and various sinkhole lakes, with 

flowering plants generally rare and 

occurring throughout 4 sections spread 

out over 4 square miles (mi2) (10 square 

kilometers (km2)) on a mixture of State, 

private, and municipal lands, but the 

total area occupied in this locality is 

less than 5 acres (ac) (2 hectare (ha)) 

(Sivinski 1996, p. 4; Sivinski and 

Bleakly 2004, pp. 1, 3; Service 2010c, 

pp. 1–2). For example, the 116-ac (47- 

ha) Blue Hole Cienaga locality, owned 

by the State of New Mexico, is part of 

the overall population and contains 

sparse occurrences (i.e., not continuous 

in distribution) of C. wrightii along a 

spring-fed creek and an adjacent seep 

(Sivinski and Bleakly 2004; Service 

2010c). The other known localities in 

the area include El Rito Creek, private 

lands, ponds at a no-longer-used fish 

hatchery, Bass Lake, and Perch Lake (a 

large sinkhole that is partially 

developed for fishing and picnicking) 

(Sivinski 1996; 2005a; 2010a; Sivinski 

and Bleakly 2004). Most of the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

67928 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

municipal habitats are small, but have 

been filled and developed for recreation. 

This active filling of wetlands has led to 

the loss of C. wrightii plants in recent 

years (Service 2010c). These localities 

support perhaps a few hundred C. 

wrightii, but the remaining localities are 

smaller, isolated occurrences (Sivinski 

1996, p. 6, 2009a; 2010a, p. 1; Sivinski 

and Bleakly 2004, p. 3). Between 1995 

and 2005, the overall Santa Rosa 

population was thought to be stable, 

estimated at several thousand plants 

(Sivinski 1996, p. 4; 2005a, p. 3). 

Blue Spring 

A new population of Cirsium wrightii 

was discovered in 2009 at Blue Spring, 

Eddy County, New Mexico (Sivinski 

2009). This population was estimated at 

several hundred to a few thousand 

plants and occupies about 1 mi (1.6 km) 

of riparian habitat (Sivinski 2009, p. 1). 

Water flow at Blue Spring is generally 

perennial along the 2.5-mi (4-km) run 

that flows into the Black River (a 

tributary of the Pecos) near Black River 

Village, New Mexico (NMDGF 2007, p. 

15). We have no other information on 

this locality, as it was just discovered in 

2009. 

Alamosa Springs 

Another population of Cirsium 

wrightii was discovered in 2005 at 

Alamosa Springs, Socorro County, New 

Mexico (Sivinski 2005, p. 1). There were 

an estimated 500–1,000 flowering adults 

and rosettes confined to a small, springfed wetland within the Alamosa Creek 

Valley (a tributary of the Rio Grande), 

but none of the plants occurred along 

Alamosa Creek (Sivinski 2005, p. 1; 

2010a, pp. 1–2). The remaining springs 

in the Alamosa Creek Valley are on 

private land and have not been 

surveyed. 

Lake Valley 

A population of Cirsium wrightii was 

historically located within Lake Valley, 

Sierra County, New Mexico, but is 

considered extirpated (Sivinski 2005). 

This site is now an abandoned mining 

settlement, but was historically a series 

of marshes and cienagas. The area was 

diked, channeled, and drained in the 

early 1900s and converted to row-crop 

agriculture (Sivinski 2005, p. 1). There 

is no longer suitable habitat for C. 

wrightii within the valley (Sivinski 

2005, p. 1). 

Arizona 

San Bernardino Cienaga 

The population at the type locality 

(the place where the species was first 

found) from San Bernardino Cienaga, 

Arizona, has not been found again since 

it was originally collected in 1851, 

although the area was surveyed in 2006 

by The Nature Conservancy (Sivinski 

2006a, p. 1; 2009a, p. 1). The species is 

likely extirpated from the State (ADGF 

2001, p. 1; Sivinski 1996, p. 4; 2009a, 

p. 1; Service 2009a, p. 1). 

Texas 

We found that Cirsium specimens 

from Texas have been confused because 

of the difficulty in distinguishing 

Cirsium wrightii and C. texanum from 

herbarium sheets (Sivinski 1994, p. 1; 

1994a, p. 1; Sivinski 2006a, p. 1). All of 

the collections from herbariums and 

references identifying C. wrightii 

localities in Texas are in error (Coulter 

1881, p. 244; Correll and Johnson 1970, 

p. 1719; Kearney and Peebles 1951, p. 

952; Martin and Hutchins 1981, p. 2002; 

Sivinski 1994, p. 1; 1996, p. 5; Texas 

A&M University 1975, p. 89). 

Furthermore, the presumed location 

from Presidio, Texas, that we identified 

in the 90-day finding (74 FR 46544), is 

not C. wrightii, but most likely an 

undescribed species from northern 

Mexico (Poole 2010, p. 1). 

Poole (1992) evaluated 74 cienagas in 

Texas and conducted botanical surveys 

at 33 of the locations within the highest 

potential habitat (i.e., springs and 

wetlands) for the Helianthus paradoxus, 

which has similar habitat requirements 

and sometimes overlaps with C. 

wrightii. No C. wrightii locations were 

found during these extensive botanical 

surveys (Poole 1992). Similarly, we 

reviewed information from and 

contacted botanists who have surveyed 

the Diamond Y Preserve, Pecos County, 

Texas, owned by The Nature 

Conservancy. This preserve shares some 

of the same habitat characteristics, and 

many of the imperiled species, found on 

BLNWR, including Pecos assiminea 

(Assiminea pecos), Pecos gambusia 

(Gambusia nobilis), and Helianthus 

paradoxus (Service 2005, pp. 4, 8; 2007, 

p. 10; Poole 2010, p. 1). We found that 

Diamond Y has been thoroughly 

surveyed, and it does not appear that C. 

wrightii occurs on the preserve. Because 

we do not have any verified historic 

collections or known extant populations 

from any locations in Texas (Poole 2010, 

p. 1; 2010a, p. 1), we conclude that C. 

wrightii has never been present within 

the State. 

Mexico 

We have not been able to obtain any 

recent information on Cirsium wrightii 

in Mexico. In fact, we have located only 

three herbarium specimens that were 

collected in Mexico. One specimen was 

collected in 1982 at Cerro Angostura 

Spring, Chihuahua, Mexico (Sivinski 

2009a, p. 1, 2010; CONABIO 2010). The 

second collection from Los Azules, 

Chihuahua, in 1998, was misidentified 

and is not C. wrightii. The third 

collection from Fronteras, Sonora, in 

1890, has not yet been verified (Sivinski 

2010, p. 1). As such, the status of the 

species in Mexico is uncertain. 

In summary, there are eight general 

localities of Cirsium wrightii extant 

within New Mexico. Additional 

historical populations have been 

extirpated, including at least two larger 

and two smaller populations in New 

Mexico, and there are no known extant 

populations in Arizona. The population 

at BLNWR is likely the most robust, 

with several thousand individuals. 

Santa Rosa contains mostly sparse 

scattered localities throughout four 

sections of land, and some of these have 

been extirpated recently. The 

population along Tularosa Creek has 

undergone a significant reduction since 

1995. The remaining populations in the 

Sacramento Mountains are all small, 

containing from 15 to perhaps several 

hundred individuals. The populations 

at Blue Spring and Alamosa Springs 

were recently discovered, and there 

have been no subsequent surveys to 

determine whether these populations 

are stable or declining. The collections 

from Texas were misidentified, and we 

conclude C. wrightii never occurred in 

the State. Finally, there is only one 

verified historic collection from Mexico, 

and no recent information on the status 

of the species from this population. For 

these reasons, the status of this species 

remains tenuous. 

Summary of Information Pertaining to 

the Five Factors for Cirsium wrightii 

Section 4 of the Act and 

implementing regulations (50 CFR part 

424) set forth procedures for adding 

species to the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

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

Act, a species may be determined to be 

endangered or threatened based on any 

of the following five factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

In making this finding, information 

pertaining to Cirsium wrightii, in 

relation to the five factors provided in 

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

below. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67929 

In making our 12-month finding on a 

petition to list Cirsium wrightii, we 

considered and evaluated the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information. This information includes 

the petition and associated documents, 

data from the 1995 through 2009 

surveys and recent reports (Sivinski 

1996, 2005a, 2006a, 2009, 2009a; Forest 

Service 2008b; Service 2010b, 2010c), as 

well as other information available to 

us. The following analysis examines the 

five factors described in section 4(a)(1) 

of the Act and those activities and 

conditions currently affecting C. 

wrightii, or are likely to affect the 

species within the foreseeable future. 

In considering what factors might 

constitute threats to a species, we must 

look beyond the exposure of the species 

to a particular factor to evaluate whether 

the species may respond to that factor 

in a way that causes actual impacts to 

the species. If there is exposure to a 

factor and the species responds 

negatively, the factor may be a threat 

and, during the status review, we 

attempt to determine how significant a 

threat it is. The threat is significant if it 

drives, or contributes to, the risk of 

extinction of the species such that the 

species warrants listing as endangered 

or threatened as those terms are defined 

in the Act. However, the identification 

of factors that could impact a species 

negatively may not be sufficient to 

compel a finding that the species 

warrants listing. The information must 

include evidence sufficient to suggest 

that these factors are operative threats 

that act on the species to the point that 

the species may meet the definition of 

endangered or threatened under the Act. 

A. Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of the 

Species’ Habitat or Range 

The most significant threat to Cirsium 

wrightii is the alteration of the 

hydrology of its rare wetland habitat. In 

fact, much of the habitat of C. wrightii 

has been and continues to be severely 

altered and degraded because of past 

and present land and water management 

practices including: agriculture and 

urban development, diversion of 

springs, and drought. As described 

below, all of the extant localities may be 

affected by long-term drought, whereas 

four of the largest C. wrightii localities 

at Blue Spring, BLNWR, Santa Rosa, and 

Alamosa Creek have the potential to be 

further modified by ongoing and future 

water withdrawal. Changes in water 

tables throughout the range of C. 

wrightii have often resulted in 

diminished discharge from springs or 

complete loss of surface water. 

Therefore, there has been a trend of 

diminishing habitat quantity and 

excessive degradation of habitat quality 

for the species throughout its range. 

Availability of Water 

Cirsium wrightii is found in 

association with seeps, springs, 

marshes, and wetlands that have 

saturated soils with surface or 

subsurface water flow (NMRPTC 2009; 

Sivinski 1996, pp. 2–7; Service 1998, p. 

2; Worthington 2002a, p. 2). 

Southwestern riparian and aquatic 

systems fluctuate due to seasonal and 

longer term drought and wet periods, 

floods, and fire. Habitats with 

fluctuating water levels create 

circumstances in which population 

sizes may vary over time, and 

populations may be periodically 

extirpated. Because the species occurs 

only in areas that are water-saturated, 

populations have a high potential for 

extirpation when habitat dries due to 

ground and surface water depletion, 

draining of wetlands, or drought. Loss of 

water from C. wrightii habitat occurs 

through changing precipitation patterns, 

drought, or as a result of human impacts 

from groundwater pumping 

(withdrawal) or diversion of surface 

water; this can lead to the degradation 

and extirpation of Cirsium wrightii 

habitat (Sivinski 1996, p. 5; 2005, p. 1; 

Forest Service 2008, p. 19). Moreover, 

the drying of C. wrightii habitat has led 

to retractions of occurrence boundaries, 

a reduction in the numbers of plants, 

and, in some cases, a loss of all 

individuals at several localities 

(Sivinski 2005a, pp. 3–4). For example, 

during the dry conditions from 1994 to 

1996, many seeps and springs in the 

Sacramento Mountains ceased flowing 

and were completely dry (Sivinski 

2006b, p. 12). Naturally occurring water 

loss from changes in precipitation 

patterns have affected the volume of 

water flow at numerous springs in the 

Sacramento Mountains (Forest Service 

2003, p. 43). 

Drought 

The National Weather Service 

Forecast Office and the U.S. Drought 

Monitor for New Mexico indicate that 

the Sacramento Mountains experienced 

a severe to extreme drought from 2003 

to 2008 (Forest Service 2008, p. 22). 

This has led to unusually low stream or 

spring flows and, in some instances, no 

flow (e.g., see South Central Mountain 

2002, p. 12; Shomaker 2006, p. 8; 

Gardner and Thompson 2008, p. 2; 

Newton et al. 2009; Sivinski 2005a, pp. 

3–4, Forest Service 2003, pp. 53–54). 

This is likely related to severe drought 

conditions (Sivinski 2005a, pp. 1, 3–4). 

Within New Mexico, monsoonal 

summer precipitation can be very 

patchy, with some areas receiving 

considerably less rainfall than others. 

Newton et al. (2009) studied the 

hydrogeology of the Sacramento 

Mountains and found that the fractures 

in the underlying geology exhibit 

significant control on surface and 

groundwater flow and possibly 

groundwater recharge. Overall, their 

data suggest that the recharge of water 

wells and groundwater is correlated to 

the amount of precipitation during 

monsoon storms at all elevations 

(Newton et al. 2009, p. 22). Wet periods 

during summer months can significantly 

contribute to recharge of the ground 

water in the Sacramento Mountains, but 

these are extremely rare events (Newton 

et al. 2009). As such, drought has 

impacted the recharge of ground water 

tables throughout the Sacramento 

Mountains (Forest Service 2008, p. 22). 

For this reason, the seasonal 

distribution of yearly precipitation can 

result in temporary drought conditions 

and reduced water availability for some 

C. wrightii localities within this 

mountain range. 

In 1995 and 2005, Sivinski (2005a, pp. 

3–4) monitored the relative size of 

Cirsium wrightii localities rangewide to 

document the relationship between 

water availability in suitable habitat and 

numbers and extent of plants. He found 

that, when some localities dried, the 

localities were either extirpated or much 

reduced in size (Sivinski 2005a, pp. 3– 

4). Moreover, drying of occupied habitat 

also resulted in Typha latifolia (cattail) 

being replaced by dense stands of 

Phragmites australis (Sivinski 2005a, 

pp. 3–4), which may outcompete native 

vegetation including C. wrightii and 

significantly increase the threat of 

wildfire (see discussion below under 

‘‘Phragmites australis’’). 

Drought also affects the size of an 

extant locality, even when the water 

source does not dry out completely. The 

most severe drought recorded in New 

Mexico occurred between 1950 and 

1956. If drought reduces the amount of 

groundwater recharge regionally, spring 

discharge or the areal extent of wetlands 

could also be reduced. Prolonged 

drought can lead to diminishment or 

drying of springs, which would have a 

negative impact on Cirsium wrightii or 

its habitat. Comparing historical 

discharges reported in the Black River 

from 1952 to 1956 (daily mean flow of 

15.4 cubic feet per second (cfs) (0.436 

cubic meters per second (cms))) to 

recent discharges (2002 to 2006, daily 

mean flow of 10.1 cfs (0.286 cms)), 

flows in the Black River are currently 

lower than flows during the extreme 

drought of the 1950s (NMDGF 2007, p. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

67930 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

26). Prolonged drought could adversely 

impact habitat conditions by reducing 

hydrologic discharge through the 

wetland system, thereby desiccating 

riparian plant communities (e.g., see 

NMDGF 2008, p. 33), including C. 

wrightii. Because of the documented 

extirpation and population reductions 

of the species caused by drought and the 

possibility of more widespread drought 

accompanying climate change, we 

conclude that drought constitutes a 

threat to C. wrightii, both now and in the 

foreseeable future. 

Ground and Surface Water Depletion 

Habitat loss due to ground and surface 

water depletion is a threat to Cirsium 

wrightii. Sivinski (1994, pp. 1–2; 1996, 

p. 4; 2005, p. 1; 2006, p. 4) reported loss 

or degradation of habitat from water 

diversion or draining of wetlands in 

Chaves, Otero, and Sierra Counties, New 

Mexico, areas that historically 

supported Cirsium wrightii. Increased 

water extraction in the last 100 years 

has contributed to the dramatic decline 

of most surface spring systems in the 

Chihuahuan Desert (see Corps 2006, p. 

4; Karges 2003 and references therein). 

An historical population in Lake Valley, 

Sierra County, New Mexico, was 

extirpated when the wetlands were 

drained and converted to agricultural 

use (Sivinski 2005, p. 1; 2006a, p. 1). 

Moreover, the appropriation of water 

rights from springs for a ‘‘beneficial 

use,’’ such as livestock water, farming, 

domestic use, or recreational facilities, 

typically uses points of diversion that 

can curtail natural surface flows and 

affect C. wrightii populations. For 

example, aquifers in the Sacramento 

Mountains, which contain half of all 

known C. wrightii localities, are 

susceptible to appropriation by existing 

water rights and development of new 

water rights, which may pose future 

threats to the species (Service 2008, pp. 

12, 23; Forest Service 2008, pp. 23–24). 

The marshes, springs, and seeps within 

La Luz Canyon of the Sacramento 

Mountains are currently and were likely 

historically diverted or drained for 

irrigation and agricultural use (Sivinski 

1996, p. 5; South Central Mountain 

2002, p. 20). Many springs and streams 

in the Sacramento Mountains that were 

perennial during the 1900s have become 

intermittent or have dried completely, 

including La Luz Creek (Abercrombie 

2003, p. 3). In this area, loss of water 

flow from human activities related to 

roads, trails, and the capture of spring 

water for municipal use have also been 

observed to affect the threatened species 

Cirsium vinaceum (Forest Service 2003, 

pp. 42–43). The same likely holds true 

for C. wrightii, although it has not been 

specifically investigated. 

The severe decline in available 

surface and ground water since the 

1990s is due largely to drought and 

human use (e.g., Shomaker 2006, pp. 8, 

20, 26). Cirsium wrightii occurrences in 

La Luz Canyon are within the municipal 

supply watershed, where pipelines 

divert water to the City of Alamogordo 

(Shomaker 2006, pp. 20, 26; Forest 

Service 2008, p. 21). The number of 

water wells drilled on both private and 

National Forest System lands within 

this area has increased since the 1950s, 

with the 1980s and 1990s being the 

most active years for drilling of 

domestic use wells (Forest Service 2008, 

p. 22). The total permitted groundwater 

extraction is approximately 2,400 acre 

feet per year (300 hectare-meters per 

year) (98,000,000 gallons per year) 

(370,000,000 liters per year) from nearly 

300 wells (Forest Service 2008, p. 22). 

In 2002, the New Mexico State 

Engineer declared the La Luz Canyon 

watershed as a Critical Management 

Area, which means no new groundwater 

appropriations would be allowed for 

nondomestic purposes (Forest Service 

2008, p. 22). However, for domestic 

purposes, the demand for water use 

through surface diversion and ground 

water withdrawals is expected to 

increase as a result of the population 

increase. The human population in 

Alamogordo, Otero County, New 

Mexico, increased from about 30,000 to 

36,000 from 1995 to 2000, and is 

expected to increase to about 56,000 by 

2040 (South Central Mountain 2002, p. 

11). An increasing human population 

and its associated agricultural and 

economic activities will require 

additional water from this relatively dry 

region. 

Current New Mexico State law 

provides that anyone may obtain a 

permit for a domestic well, no matter 

what the consequences for anyone else’s 

water rights or the impact of water 

resources for the area (e.g., see Belin et 

al. 2003, p. 72). Between 2005 and 2045, 

the City of Alamogordo’s water demand 

is expected to increase from 7,140 acrefeet per year to 10,842 acre-feet per year 

(881 hectare-meters per year to 1337 

hectare-meters per year) (Shomaker 

2006, pp. 43–44). By 2045, the City of 

Alamogordo will likely have a projected 

deficit of 6,258 acre-feet per year (772 

hectare-meters per year) (more than 2 

billion gallons per year) (more than 8 

billion liters per year) (Shomaker 2006, 

p. 44). Withdrawal and diversion of 

water from wells located on Forest 

Service and private lands would 

continue to increase for the foreseeable 

future and compound the effects of the 

recent and ongoing drought, leading to 

increased degradation of wetland and 

riparian habitat (Forest Service 2008, p. 

23), which contain Cirsium wrightii 

localities. In the Sacramento Mountains, 

C. wrightii occurrences have been and 

will continue to be altered and 

potentially degraded by the issuance of 

a special use permit to maintain and 

operate water withdrawal from Forest 

Service lands (Forest Service 2008, p. 

26). Development of additional water 

rights will likely dewater C. wrightii 

localities, constituting a threat to the 

species in this area for the foreseeable 

future. 

Moreover, the Blue Spring and Santa 

Rosa occurrences of Cirsium wrightii are 

within areas where water is currently 

drained from wetlands or diverted or 

withdrawn for domestic use, which may 

contribute to degradation and loss of its 

habitat (Sivinski 1996, p. 5; 2009; 2009a; 

NMDGF 2007, pp. 14, 17, 22). 

Additionally, any activity that would 

interrupt the flow of water from 

Alamosa Creek has the potential to 

impact C. wrightii. Currently, irrigation 

and domestic use from about 50 farms 

does not appear to have reduced the 

baseflow of about 9 cfs (0.3 cms) from 

this spring-fed system (Sierra Soil and 

Water Conservation Service 2008, p. 2). 

However, Alamosa Creek would likely 

be negatively affected by long-term 

drought. 

The effects of ongoing and past 

maintenance and operation of existing 

water diversions can also limit the size 

of Cirsium wrightii populations (Corps 

2007, p. 29). For example, the C. 

wrightii population on City of Roswell 

lands has been extirpated at this 

location since the habitat is no longer 

suitable for the plant (NMDGF 2005, pp. 

33–34; Sivinski 1996, pp. 4–5; 2006a, p. 

5). Loss of springs and surface water 

flow in streams resulting from human 

use and drought have occurred 

throughout the Roswell Artesian Basin 

in New Mexico, often resulting in 

diminished discharge from springs or 

complete loss of surface water (Taylor 

1983, 1987; NMDGF 2005, 2005a, p. 17; 

Jones and Balleau 1996, pp. 4, 12). 

Many of these spring systems could 

have harbored populations of C. 

wrightii; however, it is not possible to 

determine the extent of the loss of C. 

wrightii populations because many 

springs went dry before surveys could 

be conducted. Peak annual pumping of 

the alluvial aquifer (a water-bearing 

deposit of sand and gravel) in the 

Roswell Basin occurred in the 1950s. 

Since the 1950s, administration and 

metering of groundwater extraction in 

the basin by the New Mexico Office of 

the State Engineer has resulted in 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67931 

stabilization of groundwater levels 

(NMDGF 2005a, p. 18). 

As artesian wells were developed in 

the area, discharge from the major 

springs declined proportionately and 

some of these springs cease to flow 

(Jones and Balleau 1996, p. 4). Surface 

water flow on BLNWR has also been 

diminished by groundwater pumping, 

as evidenced by the dead springs on Salt 

Creek and documented reduction in 

spring flows on the refuge (Jones and 

Balleau 1996; p. 12). Aerial photos 

which show a larger, meandering 

channel for Bitter Creek are also 

evidence that discharge from Bitter 

Creek was once greater (Service 2005a; 

70 FR 46312, August 9, 2005). 

Additionally, BLNWR actively lowers 

the water levels in wetlands during 

spring and summer (Service 2006, p. 2). 

It is unknown how C. wrightii responds 

to these changing water levels on the 

refuge, but if soils are not continuously 

saturated throughout the growing 

season, the species is likely impacted. 

Information from other localities 

suggests that populations likely contract 

or habitat may become invaded by 

Phragmites australis as water is 

withdrawn and parts of the occupied 

wetlands dry (e.g., Sivinski 2005a, pp. 

3–4). 

Surface diversions, primarily for 

irrigation, and groundwater pumping for 

domestic and commercial uses also 

occurs at the Blue Spring locality 

(NMDGF 2007, p. 22; Lusk 2008). Flow 

in the Black River is sustained by 

springs, including Rattlesnake and Blue 

Springs, and is generally perennial in 

the reaches around these springs 

(NMDGF 2007, p. 15). Discharge at Blue 

Spring has varied over the past 100 

years: in 1907, it was recorded at 15.2 

cfs (0.430 cms), with a minimum of 

14.65 cfs (0.415 cms) (Bjorklund and 

Motts 1959, pp. 251, 263); from 1952 to 

1956, discharge varied from 8.5 to 14 cfs 

(0.24 to 0.40 cms), with a mean of 12 cfs 

(0.34 cms) (Bjorklund and Motts 1959, 

p. 268); and from 2002 to 2006, the 

mean was 11.75 cfs (0.333 cms), with a 

range from 6.8 to 23 cfs (0.19 to 0.65 

cms) (NMDGF 2007, p.15). Bjorklund 

and Motts (1959, pp. 247, 263) first 

reported that water levels within the 

Black River Valley (including Blue 

Spring) decline during the late summer 

and during droughts, mostly from heavy 

groundwater pumping and lack of 

aquifer recharge. Based on flows 

recorded in recent years (2000–2006) at 

Blue Springs and in the Black River 

above the Carlsbad Irrigation District 

diversion, more surface water is 

appropriated than is available in the 

system (R. Turner, New Mexico Office 

of the State Engineer, pers. comm., April 

2007; cited in NMDGF 2007, p. 25). This 

constitutes a significant threat to this 

locality. 

In summary, the alteration and loss of 

habitat that currently supports C. 

wrightii, due to groundwater and surface 

water depletion, will continue and 

likely increase in the foreseeable future. 

Because this species is dependent on 

water, we find that long-term drought in 

combination with ground and surface 

water withdrawal is currently a 

significant threat to C. wrightii and its 

habitat, and will continue to be in the 

foreseeable future. 

Climate Change 

The Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) states that 

warming of the climate system is 

unequivocal, based on observations of 

increases in global average air and ocean 

temperatures, widespread melting of 

snow and ice, and rising global average 

sea level (2007a, p. 5). For the next two 

decades, a warming of about 0.4 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F) (0.2 degrees Celsius (°C)) 

per decade is projected (IPCC 2007a, p. 

12). Temperature projections for the 

following years increasingly depend on 

specific emission scenarios (IPCC 2007a, 

p. 13). Various emissions scenarios 

suggest that average global temperatures 

are expected to increase by between 1.1 

°F and 7.2 °F (0.6 °C and 4.0 °C) by the 

end of the 21st century, with the 

greatest warming expected over land 

(IPCC 2007a, p. 13). Warming in western 

mountains is projected to cause 

decreased snowpack, more winter 

flooding, and reduced summer flows, 

exacerbating competition for overallocated water resources (IPCC 2007b, 

p. 14). The IPCC reports that it is very 

likely that hot extremes, heat waves, 

and heavy precipitation and flooding 

will increase in frequency (IPCC 2007b, 

p. 18). 

Based on current understanding of 

climate change, air temperatures are 

expected to rise and precipitation 

patterns are expected to change in areas 

occupied by Cirsium wrightii. Because 

C. wrightii occupies relatively small 

areas of spring or seep habitat in an arid 

region plagued by drought and ongoing 

aquifer withdrawals (e.g., in the Roswell 

Basin), it may be vulnerable to climatic 

changes that could decrease the 

availability of water to suitable habitat. 

For example, the most severe drought 

recorded in New Mexico occurred 

between 1950 and 1956. Based on the 

discharges reported in the Black River 

(fed by Blue Spring, the C. wrightii 

locality, and other spring sources) from 

1952 to 1956 (daily mean of 15.4 cfs 

(0.436 cms)) compared to recent 

discharges (2002 to 2006, daily mean of 

10.1 cfs (0.286 cms)), flows in the Black 

River are currently lower than during 

the drought of the 1950s (NMDGF 2007, 

p. 31). Moreover, Sivinski (2005a, pp. 

3–4) reports that springs and wet valleys 

have been affected by drought in at least 

three canyons of the Sacramento 

Mountains, New Mexico, resulting in 

reduced C. wrightii populations. Similar 

water loss may occur within other C. 

wrightii localities, as analyzed above. If 

climate change leads to future drought, 

additional dewatering and reduction of 

C. wrightii habitat may occur. 

Although the information available on 

climate change indicates that New 

Mexico will be impacted (New Mexico 

Climate Change Advisory Group 2006, 

p. 1), there is no information specific to 

the effects of climate change on Cirsium 

wrightii or its habitat. Reliable 

predictive models have not been 

developed for use at the local scale (i.e., 

the eight occupied localities), and there 

is little certainty regarding the timing 

and magnitude of the resulting impacts. 

For example, the vulnerability of C. 

wrightii habitats to a drying climate 

depends, in large part, on the sources of 

their water supply. The sources of water 

to C. wrightii habitats are precipitation, 

surface water, and groundwater. 

Habitats that are sustained mainly by 

precipitation are the most likely to be 

affected in a drying climate. 

Alternatively, localities that are 

supplied primarily by groundwater will 

likely have the greatest resistance to 

climate change due to water stored in 

aquifers (e.g., see Poff et al. 2002, pp. 

18–19). However, based on projections 

made by the IPCC, we consider climate 

change to be a potential exacerbating 

factor, worsening the impacts of other 

known threats. These threats include 

habitat degradation from prolonged 

periods of drought and increased 

temperature, and the allocation of water 

for use by the human population and 

agriculture as well as a number of 

potential confounding effects. In 

summary, we do not have evidence 

indicating that climate change is 

currently a factor affecting C. wrightii’s 

existence, because the information 

available on the subject is insufficiently 

specific to the species or the possible 

current or future effects of climate 

change on the sources of their water 

supply. However, we consider climate 

change to be a potential exacerbating 

factor and will continue to evaluate new 

information on the subject as it becomes 

available. 

Introduced Plants 

Introduced plants increase the 

potential for habitat loss due to wildfire 

and competition with Cirsium wrightii. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

67932 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Phragmites australis has recently 

invaded half of the known C. wrightii 

localities (BLNWR, Tularosa Creek, 

Santa Rosa, and Karr Canyon), forming 

dense stands in areas and increasing 

fuel load and threat of wildfire. 

Standing dead canes of P. australis and 

associated litter often constitute twice as 

much biomass as living shoots (Forest 

Service 2010). The high productivity 

and density of P. australis stands 

provide fuel loads that are often high. 

This abundant dead fuel carries fire 

well, allowing stands to burn even when 

the current year’s shoots are green 

(Forest Service 2010). 

As an example, on March 5, 2000, the 

Sandhill fire burned 1,000 ac (405 ha) 

of the western portion of the BLNWR, 

including portions of Bitter Creek. The 

fire burned through Dragonfly Spring, 

eliminating the vegetation shading the 

spring. Although Cirsium wrightii does 

not occur immediately within the 

burned area, the changes to wetland 

vegetation exemplify how its habitat 

might respond following wildfire. The 

pre-fire dominant vegetation of 

submerged aquatic plants and mixed 

native grasses within the burned area 

has been replaced by the invasive 

Phragmites australis (NMDGF 2005, 

p. 19–21). The P. australis present at 

BLNWR is likely of European origin 

(Service 2006, p. 5). Prior to the 

wildfire, small patches of P. australis 

occurred throughout Bitter Creek, 

whereas post-fire, P. australis colonized 

the burned area to form a continuous 

dense stand (NMDGF 2005, pp. 19–21). 

Stands of P. australis have also recently 

become a dominant plant in other C. 

wrightii localities (Sivinski 2005a, pp. 

3–4; Sivinski and Bleakly 2004, p. 5). 

Controlled burns have been 

implemented on BLNWR to burn grass, 

sedge, cattail, and nonnative vegetation 

(e.g., Salsola spp. (Russian thistle and 

tumbleweed)), in an attempt to reduce 

the risk of large uncontrolled wildfires 

by removing excessive amounts of 

Salsola spp. and P. australis (Service 

2006). This may temporarily reduce the 

threat of wildfire in one area of BLNWR, 

but repeated prescribed burns are likely 

needed to continually suppress P. 

australis growth (Service 2006, pp. 4–5). 

No measures are being implemented 

in the other localities to reduce P. 

australis. Moreover, temperatures from 

prescribed burns are rarely high enough 

to be lethal to P. australis or to penetrate 

deeply into the wet or moist soils 

common in their habitat (Forest Service 

2010 and references therein). Prescribed 

fire burns above-ground parts of P. 

australis, but below-ground rhizomes 

usually survive and produce plants later 

in the growing season or in subsequent 

years (Forest Service 2010 and 

references therein). Rarely is P. australis 

abundance decreased by fire, and 

postfire recovery is typically rapid. As 

such, prescribed fire likely will do little 

to reduce the long-term threat of P. 

australis to C. wrightii. 

In addition to increasing the potential 

for wildfire, Phragmites australis can 

also quickly invade a site and take over 

a wetland, crowding out native plants 

and changing hydrology (Plant 

Conservation Alliance 2005, p. 1). The 

dense plant growth blocks sunlight to 

other plants growing in the immediate 

area and occupies all available habitat, 

turning many wetlands into dense 

stands that support only P. australis 

(Plant Conservation Alliance 2005, p. 1). 

Two Cirsium wrightii localities have 

recently been either extirpated (an 

occurrence in Karr Canyon), or 

significantly reduced in size (Tularosa 

Creek), following an expansion of P. 

australis (Sivinski 1996, p. 2, 2005a, 

p. 4; 2009a, p. 2). P. australis is a 

current threat and will likely be a 

continuing threat for C. wrightii 

localities through increased fire risk, 

competition, and changes in hydrology, 

especially when habitat is disturbed 

through burning or drying. 

Ungulate Grazing 

Grazing likely impacts some localities 

of Cirsium wrightii, but does not appear 

to be a widespread threat to the species. 

It is estimated that livestock grazing has 

damaged approximately 80 percent of 

stream and riparian ecosystems in the 

western United States (Belsky et al. 

1999, p. 419). The damage occurs from 

increased sedimentation, decreased 

water quality, and trampling and 

overgrazing of stream banks where 

succulent forage exists (Armour et al. 

1994, p. 10; Belsky et al. 1999, p. 419; 

Fleischner 1994, p. 631). Moreover, 

many acres of marsh habitats at Santa 

Rosa have also been plowed and 

converted to Festuca pratensis (meadow 

fescue) pasture for livestock grazing 

(Service 2005, p. 10; Corps 2007, p. 25). 

In the semi-arid southwestern United 

States, wet marshes and other habitat of 

C. wrightii attract ungulates because of 

the availability of water and highquality forage (e.g., see Hendrickson and 

Minckley 1984, p. 134). Similar to C. 

vinaceum, dry periods likely increase 

the effects of livestock trampling and 

herbivory on C. wrightii when other 

water and forage plants are not available 

(75 FR 30761, June 2, 2010). Grazing 

may be more concentrated within 

habitats similar to those occupied by C. 

wrightii during drought years, when 

livestock are prone to congregate in 

wetland habitats or where forage 

production is greater than in adjacent 

dry uplands (e.g., see Forest Service 

2003). Although no studies specifically 

related to the effects of livestock grazing 

on C. wrightii have been conducted 

(NMRPTC 2009, p. 2), livestock will 

likely eat C. wrightii when other green 

forage is scarce, and when the seedlings 

or rosettes are developing and abundant. 

The localities in the Sacramento 

Mountains, Santa Rosa, Alamosa 

Springs, and Blue Spring have the 

potential to be subjected to trampling 

and herbivory (75 FR 30762; NMDGF 

2000, p. 2, 2004, p. 7, 2005, p. 47; Corps 

2007, p. 25; Service 1994, p. 6, 2005c, 

p. 2). For example, about three quarters 

of C. wrightii were grazed at one locality 

near Santa Rosa (Corps 2007, p. 25). 

Additionally, much of the private wet 

meadows and marsh habitats in the 

Santa Rosa area have been severely 

degraded by livestock grazing for many 

years (Sivinski and Bleakly 2004). 

Except for Blue Hole Cienaga, we are 

not aware of any fences enclosing these 

localities that would limit impacts to 

the species. In the Sacramento 

Mountains, for example, springs and 

marshes provide a majority of the 

watering sites for both livestock and 

wildlife species, especially elk (75 FR 

30762). These wet springs and marshes 

are subject to trampling and hoof 

damage, and receive especially heavy 

use during drought periods, when 

neither water nor green forage are 

readily available elsewhere. Trampling 

could easily result in damage to 

seedlings, rosettes, and flowering stalks, 

thereby preventing reproduction by 

affected plants. It is possible that elk 

and livestock grazing within and 

adjacent to spring ecosystems could 

alter or remove habitat or limit the 

distribution of Cirsium wrightii; 

however, we found little information to 

support this possibility. Still, we believe 

the observations of livestock and elk 

herbivory and trampling that directly 

affect C. vinaceum and its habitat likely 

are also occurring in some of the C. 

wrightii localities; however, it is 

unknown whether these are localized or 

widespread threats to the species. 

In summary, while livestock activities 

do not appear to be a widespread threat 

at the current time, localized impacts 

have been observed, and increased use 

of wet springs and marshes during 

drought conditions constitutes a threat 

in the foreseeable future. We will 

continue to monitor livestock grazing 

and trampling to determine whether C. 

wrightii is threatened. 

Wetland Filling and Development 

As described below, wetland filling 

and development has impacted the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67933 

Santa Rosa locality, but does not appear 

to be a threat to the species. A 

substantial percentage of wetlands in 

the Santa Rosa area have disappeared in 

the last 50 to 80 years (Metric 

Corporation et al. 2002, p. 5). Springs 

that fed suitable habitat for Helianthus 

paradoxus and likely also contained 

Cirsium wrightii have been converted to 

swimming pools and fishing ponds or 

drained and filled for sports fields in the 

towns of Roswell and Santa Rosa, New 

Mexico (e.g., see Sivinski and Bleakly 

2004, p. 1; Service 2005, p. 8). 

Moreover, some springs and associated 

wetlands where C. wrightii occurred 

have been drained and developed, and 

the potential for further development 

exists (Metric Corporation 2001; Metric 

Corporation et al. 2002; Sivinski 2009a, 

p. 1; Sivinski and Bleakly 2004, p. 1; 

Service 2008b, p. 42). 

Some of the Cirsium wrightii 

occurrences within the Santa Rosa 

locality continue to be impacted 

through filling and development and 

regular mowing. C. wrightii occurs at the 

Blue Hole fish hatchery ponds that are 

owned by the City of Santa Rosa 

(Sivinski 1996, p. 4). The City of Santa 

Rosa plans to dredge and fill these 

ponds for municipal use in the 

foreseeable future (Service 2008b, p. 42), 

which would undoubtedly impact the 

species. A similar action occurred in 

2001 when the C. wrightii population at 

Power Dam Municipal Park in Santa 

Rosa was extirpated when the reservoir 

was drained (Sivinski 2005a, p. 3; 

2009a, p. 1). Numerous wetlands in 

Santa Rosa were also lost many years 

ago to an impoundment, in which 17 

ponds were created and used for a fish 

hatchery. The fish hatchery has since 

been abandoned, and all but four of the 

ponds filled. The remaining adjacent 

116 ac (47 ha) of the Blue Hole Cienaga 

were purchased by the State of New 

Mexico to protect habitat that includes 

the Federally threatened Helianthus 

paradoxus, C. wrightii, and the Stateendangered Spiranthes 

magnicamporum (Great Plains lady’s 

tresses) (New Mexico State Forestry 

2008, p. 1). Although we are not aware 

of any other specific residential or 

commercial development plans at this 

or other localities, actions that drain or 

fill wetlands or other habitat occupied 

by the species would impact C. wrightii. 

Summary of Factor A 

In summary, we found that past and 

present alteration of rare desert springs, 

seeps, and wetland habitats that support 

Cirsium wrightii is a significant threat. 

The four largest localities of C. wrightii 

at Blue Spring, BLNWR, Santa Rosa, and 

Alamosa Creek have the potential to be 

further modified by ongoing and future 

water withdrawal. Changes in water 

tables throughout the range of C. 

wrightii have also resulted in 

diminished discharge from springs or 

complete loss of surface water. 

Therefore, there has been a trend of 

diminishing habitat quantity and 

excessive degradation of habitat quality 

for the species throughout its range, as 

a result of agriculture and urban 

development, diversion of springs, and 

drought. Moreover, the presence of and 

effects from Phragmites australis 

threatens C. wrightii localities through 

increased fire risk, competition, and 

changes in hydrology. On the basis of 

the information presented above, we 

find that Cirsium wrightii may be 

threatened by the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat, both now and 

in the foreseeable future. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

We do not have any evidence of risks 

to Cirsium wrightii from overutilization 

for commercial, recreational, scientific, 

or educational purposes, and we have 

no reason to believe this factor will 

become a threat to the species in the 

future. Therefore, we find 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes does not threaten C. wrightii 

now or in the foreseeable future. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Disease 

Cirsium wrightii is not known to be 

affected or threatened by any disease. 

Therefore, we find that disease does not 

threaten C. wrightii now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

Insect Predation 

Native and nonnative insect 

populations have the potential to impact 

the condition, reproduction, and 

distribution of Cirsium wrightii. 

Observed seed predators on the similar 

C. vinaceum in the Sacramento 

Mountains include Paracantha gentilis, 

a native specialist gall fly; Platyptilia 

carduidactyla, the native artichoke 

plume moth; Euphoria inda, a native 

generalist bumble flower beetle; 

Rhinocyllus conicus, an introduced 

seed-head weevil; and Trichosirocalus 

horridus, an introduced rosette weevil 

(Sivinski 2008, pp. 1–11; Gardner 2010, 

pp. 2–3). There have been intentional 

releases of Rhinocyllus conicus to 

control Carduus nutans (musk thistle) 

(Sivinski 1994, p. 2; 2007, p. 6; 

NMRPTC 2009, p. 2; Bridge 2001, p. 1; 

AGFD 2001, p. 2). This exotic weevil 

has recently been found in habitat 

occupied by C. wrightii, C. vinaceum, 

and the exotic Carduus nutans at the 

Silver Springs locality (Sivinski 2007, 

p. 6; Gardner and Thompson 2008, p. 4). 

It is not known where Trichosirocalus 

horridus came from or whether they 

were intentionally released (Gardner 

2010, p. 3); however, this exotic rosette 

weevil is also present in Carduus 

nutans populations ranging from the 

northern extent of the Mescalero 

Apache reservation south to Agua 

Chiquita canyon in the Sacramento 

Mountains. 

Rhinocyllus conicus is not host 

specific to Carduus species and has 

been found living on 22 of the North 

American Cirsium species (Louda et al. 

2003). This weevil is available from 

commercial suppliers and is easily 

gathered and transported from 

established colonies. Breeding and egg 

placement by R. conicus begins in midJune, peaks in early July, and continues 

into August (Sivinski 2008, p. 5). Newly 

hatched larvae bury into the flower head 

and feed on the tissue. Most R. conicus 

at the Silver Springs locality emerge 

from the flower heads by early 

September; however, some immature 

larvae were still present in the flower 

heads of C. vinaceum in September 

(Sivinski 2008, p. 5). Flower heads of C. 

wrightii grow during late July to early 

August, which overlaps with developing 

and feeding larvae of R. conicus. The 

establishment of R. conicus beyond the 

Silver Springs locality will likely occur 

in the near future because stands of C. 

nutans are common in many of the 

drainages throughout the Sacramento 

Mountains (Gardner and Thompson 

2008, p. 4), and we are concerned that 

it may spread to C. wrightii populations. 

For these reasons, we intend to monitor 

localities in the Sacramento Mountains 

to determine whether C. wrightii could 

be a potential host and possibly 

threatened by R. conicus infestations. 

Trichosirocalus horridus, feeds on 

Carduus nutans during the rosette stage, 

killing first-year rosettes and stopping 

the growth of older plants. This weevil 

is available from commercial suppliers 

or can be gathered and transported from 

established colonies (Flanders et al. 

2001, p. 4; Jennings et al. 2010, pp. 4– 

5). Moreover, T. horridus is capable of 

spreading at least a mile (1.61 km) per 

year on their own (Flanders et al. 2001, 

p. 4). Adults emerge from summer 

resting places in the fall. They lay eggs 

in the midrib of thistle leaves, and 

complete egg-laying in the spring. After 

10 to 12 days, the eggs hatch, and the 

young weevils tunnel from the midrib 

into the rosette, feeding and causing 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

67934 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

damage or possibly killing the crown 

tissue. The new adults emerge in May 

and June, feed briefly, and pass the 

summer in a period of inactivity 

(Flanders et al. 2001, p. 3). We are 

concerned about potential effects to C. 

wrightii and intend to monitor C. 

wrightii localities to determine if this 

introduced rosette weevil threatens the 

species. 

Rhinocyllus conicus and a native 

predator, the stem borer weevil (Lixus 

pervestitus), caused a widespread 

premature stem death to the flower 

heads of the Silver Springs population 

of the endangered C. vinaceum, which 

co-occurs with C. wrightii (Sivinski 

2007, pp. 8–12). These 2 insects 

collectively damaged up to 99 percent of 

C. vinaceum within the Silver Springs 

locality, resulting in nearly complete 

die-off of flowering stems (Sivinski 

2008, p. 9, 2009b). Thus far, L. 

pervestitus has not been found on C. 

vinaceum outside of the Silver Springs 

population, and little is known about 

this insect species in New Mexico 

(Sivinski 2008, pp. 10–11). 

Nevertheless, the reproductive output of 

the population of C. vinaceum at Silver 

Springs was greatly reduced by these 

insects. Similarly, it is unknown if these 

weevils feed on C. wrightii or have the 

same level of impact as that of C. 

vinaceum. 

Summary of Factor C 

In summary, it is not known at this 

time whether insect predators would 

decrease seed production and increase 

the threat to the existence of C. wrightii 

populations. The potential for insect 

predators to become a threat to C. 

wrightii in the future needs to be 

monitored and evaluated. Therefore, we 

intend to monitor populations, 

especially in the Sacramento 

Mountains, for impact due to insect 

predation. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

One primary cause of decline of 

Cirsium wrightii is the loss, degradation, 

and fragmentation of habitat due to 

human activities. Federal and State laws 

have been insufficient to prevent past 

and ongoing losses of the limited habitat 

of the species, and are unlikely to 

prevent further declines. 

Clean Water Act 

Pursuant to section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344), the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 

regulates the discharge of dredged or fill 

material into all waters of the United 

States, including wetlands. In general, 

the term ‘‘wetlands’’ refers to areas 

meeting the Corps criteria of having 

hydric (wet) soils, hydrology (either a 

defined minimum duration of 

continuous inundation or saturation of 

soil during the growing season), and a 

plant community that is predominantly 

hydrophytic vegetation (plants 

specifically adapted for growing in a 

wetland environment). Much of the 

habitat occupied by Cirsium wrightii 

qualifies as wetlands. 

Any discharge of dredged or fill 

material into waters of the United 

States, including wetlands, requires a 

permit from the Corps. These include 

individual permits, which would be 

issued following a review of an 

individual application, and general 

permits that authorize a category or 

categories of activities in a specific 

geographical location or nationwide (33 

CFR parts 320–330). General and special 

permit conditions may vary among the 

various general permits. Although the 

use of any individual or general permit 

requires compliance with the Act when 

there are threatened or endangered 

species present, only three (Santa Rosa, 

BLNWR, and Silver Springs) of the eight 

localities co-occur with either 

Helianthus paradoxus or Cirsium 

vinaceum, which are both listed under 

the Act. Even at these three localities, 

we are not aware of any protections that 

have been provided by the CWA. 

While the CWA provides a means for 

the Corps to regulate the discharge of 

dredged or fill material into waters and 

wetlands of the United States, it does 

not always provide adequate protection 

of wetlands. Private and State 

landowners of wetlands are often 

unaware of this permitting requirement, 

and may fill or drain their lands without 

requesting determination of wetland 

status or a permit (Service 2005, p. 22). 

For example, in 2003, the New Mexico 

Department of Transportation violated 

the CWA in the right-of-way of Highway 

91 in Santa Rosa within Helianthus 

paradoxus habitat (Service 2008c, p. 12; 

New Mexico Department of 

Transportation 2003, pp. 1–2). In 2001, 

the New Mexico Department of 

Transportation also mowed Helianthus 

paradoxus in the wetland within the 

right-of-way of La Pradira Avenue (now 

Blue Hole Road) and proposed to 

destroy at least 20 C. wrightii plants in 

conjunction with reconstruction of the 

road (Metric Corporation 2001, pp. 12, 

21). Many applicants are required to 

provide compensation for wetlands 

losses (i.e., no net loss), and many 

smaller impact projects remain largely 

unmitigated, unless specifically 

required by other environmental laws 

such as the Act. Specifically, we found 

that C. wrightii localities are not 

currently protected from the 

construction and maintenance of 

irrigation facilities and functionally 

related structures, which are exempt 

from Section 404 of the CWA, and 

therefore, do not receive any general 

protections that may have resulted from 

status determination and permitting 

process by the Corps (e.g., see Corps 

2007). Finally, we are not aware of any 

Corps permits that have been issued for 

the habitat where this species occurs or 

historically occurred, indicating that 

there is little protection provided to C. 

wrightii through the CWA. 

Additionally, recent court cases limit 

the Corps’ ability to utilize the CWA to 

regulate the discharge of fill or dredged 

material into the aquatic environment 

within the current range of Cirsium 

wrightii (Solid Waste Agency of 

Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001) 

(SWANCC)). Additionally, there may be 

instances where wet marshes occupied 

by C. wrightii lack sufficient connection 

to waters of the United States for the 

Corps to assert jurisdiction under the 

authority of the CWA. For example, the 

Corps frequently cites the SWANCC 

decision as their reason for not taking 

jurisdiction over water bodies that do 

not meet the definition of waters of the 

United States. For these reasons, we 

conclude that regulation of wetland 

filling by the Corps under the CWA is 

inadequate to protect C. wrightii from 

further decline. 

State of New Mexico 

The State of New Mexico lists Cirsium 

wrightii as endangered under the New 

Mexico Endangered Plant Species Act 

(9–10–10 NMSA). As such, C. wrightii is 

protected from unauthorized collection, 

transport, or sale. This law prohibits the 

taking, possession, transportation and 

exportation, selling or offering for sale 

of any listed plant species. Listed 

species can be collected only under 

permit from the State of New Mexico for 

scientific studies and impact mitigation. 

However, this law does not provide any 

protection for C. wrightii habitat. 

Moreover, there are no statutory 

requirements under the jurisdiction of 

the State of New Mexico that serve as an 

effective regulatory mechanism for 

reducing or eliminating the threats (see 

Factors A and C above) that may 

adversely affect C. wrightii or its habitat. 

Nor are there any requirements under 

the New Mexico State statutes to 

develop a recovery plan that will restore 

and protect existing habitat for the 

species. Therefore, the species does not 

have a recovery plan, conservation plan, 

or conservation agreement. For these 

reasons, we find that existing New 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67935 

Mexico State regulatory mechanisms are 

currently inadequate to protect C. 

wrightii. As noted, these designations 

provide no regulatory protection for the 

habitat or the species to prevent further 

decline. 

Other Federal Protections 

Under the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 

1701 et seq.) and the National Forest 

Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 

1600 et seq.), the Forest Service is 

directed to prepare programmatic-level 

management plans to guide long-term 

resource management decisions. Under 

this direction, Cirsium wrightii is on the 

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species 

List (Forest Service 2008a). The Forest 

Service policy (FSM 2670.3) states that 

biological evaluations must be 

completed for sensitive species and 

signed by a journey-level biologist or 

botanist. The Lincoln National Forest 

will continue developing biological 

evaluation reports and conducting 

analyses under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.) for each project that will 

affect Cirsium wrightii or its habitat. 

Nevertheless, only 2 of the 8 general 

localities occur on Forest Service lands, 

and these are extremely small, 

composed of less than 70 plants total. 

Therefore, even if protections were 

afforded to the species due to its Forest 

Service sensitive-species status, the 

number of localities are insufficient to 

conserve C. wrightii rangewide. 

Incidental Protections Resulting From 

Association With Other Listed Species 

BLNWR was established in 1937 as 

wintering and breeding grounds for 

migratory birds. Cirsium wrightii was 

not known to occur on the refuge until 

1998 (Service 1998). Consequently, 

management was directed primarily at 

creating dikes so that ponds could be 

created and their water levels controlled 

for the benefit of waterfowl. This likely 

was beneficial to C. wrightii by 

unknowingly creating more habitat. 

Although current management of 

BLNWR recognizes and includes 

Federally listed species in its 

maintenance and operations, because C. 

wrightii is not a Federally threatened or 

endangered species, we are aware of 

only one project that has specifically 

considered and incorporated measures 

to limit impacts on the species or 

specifically analyzed whether actions 

proposed by the refuge would cause any 

adverse effects (Service 2010a, p. 7). 

Summary of Factor D 

In summary, Cirsium wrightii receives 

inadequate protection from the CWA. 

Similarly, the species lacks adequate 

regulatory protection from its various 

designations—a Forest Service sensitive 

species, or endangered status by the 

State of New Mexico, because these 

designations only serve to notify the 

public of the species’ status and do not 

require conservation or management 

actions. We are not aware of any other 

existing regulatory mechanisms. 

Cirsium wrightii is currently threatened 

by the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms. This will continue into the 

foreseeable future. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Species’ Continued 

Existence 

Hybridization 

Cirsium wrightii is capable of 

crossbreeding with other native Cirsium 

species to produce hybrid offspring 

(Correll and Johnston 1979, p. 1719; 

NMRPTC 2009, p. 2; Worthington 2002). 

For example, Cirsium species observed 

at Rattlesnake Springs (Carlsbad 

Caverns National Park), New Mexico, 

show characteristics that are 

intermediate between C. wrightii and C. 

texanum (NMRPTC 2009, p. 2). This 

Cirsium population blooms in May 

rather than in August through October, 

as is typical of C. wrightii. C. wrightii 

sometimes occurs with the threatened C. 

vinaceum in the Sacramento Mountains, 

where a few hybrids between these rare 

taxa have been observed; however, 

hybrid plants are uncommon (Service 

2008a, p. 13; Worthington 2002). While 

hybridization between C. wrightii and 

other Cirsium species has been 

observed, it is uncommon, and does not 

appear to be a threat to C. wrightii. 

Herbicide Use 

Cirsium wrightii is likely eliminated 

from its habitat by individuals that 

believe it is a noxious weed, due to its 

large and conspicuous size (Sivinski 

1996, p. 10). At least one locality in the 

Sacramento Mountains is currently 

susceptible to herbicide application or 

mowing because it is found in 

association with an introduced weed 

(Arctium minus (burdock)) within the 

highway right-of-way that is frequently 

treated (Sivinski 1996, p. 6). Another 

locality of C. wrightii in the Sacramento 

Mountains is surrounded by dense 

stands of Centaurea melitensis (Malta 

star-thistle) that could also potentially 

be treated with herbicides (Sivinski 

1996, p. 6). If herbicides are applied to 

other localities, C. wrightii could be 

impacted. For example, in June 2007, on 

Federal Highway 82 in Otero County, a 

misapplication of herbicide by the State 

of New Mexico Department of 

Transportation injured or killed C. 

wrightii, as well as the Federally 

threatened species C. vinaceum and 

Argemone pleiacantha ssp. pinnatisecta 

(Sacramento prickly poppy) (Tonne 

2007). Additionally, in June 2010, 

herbicide was applied to the highway 91 

right-of-way in Santa Rosa, likely killing 

or injuring C. wrightii and Helianthus 

paradoxus (Service 2010c, p. 1). 

The indirect effects of herbicide 

application also have the potential to 

affect the species. For example, in 2002, 

shortly after application in upland 

areas, heavy rains washed the common 

herbicide tebuthiuron into Threemile 

Draw, a tributary to the Black River, in 

the vicinity of the Blue Spring locality 

(NMDGF 2007, p. 24). Farmers 

downstream in Malaga reported damage 

to irrigated crops from this herbicide. It 

is unknown whether this affected C. 

wrightii, but demonstrates that indirect 

effects from herbicide application on 

upland areas may also impact riparian 

vegetation. After reviewing this 

information, we find that effects from 

herbicide use have the potential to 

impact C. wrightii, but are currently not 

known to be impacting most localities. 

Oil and Gas Development and Mining 

Oil and gas development occurs in 

some areas occupied by Cirsium 

wrightii. Since 2001, there has been a 

significant expansion of oil and gas 

operations in Eddy County, especially 

within the Black River watershed and, 

in particular, around Blue Spring 

(NMDGF 2007, pp. 18–19; NMDGF 

2005, p. 35). Several low-water 

crossings span the Black River. Transit 

of heavy trucks carrying petroleumderived products could result in surface 

water contamination from leakage or 

accidents (NMDGF 2007a, p. 20). 

Similarly, oil and gas development in 

this area of southeastern New Mexico 

has the potential to impact groundwater 

(Goodbar 2007, pp. 213–214). As an 

example, there is a history of oil and gas 

industry operations on and adjacent to 

BLNWR, which have resulted in the 

spillage of oil and brine onto the refuge 

(Service 2005a; NMDGF 2002, pp. 3–4). 

Development of oil and gas wells is 

anticipated to continue into the 

foreseeable future in the proximity of C. 

wrightii habitat (e.g., see Service 2005a, 

p. 46306). Oil drilling also occurs 

throughout the Roswell Basin and Eddy 

County, New Mexico (NMDGF 2002, pp. 

2–4, 2005a, pp. 25, 78; Service 2005a, p. 

46315; Goodbar 2007). This activity and 

associated actions can threaten the 

water quality of the aquifer on which 

this species depends. Petroleum 

contamination has also been reported 

from the Black River and areas adjacent 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

67936 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

to BLNWR (NMDGF 2005a, pp. 18–19; 

Richard 1989). 

Additionally, a permit was recently 

issued by the New Mexico Energy, 

Minerals and Natural Resources 

Department for subsurface drilling and 

exploration of the mineral bertrandite 

on Sullivan Ranch (New Mexico Mining 

and Minerals Division 2010), near the C. 

wrightii locality at Alamosa Springs, 

Socorro County, New Mexico, which 

has the potential to affect the species 

(Sivinski 2009c; NMDGF 2000). 

However, no specific assessment of 

potential water quality threats has been 

conducted, and it is unknown whether 

a decrease in water quality from oil and 

gas development or contamination from 

exploration of minerals would affect the 

growth or reproduction of C. wrightii to 

such an extent as to constitute a 

widespread threat to the species. 

Nevertheless, oil and other 

contaminants from development and 

drilling activities throughout these areas 

could enter the aquifer supplying the 

springs and seeps inhabited by C. 

wrightii when the limestone layers are 

pierced by drilling activities. An 

accidental oil spill or groundwater 

contamination has the potential to 

pollute water sources that support C. 

wrightii and potentially threaten the 

species in the foreseeable future, 

although it is unclear whether these 

impacts would be localized or 

widespread threats to the species. 

Invasive Plants 

The potential impact of Phragmites 

australis on Cirsium wrightii habitat has 

been discussed in threat factor A, above. 

The following additional invasive 

terrestrial plant species have the 

potential to affect C. wrightii at most 

localities: Lythrum salicaria (purple 

loosestrife), Elaeagnus angustifolia 

(Russian olive), Tamarix ssp., Salsola 

spp., Dipsacus fullonum (teasel), 

Carduus nutans, Conium maculatum 

(poison hemlock), Centaurea melitensis, 

Cirsium arvense (Canada thistle), and 

Cirsium vulgare (bull thistle). These 

plants present unique challenges and 

potential threats to the habitat of C. 

wrightii. However, most of the exotic 

plants cannot tolerate the continuously 

saturated substrates that are typical in C. 

wrightii habitats. 

For example, Carduus nutans infests 

much of the riparian habitat on Lincoln 

National Forest (Gardner and Thompson 

2008, pp. 1, 4), but does not appear to 

impact C. wrightii through competition. 

Sivinski (1996, p. 6) reports that 

Tamarix spp. and E. angustifolia are 

becoming dominant in many riparian 

and wetland areas, but that these 

species likely do not threaten C. wrightii 

because C. wrightii grows in saturated 

substrates that are not suitable habitat 

for these exotic trees. Nevertheless, they 

do invade wetlands when the area dries 

(e.g., due to severe drought) and, once 

they become established, can survive in 

wet habitats when the moisture returns 

(Sivinski 2007, p. 2). Still, Tamarix ssp. 

may impact spring habitats primarily 

through the amount of water it 

consumes, and from the chemical 

composition of the leaves it drops on 

the ground and into the springs. 

Tamarix ssp. leaves add salt to the soil 

through its leaf litter (the leaves contain 

salt glands) (Di Tomaso 1998). Because 

Tamarix ssp. grow along the edge of 

water courses, it is possible that this 

could affect the soil chemistry of areas 

inhabited by C. wrightii. However, no 

research has been conducted 

specifically on the effect of Tamarix ssp. 

or E. angustifolia on C. wrightii. 

Salsola spp. (Russian thistle; 

tumbleweed) is another introduced 

plant species that has the potential to 

degrade spring ecosystems. Salsola spp. 

is not a riparian species like Tamarix 

spp. (salt cedar) or Phragmites australis; 

however, the plant can accumulate in 

spring channels following wind storms. 

In 2005, BLNWR conducted an 

emergency Intra-Service consultation 

under section 7 of the Act for the 

removal of Salsola spp. and Kochia 

scoparia (tumbleweed) from a spring 

ditch (Service 2005b). Wind had blown 

these plants into the channel to a depth 

of 3 to 4 ft (0.9 to 1.2 m), completely 

shading the water and overloading the 

small channel with organic material. 

Noel (1954, p. 124) also reported Salsola 

spp. accumulating in a spring near 

Roswell. We are not aware of this 

situation occurring at other localities, 

but we have not regularly monitored all 

Cirsium wrightii localities for Salsola 

spp. occurrences. Therefore, it is 

unknown whether this is a threat to the 

species. Nevertheless, control of Salsola 

spp. is an ongoing management activity 

at BLNWR, and may occur within areas 

occupied by C. wrightii. 

The eight localities of Cirsium wrightii 

generally lack large, aggressive, exotic 

wetland weeds, such as Lythrum 

salicaria (purple loosestrife), which 

could dominate C. wrightii habitat. 

Lythrum salicaria is a Eurasian species 

that has been modifying wetlands and 

outcompeting native species in North 

America for many decades (Natural 

Resources Conservation Service 2000, 

pp. 1–2). Lythrum salicaria appeared in 

New Mexico in the 1990s and is extant 

in the Mimbres Mountains, Grant 

County and Sandia Mountains, 

Bernalillo County. The Sandia 

Mountains occurrence of this invasive 

weed covers an alkaline spring seep 

similar to some of the C. wrightii 

habitats in the Sacramento Mountains 

(Sivinski 2006b, p. 15). If it also spreads 

to any of the eight localities, this 

aggressive wetland weed could impact 

C. wrightii habitat. 

We currently have no information that 

these introduced plants are immediate 

threats to Cirsium wrightii. However, 

Carduus nutans may be serving as a 

vector for Rhinocyllus conicus, the 

exotic seed head weevil, discussed 

under Factor C. Based on possible 

interactions with water availability and 

climate change, these exotic plants 

could potentially threaten C. wrightii in 

the future; however, we do not believe 

they pose a current threat. 

Summary of Factor E 

In summary for Factor E, we do not 

currently consider hybridization, 

herbicide use, oil and gas development 

and mining as threats to the species; 

however, these may become threats in 

the future. Similarly, except for 

Phragmites australis, we do not 

consider invasive plants as a significant 

threat to the species now; however, they 

could potentially threaten Cirsium 

wrightii in the foreseeable future. We do 

consider Phragmites australis to be a 

threat to C. wrightii localities as a result 

of the increased fire risk, competition, 

and changes in hydrology its presence 

causes. 

Finding 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to Cirsium wrightii. 

Section 3(6) of the Act defines an 

endangered species as ‘‘any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range,’’ and section 3(20) defines a 

threatened species as ‘‘any species 

which is likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ Under 

the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is endangered or threatened 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. The threats to C. wrightii occur 

throughout its range and generally are 

not restricted to any particular 

significant portion of that range. 

Accordingly, our assessment and 

proposed determination applies to the 

species throughout its entire range. 

Cirsium wrightii faces threats from 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, and curtailment of its 

habitat, primarily from natural and 

human-caused modifications of its 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67937 

habitat due to ground and surface water 

depletion, drought, and invasion of 

Phragmites australis (Factor A), and 

from the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms (Factor D). 

Cirsium wrightii occupies relatively 

small areas of seeps, springs, and 

wetland habitat in an arid region 

plagued by drought and ongoing and 

future water withdrawals. The species’ 

highly specific requirements of 

saturated soils with surface or 

subsurface water flow make it 

particularly vulnerable to these threats 

to an extent that the species may 

become endangered within the 

foreseeable future, depending primarily 

on how much modification or drying of 

its limited amount of habitat may occur. 

We find that Cirsium wrightii is likely 

to become endangered throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range within 

the foreseeable future based on the 

threats described above. Therefore, on 

the basis of the best available scientific 

and commercial information, we find 

that Cirsium wrightii meets the 

definition of endangered or threatened 

in accordance with sections 3(6) and 

4(a)(1) of the Act and listing is 

warranted. While we conclude that 

listing C. wrightii is warranted, an 

immediate proposal to list this species 

is precluded by other higher priority 

listings, which we address below. 

Listing Priority Number 

The Service adopted guidelines on 

September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098) to 

establish a rational system for utilizing 

available resources for the highest 

priority species when adding species to 

the Lists of Endangered or Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying 

species listed as threatened to 

endangered status. These guidelines, 

titled ‘‘Endangered and Threatened 

Species Listing and Recovery Priority 

Guidelines’’ address the immediacy and 

magnitude of threats, and the level of 

taxonomic distinctiveness by assigning 

priority in descending order to 

monotypic genera (genus with one 

species), full species, and subspecies (or 

equivalently, distinct population 

segments of vertebrates). 

As a result of our analysis of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we have assigned Cirsium 

wrightii a Listing Priority Number (LPN) 

of 8, based on our finding that the 

species faces threats that are of 

moderate magnitude and are imminent. 

These threats include the present or 

threatened destruction, modification or 

curtailment of its habitat; predation; and 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms. These threats are ongoing 

and therefore considered imminent. 

Under the Service’s guidelines, the 

magnitude of threat is the first criterion 

we look at when establishing a listing 

priority. The guidance indicates that 

species with the highest magnitude of 

threat are those species facing the 

greatest threats to their continued 

existence. These species receive the 

highest listing priority. We consider the 

threats that Cirsium wrightii faces to be 

moderate in magnitude because the 

major threats (habitat loss and 

degradation due to alteration of the 

hydrology of its rare wetland habitat), 

while serious and occurring rangewide, 

do not collectively rise to the level of 

high magnitude, relative to other 

species. The species occurs only in 

areas that are water-saturated and 

populations have a high potential for 

extirpation when habitat dries due to 

ground and surface water depletion, 

draining of wetlands, or drought. 

Under our LPN guidelines, the second 

criterion we consider in assigning a 

listing priority is the immediacy of 

threats. This criterion is intended to 

ensure that the species facing actual, 

identifiable threats are given priority 

over those for which threats are only 

potential or that are intrinsically 

vulnerable but are not known to be 

presently facing such threats. We 

consider all of the threats to be 

imminent because we have factual 

information that the threats are 

identifiable and that the species is 

currently facing them in many portions 

of its range. Long-term drought, in 

combination with ground and surface 

water withdrawal, pose a current and 

future threat to C. wrightii and its 

habitat. These actual, identifiable 

threats are covered in greater detail in 

Factors A and D of this finding. All of 

the threats are ongoing and therefore 

imminent. In addition to their current 

existence, we expect these threats to 

continue and likely intensify in the 

foreseeable future. 

The third criterion in our Listing 

Priority Number guidance is intended to 

devote resources to those species 

representing highly distinctive or 

isolated gene pools as reflected by 

taxonomy. Cirsium wrightii is a valid 

taxon at the species level and, therefore, 

receives a higher priority than 

subspecies, but a lower priority than 

species in a monotypic genus. 

Therefore, we assigned Cirsium wrightii 

an LPN of 8. 

We will continue to monitor the 

threats to Cirsium wrightii and the 

species’ status on an annual basis, and 

should the magnitude or the imminence 

of the threats change, we will re-visit 

our assessment of the LPN. 

Work on a proposed listing 

determination for Cirsium wrightii is 

precluded by work on higher priority 

listing actions with absolute statutory, 

court-ordered, or court-approved 

deadlines and final listing 

determinations for those species that 

were proposed for listing with funds 

from previous fiscal years. This work 

includes all the actions listed in the 

tables below under expeditious 

progress. 

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress 

Preclusion is a function of the listing 

priority of a species in relation to the 

resources that are available and 

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 

proposed listing regulation or whether 

promulgation of such a proposal is 

warranted but precluded by higherpriority listing actions. 

The resources available for listing 

actions are determined through the 

annual Congressional appropriations 

process. The appropriation for the 

Listing Program is available to support 

work involving the following listing 

actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 

90-day and 12-month findings on 

petitions to add species to the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants (Lists) or to change the status 

of a species from threatened to 

endangered; annual determinations on 

prior ‘‘warranted but 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

67938 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule 

with critical habitat, $345,000; and for 

a final listing rule with critical habitat, 

the median cost is $305,000. 

We cannot spend more than is 

appropriated for the Listing Program 

without violating the Anti-Deficiency 

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

addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal 

year since then, Congress has placed a 

statutory cap on funds which may be 

expended for the Listing Program, equal 

to the amount expressly appropriated 

for that purpose in that fiscal year. This 

cap was designed to prevent funds 

appropriated for other functions under 

the Act (for example, recovery funds for 

removing species from the Lists), or for 

other Service programs, from being used 

for Listing Program actions (see House 

Report 105–163, 105th Congress, 1st 

Session, July 1, 1997). 

Since FY 2002, the Service’s budget 

has included a critical habitat subcap to 

ensure that some funds are available for 

other work in the Listing Program (‘‘The 

critical habitat designation subcap will 

ensure that some funding is available to 

address other listing activities’’ (House 

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

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

each year until FY 2006, the Service has 

had to use virtually the entire critical 

habitat subcap to address courtmandated designations of critical 

habitat, and consequently none of the 

critical habitat subcap funds have been 

available for other listing activities. In 

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 

actions with statutory deadlines. 

Thus, through the listing cap, the 

critical habitat subcap, and the amount 

of funds needed to address courtmandated critical habitat designations, 

Congress and the courts have in effect 

determined the amount of money 

available for other listing activities. 

Therefore, the funds in the listing cap, 

other than those needed to address 

court-mandated critical habitat for 

already-listed species, set the limits on 

our determinations of preclusion and 

expeditious progress. 

Congress identified the availability of 

resources as the only basis for deferring 

the initiation of a rulemaking that is 

warranted. The Conference Report 

accompanying Public Law 97–304, 

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, expeditious progress is 

that amount of work that can be 

achieved with $10,471,000, which 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). However these funds are 

not enough to fully fund all our courtordered and statutory listing actions in 

FY 2010, so we are using $1,114,417 of 

our critical habitat subcap funds in 

order to work on all of our required 

petition findings and listing 

determinations. This brings the total 

amount of funds we have for listing 

actions in FY 2010 to $11,585,417. Our 

process is to 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. 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. 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 highpriority listing actions at this time, 

many actions have statutory or courtapproved settlement deadlines, thus 

increasing their priority. The allocations 

for each specific listing action are 

identified in the Service’s FY 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. Using this guidance, 

we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 

to 12, depending on the magnitude of 

threats (high vs. moderate to low), 

immediacy of threats (imminent or 

nonimminent), and taxonomic status of 

the species (in order of priority: 

monotypic genus (a species that is the 

sole member of a genus); species; or part 

of a species (subspecies, distinct 

population segment, or significant 

portion of the range)). The lower the 

listing priority number, the higher the 

listing priority (that is, a species with an 

LPN of 1 would have the highest listing 

priority). Because of the large number of 

high-priority species, we have further 

ranked the candidate species with an 

LPN of 2 by using the following 

extinction-risk type criteria: 

International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature and Natural 

Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank, 

Heritage rank (provided by 

NatureServe), Heritage threat rank 

(provided by NatureServe), and species 

currently with fewer than 50 

individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. 

Those species with the highest IUCN 

rank (critically endangered), the highest 

Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage 

threat rank (substantial, imminent 

threats), and currently with fewer than 

50 individuals, or fewer than 4 

populations, originally comprised a 

group of approximately 40 candidate 

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

species have had the highest priority to 

receive funding to work on a proposed 

listing determination. As we work on 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67939 

proposed and final listing rules for those 

40 candidates, we apply the ranking 

criteria to the next group of candidates 

with an LPN of 2 and 3 to determine the 

next set of highest priority candidate 

species. 

To be more efficient in our listing 

process, 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, available staff resources are 

also a factor in determining highpriority species provided with funding. 

Finally, proposed rules for 

reclassification of threatened species to 

endangered are lower priority, since as 

listed species, they are already afforded 

the protection of the Act and 

implementing regulations. However, for 

efficiency reasons, we may choose to 

work on a proposed rule to reclassify a 

species to endangered if we can 

combine this with work that is subject 

to a court-determined deadline. 

As explained above, a determination 

that listing is warranted but precluded 

must also demonstrate that expeditious 

progress is being made to add and 

remove qualified species to and from 

the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants. As with our 

‘‘precluded’’ finding, the evaluation of 

whether progress in adding qualified 

species to the Lists has been expeditious 

is a function of the resources available 

for listing and the competing demands 

for those funds. (Although we do not 

discuss it in detail here, we are also 

making expeditious progress in 

removing species from the list under the 

Recovery program in light of the 

resource available for delisting, which is 

funded by a separate line item in the 

budget of the Endangered Species 

Program. During FY 2010, we have 

completed two proposed delisting rules 

and two final delisting rules.) Given the 

limited resources available for listing, 

we find that we made expeditious 

progress in FY 2010 in the Listing 

Program. This progress 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 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.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial and Substantial.74 FR 66865–66905 

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.

75 FR 3190–3191 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

67940 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued 

Publication date Title Actions FR pages 

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 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 Purse-making 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 

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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67941 

FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued 

Publication date Title Actions FR pages 

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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

67942 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued 

Publication date Title Actions FR pages 

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 

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 

includes 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 selection of these species is 

partially based on available staff 

resources, and when appropriate, 

include species with a lower priority if 

they overlap geographically or have the 

same threats as the species with the 

high priority. Including these species 

together in the same proposed rule 

results in considerable savings in time 

and funding, as compared to preparing 

separate proposed rules for each of them 

in the future. 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 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 4 .......................................................................................................................................... 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. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67943 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued 

Species Action 

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. 

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. 

4Funded with FY 2010 funds. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

67944 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

We have endeavored to make our 

listing actions as efficient and timely as 

possible, given the requirements of the 

relevant law and regulations, and 

constraints relating to workload and 

personnel. We are continually 

considering ways to streamline 

processes or achieve economies of scale, 

such as by batching related actions 

together. Given our limited budget for 

implementing section 4 of the Act, these 

actions described above collectively 

constitute expeditious progress. 

Cirsium wrightii will be added to the 

list of candidate species upon 

publication of this 12-month finding. 

We will continue to monitor the status 

of this species as new information 

becomes available. This review will 

determine if a change in status is 

warranted, including the need to make 

prompt use of emergency listing 

procedures. 

We intend that any proposed listing 

action for Cirsium wrightii will be as 

accurate as possible. Therefore, we will 

continue to accept additional 

information and comments from all 

concerned governmental agencies, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested party concerning this 

finding. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this finding is available on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

or upon request from the Field 

Supervisor, New Mexico Ecological 

Services Office (see ADDRESSES section). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this rule are 

the staff members of the New Mexico 

Ecological Services Office. 

Authority 

The authority for this section is 

section 4 of the Endangered Species Act 

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

seq.). 

Dated: October 13, 2010. 

Daniel M. Ashe, 

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27740 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS