72450 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2014–0032; 

FF09E21000 FXES11190900000 145] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Review of Native Species 

That Are Candidates for Listing as 

Endangered or Threatened; Annual 

Notice of Findings on Resubmitted 

Petitions; Annual Description of 

Progress on Listing Actions 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of review. 

SUMMARY: In this Candidate Notice of 

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

Wildlife Service (Service), present an 

updated list of plant and animal species 

native to the United States that we 

regard as candidates for or have 

proposed for addition to the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended. 

Identification of candidate species can 

assist environmental planning efforts by 

providing advance notice of potential 

listings, allowing landowners and 

resource managers to alleviate threats 

and thereby possibly remove the need to 

list species as endangered or threatened. 

Even if we subsequently list a candidate 

species, the early notice provided here 

could result in more options for species 

management and recovery by prompting 

candidate conservation measures to 

alleviate threats to the species. 

The CNOR summarizes the status and 

threats that we evaluated in order to 

determine that species qualify as 

candidates, to assign a listing priority 

number (LPN) to each species, and to 

determine whether a species should be 

removed from candidate status. 

Additional material that we relied on is 

available in the Species Assessment and 

Listing Priority Assignment Forms 

(species assessment forms) for each 

candidate species. 

Overall, this CNOR recognizes 23 new 

candidates, changes the LPN for one 

candidate, and removes one species 

from candidate status. Combined with 

other decisions for individual species 

that were published separately from this 

CNOR in the past year, the current 

number of species that are candidates 

for listing is 146. 

This document also includes our 

findings on resubmitted petitions and 

describes our progress in revising the 

Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants (Lists) during the 

period October 1, 2013, through 

September 30, 2014. 

We request additional status 

information that may be available for 

the 146 candidate species identified in 

this CNOR. 

DATES: We will accept information on 

any of the species in this Candidate 

Notice of Review at any time. 

ADDRESSES: This notice is available on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov and http://

www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/

cnor.html. Species assessment forms 

with information and references on a 

particular candidate species’ range, 

status, habitat needs, and listing priority 

assignment are available for review at 

the appropriate Regional Office listed 

below in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION or 

at the Branch of Communications and 

Candidate Conservation, Falls Church, 

VA (see address under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT), or on our Web 

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

pub/candidateSpecies.jsp). Please 

submit any new information, materials, 

comments, or questions of a general 

nature on this notice to the Falls 

Church, VA, address listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Please 

submit any new information, materials, 

comments, or questions pertaining to a 

particular species to the address of the 

Endangered Species Coordinator in the 

appropriate Regional Office listed in 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Speciesspecific information and materials we 

receive will be available for public 

inspection by appointment, during 

normal business hours, at the 

appropriate Regional Office listed below 

under Request for Information in 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. General 

information we receive will be available 

at the Branch of Communications and 

Candidate Conservation, Falls Church, 

VA (see address under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chief, Branch of Communications and 

Candidate Conservation, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: ES, 

5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 

22041–3803 (telephone 703–358–2171). 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service at 800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We 

request additional status information 

that may be available for any of the 

candidate species identified in this 

CNOR. We will consider this 

information to monitor changes in the 

status or LPN of candidate species and 

to manage candidates as we prepare 

listing documents and future revisions 

to the notice of review. We also request 

information on additional species to 

consider including as candidates as we 

prepare future updates of this notice. 

Candidate Notice of Review 

Background 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, 

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

(ESA), requires that we identify species 

of wildlife and plants that are 

endangered or threatened based on the 

best available scientific and commercial 

information. As defined in section 3 of 

the ESA, an endangered species is any 

species that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range, and a threatened species is 

any species that is likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. Through 

the Federal rulemaking process, we add 

species that meet these definitions to 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11 or the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants at 50 

CFR 17.12. As part of this program, we 

maintain a list of species that we regard 

as candidates for listing. A candidate 

species is one for which we have on file 

sufficient information on biological 

vulnerability and threats to support a 

proposal for listing as endangered or 

threatened, but for which preparation 

and publication of a proposal is 

precluded by higher priority listing 

actions. We may identify a species as a 

candidate for listing after we have 

conducted an evaluation of its status on 

our own initiative, or resulting from a 

petition we have received. If we have 

made a positive finding on a petition to 

list a species, but we have found that 

listing is warranted but precluded by 

other higher priority listing actions, we 

will add the species to our list of 

candidates. 

We maintain this list of candidates for 

a variety of reasons: (1) To notify the 

public that these species are facing 

threats to their survival; (2) to provide 

advance knowledge of potential listings 

that could affect decisions of 

environmental planners and developers; 

(3) to provide information that may 

stimulate and guide conservation efforts 

that will remove or reduce threats to 

these species and possibly make listing 

unnecessary; (4) to request input from 

interested parties to help us identify 

those candidate species that may not 

require protection under the ESA as 

well as additional species that may 

require the ESA’s protections; and (5) to 

request necessary information for setting 

priorities for preparing listing proposals. 

We strongly encourage collaborative 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 72451 

conservation efforts for candidate 

species, and offer technical and 

financial assistance to facilitate such 

efforts. For additional information 

regarding such assistance, please 

contact the appropriate Regional Office 

listed under Request for Information or 

visit our Web site, http://www.fws.gov/ 

endangered/what-we-do/cca.html. 

Previous Notices of Review 

We have been publishing candidate 

notices of review (CNOR) since 1975. 

The most recent CNOR (prior to this 

CNOR) was published on November 22, 

2013 (78 FR 70104). CNORs published 

since 1994 are available on our Web 

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

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

CNORs published prior to 1994, please 

contact the Branch of Communications 

and Candidate Conservation (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

above). 

On September 21, 1983, we published 

guidance for assigning an LPN for each 

candidate species (48 FR 43098). Using 

this guidance, we assign each candidate 

an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the 

magnitude of threats, immediacy of 

threats, and taxonomic status; the lower 

the LPN, the higher the listing priority 

(that is, a species with an LPN of 1 

would have the highest listing priority). 

Section 4(h)(3) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 

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

establish guidelines for such a priorityranking guidance system. As explained 

below, in using this system, we first 

categorize based on the magnitude of 

the threat(s), then by the immediacy of 

the threat(s), and finally by taxonomic 

status. 

Under this priority-ranking system, 

magnitude of threat can be either ‘‘high’’ 

or ‘‘moderate to low.’’ This criterion 

helps ensure that the species facing the 

greatest threats to their continued 

existence receive the highest listing 

priority. It is important to recognize that 

all candidate species face threats to their 

continued existence, so the magnitude 

of threats is in relative terms. For all 

candidate species, the threats are of 

sufficiently high magnitude to put them 

in danger of extinction, or make them 

likely to become in danger of extinction 

in the foreseeable future. But for species 

with higher magnitude threats, the 

threats have a greater likelihood of 

bringing about extinction or are 

expected to bring about extinction on a 

shorter timescale (once the threats are 

imminent) than for species with lower 

magnitude threats. Because we do not 

routinely quantify how likely or how 

soon extinction would be expected to 

occur absent listing, we must evaluate 

factors that contribute to the likelihood 

and time scale for extinction. We 

therefore consider information such as: 

(1) The number of populations or extent 

of range of the species affected by the 

threat(s), or both; (2) the biological 

significance of the affected 

population(s), taking into consideration 

the life-history characteristics of the 

species and its current abundance and 

distribution; (3) whether the threats 

affect the species in only a portion of its 

range, and, if so, the likelihood of 

persistence of the species in the 

unaffected portions; (4) the severity of 

the effects and the rapidity with which 

they have caused or are likely to cause 

mortality to individuals and 

accompanying declines in population 

levels; (5) whether the effects are likely 

to be permanent; and (6) the extent to 

which any ongoing conservation efforts 

reduce the severity of the threat. 

As used in our priority-ranking 

system, immediacy of threat is 

categorized as either ‘‘imminent’’ or 

‘‘nonimminent,’’ and is based on when 

the threats will begin. If a threat is 

currently occurring or likely to occur in 

the very near future, we classify the 

threat as imminent. Determining the 

immediacy of threats helps ensure that 

species facing actual, identifiable threats 

are given priority for listing proposals 

over those for which threats are only 

potential or species that are intrinsically 

vulnerable to certain types of threats but 

are not known to be presently facing 

such threats. 

Our priority ranking system has three 

categories for taxonomic status: Species 

that are the sole members of a genus; 

full species (in genera that have more 

than one species); and subspecies and 

distinct population segments of 

vertebrate species (DPS). 

The result of the ranking system is 

that we assign each candidate a listing 

priority number of 1 to 12. For example, 

if the threats are of high magnitude, 

with immediacy classified as imminent, 

the listable entity is assigned an LPN of 

1, 2, or 3 based on its taxonomic status 

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

of its genus would be assigned to the 

LPN 1 category, a full species to LPN 2, 

and a subspecies or DPS would be 

assigned to LPN 3). In summary, the 

LPN ranking system provides a basis for 

making decisions about the relative 

priority for preparing a proposed rule to 

list a given species. No matter which 

LPN we assign to a species, each species 

included in this notice as a candidate is 

one for which we have sufficient 

information to prepare a proposed rule 

for listing because it is in danger of 

extinction or likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. 

For more information on the process 

and standards used in assigning LPNs, 

a copy of the 1983 guidance is available 

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

endangered/esa-library/pdf/48fr43098- 

43105.pdf. Information on the LPN 

assigned to a particular species is 

summarized in this CNOR and the 

species assessment for each candidate 

contains the LPN chart and a rationale 

for the determination of the magnitude 

and immediacy of threat(s) and 

assignment of the LPN. 

This revised notice supersedes all 

previous animal, plant, and combined 

candidate notices of review for native 

species and supersedes previous 12- 

month warranted-but-precluded petition 

findings for those candidate species that 

were petitioned for listing. 

Summary of This CNOR 

Since publication of the previous 

CNOR on November 22, 2013 (78 FR 

70104), we reviewed the available 

information on candidate species to 

ensure that a proposed listing is 

justified for each species, and 

reevaluated the relative LPN assigned to 

each species. We also evaluated the 

need to emergency list any of these 

species, particularly species with higher 

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

2, or 3). This review and reevaluation 

ensures that we focus conservation 

efforts on those species at greatest risk. 

In addition to reviewing candidate 

species since publication of the last 

CNOR, we have worked on findings in 

response to petitions to list species, and 

on proposed and final determinations 

for rules to list species under the ESA. 

Some of these findings and 

determinations have been completed 

and published in the Federal Register, 

while work on others is still under way 

(see Preclusion and Expeditious 

Progress, below, for details). 

Based on our review of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, with this CNOR, we are 

identifying 23 new candidates, we 

change the LPN for one candidate, and 

determine that a listing proposal is not 

warranted for one species and thus 

remove it from candidate status (see 

Candidate Removals, below). Combined 

with the other decisions published 

separately from this CNOR, a total of 

146 species (67 plant and 79 animal 

species) are now candidates awaiting 

preparation of rules proposing their 

listing. These 146 species, along with 

the 36 species currently proposed for 

listing (including 1 species proposed for 

listing due to similarity in appearance), 

are included in Table 1. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72452 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Table 2 lists the changes from the 

previous CNOR, and includes 49 species 

identified in the previous CNOR as 

either proposed for listing or classified 

as candidates that are no longer in those 

categories. This includes 33 species for 

which we published a final listing rule, 

11 candidate species for which we 

published a separate not-warranted 

finding and removed from candidate 

status, 3 species for which we published 

a withdrawal of a proposed rule, 1 

species for which we published a 

separate notice of removal from 

candidate status, and the 1 species in 

this notice that we have determined 

does not meet the definition of an 

endangered or threatened species and 

therefore does not warrant listing. We 

have removed this species from 

candidate status in this CNOR. 

New Candidates 

We have identified 23 new candidate 

species through this notice discussed 

below. 

Birds 

Ma’oma’o (Gymnomyza samoensis)— 

The ma’oma’o is a large, dusky olivegreen honeyeater that is known for 

making a variety of loud distinctive 

calls. The genus Gymnomyza consists of 

three honeyeaters restricted to a few 

islands in the southwestern Pacific. The 

ma’oma’o is endemic to Upolu and 

Savaii, Independent Samoa (Samoa), 

and Tutuila Island, American Samoa. 

The ma’oma’o is now believed to be 

extirpated from Tutuila Island, 

American Samoa. It is currently only 

found in small populations on the 

islands of Savaii and Upolu in Samoa. 

The ma’oma’o is primarily restricted to 

mature, well-developed, moist, mossy 

forests at upper elevations. Monitoring 

over the last decade has provided 

evidence of a decline in the relative 

abundance of the species. In 2007, the 

total population was estimated to be 

approximately 500 individuals. 

Little mature forest remains in Samoa, 

and the loss of forested habitat due to 

logging, agricultural clearing, and 

catastrophic storms is the primary threat 

to the ma’oma’o. Two storms in the 

1990s, Cyclones Ofa (1990) and Val 

(1991), destroyed much of the forested 

habitat in Samoa, reducing forest 

canopy cover by 73 percent. In 2012, 

Cyclone Evan caused additional severe 

forest damage. Loss of mature forest is 

likely to affect the ma’oma’o by 

reducing breeding and foraging habitat, 

increasing forest fragmentation, and 

increasing the abundance and diversity 

of invasive species. Other threats to the 

species include habitat degradation, 

predation by nonnative species, and 

small population size. Habitat quality 

has degraded with the loss of closed 

forest space and the spread of nonnative 

invasive weeds. Nest predation by rats 

(Rattus spp.) and feral cats (Felis catus) 

is an important threat to many island 

birds, including the ma’oma’o, and may 

impede population growth. Small 

populations are more susceptible to 

inbreeding depression (reduced 

reproductive vigor) and extirpation from 

stochastic events (e.g., inclement 

weather, population demographics, and 

altered predation patterns). Based on 

our evaluation that these ongoing 

threats pose an imminent risk of a high 

magnitude, we assign a LPN of 2 for this 

species. 

Flowering Plants 

Eighteen Hawaiian flowering plants 

(Cyanea kauaulaensis, Cyperus 

neokunthianus, Cyrtandra hematos, 

Exocarpos menziesii, Kadua 

haupuensis, Labordia lorenciana, 

Lepidium orbiculare, Phyllostegia 

brevidens, Phyllostegia helleri, 

Phyllostegia stachyoides, Portulaca 

villosa, Pritchardia bakeri, Sanicula 

sandwicensis, Santalum involutum, 

Schiedea diffusa ssp. diffusa, Sicyos 

lanceoloideus, Stenogyne kaalae ssp. 

sherffii, Wikstromoemia 

skottsbergiana)—Each of these 18 

species is endemic to one or more 

islands in the State of Hawaii ((Cyanea 

kauaulaensis (Maui), Cyperus 

neokunthianus (Maui), Cyrtandra 

hematos (Molokai), Exocarpos menziesii 

(Hawaii Island; extirpated from Lanai), 

Kadua haupuensis (Kauai), Labordia 

lorenciana (Kauai), Lepidium orbiculare 

(Kauai), Phyllostegia brevidens (Maui; 

extirpated from Hawaii Island), 

Phyllostegia helleri (Kauai), Phyllostegia 

stachyoides (Maui, Molokai, and Hawaii 

Island), Portulaca villosa (Maui and 

Nihoa), Pritchardia bakeri (Oahu), 

Sanicula sandwicensis (Maui and 

Hawaii Island), Santalum involutum 

(Kauai), Schiedea diffusa ssp. diffusa 

(Maui), Sicyos lanceoloideus (Kauai and 

Oahu), Stenogyne kaalae ssp. sherffii 

(Oahu), and Wikstromoemia 

skottsbergiana (Kauai)), and each is 

negatively affected by nonnative 

animals and plants. 

Introduced, nonnative animals 

damage and destroy plants and seeds, 

modify habitat, create habitat more 

conducive to nonnative plant 

introductions, and spread nonnative 

plant seeds. Nonnative plants displace 

and outcompete native species. 

Introduced, nonnative plants and 

animals are serious and ongoing threats 

to these species rangewide, and these 

threats are increased by the continued 

inadequacy of existing protective 

regulations. In addition, small 

population size (each species has fewer 

than 100 individuals) is a serious and 

ongoing threat to each of these species 

because (1) they may experience 

reduced reproductive vigor due to 

ineffective pollination or inbreeding 

depression; (2) they may experience 

reduced levels of genetic variability, 

leading to diminished capacity to adapt 

and respond to environmental changes, 

thereby lessening the probability of 

long-term persistence; and (3) a single 

catastrophic event may result in 

extirpation of remaining populations 

and extinction of the species. Climate 

change may pose a threat to the 

ecosystems that support these species, 

thus exacerbating the effects of the 

aforementioned threats. There are 

varying degrees of conservation efforts 

ongoing for these species; however, at a 

minimum, all of these species are listed 

on the Hawaii Plant Extinction 

Prevention Program (PEPP) species list. 

Species on the PEPP list are prioritized 

for monitoring, surveys, collection and 

storing of seeds, propagation, and 

outplanting. The threats to each of these 

species are imminent and of high 

magnitude, leading to a relatively high 

likelihood of extinction. Therefore, we 

assign a LPN of 2 for the above plants 

that are full species and an LPN of 3 for 

those that are subspecies or varieties. 

Ferns and Allies 

Four Hawaiian ferns (Asplenium 

diellaciniatum, Deparia kaalaana, 

Dryopteris glabra var. pusilla, Hypolepis 

hawaiiensis var. mauiensis)—Each of 

these four species is endemic to one or 

more islands in the State of Hawaii 

(Asplenium diellaciniatum (Kauai), 

Deparia kaalaana (Maui; extirpated 

from Kauai and Hawaii Island), 

Dryopteris glabra var. pusilla (Kauai), 

Hypolepis hawaiiensis var. mauiensis 

(Maui)); and each is negatively affected 

by nonnative animals and plants. 

Introduced, nonnative animals damage 

and destroy plants and seeds, modify 

habitat, create habitat more conducive 

to nonnative plant introductions, and 

spread nonnative plant seeds. 

Nonnative plants displace and 

outcompete native species. Introduced 

nonnative plants and animals are 

serious and ongoing threats to these 

species rangewide, and these threats are 

increased by the continued inadequacy 

of existing protective regulations. In 

addition, small population size (each 

species has fewer than 100 individuals) 

is a serious and ongoing threat to each 

of these species because (1) they may 

experience reduced reproductive vigor 

due to ineffective pollination or 

inbreeding depression; (2) they may 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 72453 

experience reduced levels of genetic 

variability, leading to diminished 

capacity to adapt and respond to 

environmental changes, thereby 

lessening the probability of long-term 

persistence; and (3) a single catastrophic 

event may result in extirpation of 

remaining populations and extinction of 

the species. Climate change may pose a 

threat to the ecosystems that support 

these species, thus exacerbating the 

effects of the aforementioned threats. 

There are varying degrees of 

conservation efforts ongoing for these 

species; however, at a minimum, all of 

these species are listed on the Hawaii 

Plant Extinction Prevention Program 

(PEPP) species list. Species on the PEPP 

list are prioritized for monitoring, 

surveys, collection and storing of seeds, 

propagation, and outplanting. The 

threats to each of these species are 

imminent and of high magnitude, 

leading to a relatively high likelihood of 

extinction. Therefore, we assign a LPN 

of 2 for Asplenium diellaciniatum and 

Deparia kaalaana and an LPN of 3 for 

Dryopteris glabra var. pusilla and 

Hypolepis hawaiiensis var. mauiensis. 

Listing Priority Changes in Candidates 

We reviewed the LPN for all 

candidate species and are changing the 

number for the following species 

discussed below. 

Birds 

Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii)— 

The Sprague’s pipit is a small grassland 

bird characterized by its high breeding 

flight display and otherwise very 

secretive behavior. Sprague’s pipits are 

strongly associated with native prairie 

(land that has never been plowed), 

especially on the breeding grounds. Its 

current breeding range includes 

portions of Montana, North Dakota, 

South Dakota, and Canada. The 

wintering range includes south-central 

and southeast Arizona, southern New 

Mexico, Texas, southern Oklahoma, 

southern Arkansas, northwest 

Mississippi, southern Louisiana, and 

northern Mexico; the vast majority of 

the U.S. winter sightings have been in 

Texas. During migration, the species has 

been sighted in areas outside of the 

direct flight path between its breeding 

and wintering sites, including Michigan, 

western Ontario, Ohio, Massachusetts, 

and Gulf and Atlantic States from 

Mississippi east and north to South 

Carolina. Sprague’s pipits also have 

been sighted in California during fall 

migration. 

The primary stressor to the species is 

habitat conversion on the breeding 

grounds. The Breeding Bird Survey 

shows a long-term decline from 1966 

through 2012. From 2002 through 2012, 

however, the long-term population 

decline has leveled off and currently, 

there is no discernable trend. The 

Christmas Bird Count data also 

indicates that the population decline 

has stopped and the population trend 

has no direction, either increasing or 

decreasing between 2003 and 2012. 

In the Service’s 12-month finding 

published on September 15, 2010, we 

identified oil and gas development and 

associated infrastructure as having a 

strong negative influence on the species 

based upon the available information at 

that time. New information suggests that 

Sprague’s pipit avoidance response of 

these features is highly variable across 

the range and thus the species’ response 

to oil and gas development and roads 

does not indicate that these are a threat. 

Landscape modelling to predict 

Sprague’s pipit habitat use on the 

breeding range indicates the population 

is concentrated in north-central 

Montana, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, 

Canada. Analysis of the likelihood of 

prairie conversion in the area where 

most pipits occur suggests that the risk 

of widespread conversion is low, with 

the most likely risk scenario of future 

conversion to cropland predicting a 

relatively low proportion (10–15 

percent) of the breeding population 

affected. 

On the wintering range, conversion of 

prairie to cropland appears to be 

accelerating. The species is widely 

distributed and mobile during winter, 

but grassland conversion is ongoing and 

apparently widespread. At this time, we 

believe that the species’ trends can be 

explained by the habitat changes that 

have occurred on the breeding range; 

however, we will be more closely 

assessing the changes to the wintering 

range and whether those changes 

threaten the Sprague’s pipit. 

The threats to the Sprague’s pipit 

described above are moderate to low in 

magnitude. Because of the relatively 

large population remaining and the 

stable-to-uncertain (i.e. not showing a 

clear decline) trends shown by surveys 

on both the breeding and wintering 

grounds, the potential decline is 

nonimminent. In addition, the threat 

from conversion of habitat on the 

breeding grounds is now nonimment. 

Therefore, we are revising the LPN from 

8 to an 11. 

Candidate Removals 

As summarized below, we have 

evaluated the threats to the following 

species and considered factors that, 

individually and in combination, 

currently or potentially could pose a 

risk to the species and its habitats. After 

a review of the best available scientific 

and commercial data, we conclude that 

listing this species under the 

Endangered Species Act is not 

warranted because this species is not 

likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

Therefore, we no longer consider it to be 

a candidate species for listing. We will 

continue to monitor the status of this 

species and to accept additional 

information and comments concerning 

this finding. We will reconsider our 

determination in the event that new 

information indicates that the threats to 

the species are of a considerably greater 

magnitude or imminence than identified 

through assessments of information 

contained in our files, as summarized 

here. 

Flowering Plants 

Astragalus cusickii var. packardiae 

(Packard’s milkvetch)—The following 

summary is based on information 

contained in our files. Packard’s 

milkvetch is narrowly endemic to a 

specific group of light-colored 

sedimentary outcrops in southwestern 

Idaho. The total range of the species 

covers approximately 26 square 

kilometers (km2) (10 square miles (mi2)) 

in Payette County. Suboccurrences of 

Packard’s milkvetch, which are 

typically represented by individual 

occupied outcrops, are found at 

elevations ranging from 793 to 915 

meters (m) (2,600 to 3,000 feet (ft)). 

Occupied outcrops tend to be found on 

steep, south- to west-facing slopes, and 

are relatively sparsely vegetated. 

Packard’s milkvetch became a 

candidate species in 2010, based on the 

identified primary threat of habitat 

degradation due to off highway vehicles 

(OHVs). In response, on December 13, 

2013, the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) made a decision that 

permanently closed 5,620 acres within 

and near Packard’s milkvetch habitat to 

OHV use, covering 68 percent of the 

species’ occurrences. Monitoring data 

collected since the closure was 

implemented in 2011 indicates that the 

OHV closure has been effective at 

eliminating the primary threat to the 

species throughout a large majority of 

the species’ range. 

Other natural and anthropogenic 

activities identified at the time it was 

designated a candidate included an 

altered wildfire regime due to invasive 

nonnative plant species and livestock 

use. There was little data at the time to 

suggest whether these potential threats 

were significant, but out of an 

abundance of caution, the Idaho Fish 

and Wildlife Office (IFWO) considered 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72454 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

these activities along with the OHV 

monitoring data from 2008–2010 when 

making the 2010 decision. However, by 

2013, a 5-year monitoring dataset (2008– 

2013) suggested a stable population and 

no association between cover of 

nonnative plant species and wildfire 

and the abundance of Packard’s 

milkvetch. 

In 2010, the population of Packard’s 

milkvetch was estimated at 

approximately 5,000 plants located 

within 26 suboccurrences with 

abundance ranges from 3 to 

approximately 500 plants per 

suboccurrence. Surveys in 2012 

documented several additional 

occupied outcrops collectively totaling 

approximately 2,000 individuals, which 

revised the range-wide population 

estimate to 6,500 plants occurring 

within 28 suboccurrences. The 5-year 

monitoring dataset (2008–2013) has 

suggested a stable population overall. 

Therefore, based on (1) the reduction 

of the species’ primary threat (i.e., OHV 

use), (2) the increase in number of 

known suboccurrences and resulting 

increase in the overall population, and 

(3) the species’ overall stable population 

status over a 5-year monitoring period, 

we find that listing of Packard’s 

milkvetch as threatened or endangered 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range is no longer warranted; the 

species no longer meets the definition of 

a candidate species, and we are 

removing it from candidate status. 

In addition to the factors that led us 

to conclude that Packard’s milkvetch no 

longer warrants candidate status, the 

BLM and IFWO signed a 20-year 

Candidate Conservation Agreement 

(CCA) on December 20, 2013, which 

further supports the BLM’s OHV closure 

decision and commits to continued 

enforcement and monitoring of the OHV 

closure. The CCA also outlines the 

BLM’s plans for long-term monitoring 

and future proactive conservation 

measures to address new potential 

threats that may arise. 

Petition Findings 

The ESA provides two mechanisms 

for considering species for listing. One 

method allows the Secretary, on the 

Secretary’s own initiative, to identify 

species for listing under the standards of 

section 4(a)(1). We implement this 

authority through the candidate 

program, discussed above. The second 

method for listing a species provides a 

mechanism for the public to petition us 

to add a species to the Lists. The CNOR 

serves several purposes as part of the 

petition process: (1) In some instances 

(in particular, for petitions to list 

species that the Service has already 

identified as candidates on its own 

initiative), it serves as the initial 

petition finding; (2) for candidate 

species for which the Service has made 

a warranted-but-precluded petition 

finding, it serves as a ‘‘resubmitted’’ 

petition finding that the ESA requires 

the Service to make each year; and (3) 

it documents the Service’s compliance 

with the statutory requirement to 

monitor the status of species for which 

listing is warranted but precluded, and 

to ascertain if they need emergency 

listing. 

First, the CNOR serves as an initial 

petition finding in some instances. 

Under section 4(b)(3)(A), when we 

receive a listing petition, we must 

determine within 90 days, to the 

maximum extent practicable, whether 

the petition presents substantial 

information indicating that listing may 

be warranted (a ‘‘90-day finding’’). If we 

make a positive 90-day finding, we must 

promptly commence a status review of 

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

must then make and publish one of 

three possible findings within 12 

months of the receipt of the petition (a 

‘‘12-month finding’’): 

(1) The petitioned action is not 

warranted; 

(2) The petitioned action is warranted 

(in which case we are required to 

promptly publish a proposed regulation 

to implement the petitioned action; 

once we publish a proposed rule for a 

species, sections 4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) of 

the ESA govern further procedures, 

regardless of whether we issued the 

proposal in response to a petition); or 

(3) The petitioned action is warranted, 

but (a) the immediate proposal of a 

regulation and final promulgation of a 

regulation implementing the petitioned 

action is precluded by pending 

proposals to determine whether any 

species is endangered or threatened, and 

(b) expeditious progress is being made 

to add qualified species to the Lists. We 

refer to this third option as a 

‘‘warranted-but-precluded finding.’’ 

We define ‘‘candidate species’’ to 

mean those species for which the 

Service has on file sufficient 

information on biological vulnerability 

and threat(s) to support issuance of a 

proposed rule to list, but for which 

issuance of the proposed rule is 

precluded (61 FR 64481; December 5, 

1996). The standard for making a 

species a candidate through our own 

initiative is identical to the standard for 

making a warranted-but-precluded 12- 

month petition finding on a petition to 

list, and we add all petitioned species 

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

candidate list. 

Therefore, all candidate species 

identified through our own initiative 

already have received the equivalent of 

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

Nevertheless, we review the status of 

the newly petitioned candidate species 

and through this CNOR publish specific 

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

90-day and warranted-but-precluded 12- 

month findings) in response to the 

petitions to list these candidate species. 

We publish these findings as part of the 

first CNOR following receipt of the 

petition. We have identified the 

candidate species for which we received 

petitions by the code ‘‘C*’’ in the 

category column on the left side of 

Table 1 below. 

Second, the CNOR serves as a 

‘‘resubmitted’’ petition finding. Section 

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

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

the petition as one that is resubmitted 

on the date of the finding. Thus, we 

must make a 12-month petition finding 

in compliance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of 

the ESA at least once a year, until we 

publish a proposal to list the species or 

make a final not-warranted finding. We 

make these annual findings for 

petitioned candidate species through 

the CNOR. These annual findings 

supercede any findings from previous 

CNORs and the initial 12-month 

warranted-but-precluded finding, 

although all previous findings are part 

of the administrative record for the new 

finding, and we may rely upon them or 

incorporate them by reference in the 

new finding as appropriate. 

Third, through undertaking the 

analysis required to complete the 

CNOR, the Service determines if any 

candidate species needs emergency 

listing. Section 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the ESA 

requires us to ‘‘implement a system to 

monitor effectively the status of all 

species’’ for which we have made a 

warranted-but-precluded 12-month 

finding, and to ‘‘make prompt use of the 

[emergency listing] authority [under 

section 4(b)(7)] to prevent a significant 

risk to the well being of any such 

species.’’ The CNOR plays a crucial role 

in the monitoring system that we have 

implemented for all candidate species 

by providing notice that we are actively 

seeking information regarding the status 

of those species. We review all new 

information on candidate species as it 

becomes available, prepare an annual 

species assessment form that reflects 

monitoring results and other new 

information, and identify any species 

for which emergency listing may be 

appropriate. If we determine that 

emergency listing is appropriate for any 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 72455 

candidate, we will make prompt use of 

the emergency listing authority under 

section 4(b)(7). For example, on August 

10, 2011, we emergency listed the 

Miami blue butterfly (76 FR 49542). We 

have been reviewing and will continue 

to review, at least annually, the status of 

every candidate, whether or not we have 

received a petition to list it. Thus, the 

CNOR and accompanying species 

assessment forms constitute the 

Service’s system for monitoring and 

making annual findings on the status of 

petitioned species under sections 

4(b)(3)(C)(i) and 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the 

ESA. 

A number of court decisions have 

elaborated on the nature and specificity 

of information that we must consider in 

making and describing the petition 

findings in the CNOR. The CNOR that 

published on November 9, 2009 (74 FR 

57804), describes these court decisions 

in further detail. As with previous 

CNORs, we continue to incorporate 

information of the nature and specificity 

required by the courts. For example, we 

include a description of the reasons why 

the listing of every petitioned candidate 

species is both warranted and precluded 

at this time. We make our 

determinations of preclusion on a 

nationwide basis to ensure that the 

species most in need of listing will be 

addressed first and also because we 

allocate our listing budget on a 

nationwide basis (see below). Regional 

priorities can also be discerned from 

Table 1, below, which includes the lead 

region and the LPN for each species. 

Our preclusion determinations are 

further based upon our budget for listing 

activities for unlisted species only, and 

we explain the priority system and why 

the work we have accomplished does 

preclude action on listing candidate 

species. 

In preparing this CNOR, we reviewed 

the current status of, and threats to, the 

112 candidates for which we have 

received a petition to list and the 5 

listed species for which we have 

received a petition to reclassify from 

threatened to endangered, where we 

found the petitioned action to be 

warranted but precluded. We find that 

the immediate issuance of a proposed 

rule and timely promulgation of a final 

rule for each of these species, except for 

the Selkirk ecosystem population and 

the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem population 

of Grizzly bear (see Petitions To 

Reclassify Species Already Listed), has 

been, for the preceding months, and 

continues to be, precluded by higher 

priority listing actions. Additional 

information that is the basis for this 

finding is found in the species 

assessments and our administrative 

record for each species. 

Our review included updating the 

status of, and threats to, petitioned 

candidate or listed species for which we 

published findings, under section 

4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA, in the previous 

CNOR. We have incorporated new 

information we gathered since the prior 

finding and, as a result of this review, 

we are making continued warrantedbut-precluded 12-month findings on the 

petitions for these species. 

The immediate publication of 

proposed rules to list these species was 

precluded by our work on higher 

priority listing actions, listed below, 

during the period from October 1, 2013, 

through September 30, 2014. Below we 

describe the actions that continue to 

preclude the immediate proposal and 

final promulgation of a regulation 

implementing each of the petitioned 

actions for which we have made a 

warranted-but-precluded finding, and 

we describe the expeditious progress we 

are making to add qualified species to, 

and remove species from, the Lists. We 

will continue to monitor the status of all 

candidate species, including petitioned 

species, as new information becomes 

available to determine if a change in 

status is warranted, including the need 

to emergency-list a species under 

section 4(b)(7) of the ESA. 

In addition to identifying petitioned 

candidate species in Table 1 below, we 

also present brief summaries of why 

each of these candidates warrants 

listing. More complete information, 

including references, is found in the 

species assessment forms. You may 

obtain a copy of these forms from the 

Regional Office having the lead for the 

species, or from the Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s Internet Web site: http://

ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/

candidateSpecies.jsp. As described 

above, under section 4 of the ESA, we 

identify and propose species for listing 

based on the factors identified in section 

4(a)(1), and section 4 also provides a 

mechanism for the public to petition us 

to add species to the Lists of 

Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants under the ESA. 

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress 

To make a finding that a particular 

action is warranted but precluded, the 

Service must make two determinations: 

(1) That the immediate proposal and 

timely promulgation of a final 

regulation is precluded by pending 

listing proposals and (2) that 

expeditious progress is being made to 

add qualified species to either of the 

lists and to remove species from the 

lists. 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)(iii). 

Preclusion 

A listing proposal is precluded if the 

Service does not have sufficient 

resources available to complete the 

proposal, because there are competing 

demands for those resources, and the 

relative priority of those competing 

demands is higher. Thus, in any given 

fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate 

whether it will be possible to undertake 

work on a listing proposal regulation or 

whether promulgation of such a 

proposal is precluded by higher priority 

listing actions—(1) The amount of 

resources available for completing the 

listing function, (2) the estimated cost of 

completing the proposed listing, and (3) 

the Service’s workload and 

prioritization of the proposed listing in 

relation to other actions. 

Available Resources 

The resources available for listing 

actions are determined through the 

annual Congressional appropriations 

process. In FY 1998 and for each fiscal 

year since then, Congress has placed a 

statutory cap on funds that may be 

expended for the Listing Program. This 

spending cap was designed to prevent 

the listing function from depleting 

funds needed for other functions under 

the ESA (for example, recovery 

functions, such as removing species 

from the Lists), or for other Service 

programs (see House Report 105–163, 

105th Congress, 1st Session, July 1, 

1997). The funds within the spending 

cap are available to support work 

involving the following listing actions: 

Proposed and final listing rules; 90-day 

and 12-month findings on petitions to 

add species to the Lists or to change the 

status of a species from threatened to 

endangered; annual ‘‘resubmitted’’ 

petition findings on prior warrantedbut-precluded petition findings as 

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

the ESA; critical habitat petition 

findings; proposed and final rules 

designating critical habitat; and 

litigation-related, administrative, and 

program-management functions 

(including preparing and allocating 

budgets, responding to Congressional 

and public inquiries, and conducting 

public outreach regarding listing and 

critical habitat). 

We cannot spend more for the Listing 

Program than the amount of funds 

within the spending cap without 

violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (see 31 

U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, since 

FY 2002, the Service’s budget has 

included a critical habitat subcap to 

ensure that some funds are available for 

completing Listing Program actions 

other than critical habitat designations 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72456 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(‘‘The critical habitat designation 

subcap will ensure that some funding is 

available to address other listing 

activities’’ (House Report No. 107–103, 

107th Congress, 1st Session. June 19, 

2001)). In FY 2002 and each year until 

FY 2006, the Service had to use 

virtually the entire critical habitat 

subcap to address court-mandated 

designations of critical habitat, and 

consequently none of the critical habitat 

subcap funds were available for other 

listing activities. In some FYs since 

2006, we have been able to use some of 

the critical habitat subcap funds to fund 

proposed listing determinations for 

high-priority candidate species. In other 

FYs, while we were unable to use any 

of the critical habitat subcap funds to 

fund proposed listing determinations, 

we did use some of this money to fund 

the critical habitat portion of some 

proposed listing determinations so that 

the proposed listing determination and 

proposed critical habitat designation 

could be combined into one rule, 

thereby being more efficient in our 

work. In FY 2014, based on the Service’s 

workload, we were able to use some of 

the critical habitat subcap funds to fund 

proposed listing determinations. 

For FY 2012 Congress also put in 

place two additional subcaps within the 

listing cap: One for listing actions for 

foreign species and one for petition 

findings. As with the critical habitat 

subcap, if the Service does not need to 

use all of the funds within the subcap, 

we are able to use the remaining funds 

for completing proposed or final listing 

determinations. In FY 2014, based on 

the Service’s workload, we were able to 

use some of the funds within the foreign 

species subcap and the petitions subcap 

to fund proposed listing determinations. 

We make our determinations of 

preclusion on a nationwide basis to 

ensure that the species most in need of 

listing will be addressed first, and also 

because we allocate our listing budget 

on a nationwide basis. Through the 

listing cap, the three subcaps, and the 

amount of funds needed to complete 

court-mandated actions within those 

subcaps, Congress and the courts have 

in effect determined the amount of 

money available for other listing 

activities nationwide. Therefore, the 

funds in the listing cap—other than 

those within the subcaps needed to 

comply with court orders or courtapproved settlement agreements 

requiring critical habitat actions for 

already-listed species, listing actions for 

foreign species, and petition findings— 

set the framework within which we 

make our determinations of preclusion 

and expeditious progress. 

For FY 2014, on January 17, 2014, 

Congress passed a Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113– 

76), which provided funding through 

September 30, 2014. In particular, it 

included an overall spending cap of 

$20,515,000 for the listing program. Of 

that, no more than $1,504,000 could be 

used for listing actions for foreign 

species, and no more than $1,501,000 

could be used to make 90-day or 12- 

month findings on petitions. The 

Service thus had $ 12,905,000 available 

to work on proposed and final listing 

determinations for domestic species. In 

addition, if the Service had funding 

available within the critical habitat, 

foreign species, or petition subcaps after 

those workloads had been completed, it 

could use those funds to work on listing 

actions other than critical habitat 

designations or foreign species. 

Costs of Listing Actions. The work 

involved in preparing various listing 

documents can be extensive, and may 

include, but is not limited to: Gathering 

and assessing the best scientific and 

commercial data available and 

conducting analyses used as the basis 

for our decisions; writing and 

publishing documents; and obtaining, 

reviewing, and evaluating public 

comments and peer review comments 

on proposed rules and incorporating 

relevant information into final rules. 

The number of listing actions that we 

can undertake in a given year also is 

influenced by the complexity of those 

listing actions; that is, more complex 

actions generally are more costly. The 

median cost for preparing and 

publishing a 90-day finding is $39,276; 

for a 12-month finding, $100,690; for a 

proposed rule with critical habitat, 

$345,000; and for a final listing rule 

with critical habitat, $305,000. 

Prioritizing Listing Actions. The 

Service’s Listing Program workload is 

broadly composed of four types of 

actions, which the Service prioritizes as 

follows: (1) Compliance with court 

orders and court-approved settlement 

agreements requiring that petition 

findings or listing or critical habitat 

determinations be completed by a 

specific date; (2) essential litigationrelated, administrative, and listing 

program-management functions; (3) 

section 4 (of the Act) listing and critical 

habitat actions with absolute statutory 

deadlines; and (4) section 4 listing 

actions that do not have absolute 

statutory deadlines. In the last few 

years, the Service received many new 

petitions and a single petition to list 404 

species, significantly increasing the 

number of actions within the second 

category of our workload—actions that 

have absolute statutory deadlines. As a 

result of the petitions to list hundreds 

of species, we currently have over 450 

12-month petition findings yet to be 

initiated and completed. 

An additional way in which we 

prioritize work in the section 4 program 

is application of the listing priority 

guidelines (48 FR 43098; September 21, 

1983). Under those guidelines, we 

assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, 

depending on the magnitude of threats 

(high or moderate to low), immediacy of 

threats (imminent or nonimminent), and 

taxonomic status of the species (in order 

of priority: Monotypic genus (a species 

that is the sole member of a genus), 

species, or part of a species (subspecies 

or distinct population segment)). The 

lower the listing priority number, the 

higher the listing priority (that is, a 

species with an LPN of 1 would have 

the highest listing priority). A species 

with a higher LPN would generally be 

precluded from listing by species with 

lower LPNs, unless work on a proposed 

rule for the species with the higher LPN 

can be combined with work on a 

proposed rule for other high-priority 

species. In addition to prioritizing 

species with our 1983 guidance, because 

of the large number of high-priority 

species we have had in the recent past, 

we had further ranked the candidate 

species with an LPN of 2 by using the 

following extinction-risk type criteria: 

International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature and Natural 

Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank, 

Heritage rank (provided by 

NatureServe), Heritage threat rank 

(provided by NatureServe), and species 

currently with fewer than 50 

individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. 

Those species with the highest IUCN 

rank (critically endangered), the highest 

Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage 

threat rank (substantial, imminent 

threats), and currently with fewer than 

50 individuals, or fewer than 4 

populations, originally comprised a 

group of approximately 40 candidate 

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

species had the highest priority to 

receive funding to work on a proposed 

listing determination and we used this 

to formulate our work plan for FYs 2010 

and 2011 that was included in the MDL 

Settlement Agreement (see below), as 

well as for work on proposed and final 

listing rules for the remaining candidate 

species with LPNs of 2 and 3. 

Finally, proposed rules for 

reclassification of threatened species to 

endangered species are lower priority, 

because as listed species, they are 

already afforded the protections of the 

Act and implementing regulations. 

However, for efficiency reasons, we may 

choose to work on a proposed rule to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 72457 

reclassify a species to endangered if we 

can combine this with work that is 

subject to a court order or courtapproved deadline. 

Since before Congress first established 

the spending cap for the Listing Program 

in 1998, the Listing Program workload 

has required considerably more 

resources than the amount of funds 

Congress has allowed for the Listing 

Program. It is therefore important that 

we be as efficient as possible in our 

listing process. As we implement our 

listing work plan and work on proposed 

rules for the highest priority species in 

the next several years, we are preparing 

multi-species proposals when 

appropriate, and these may include 

species with lower priority if they 

overlap geographically or have the same 

threats as one of the highest priority 

species. In addition, we take into 

consideration the availability of staff 

resources when we determine which 

high-priority species will receive 

funding to minimize the amount of time 

and resources required to complete each 

listing action. 

Listing Program Workload. Each FY 

we determine, based on the amount of 

funding Congress has made available 

within the Listing Program spending 

cap, specifically which actions we will 

have the resources to work on in that 

FY. We then prepare Allocation Tables 

that identify the actions that we are 

funding for that FY, and how much we 

estimate it will cost to complete each 

action; these Allocation Tables are part 

of our record for this notice and the 

listing program. Our Allocation Table 

for FY 2012, which incorporated the 

Service’s approach to prioritizing its 

workload, was adopted as part of a 

settlement agreement in a case before 

the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia (Endangered Species Act 

Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 10– 

377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (‘‘MDL 

Litigation’’), Document 31–1 (D.D.C. 

May 10, 2011) (‘‘MDL Settlement 

Agreement’’)). The requirements of 

paragraphs 1 through 7 of that 

settlement agreement, combined with 

the work plan attached to the agreement 

as Exhibit B, reflected the Service’s 

Allocation Tables for FY 2011 and FY 

2012. In addition, paragraphs 2 through 

7 of the agreement require the Service 

to take numerous other actions through 

FY 2017—in particular, complete either 

a proposed listing rule or a notwarranted finding for all 251 species 

designated as ‘‘candidates’’ in the 2010 

candidate notice of review (‘‘CNOR’’) 

before the end of FY 2016, and complete 

final listing determinations for those 

species proposed for listing within the 

statutory deadline (usually one year 

from the proposal). Paragraph 10 of that 

settlement agreement sets forth the 

Service’s conclusion that ‘‘fulfilling the 

commitments set forth in this 

Agreement, along with other 

commitments required by court orders 

or court-approved settlement 

agreements already in existence at the 

signing of this Settlement Agreement 

(listed in Exhibit A), will require 

substantially all of the resources in the 

Listing Program.’’ As part of the same 

lawsuit, the court also approved a 

separate settlement agreement with the 

other plaintiff in the case; that 

settlement agreement requires the 

Service to complete additional actions 

in specific fiscal years—including 12- 

month petition findings for 11 species, 

90-day petition findings for 477 species, 

and proposed listing determinations or 

not-warranted findings for 39 species. 

These settlement agreements have led 

to a number of results that affect our 

preclusion analysis. First, the Service 

has been, and will continue to be, 

limited in the extent to which it can 

undertake additional actions within the 

Listing Program through FY 2017, 

beyond what is required by the MDL 

Settlement Agreements. Second, 

because the settlement is court 

approved, two broad categories of 

actions now fall within the Service’s 

highest priority (compliance with a 

court order): (1) The actions required to 

be completed in FY 2014 by the MDL 

Settlement Agreements; and (2) 

completion, before the end of FY 2016, 

of proposed listings or not-warranted 

findings for most of the candidate 

species identified in this CNOR (in 

particular, for those candidate species 

that were included in the 2010 CNOR). 

Therefore, each year, one of the 

Service’s highest priorities is to make 

steady progress towards completing by 

the end of 2017 proposed and final 

listing determinations for the 2010 

candidate species—based on the 

Service’s LPN prioritization system, 

preparing multi-species actions when 

appropriate, and taking into 

consideration the availability of staff 

resources. 

Based on these prioritization factors, 

we continue to find that proposals to list 

the petitioned candidate species 

included in Table 1 are all precluded by 

higher priority listing actions including 

those with court-ordered and courtapproved settlement agreements and 

listing actions with absolute statutory 

deadlines. 

Expeditious Progress 

As explained above, a determination 

that listing is warranted but precluded 

must also demonstrate that expeditious 

progress is being made to add and 

remove qualified species to and from 

the Lists. As with our ‘‘precluded’’ 

finding, the evaluation of whether 

progress in adding qualified species to 

the Lists has been expeditious is a 

function of the resources available for 

listing and the competing demands for 

those funds. (Although we do not 

discuss it in detail here, we are also 

making expeditious progress in 

removing species from the list under the 

Recovery program in light of the 

resources available for delisting, which 

is funded by a separate line item in the 

budget of the Endangered Species 

Program. During FY 2014, we completed 

a delisting rule for one species.) As 

discussed below, given the limited 

resources available for listing, we find 

that we made expeditious progress in 

FY 2014 in the Listing Program. 

We provide below tables cataloguing 

the work of the Service’s Listing 

Program in FY 2014. This work includes 

all three of the steps necessary for 

adding species to the Lists: (1) 

Identifying species that warrant listing; 

(2) undertaking the evaluation of the 

best available scientific data about those 

species and the threats they face, and 

preparing proposed and final listing 

rules; and (3) adding species to the Lists 

by publishing proposed and final listing 

rules that include a summary of the data 

on which the rule is based and show the 

relationship of that data to the rule. 

After taking into consideration the 

limited resources available for listing, 

the competing demands for those funds, 

and the completed work catalogued in 

the tables below, we find that we made 

expeditious progress to add qualified 

species to the Lists in FY 2014. 

First, we made expeditious progress 

in the third and final step: Listing 

qualified species. In FY 2014, we 

resolved the status of 35 species that we 

determined, or had previously 

determined, qualified for listing. 

Moreover, for 32 species, the resolution 

was to add them to the Lists, most with 

concurrent designations of critical 

habitat, and for 3 species we published 

a withdrawal of the proposed rule. We 

also proposed to list an additional 24 

qualified species, most with concurrent 

critical habitat proposals. 

Second, we are making expeditious 

progress in the second step: Working 

towards adding qualified species to the 

Lists. In FY 2014, we worked on 

developing proposed listing rules for 34 

species (most of them with concurrent 

critical habitat proposals). Although we 

have not yet completed those actions, 

we are making expeditious progress 

towards doing so. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72458 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Third, we are making expeditious 

progress in the first step towards adding 

qualified species to the Lists: Identifying 

additional species that qualify for 

listing. In FY 2014, we completed two 

90-day petition findings for two species. 

Our accomplishments this year 

should also be considered in the broader 

context of our commitment to reduce 

the number of candidate species for 

which we have not made final 

determinations whether or not to list. 

On May 10, 2011, the Service filed in 

the MDL Litigation a settlement 

agreement that put in place an 

ambitious schedule for completing 

proposed and final listing 

determinations at least through FY 

2016; the court approved that settlement 

agreement on September 9, 2011. That 

agreement required, among other things, 

that for all 251 species that were 

included as candidates in the 2010 

CNOR, the Service submit to the 

Federal Register proposed listing rules 

or not-warranted findings by the end of 

FY 2016, and for any proposed listing 

rules, the Service complete final listing 

determinations within the statutory time 

frame. Paragraph 6 of the agreement 

provided indicators that the Service is 

making adequate progress towards 

meeting that requirement: Completing 

proposed listing rules or not-warranted 

findings for at least 130 of the species 

by the end of FY 2013, at least 160 

species by the end of FY 2014, and at 

least 200 species by the end of FY 2015. 

The Service has completed proposed 

listing rules or not-warranted findings 

for 166 of the 2010 candidate species, as 

well as final listing rules for 118 of 

those proposed rules, and is therefore is 

making adequate progress towards 

meeting all of the requirements of the 

MDL settlement agreement. Both by 

entering into the settlement agreement 

and by making adequate progress 

towards making final listing 

determinations for the 251 species on 

the 2010 candidate, the Service is 

making expeditious progress to add 

qualified species to the lists. 

The Service’s progress in FY 2014 

included completing and publishing the 

following determinations: 

FY 2014 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS

Publication date Title Actions FR Pages 

11/14/2013 .................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the 

Gunnison’s Prairie Dog as an Endangered 

or Threatened Species.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.78 FR 68660–68685. 

11/26/2013 .................... Initiation of Status Review of Arctic Grayling 

in the Upper Missouri River System.

Notice of Status Review ................................. 78 FR 70525–70527. 

12/19/2013 .................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Coleman’s Coralroot as an Endangered or 

Threatened Species.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted.78 FR 76795–76807. 

12/20/2013 .................... Threatened Status for Eriogonum codium 

(Umtanum Desert Buckwheat) and 

Physaria douglasii subsp. tuplashensis 

(White Bluffs Bladderpod) and Designation 

of Critical Habitat.

Final Rule—Revision ...................................... 78 FR 76995–77005. 

2/24/2014 ...................... Determination of Threatened Species Status 

for the Georgetown Salamander and Salado Salamander Throughout Their Ranges.

Final Listing Threatened ................................. 79 FR 10235–10293. 

3/31/2014 ...................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Alexander Archipelago Wolf as Threatened or 

Endangered.

Notice of 90-day petition finding, Substantial 79 FR 17993–17995. 

4/9/2014 ........................ Threatened Species Status for the Olympia 

Pocket Gopher, Roy Prairie Pocket Gopher, Tenino Pocket Gopher, and Yelm 

Pocket Gopher, with Special Rule.

Final Listing Threatened, with Special Rule ... 79 FR 19759–19796. 

4/10/2014 ...................... Determination of Threatened Status for the 

Lesser Prairie-Chicken.

Final Listing Threatened ................................. 79 FR 19973–20071. 

4/29/2014 ...................... Endangered Species Status for Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog and Northern 

Distinct Population Segment of the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog, and Threatened 

Species Status for Yosemite Toad.

Final Listing Threatened and Endangered ..... 79 FR 24255–24310. 

5/6/2014 ........................ Determination of Threatened Status for 

Leavenworthia exigua var. laciniata (Kentucky Glade Cress).

Final Listing Threatened ................................. 79 FR 25683–25688. 

6/3/2014 ........................ Threatened Species Status for Ivesia webberi Final Listing Threatened ................................. 79 FR 31878–31883. 

6/10/2014 ...................... Determination of Endangered Status for the 

New Mexico Meadow Jumping Mouse 

Throughout Its Range.

Final Listing Endangered ................................ 79 FR 33119–33137. 

7/8/2014 ........................ Threatened Status for the Northern Mexican 

Gartersnake and Narrow-Headed 

Gartersnake.

Final Listing Threatened ................................. 79 FR 38677–38746. 

7/24/2014 ...................... Endangered Species Status for the Zuni 

Bluehead Sucker.

Final Listing Endangered ................................ 79 FR 43131–43161. 

8/1/2014 ........................ Endangered Status for Physaria globosa 

(Short’s bladderpod), Helianthus 

verticillatus (whorled sunflower), and 

Leavenworthia crassa (fleshy-fruit 

gladecress).

Final Listing Endangered ................................ 79 FR 44712–44718. 

8/4/2014 ........................ Determination of Endangered Status for the 

Sharpnose Shiner and Smalleye Shiner.

Final Listing Endangered ................................ 79 FR 45273–45286. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 72459 

FY 2014 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued 

Publication date Title Actions FR Pages 

8/6/2014 ........................ Withdrawal of the Proposed Rules To List 

Graham’s Beardtongue (Penstemon 

grahamii) and White River Beardtongue 

(Penstemon scariosus var. albifluvis) and 

Designate Critical Habitat.

Proposed Listing Withdrawal .......................... 79 FR 46041–46087. 

8/12/2014 ...................... Endangered Status for the Florida Leafwing 

and Bartram’s Scrub-Hairstreak Butterflies.

Final Listing Endangered ................................ 79 FR 47222–47244. 

8/13/2014 ...................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the 

Warton’s Cave Meshweaver as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted Candidate removal.79 FR 47413–47415. 

8/13/2014 ...................... Threatened Status for the Distinct Population 

Segment of the North American Wolverine 

Occurring in the Contiguous United States; 

Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the North American 

Wolverine in Colorado, Wyoming, and New 

Mexico.

Proposed Listing Withdrawal .......................... 79 FR 47521–47545. 

8/19/2014 ...................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Island Marble Butterfly as an Endangered 

Species.

Notice of 90-day petition finding, Substantial 79 FR 49045–49047. 

8/20/2014 ...................... Revised 12-Month Finding on a Petition To 

List the Upper Missouri River Distinct Population Segment of Arctic Grayling as an 

Endangered or Threatened Species.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted Candidate removal.79 FR 49383–49422. 

8/26/2014 ...................... 12-Month Finding on the Petition To List 

Least Chub as an Endangered or Threatened Species.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted Candidate removal.79 FR 51041–51066. 

8/26/2014 ...................... Endangered Status for Vandenberg 

Monkeyflower.

Final Listing Endangered ................................ 79 FR 50844–50854. 

8/29/2014 ...................... Threatened Status for Oregon Spotted Frog .. Final Listing Threatened ................................. 79 FR 51657–51710. 

9/4/2014 ........................ Endangered Species Status for Brickellia 

mosieri (Florida Brickell-bush) and Linum 

carteri var. carteri (Carter’s Small-flowered 

Flax).

Final Listing Endangered ................................ 79 FR 52567–52575. 

9/9/2014 ........................ Endangered Species Status for Agave 

eggersiana and Gonocalyx concolor, and 

Threatened Species Status for Varronia 

rupicola.

Final Listing Endangered and Threatened ..... 79 FR 53315–53344. 

9/12/2014 ...................... Threatened Status for Arabis georgiana 

(Georgia rockcress).

Final Listing Threatened ................................. 79 FR 54627–54635. 

9/12/2014 ...................... Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the 

Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx and 

Revised Distinct Population Segment 

Boundary.

Final Critical Habitat Final Listing—adding 

New Mexico to DPS boundary.

79 FR 54781–54846. 

9/18/2014 ...................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List 

Eriogonum kelloggii (Red Mountain buckwheat) and Sedum eastwoodiae (Red 

Mountain stonecrop) as Endangered or 

Threatened Species.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted Candidate removal.79 FR 56029–56040. 

9/18/2014 ...................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List 

Symphyotrichum georgianum (Georgia 

aster) as Endangered or Threatened Species.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted Candidate removal.79 FR 56041–56047. 

9/23/2014 ...................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the 

Tucson Shovel-Nosed Snake.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted Candidate removal.79 FR 56730–56738. 

9/24/2014 ...................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List 

Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii and 

Eriogonum diatomaceum.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted Candidate removal.79 FR 57032–57041. 

10/1/2014 ...................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Rio 

Grande Cutthroat Trout as an Endangered 

or Threatened Species.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted Candidate removal.79 FR 59140–59150. 

10/1/2014 ...................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Yellow-Billed Loon (Gavia adamsii) as an Endangered or Threatened Species.Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted Candidate removal.79 FR 59195–59204. 

10/1/2014 ...................... Proposed Endangered Status for 21 Species 

and Proposed Threatened Status for 2 

Species in Guam and the Commonwealth 

of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Proposed Listing Endangered and Threatened.79 FR 59363–59413. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72460 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

FY 2014 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued 

Publication date Title Actions FR Pages 

10/3/2014 ...................... Threatened Species Status for the Western 

Distinct Population Segment of the Yellowbilled Cuckoo.

Final Listing Threatened ................................. 79 FR 59991–60038. 

10/7/2014 ...................... Threatened Species Status for Black 

Pinesnake.

Proposed Listing Threatened .......................... 79 FR 60406–60419. 

10/7/2014 ...................... Threatened Species Status for West Coast 

Distinct Population Segment of Fisher.

Proposed Listing Threatened .......................... 79 FR 60419–60443. 

10/9/2014 ...................... Endangered Species Status for Trichomanes 

punctatum ssp. floridanum (Florida Bristle 

Fern).

Proposed Listing Endangered ........................ 79 FR 61135–61161. 

Our expeditious progress also 

included work on listing actions that we 

funded in previous fiscal years and in 

FY 2014 but did not complete in FY 

2014. For these species, we have 

completed the first step, and have been 

working on the second step, necessary 

for adding species to the Lists. These 

actions are listed below. All the actions 

in the table are being conducted under 

a deadline set by a court through a court 

order or settlement agreement. 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN PREVIOUS FYS AND FY 2014 BUT NOT COMPLETED IN FY 2014 

Species Action 

Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement 

Gunnison sage-grouse ................................................................................................................................................................ Final listing. 

Dakota skipper and Poweshiek skipperling ................................................................................................................................ Final listing. 

Red knot (rufa subspecies) ......................................................................................................................................................... Final listing. 

Northern long-eared bat .............................................................................................................................................................. Final listing. 

Greater sage-grouse—Bi-State DPS .......................................................................................................................................... Final listing. 

Washington ground squirrel ........................................................................................................................................................ Proposed listing. 

Xantus’s murrelet ........................................................................................................................................................................ Proposed listing. 

Columbia spotted frog—Great Basin DPS .................................................................................................................................. Proposed listing. 

Sequatchie caddisfly ................................................................................................................................................................... Proposed listing. 

Four Florida Keys plants (sand flax, Big Pine partridge pea, Blodgett’s silverbush, and wedge spurge) ................................. Proposed listing. 

Four Florida plants (Florida pineland crabgrass, Florida prairie clover, pineland sandmat, and Everglades bully) .................. Proposed listing. 

White fringeless orchid ................................................................................................................................................................ Proposed listing. 

Black warrior waterdog ................................................................................................................................................................ Proposed listing. 

Black mudalia .............................................................................................................................................................................. Proposed listing. 

Elfin-woods warbler ..................................................................................................................................................................... Proposed listing. 

Kentucky arrow darter and Cumberland arrow darter ................................................................................................................ Proposed listing. 

Six Cave beetles (Nobletts, Baker Station, Fowler’s, Indian Grave Point, inquirer, and Coleman) .......................................... Proposed listing. 

Sicyos macrophyllus .................................................................................................................................................................... Proposed listing. 

Highlands tiger beetle ................................................................................................................................................................. Proposed listing. 

Sicklefin redhorse ........................................................................................................................................................................ Proposed listing. 

Headwater chub .......................................................................................................................................................................... Proposed listing. 

Roundtail chub DPS .................................................................................................................................................................... Proposed listing. 

Page springsnail .......................................................................................................................................................................... Proposed listing. 

Sonoran desert tortoise ............................................................................................................................................................... Proposed listing. 

Texas hornshell ........................................................................................................................................................................... Proposed listing. 

New England cottontail ............................................................................................................................................................... Proposed listing. 

Eastern massasauga ................................................................................................................................................................... Proposed listing. 

We also funded work on resubmitted 

petitions findings for 112 candidate 

species (species petitioned prior to the 

last CNOR). In our resubmitted petition 

finding for the Columbia Basin 

population of the greater sage-grouse in 

this notice, although we completed a 

new analysis of the threats facing the 

species, we did not include new 

information, as the significance of the 

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

we will update our finding when we 

resolve the status of the greater sagegrouse at a later date (see 75 FR 13910; 

March 23, 2010). We also did not 

include an updated assessment form as 

part of our resubmitted petition findings 

for the 34 candidate species for which 

we are preparing proposed listing 

determinations. However, for both the 

Columbia Basin DPS of the greater sagegrouse and for the other resubmitted 

petition findings, in the course of 

preparing proposed listing 

determinations, we continue to monitor 

new information about their status so 

that we can make prompt use of our 

authority under section 4(b)(7) in the 

case of an emergency posing a 

significant risk to the well-being of any 

of these candidate species; see 

summaries below regarding publication 

of these determinations (these species 

will remain on the candidate list until 

a proposed listing rule is published). We 

also funded a revised 12-month petition 

finding for the petitioned candidate 

species that we are removing from 

candidate status, which is being 

published as part of this CNOR (see 

Candidate Removals). Because the 

majority of these petitioned species 

were already candidate species prior to 

our receipt of a petition to list them, we 

had already assessed their status using 

funds from our Candidate Conservation 

Program, so we continue to monitor the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 72461 

status of these species through our 

Candidate Conservation Program. The 

cost of updating the species assessment 

forms and publishing the joint 

publication of the CNOR and 

resubmitted petition findings is shared 

between the Listing Program and the 

Candidate Conservation Program. 

During FY 2014, we also funded work 

on resubmitted petition findings for 

uplisting five listed species (three 

grizzly bear populations, Delta smelt, 

and Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette 

cactus)), for which we had previously 

received a petition and made a 

warranted-but-precluded finding. 

Another way that we have been 

expeditious in making progress to add 

qualified species to the Lists is that we 

have endeavored to make our listing 

actions as efficient and timely as 

possible, given the requirements of the 

relevant law and regulations and 

constraints relating to workload and 

personnel. We are continually 

considering ways to streamline 

processes or achieve economies of scale, 

such as by batching related actions 

together. Given our limited budget for 

implementing section 4 of the ESA, 

these efforts also contribute towards 

finding that we are making expeditious 

progress to add qualified species to the 

Lists. 

Although we have not been able to 

resolve the listing status of many of the 

candidates, we continue to contribute to 

the conservation of these species 

through several programs in the Service. 

In particular, the Candidate 

Conservation Program, which is 

separately budgeted, focuses on 

providing technical expertise for 

developing conservation strategies and 

agreements to guide voluntary on-theground conservation work for candidate 

and other at-risk species. The main goal 

of this program is to address the threats 

facing candidate species. Through this 

program, we work with our partners 

(other Federal agencies, State agencies, 

Tribes, local governments, private 

landowners, and private conservation 

organizations) to address the threats to 

candidate species and other species at 

risk. We are currently working with our 

partners to implement voluntary 

conservation agreements for more than 

110 species covering 3.6 million ac of 

habitat. In some instances, the sustained 

implementation of strategically 

designed conservation efforts 

culminates in making listing 

unnecessary for species that are 

candidates for listing or for which 

listing has been proposed. 

Findings for Petitioned Candidate 

Species 

Below are updated summaries for 

petitioned candidates for which we 

published findings under section 

4(b)(3)(B). In accordance with section 

4(b)(3)(C)(i), we treat any petitions for 

which we made warranted-butprecluded 12-month findings within the 

past year as having been resubmitted on 

the date of the warranted-but-precluded 

finding. We are making continued 

warranted-but-precluded 12-month 

findings on the petitions for these 

species (for 12-month findings on 

resubmitted petitions for species that we 

determined no longer meet the 

definition of ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

‘‘threatened species,’’ see summaries 

above under Candidate Removals). 

Mammals 

Pacific sheath-tailed bat, American 

Samoa DPS (Emballonura semicaudata 

semicaudata)—The following summary 

is based on information contained in 

our files. No new information was 

provided in the petition we received on 

May 11, 2004. This small insectivorous 

bat is a member of the Emballonuridae 

family, an Old World bat family that has 

an extensive distribution, primarily in 

the tropics. Emballonura semicaudata 

semicaudata was once common and 

widespread in Polynesia and 

Micronesia. The species as a whole (E. 

semicaudata) occurred on several of the 

Caroline Islands (Palau, Chuuk, and 

Pohnpei), Samoa (Independent and 

American), the Mariana Islands (Guam 

and the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands (CNMI)), Tonga, Fiji, 

and Vanuatu. While populations appear 

to be healthy in some locations, mainly 

in the Caroline Islands, they have 

declined substantially in other areas, 

including Independent and American 

Samoa, the Mariana Islands, Fiji, and 

possibly Tonga. Scientists recognize 

four subspecies: E. s. rotensis, endemic 

to the Mariana Islands (Guam and the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands (CNMI)); E. s. sulcata, occurring 

in Chuuk and Pohnpei; E. s. palauensis, 

found in Palau; and E. s. semicaudata, 

occurring in American and Independent 

Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, and Vanuatu. The 

candidate assessment form addresses 

the DPS of E. s. semicaudata that occurs 

in American Samoa. 

Emballonura semicaudata 

semicaudata historically occurred in 

American and Independent Samoa, 

Tonga, Fiji, and Vanuatu. It is extant in 

Fiji and Tonga, but may be extirpated 

from Vanuatu and Independent Samoa. 

There is some concern that it is also 

extirpated from American Samoa, the 

location of this DPS, where surveys are 

currently ongoing to ascertain its status. 

The factors that led to the decline of this 

subspecies and the DPS are poorly 

understood; however, current threats to 

this subspecies and the DPS include 

habitat loss, predation by introduced 

species, and its small population size 

and distribution, which make the taxon 

extremely vulnerable to extinction due 

to typhoons and similar natural 

catastrophes. The subspecies may also 

be susceptible to disturbance in its 

roosting caves. The threats are imminent 

and of high magnitude, since they are 

ongoing and severe enough to pose a 

relatively high likelihood of extinction. 

Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 

3 for this DPS of a subspecies. 

Pen ̃ asco least chipmunk (Tamias 

minimus atristria)—The following 

summary is based on information 

contained in our files. Pen ̃ asco least 

chipmunk is endemic to the White 

Mountains, Otero and Lincoln Counties, 

and the Sacramento Mountains, Otero 

County, New Mexico. The Pen ̃ asco least 

chipmunk historically had a broad 

distribution throughout the Sacramento 

Mountains within ponderosa pine 

forests. The last verification of 

persistence of the Sacramento 

Mountains population of Pen ̃ asco least 

chipmunk was in 1966, and the 

subspecies appears to be extirpated from 

the Sacramento Mountains. The only 

remaining known distribution of the 

least chipmunk is restricted to open, 

high-elevation talus slopes within a 

subalpine grassland, located in the 

Sierra Blanca area of the White 

Mountains in Lincoln and Otero 

Counties, New Mexico. 

The Pen ̃ asco least chipmunk faces 

threats from present or threatened 

destruction, modification, and 

curtailment of its habitat from the 

alteration or loss of mature ponderosa 

pine forests in one of the two 

historically occupied areas. The 

documented decline in occupied 

localities, in conjunction with the small 

numbers of individuals captured, are 

linked to widespread habitat alteration. 

Moreover, the highly fragmented nature 

of its distribution is a significant 

contributor to the vulnerability of this 

subspecies and increases the likelihood 

of very small, isolated populations being 

extirpated. As a result of this 

fragmentation, even if suitable habitat 

exists (or is restored) in the Sacramento 

Mountains, the likelihood of natural 

recolonization of historical habitat or 

population expansion from the White 

Mountains is extremely remote. 

Considering the high magnitude and 

immediacy of these threats to the 

subspecies and its habitat, and the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72462 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

vulnerability of the White Mountains 

population, we conclude that the least 

chipmunk is in danger of extinction 

throughout all of its known range now 

or in the foreseeable future. 

The one known remaining extant 

population of Pen ̃ asco least chipmunk 

in the White Mountains is particularly 

susceptible to extinction as a result of 

small, reduced population sizes and its 

isolation. Because of the reduced 

population size and lack of contiguous 

habitat adjacent to the extant White 

Mountains population, even a small 

impact on the White Mountains could 

have a very large impact on the status 

of the species as a whole. As a result of 

its restricted range, apparent small 

population size, and fragmented 

historical habitat, the White Mountains 

population is inherently vulnerable to 

extinction due to effects of small, 

population sizes (e.g. loss of genetic 

diversity). These impacts are likely to be 

seen in the population at some point in 

the foreseeable future, but do not appear 

to be affecting this population currently 

as it appears to be stable at this time. 

Therefore, we conclude that the threats 

to this population are of high 

magnitude, but not imminent. 

Therefore, we assign an LPN of 6 to the 

subspecies. 

New England cottontail (Sylvilagus 

transitionalis)—We continue to find that 

listing this species is warranted but 

precluded as of the date of publication 

of this notice. However, we are working 

on a proposed listing determination that 

we expect to publish prior to making the 

next annual resubmitted petition 12- 

month finding. In the course of 

preparing the proposed listing rule, we 

are continuing to monitor new 

information about this species’ status so 

that we can make prompt use of our 

authority under section 4(b)(7) in the 

case of an emergency posing a 

significant risk to the species. 

Southern Idaho ground squirrel 

(Urocitellus endemicus)—The following 

summary is based on information 

contained in our files. No new 

information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

The southern Idaho ground squirrel is 

endemic to four counties in southwest 

Idaho; its total known range is 

approximately 292,000 hectares (ha) 

(722,000 acres (ac)). The population 

declined significantly between 1985 and 

2001, and approximately 37 percent of 

the historical known sites were 

occupied in 1999 by a relatively small 

number of individuals. More recently, 

southern Idaho ground squirrels have 

increased in abundance, and monitoring 

suggests that the population may now 

be stable. 

Threats to southern Idaho ground 

squirrels include: Habitat degradation; 

direct killing from shooting, trapping, or 

poisoning; predation; and competition 

with other ground squirrel species. 

Habitat degradation appears to be the 

primary threat. Nonnative annuals such 

as Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass) and 

Taeniatherum caput-medusae 

(medusahead) now dominate much of 

this species’ range and have altered the 

fire regime by increasing the frequency 

of wildfire. Nonnative annuals may 

provide inconsistent forage quality for 

southern Idaho ground squirrels 

compared to native vegetation. A 

programmatic Candidate Conservation 

Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) has 

been completed for this species and 

contains conservation measures that 

minimize ground disturbing activities, 

allow for the investigation of methods to 

restore currently degraded habitat, 

provide for additional protection to 

southern Idaho ground squirrels from 

recreational shooting and other direct 

killing on enrolled lands, and allow for 

the translocation of squirrels to or from 

enrolled lands, if necessary. The acreage 

enrolled through the CCAA 

encompasses approximately 9 percent of 

the known range of the species. While 

the ongoing conservation efforts have 

helped to reduce the magnitude of 

threats to a moderate level, habitat 

degradation remains the primary threat 

to the species throughout most of its 

range. This threat is imminent, due to 

the ongoing and increasing prevalence 

of nonnative vegetation. Therefore, we 

have retained an LPN of 8 for this 

species. 

Washington ground squirrel 

(Urocitellus washingtoni)—We continue 

to find that listing this species is 

warranted but precluded as of the date 

of publication of this notice. However, 

we are working on a proposed listing 

rule that we expect to publish prior to 

making the next annual resubmitted 

petition 12-month finding. In the course 

of preparing the proposed listing 

determination, we are continuing to 

monitor new information about this 

species’ status so that we can make 

prompt use of our authority under 

section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 

emergency posing a significant risk to 

the species. 

Red tree vole, north Oregon coast DPS 

(Arborimus longicaudus)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files and 

in our initial warranted-but-precluded 

finding, published in the Federal 

Register on October 13, 2011 (76 FR 

63720). Red tree voles are small, mousesized rodents that live in conifer forests 

and spend almost all of their time in the 

tree canopy. They are one of the few 

animals that can persist on a diet of 

conifer needles, which is their principal 

food. Red tree voles are endemic to the 

humid, coniferous forests of western 

Oregon (generally west of the crest of 

the Cascade Range) and northwestern 

California (north of the Klamath River). 

The north Oregon coast DPS of the red 

tree vole comprises that portion of the 

Oregon Coast Range from the Columbia 

River south to the Siuslaw River. Red 

tree voles demonstrate strong selection 

for nesting in older conifer forests, 

which are now relatively rare across the 

DPS; they avoid nesting in younger 

forests. 

Although data are not available to 

rigorously assess population trends, 

information from retrospective surveys 

indicates red tree voles have declined in 

the DPS and are largely absent in areas 

where they were once relatively 

abundant. Older forests that provide 

habitat for red tree voles are limited and 

highly fragmented, while ongoing forest 

practices in much of the DPS maintain 

the remnant patches of older forest in a 

highly fragmented and isolated 

condition. Modeling indicates that only 

11 percent of the DPS currently contains 

tree vole habitat, largely restricted to the 

22 percent of the DPS that is under 

Federal ownership. 

Existing regulatory mechanisms on 

State and private lands are inadequate 

to prevent continued harvest of forest 

stands at a scale and extent that would 

be meaningful for conserving red tree 

voles. Biological characteristics of red 

tree voles, such as small home ranges, 

limited dispersal distances, and low 

reproductive potential, limit their 

ability to respond to and persist in areas 

of extensive habitat loss and alteration. 

These biological characteristics also 

make it difficult for the tree voles to 

recolonize isolated habitat patches. Due 

to its reduced distribution, the red tree 

vole is now vulnerable to random 

environmental disturbances that may 

remove or further isolate large blocks of 

already limited habitat, and to 

extirpation within the DPS from such 

factors as lack of genetic variability, 

inbreeding depression, and 

demographic stochasticity. Although the 

entire population is experiencing 

threats, the impact is less pronounced 

on Federal lands, where much of the red 

tree vole habitat remains. Hence, the 

magnitude of these threats is moderate 

to low. The threats are imminent 

because habitat loss and reduced 

distribution are currently occurring 

within the DPS. Therefore, we have 

retained an LPN of 9 for this DPS. 

Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus 

divergens)—The following information 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 72463 

is based on information in our files and 

our warranted-but-precluded 12-month 

petition finding published on February 

10, 2011 (76 FR 7634). The Pacific 

walrus is an ice-dependent species 

found across the continental shelf 

waters of the northern Bering and 

Chukchi Seas. Unlike seals, which can 

remain in the water for extended 

periods, walrus must haul out onto ice 

or land periodically. Pacific walrus is a 

traditional and important source of food 

and products to native Alaskans, 

especially those living on Saint 

Lawrence Island, and to native 

Russians. 

Annually, walrus migrate up to 1,500 

kilometers (km) (932 miles (mi)) 

between winter breeding areas in the 

sub-Arctic (northern Bering Sea) and 

summer foraging areas in the Arctic. 

Historically, the females and calves 

remained on pack ice over the 

continental shelf of the Chukchi Sea 

throughout the summer, using it as a 

platform for resting after making 

shallow foraging dives for invertebrates 

on the sea floor. Sea ice also provides 

isolation from disturbance and 

terrestrial predators such as polar bears. 

Since 1979, the extent of summer Arctic 

sea ice has declined. The five lowest 

records of minimum sea ice extent 

occurred from 2007 to 2012. Based on 

the best scientific information available, 

we anticipate that sea ice will retreat 

northward off the Chukchi continental 

shelf for 1 to 5 months every year in the 

foreseeable future. 

When the ice melts beyond the limits 

of the continental shelf (and the ability 

of the walrus to obtain food), thousands 

of walrus congregate at coastal haulouts. 

Although coastal haulouts have 

historically provided a place to rest, the 

aggregation of so many animals, in 

particular females and calves, at this 

time of year has increased in the last 5 

years. Not only are the number of 

animals more concentrated at coastal 

haulouts than on widely dispersed sea 

ice, but also the probability of 

disturbance from humans and terrestrial 

animals is much higher. Disturbances at 

coastal haulouts can cause stampedes, 

leading to mortalities and injuries. In 

addition, there is also concern that the 

concentration of animals will cause 

local prey depletion, leading to longer 

foraging trips, increased energy costs, 

and potential effects on female 

condition and calf survival. We expect 

these effects to lead to a population 

decline. 

We recognize that Pacific walrus face 

additional stressors from ocean 

warming, ocean acidification, disease, 

oil and gas exploration and 

development, increased shipping, 

commercial fishing, and subsistence 

harvest, but none rise to the level of a 

threat except subsistence harvest. We 

found that subsistence harvest will rise 

to the level of a threat if the population 

declines but harvest levels remain the 

same. Because both the loss of sea ice 

habitat and the ongoing practice of 

subsistence harvest are presently 

occurring, these threats are imminent. 

However, these threats are not having 

significant population-level effects 

currently, but are projected to, we 

determined that the magnitude of the 

threats is moderate, not high. Thus, we 

assigned an LPN of 9 to this subspecies. 

Birds 

Spotless crake, American Samoa DPS 

(Porzana tabuensis)—The following 

summary is based on information 

contained in our files. No new 

information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

The spotless crake is a small, dark, 

cryptic bird found in wetlands and rank 

scrublands or forests in the Philippines, 

Australia, Fiji, Tonga, Society Islands, 

Marquesas, Independent Samoa, and 

American Samoa (Ofu, Tau). The genus 

Porzana is widespread in the Pacific, 

where it is represented by numerous 

island-endemic and flightless species 

(many of which are extinct as a result 

of anthropogenic disturbances), as well 

as several more cosmopolitan species, 

including P. tabuensis. No subspecies of 

P. tabuensis are recognized. 

The American Samoa population is 

the only population of spotless crakes 

under U.S. jurisdiction. The available 

information indicates that distinct 

populations of the spotless crake, a 

species not noted for long-distance 

dispersal, are definable. The population 

of spotless crakes in American Samoa is 

discrete in relation to the remainder of 

the species as a whole, which is 

distributed in widely separated 

locations. Although the spotless crake 

(and other rails) have dispersed widely 

in the Pacific, flight in island rails has 

atrophied or been completely lost over 

evolutionary time, causing populations 

to become isolated (and vulnerable to 

terrestrial predators such as rats). The 

population of this species in American 

Samoa is therefore distinct based on 

geographic and distributional isolation 

from spotless crake populations on 

other islands in the oceanic Pacific, the 

Philippines, and Australia. The 

American Samoa population of the 

spotless crake links the Central and 

Eastern Pacific portions of the species’ 

range. The loss of this population would 

result in an increase of roughly 500 mi 

(805 km) in the distance between the 

central and eastern Polynesian portions 

of the spotless crake’s range, and could 

result in the isolation of the Marquesas 

and Society Islands populations by 

further limiting the potential for even 

rare genetic exchange. Based on the 

discreteness and significance of the 

American Samoa population of the 

spotless crake, we consider this 

population to be a distinct vertebrate 

population segment. 

Threats to this population have not 

changed over the past year. The 

population in American Samoa is 

threatened by small population size, 

limited distribution, predation by 

nonnative and native animals, 

continued development of wetland 

habitat, and natural catastrophes such as 

hurricanes. The co-occurrence of a 

known predator of ground-nesting birds, 

the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), and 

native predators, the Pacific boa 

(Candoia bibroni) and the Purple 

Swamphen (Porphyrio porphyrio), along 

with the extremely restricted observed 

distribution and low numbers, indicates 

that the threats to the American Samoa 

DPS of the spotless crake continue to be 

both imminent and high in magnitude 

because the ongoing threats have a high 

likelihood of affecting the ability of the 

species to survive in a relatively short 

time frame. Based on this assessment of 

existing information about the 

imminence and high magnitude of these 

threats, we have retained an LPN of 3 

for this DPS. 

Friendly ground-dove, American 

Samoa DPS (Gallicolumba stairi)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

The genus Gallicolumba is distributed 

throughout the Pacific and Southeast 

Asia. The genus is represented in the 

oceanic Pacific by six species: Three are 

endemic to Micronesian islands or 

archipelagos, two are endemic to island 

groups in French Polynesia, and G. 

stairi is endemic to Samoa, Tonga, and 

Fiji. Some authors recognize two 

subspecies of the friendly ground-dove, 

one, slightly smaller, in the Samoan 

archipelago (G. s. stairi), and one in 

Tonga and Fiji (G. s. vitiensis), but 

because morphological differences 

between the two are minimal, we are 

not recognizing separate subspecies at 

this time. 

In American Samoa, the friendly 

ground-dove has been found on the 

islands of Ofu and Olosega (Manua 

Group). Threats to this species have not 

changed over the past year. Predation by 

nonnative species and natural 

catastrophes such as hurricanes are the 

primary threats to the DPS. Of these, 

predation by nonnative species is 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72464 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

thought to be occurring now and likely 

has been occurring for several decades. 

This predation may be an important 

impediment to population growth. 

Predation by introduced species has 

played a significant role in reducing, 

limiting, and extirpating populations of 

island birds, especially ground-nesters 

like the friendly ground-dove, in the 

Pacific and other locations worldwide. 

Nonnative predators known or thought 

to occur in the range of the friendly 

ground-dove in American Samoa 

include feral cats (Felis catus), 

Polynesian rats (Rattus exulans), black 

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

norvegicus). 

In January 2004 and February of 2005, 

hurricanes virtually destroyed the 

habitat of G. stairi in the area on Olosega 

Island where the species had been most 

frequently recorded. Although this 

species has evolved on islands subject 

to severe storms, this example illustrates 

the potential for natural disturbance to 

exacerbate the effect of anthropogenic 

disturbance on small populations. 

Consistent monitoring using a variety of 

methods over the last 5 years yielded 

few observations and no change in the 

relative abundance of this taxon in 

American Samoa. The total population 

size remains poorly known but is 

unlikely to number more than a few 

hundred pairs. The distribution of the 

friendly ground-dove is limited to steep, 

forested slopes with an open understory 

and a substrate of fine scree or exposed 

earth; this habitat is not common in 

American Samoa. The threats are 

ongoing and therefore imminent, and 

the magnitude is moderate because 

relative abundance has remained 

unchanged for several years. Thus, we 

have retained an LPN of 9 for this DPS. 

Xantus’s murrelet (Synthliboramphus 

hypoleucus)—We continue to find that 

listing this species is warranted but 

precluded as of the date of publication 

of this notice. However, we are working 

on a proposed listing determination that 

we expect to publish prior to making the 

next annual resubmitted petition 12- 

month finding. In the course of 

preparing the proposed listing rule, we 

are continuing to monitor new 

information about this species’ status so 

that we can make prompt use of our 

authority under section 4(b)(7) in the 

case of an emergency posing a 

significant risk to the species. 

Red-crowned parrot (Amazona 

viridigenalis)—The following summary 

is based on information contained in the 

notice of 12-month finding (76 FR 

62016) as well as communication with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service), Texas Parks and Wildlife 

Department, The Nature Conservancy, 

Rio Grande Joint Venture, World 

Birding Center, Rio Grande Valley 

Birding Festival, and the Universidad 

Auto ́noma de Tamaulipas. As of April, 

2014, there are no changes to the range 

or distribution of the red-crowned 

parrot. The red-crowned parrot is nonmigratory, and occurs in fragmented 

isolated habitat in the Mexican States of 

Tamaulipas, Veracruz, San Luis Potosi, 

Nuevo Leon, and northeast Queretaro. 

The species also occurs within the 

southern tip of Texas, in the cities of 

Mission, McAllen, Pharr, and Edinburg 

(Hidalgo County), and in Brownsville, 

Los Fresnos, San Benito, and Harlingen 

(Cameron County). Feral populations 

also exist in southern California, Puerto 

Rico, Hawaii, and Florida and escaped 

birds have been reported in central 

Texas. As of 2004, half of the native 

population is believed to be found in 

the United States. The species is 

nomadic during the winter (nonbreeding) season when large flocks 

range widely to forage, moving tens of 

kilometers during a single flight in 

Mexico. In Texas, red-crowned parrots 

are thought to move between urban 

areas in search of food and other 

available resources. There has not been 

systematic annual monitoring of redcrowned parrot populations in Texas’s 

Lower Rio Grande Valley (LRGV), so no 

population trend information is 

available; instead, numbers of parrots 

are most often reported from more 

informal surveys including Christmas 

Bird Counts and E-bird; surveys with 

wide variation in observers’ skill levels. 

Counts of nesting pairs have not been 

documented since McKinney’s 1995 

survey. In Mexico, the level of 

monitoring of red-crowned parrots 

within the last two decades is not well 

known; however, community groups 

did include the species in bird surveys 

in the Ejido El Sabinito, in Sierras of 

Tamaulipas, in 2012 and 2013, where 

they reported approximately 2,500 and 

1,889 individuals, respectively. 

Anecdotal reports from Mexico suggest 

that the species may be increasing in 

numbers in urban areas of Tamaulipas 

and Neuvo Leon. 

The primary threats within Mexico 

and Texas remain habitat destruction 

and modification from logging, 

deforestation, and conversion of suitable 

habitat for agricultural and urban 

development purposes. In addition, 

existing regulations do not adequately 

address the habitat or capture and trade 

threats to the species. Thus, the 

inadequacy of existing regulations and 

their enforcement continue to threaten 

the red-crowned parrot. Disease and 

predation are not documented to 

threaten the species. Pesticide exposure 

is not known to affect the red-crowned 

parrot. Conservation efforts include the 

artificial nest structure projects, as well 

as habitat creation projects such as one 

initiated by the Service and the Rio 

Grande Joint Venture in the LRGV to 

understand and compare how birds are 

using revegetated tracts of land that 

were previously affected by flooding. 

The project is in its initial steps and no 

results are yet available. Threats to the 

species are imminent because habitat 

destruction and inadequate regulatory 

mechanisms are ongoing. In addition, 

the threats are high in magnitude, 

because they affect the species 

extensively at a population level; 

therefore, we have determined that a 

LPN of 2 remains appropriate for the 

species. 

Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii)— 

See above in ‘‘Listing Priority Changes 

in Candidates.’’ 

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus)—The following summary 

is based on information in our files and 

in the petition we received on January 

30, 2002. Currently, greater sage-grouse 

occur in 11 States (Washington, Oregon, 

California, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, 

Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, South 

Dakota, and North Dakota) and 2 

Canadian provinces (Alberta and 

Saskatchewan), occupying 

approximately 56 percent of their 

historical range. Greater sage-grouse 

depend on a variety of shrub-steppe 

habitats throughout their life cycle, and 

are obligate users of several species of 

sagebrush. 

The primary threat to greater sagegrouse is ongoing fragmentation and 

loss of shrub-steppe habitats through a 

variety of mechanisms. Most 

importantly, increasing fire cycles and 

invasive plants (and the interaction 

between them) in more westerly parts of 

the range, along with energy 

development and related infrastructure 

in more easterly areas, are negatively 

affecting the species. In addition, direct 

loss of habitat and fragmentation is 

occurring due to agriculture, 

urbanization, and infrastructure such as 

roads and power lines built in support 

of several activities. We also have 

determined that currently existing 

regulatory mechanisms are inadequate 

to protect the species from these 

ongoing threats. However, many of these 

habitat impacts are being actively 

addressed through conservation actions 

taken by local working groups, and State 

and Federal agencies. Notably, the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

has committed significant financial and 

technical resources to address threats to 

this species on private lands through 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 72465 

their Sage-grouse Initiative. Also 

notably, the Bureau of Land 

Management and U.S. Forest Service are 

in the process of revising 98 Land 

Management Plans through 6 

Environmental Impact Statements to 

provide adequate regulatory 

mechanisms. These efforts, when fully 

implemented, will potentially provide 

important conservation benefits to the 

greater sage-grouse and its habitats. We 

consider the threats to the greater sagegrouse to be of moderate magnitude, 

because the threats are not occurring 

with uniform intensity or distribution 

across the wide range of the species at 

this time, and substantial habitat still 

remains to support the species in many 

areas. The threats are imminent because 

the species is currently facing them in 

many portions of its range. Therefore, 

we assigned the greater sage-grouse an 

LPN of 8. 

Greater sage-grouse, Columbia Basin 

DPS (Centrocercus urophasianus)—The 

following summary is based on 

information in our files and a petition, 

dated May 14, 1999, requesting the 

listing of the Washington population of 

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

This population was historically found 

in northern Oregon and central 

Washington. On May 7, 2001, we 

concluded that listing the Columbia 

Basin DPS of the western sage-grouse 

was warranted, but precluded by higher 

priority listing actions (66 FR 22984). 

Following our May 7, 2001, finding, the 

Service received additional petitions 

requesting listing actions for various 

other greater sage-grouse populations, 

including one for the nominal western 

subspecies, dated January 24, 2002, and 

three for the entire species, dated June 

18, 2002, and March 19 and December 

22, 2003. The Service subsequently 

found that the petition for the western 

subspecies did not present substantial 

information indicating that listing may 

be warranted (68 FR 6500; February 7, 

2003), and that listing the greater sagegrouse was not warranted (70 FR 2244; 

January 12, 2005). The court 

subsequently remanded these latter 

findings to the Service for further 

consideration. In response, we initiated 

a new rangewide status review for the 

entire species (73 FR 10218; February 

26, 2008). On March 5, 2010, we found 

that listing of the greater sage-grouse 

was warranted but precluded by higher 

priority listing actions (75 FR 13909; 

March 23, 2010), and it was added to 

the list of candidates. We also found 

that the western subspecies of the 

greater sage-grouse, the taxonomic 

entity we relied on in our DPS analysis 

for the Columbia Basin population, was 

no longer considered a valid subspecies. 

In light of our conclusions regarding the 

taxonomic invalidity of the western 

sage-grouse subspecies, the significance 

of the Columbia Basin DPS to the greater 

sage-grouse will require further review. 

The Service intends to complete an 

analysis to determine if this population 

continues to warrant recognition as a 

DPS in accordance with our Policy 

Regarding the Recognition of Distinct 

Vertebrate Population Segments (61 FR 

4722; February 7, 1996) at the time we 

make a listing decision on the status of 

the greater sage-grouse. Until that time, 

the Columbia Basin DPS will remain a 

candidate for listing. 

Band-rumped storm-petrel, Hawaii 

DPS (Oceanodroma castro)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files and 

the petition we received on May 8, 

1989. No new information was provided 

in the second petition received on May 

11, 2004. The band-rumped storm-petrel 

is a small seabird that is found in 

several areas of the subtropical Pacific 

and Atlantic Oceans. In the Pacific, 

there are three widely separated 

breeding populations—one in Japan, 

one in Hawaii, and one in the 

Galapagos. Populations in Japan and the 

Galapagos are comparatively large and 

number in the thousands, while the 

Hawaiian birds represent a small, 

remnant population of possibly only a 

few hundred pairs. Band-rumped stormpetrels are most commonly found in 

close proximity to breeding islands. The 

three populations in the Pacific are 

separated by long distances across the 

ocean where birds are not found. 

Extensive at-sea surveys of the Pacific 

have revealed a broad gap in 

distribution of the band-rumped stormpetrel to the east and west of the 

Hawaiian Islands, indicating that the 

distribution of birds in the central 

Pacific around Hawaii is disjunct from 

other nesting areas. The available 

information indicates that distinct 

populations of band-rumped stormpetrels are definable and that the 

Hawaiian population is distinct based 

on geographic and distributional 

isolation from other band-rumped 

storm-petrel populations in Japan, the 

Galapagos, and the Atlantic Ocean. Loss 

of the Hawaiian population would cause 

a significant gap in the distribution of 

the band-rumped storm-petrel in the 

Pacific, and could result in the complete 

isolation of the Galapagos and Japan 

populations without even occasional 

genetic exchange. Therefore, the 

population is both discrete and 

significant, and constitutes a DPS. 

The band-rumped storm-petrel 

probably was common on all of the 

main Hawaiian Islands when 

Polynesians arrived about 1,500 years 

ago, based on storm-petrel bones found 

in middens on the island of Hawaii and 

in excavation sites on Oahu and 

Molokai, Hawaii. Nesting colonies of 

this species in the Hawaiian Islands 

currently are restricted to remote cliffs 

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

Vocalizations of the species were heard 

in Haleakala Crater on Maui as recently 

as 2006; however, no nesting sites have 

been located on the island to date. The 

significant reduction in numbers and 

range of the band-rumped storm-petrel 

is due primarily to predation by 

nonnative species introduced by 

humans, including the domestic cat 

(Felis catus), small Indian mongoose 

(Herpestes auropunctatus), common 

barn owl (Tyto alba), black rat (Rattus 

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

Norway rat (R. norvegicus). These 

nonnative predators occur throughout 

the main Hawaiian Islands, with the 

exception of the mongoose, which is not 

established on Kauai. Attraction of 

fledglings to artificial lights, which 

disrupt their night-time navigation, 

resulting in collisions with buildings 

and other objects, and collisions with 

artificial structures such as 

communication towers and utility lines, 

are also threats. Erosion of nest sites 

caused by the actions of nonnative 

ungulates is a potential threat in some 

locations. Efforts are under way in some 

areas to reduce light pollution and 

mitigate the threat of collisions, as well 

as to control some of the nonnative 

predators in the Hawaiian Islands; 

however, the threats are ongoing and are 

therefore imminent. They are of a high 

magnitude, because they can severely 

affect the survival of this DPS, leading 

to a relatively high likelihood of 

extinction. Therefore, we have retained 

an LPN of 3 for this DPS. 

Elfin-woods warbler (Dendroica 

angelae)—We continue to find that 

listing this species is warranted but 

precluded as of the date of publication 

of this notice. However, we are working 

on a proposed listing determination that 

we expect to publish prior to making the 

next annual resubmitted petition 12- 

month finding. In the course of 

preparing the proposed listing rule, we 

are continuing to monitor new 

information about this species’ status so 

that we can make prompt use of our 

authority under section 4(b)(7) in the 

case of an emergency posing a 

significant risk to the species. 

Reptiles 

Eastern massasauga rattlesnake 

(Sistrurus catenatus)—We continue to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72466 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

find that listing this species is 

warranted but precluded as of the date 

of publication of this notice. However, 

we are working on a proposed listing 

determination that we expect to publish 

prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted petition 12-month finding. 

In the course of preparing the proposed 

listing rule, we are continuing to 

monitor new information about this 

species’ status so that we can make 

prompt use of our authority under 

section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 

emergency posing a significant risk to 

the species. 

Louisiana pine snake (Pituophis 

ruthveni)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files and the petition we received on 

July 20, 2000, and updated through 

April 22, 2014. The Louisiana pine 

snake historically occurred in the firemaintained longleaf pine ecosystem 

within west-central Louisiana and 

extreme east-central Texas. Most of the 

historical longleaf pine habitat of the 

Louisiana pine snake has been 

destroyed or degraded due to logging, 

fire suppression, roadways, short 

rotation silviculture, and grazing. Over 

time, the extensive loss, degradation, 

and fragmentation of the longleaf pine 

ecosystem, coupled with the disruption 

of natural fire regimes, have resulted in 

extant Louisiana pine snake populations 

that are isolated and small. 

The Louisiana pine snake is currently 

restricted to six small, isolated naturally 

occupied areas; four of these areas occur 

on Federal lands, and two occur mainly 

on private industrial timberlands. All of 

these remnant individuals may be 

vulnerable to factors associated with 

low population sizes and demographic 

isolation, such as reduced genetic 

heterozygosity. The currently occupied 

area in Louisiana and Texas is estimated 

to be approximately 58,497 ha (144,549 

ac). All remnant Louisiana pine snake 

habitats require active management to 

remain suitable. A Candidate 

Conservation Agreement (CCA) was 

completed in 2003 to maintain and 

enhance occupied and potential habitat 

on public lands, and to protect known 

Louisiana pine snake populations. This 

proactive habitat management has likely 

slowed or reversed the rate of Louisiana 

pine snake habitat degradation on many 

portions of Federal lands. The 2003 

CCA was updated in 2013. The 2013 

updated CCA directly links the specific 

conservation actions performed by the 

cooperators to the specific threats 

affecting the species. However, the 

historical and ongoing loss or 

unavailability of preferable habitat (via 

fire suppression, conversion to short 

rotation, dense-canopy, off-site pine 

plantations, increases in the number 

and width of roads, and urbanization) 

on private lands in the matrix between 

these extant populations has eliminated 

dispersal among remnant populations 

and the natural recolonization of vacant 

habitat patches. Because corridors 

linking extant populations are extremely 

unlikely to be established, the loss of 

any extant population would be 

permanent without future 

reintroduction of captive-bred 

individuals. 

All populations require active habitat 

management, and the lack of adequate 

amounts of suitable habitat remains a 

threat for several populations. The 

potential threats to nearly all extant 

Louisiana pine snake populations, 

coupled with the likely permanence of 

these effects and the species’ low 

fecundity and low population sizes 

(based on capture rates and occurrence 

data), lead us to conclude that the 

threats have a relatively high likelihood 

of bringing about extinction and 

therefore remain high in magnitude. The 

threats are not imminent, because, while 

the extent of Louisiana pine snake 

habitat loss has been great in the past, 

the rate of habitat loss on Federal lands 

is declining and habitat conditions 

within occupied or preferable areas is 

improving due to proactive habitat 

management and other threat reduction 

through the CCA. Thus, based on 

nonimminent, high-magnitude threats, 

we assign an LPN of 5 to this species. 

Desert tortoise, Sonoran (Gopherus 

morafkai)—We continue to find that 

listing this species is warranted but 

precluded as of the date of publication 

of this notice. However, we are working 

on a proposed listing determination that 

we expect to publish prior to making the 

next annual resubmitted petition 12- 

month finding. In the course of 

preparing the proposed listing rule, we 

are continuing to monitor new 

information about this species’ status so 

that we can make prompt use of our 

authority under section 4(b)(7) in the 

case of an emergency posing a 

significant risk to the species. 

Gopher tortoise, eastern population 

(Gopherus polyphemus) — The 

following summary is based on 

information in our files. The gopher 

tortoise is a large, terrestrial, 

herbivorous turtle that reaches a total 

length up to 15 inches (in) (38 

centimeters (cm)), and typically inhabits 

the sandhills, pine/scrub oak uplands, 

and pine flatwoods associated with the 

longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) 

ecosystem. A fossorial animal, the 

gopher tortoise is usually found in areas 

with well-drained, deep, sandy soils, an 

open tree canopy, and a diverse, 

abundant herbaceous groundcover. 

The gopher tortoise ranges from 

extreme southern South Carolina south 

through peninsular Florida, and west 

through southern Georgia, Florida, 

southern Alabama, and Mississippi, into 

extreme southeastern Louisiana. The 

eastern population of the gopher tortoise 

in South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and 

Alabama (east of the Mobile and 

Tombigbee Rivers) is a candidate 

species; the gopher tortoise is federally 

listed as threatened in the western 

portion of its range, which includes 

Alabama (west of the Mobile and 

Tombigbee Rivers), Mississippi, and 

Louisiana. 

The primary threat to the gopher 

tortoise is habitat fragmentation, 

destruction, and modification (either 

deliberately or from inattention), 

including conversion of longleaf pine 

forests to incompatible silvicultural or 

agricultural habitats, urbanization, 

shrub/hardwood encroachment (mainly 

from fire exclusion or insufficient fire 

management), and establishment and 

spread of invasive species. Other threats 

include disease, predation (mainly on 

nests and young tortoises), and 

inadequate regulatory mechanisms, 

specifically those needed to protect and 

enhance relocated tortoise populations 

in perpetuity. The magnitude of threats 

to the eastern range of the gopher 

tortoise is considered to be moderate to 

low, since populations extend over a 

broad geographic area and conservation 

measures are in place in some areas. 

However, since the species is currently 

being affected by a number of threats 

including destruction and modification 

of its habitat, disease, predation, exotics, 

and inadequate regulatory mechanisms, 

the threats are imminent. Thus, we have 

assigned a LPN of 8 for this species. 

Sonoyta mud turtle (Kinosternon 

sonoriense longifemorale)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

The Sonoyta mud turtle occurs in a 

spring and pond at Quitobaquito 

Springs on Organ Pipe Cactus National 

Monument in Arizona, and in the Rio 

Sonoyta and Quitovac Spring of Sonora, 

Mexico. Loss and degradation of stream 

habitat from water diversion and 

groundwater pumping, along with its 

very limited distribution, are the 

primary threats to the Sonoyta mud 

turtle. Sonoyta mud turtles are highly 

aquatic and depend on permanent water 

for survival. The area of southwest 

Arizona and northern Sonora where the 

Sonoyta mud turtle occurs is one of the 

driest regions in the Southwest. While 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 72467 

currently there is sufficient water for the 

turtles, so the threats are not imminent 

we expect drought and irrigated 

agriculture in the region to cause surface 

water in the Rio Sonoyta and 

Quitobaquito Springs to dwindle further 

in the foreseeable future and negatively 

affect this species. National Park Service 

staff continue to implement actions to 

stabilize the water levels in the pond at 

Quitobaquito Springs. However, surface 

water use in the Rio Sonoyta, in Sonora 

Mexico, will have a significant impact 

on the survival of this water-dependent 

subspecies. We retained a LPN of 6 for 

Sonoyta mud turtle due to highmagnitude, nonimminent threats. 

Amphibians 

Columbia spotted frog, Great Basin 

DPS (Rana luteiventris)—We continue 

to find that listing this species is 

warranted but precluded as of the date 

of publication of this notice. However, 

we are working on a proposed listing 

determination that we expect to publish 

prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted petition 12-month finding. 

In the course of preparing the proposed 

listing rule, we are continuing to 

monitor new information about this 

species’ status so that we can make 

prompt use of our authority under 

section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 

emergency posing a significant risk to 

the species. 

Relict leopard frog (Lithobates 

onca)—The following summary is based 

on information contained in our files. 

Natural relict leopard frog populations 

occur in two general areas in Nevada: 

near the Overton Arm area of Lake Mead 

and Black Canyon below Lake Mead. 

These two areas include a small fraction 

of the historical distribution of the 

species. Its historical range included 

springs, streams, and wetlands within 

the Virgin River drainage downstream 

from the vicinity of Hurricane, Utah; 

along the Muddy River in Nevada; and 

along the Colorado River in Nevada and 

Arizona, from its confluence with the 

Virgin River downstream to Black 

Canyon below Lake Mead. 

Factors contributing to the decline of 

the species include alteration, loss, and 

degradation of aquatic habitat due to 

water developments and 

impoundments, and scouring and 

erosion; changes in plant communities 

that result in dense growth and the 

prevalence of vegetation; introduced 

predators; climate change; and 

stochastic events. The presence of 

chytrid fungus in relict leopard frogs at 

Lower Blue Point Spring is a concern 

and warrants further evaluation of the 

threat of disease to the relict leopard 

frog. The size of natural and 

translocated populations is small and, 

therefore, these populations are 

vulnerable to stochastic events, such as 

floods and wildfire. Climate change that 

results in reduced spring flow, habitat 

loss, and increased prevalence of 

wildfire would adversely affect relict 

leopard frog populations. 

In 2005, the National Park Service, in 

cooperation with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service and other Federal, State, and 

local partners, developed a conservation 

agreement and strategy, which is 

intended to improve the status of the 

species through prescribed management 

actions and protection. Conservation 

actions identified in the agreement and 

strategy include captive rearing of 

tadpoles for translocation and refugium 

populations, habitat and natural history 

studies, habitat enhancement, 

population and habitat monitoring, and 

translocation. New sites within the 

historical range of the species have been 

successfully established with captivereared frogs. Conservation is proceeding 

under the agreement and strategy; 

however, additional time is needed to 

determine whether or not the agreement 

and strategy will be effective in 

eliminating or reducing the threats to 

the point that the relict leopard frog is 

no longer a candidate for listing. In 

consideration of these conservation 

efforts and the overall threat level to the 

species, we determined that the 

magnitude of existing threats is 

moderate to low. Potential water 

development and other habitat effects, 

presence of introduced predators, 

chytrid fungus, limited distribution, 

small population size, and climate 

change are ongoing, and thus, imminent 

threats. Therefore, we continue to assign 

a LPN of 8 to this species. 

Striped newt (Notophthalmus 

perstriatus)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. The striped newt is a small 

salamander that inhabits ephemeral 

ponds surrounded by upland habitats of 

high pine, scrubby flatwoods, and scrub. 

Longleaf pine–turkey oak stands with 

intact ground cover containing 

wiregrass are the preferred upland 

habitat for striped newts, followed by 

scrub, then flatwoods. Life-history 

stages of the striped newt are complex, 

and include the use of both aquatic and 

terrestrial habitats throughout their life 

cycle. Striped newts are opportunistic 

feeders that prey on a variety of items 

such as frog eggs, worms, snails, fairy 

shrimp, spiders, and insects (adult and 

larvae) that are of appropriate size. They 

occur in appropriate habitats from the 

Atlantic Coastal Plain of southeastern 

Georgia to the north-central peninsula of 

Florida and through the Florida 

panhandle into portions of southwest 

Georgia. Prior to 2014, there was 

thought to be a 125-km (78-mile (mi)) 

separation between the western and 

eastern portions of the striped newt’s 

range. However, the discovery of five 

adult striped newts in Taylor County, 

Florida, represents a significant possible 

range connection. The historical range 

of the striped newt was likely similar to 

the current range. However, loss of 

native longleaf habitat, fire suppression, 

and the natural patchy distribution of 

upland habitats used by striped newts 

have resulted in fragmentation of 

existing populations. 

Other threats to the species include 

disease, drought, and inadequate 

regulatory mechanisms. Overall, we 

conclude that the magnitude of the 

threats is moderate because most of the 

known striped newt metapopulations 

are on conservation lands which 

reduces the threat from further habitat 

fragmentation, and currently no diseases 

have been found in striped newts. Since 

the majority of threats are ongoing, they 

are imminent. Therefore, we assigned an 

LPN of 8 to this species. However, due 

to recent information that suggests the 

striped newt is likely extirpated from 

Apalachicola National Forest, the LPN 

may warrant changing to a lower 

number in the future. 

Berry Cave salamander (Gyrinophilus 

gulolineatus)—The following summary 

is based on information in our files. The 

Berry Cave salamander is recorded from 

Berry Cave in Roane County; from Mud 

Flats, Aycock Spring, Christian, Meades 

Quarry, Meades River, and Fifth caves 

in Knox County; from Blythe Ferry Cave 

in Meigs County; and from an unknown 

cave in Athens, McMinn County, 

Tennessee. In May of 2012, the species 

was also discovered in an additional 

cave, The Lost Puddle Cave, in Knox 

County. These cave systems are all 

located within the Upper Tennessee 

River and Clinch River drainages. A 

total of 113 caves in Middle and East 

Tennessee were surveyed from the time 

period of April 2004 through June 2007, 

resulting in observations of 63 Berry 

Cave salamanders. These surveys 

concluded that Berry Cave salamander 

populations are robust at Berry and 

Mudflats caves where population 

declines had been previously reported, 

and documented two new populations 

of Berry Cave salamanders at Aycock 

Spring and Christian caves. Three Berry 

Cave salamanders were spotted during 

the May, 2012, survey in The Lost 

Puddle, and local cavers also reported 

sighting one individual in August 2012. 

Surveys for new populations are 

planned along the Valley and Ridge 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72468 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Province between Knoxville and 

Chattanooga. 

Ongoing threats to this species are in 

the form of lye leaching in the Meades 

Quarry Cave as a result of past quarrying 

activities, the possible development of a 

roadway with potential to impact the 

recharge area for the Meades Quarry 

Cave system, urban development in 

Knox County, water quality impacts 

despite existing State and Federal laws, 

and hybridization between spring 

salamanders and Berry Cave 

salamanders in Meades Quarry Cave. 

These threats, coupled with confined 

distribution of the species and apparent 

low population densities, are all factors 

that leave the Berry Cave salamander 

vulnerable to extirpation. We have 

determined that the Berry Cave 

salamander faces imminent threats of 

moderate magnitude. The threats are 

moderate because the species still 

occurs in several different cave systems, 

and existing populations appear stable. 

Based on moderate-magnitude 

imminent threats, we continue to assign 

this species a LPN of 8. 

Black Warrior waterdog (Necturus 

alabamensis)—We continue to find that 

listing this species is warranted but 

precluded as of the date of publication 

of this notice. However, we are working 

on a proposed listing determination that 

we expect to publish prior to making the 

next annual resubmitted petition 12- 

month finding. In the course of 

preparing the proposed listing rule, we 

are continuing to monitor new 

information about this species’ status so 

that we can make prompt use of our 

authority under section 4(b)(7) in the 

case of an emergency posing a 

significant risk to the species. 

Fishes 

Headwater chub (Gila nigra)—We 

continue to find that listing this species 

is warranted but precluded as of the 

date of publication of this notice. 

However, we are working on a proposed 

listing determination that we expect to 

publish prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted petition 12-month finding. 

In the course of preparing the proposed 

listing rule, we are continuing to 

monitor new information about this 

species’ status so that we can make 

prompt use of our authority under 

section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 

emergency posing a significant risk to 

the species. 

Roundtail chub (Gila robusta), Lower 

Colorado River DPS—We continue to 

find that listing this species is 

warranted but precluded as of the date 

of publication of this notice. However, 

we are working on a proposed listing 

determination that we expect to publish 

prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted petition 12-month finding. 

In the course of preparing the proposed 

listing rule, we are continuing to 

monitor new information about this 

species’ status so that we can make 

prompt use of our authority under 

section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 

emergency posing a significant risk to 

the species. 

Arkansas darter (Etheostoma 

cragini)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. No new information was provided 

in the petition we received on May 11, 

2004. This fish species occurs in 

Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, 

and Oklahoma. The species is found 

most often in sand- or pebble-bottomed 

pools of small, spring-fed streams and 

marshes, with cool water and 

broadleaved aquatic vegetation. Its 

current distribution is indicative of a 

species that once was widely dispersed 

throughout its range, but has been 

relegated to isolated areas separated by 

unsuitable habitat that prevents 

dispersal. 

Factors influencing the current 

distribution include: Surface and 

groundwater irrigation resulting in 

decreased flows or stream dewatering; 

the dewatering of long reaches of 

riverine habitat; conversion of prairie to 

cropland, which influences 

groundwater recharge and spring flows; 

water quality degradation from a variety 

of sources; and the construction of 

dams, which act as barriers preventing 

emigration upstream and downstream 

through the reservoir pool. A current 

drought in the western portions of the 

species’ range is also a threat. If drought 

conditions continue into the future, 

these conditions are likely to have a 

severe impact on many of these isolated 

populations. However, at present, the 

magnitude of threats facing this species 

is still moderate to low, given the 

number of different locations where the 

species occurs, and the fact that no 

single threat or combination of threats 

affects more than a portion of the 

species’ widely distributed range. The 

immediacy of threats varies across the 

species’ range; groundwater pumping is 

an ongoing concern in the western 

portion of the species range, although it 

has declined in some portions, and 

groundwater levels continue to support 

surface spring and stream flow in the 

majority of the species’ range. 

Development, spills, and runoff are not 

currently affecting the species on a 

rangewide basis. Overall, the threats are 

nonimminent. Thus, we are retaining an 

LPN of 11 for the Arkansas darter. 

Pearl darter (Percina aurora)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. Little 

is known about the specific habitat 

requirements or natural history of the 

Pearl darter. Pearl darters have been 

collected from a variety of river/stream 

attributes, mainly over gravel bottom 

substrate. This species is historically 

known only from localized sites within 

the Pascagoula and Pearl River 

drainages in Mississippi and Louisiana. 

Currently, the Pearl darter is considered 

extirpated from the Pearl River drainage 

and rare in the Pascagoula River 

drainage. Since 1983, the range of the 

Pearl darter has decreased by 55 

percent. 

The Pearl darter is vulnerable to nonpoint source pollution caused by 

urbanization and other land use 

activities; gravel mining and resultant 

changes in river geomorphology, 

especially head cutting; and the 

possibility of water quantity decline 

from the proposed Department of 

Energy Strategic Petroleum Reserve 

project and a proposed dam on the 

Bouie River. Additional threats are 

posed by the apparent lack of adequate 

State and Federal water quality 

regulations resulting in the continued 

degradation of water quality within the 

species’ habitat. The Pearl darter’s 

localized distribution and apparent low 

population numbers may indicate a 

species with lower genetic diversity; 

this would also make this species more 

vulnerable to catastrophic events. 

Threats affecting the Pearl darter are 

localized in nature, affecting only 

portions of the population within the 

drainage having only a localized impact 

on the species and its’ habitat. While 

water quality degradation is the most 

pervasive threat, it is not significant 

within the areas protected through The 

Nature Conservancy ownership and 

other areas where best managmenet 

practices are routinely practiced. Thus, 

we assigned a threat magnitude of 

moderate to low to this species. In 

addition, the threats are imminent since 

the identified threats are currently 

impacting this species in some portions 

of its range. Therefore, we have assigned 

an LPN of 8 for this species. 

Sicklefin redhorse (Moxostoma sp.)— 

We continue to find that listing this 

species is warranted but precluded as of 

the date of publication of this notice. 

However, we are working on a proposed 

listing determination that we expect to 

publish prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted petition 12-month finding. 

In the course of preparing the proposed 

listing rule, we are continuing to 

monitor new information about this 

species’ status so that we can make 

prompt use of our authority under 

section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 72469 

emergency posing a significant risk to 

the species. 

Longfin smelt (Spirinchus 

thaleichthys), Bay-Delta DPS—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files and 

the petition we received on August 8, 

2007. On April 2, 2012 (77 FR19756), 

we determined that listing the longfin 

smelt San Francisco Bay-Delta distinct 

population segment (Bay-Delta DPS) 

was warranted but precluded. Longfin 

smelt measure 9–11 cm (3.5–4.3 in) 

standard length. Longfin smelt are 

considered pelagic and anadromous, 

although anadromy in longfin smelt is 

poorly understood, and certain 

populations in other parts of the 

species’ range are not anadromous and 

complete their entire life cycle in 

freshwater lakes and streams. Longfin 

smelt usually live for 2 years, spawn, 

and then die, although some individuals 

may spawn as 1- or 3-year-old fish 

before dying. In the Bay-Delta, longfin 

smelt are believed to spawn primarily in 

freshwater in the lower reaches of the 

Sacramento River and San Joaquin 

River. 

Longfin smelt numbers in the BayDelta have declined significantly since 

the 1980s. Abundance indices derived 

from the Fall Midwater Trawl (FMWT), 

Bay Study Midwater Trawl (BSMT), and 

Bay Study Otter Trawl (BSOT) all show 

marked declines in Bay-Delta longfin 

smelt populations from 2002 to 2012. 

Longfin smelt abundance over the last 

decade is the lowest recorded in the 40- 

year history of CDFG’s FMWT 

monitoring surveys. 

The primary threat to the DPS is from 

reduced freshwater flows. Freshwater 

flows, especially winter-spring flows, 

are significantly correlated with longfin 

smelt abundance—longfin smelt 

abundance is lower when winter-spring 

flows are lower. The long-term decline 

in abundance of longfin smelt in the 

Bay-Delta has been partially attributed 

to reductions in food availability and 

disruptions of the Bay-Delta food web 

caused by establishment of the 

nonnative overbite clam and likely by 

increasing ammonium concentrations. 

In the 2012, 12-month finding, we 

determined that threats were high in 

magnitude and imminent, resulting in 

an LPN of 3. The threats still remain 

high in magnitude since they pose a 

significant risk to the DPS throughout 

its range. The threats are ongoing, and 

thus are imminent. We are maintaining 

an LPN of 3 for this population. 

Clams 

Texas fatmucket (Lampsilis 

bracteata)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. The Texas fatmucket is a large, 

elongated freshwater mussel that is 

endemic to central Texas. Its shell can 

be moderately thick, smooth, and 

rhomboidal to oval in shape. Its external 

coloration varies from tan to brown with 

continuous dark brown, green-brown, or 

black rays, and internally it is pearly 

white, with some having a light salmon 

tint. This species historically occurred 

throughout the Colorado and 

Guadalupe-San Antonio River basins 

but is now known to occur only in nine 

streams within these basins in very 

limited numbers. All existing 

populations are represented by only one 

or two individuals and are not likely to 

be stable or recruiting. 

The Texas fatmucket is primarily 

threatened by habitat destruction and 

modification from impoundments, 

which scour river beds, thereby 

removing mussel habitat; decrease water 

quality; modify stream flows; and 

prevent fish host migration and 

distribution of freshwater mussels. This 

species is also threatened by 

sedimentation, dewatering, sand and 

gravel mining, and chemical 

contaminants. Additionally, these 

threats may be exacerbated by the 

current and projected effects of climate 

change, population fragmentation and 

isolation, and the anticipated threat of 

nonnative species. Threats to the Texas 

fatmucket and its habitat are not being 

adequately addressed through existing 

regulatory mechanisms. Because of the 

limited distribution of this endemic 

species and its lack of mobility, these 

threats are likely to result in the 

extinction of the Texas fatmucket in the 

foreseeable future. 

The threats to the Texas fatmucket are 

high in magnitude, because habitat loss 

and degradation from impoundments, 

sedimentation, sand and gravel mining, 

and chemical contaminants are 

widespread throughout the range of the 

Texas fatmucket and profoundly affect 

its survival and recruitment. These 

threats are exacerbated by climate 

change, which will increase the 

frequency and magnitude of droughts. 

Remaining populations are small, 

isolated, and highly vulnerable to 

stochastic events, which could lead to 

extirpation or extinction. These threats 

are imminent because they are ongoing 

and will continue in the foreseeable 

future. Habitat loss and degradation 

have already occurred and will continue 

as the human population continues to 

grow in central Texas. Texas fatmucket 

populations may already be below the 

minimum viable population 

requirement, which causes a reduction 

in the number of populations and an 

increase in the species’ vulnerability to 

extinction. Based on imminent, highmagnitude threats, we maintained an 

LPN of 2 for the Texas fatmucket. 

Texas fawnsfoot (Truncilla 

macrodon)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. The Texas fawnsfoot is a small, 

relatively thin-shelled freshwater 

mussel that is endemic to central Texas. 

Its shell is long and oval, generally free 

of external sculpturing, with external 

coloration that varies from yellowish- or 

orangish-tan, brown, reddish-brown, to 

smoky-green with a pattern of broken 

rays or irregular blotches. The internal 

color is bluish-white or white and 

iridescent posteriorly. This species 

historically occurred throughout the 

Colorado and Brazos River basins and is 

now known from only five locations. 

The Texas fawnsfoot has been 

extirpated from nearly all of the 

Colorado River basin and from much of 

the Brazos River basin. Of the 

populations that remain, only three are 

likely to be stable and recruiting; the 

remaining populations are disjunct and 

restricted to short stream reaches. 

The Texas fawnsfoot is primarily 

threatened by habitat destruction and 

modification from impoundments, 

which scour river beds, thereby 

removing mussel habitat; decrease water 

quality; modify stream flows; and 

prevent fish host migration and 

distribution of freshwater mussels, as 

well as by sedimentation, dewatering, 

sand and gravel mining, and chemical 

contaminants. Additionally, these 

threats may be exacerbated by the 

current and projected effects of climate 

change, population fragmentation and 

isolation, and the anticipated threat of 

nonnative species. Threats to the Texas 

fawnsfoot and its habitat are not being 

adequately addressed through existing 

regulatory mechanisms. Because of the 

limited distribution of this endemic 

species and its lack of mobility, these 

threats are likely to result in the 

extinction of the Texas fawnsfoot in the 

foreseeable future. 

The threats to the Texas fawnsfoot are 

high in magnitude. Habitat loss and 

degradation from impoundments, 

sedimentation, sand and gravel mining, 

and chemical contaminants are 

widespread throughout the range of the 

Texas fawnsfoot and profoundly affect 

its habitat. These threats are exacerbated 

by climate change, which will increase 

the frequency and magnitude of 

droughts. Remaining populations are 

small, isolated, and highly vulnerable to 

stochastic events. These threats are 

imminent because they are ongoing and 

will continue in the foreseeable future. 

Habitat loss and degradation has already 

occurred and will continue as the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72470 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

human population continues to grow in 

central Texas. The Texas fawnsfoot 

populations may already be below the 

minimum viable population 

requirement, which causes a reduction 

in the number of populations and an 

increase in the species’ vulnerability to 

extinction. Based on imminent, highmagnitude threats, we assigned the 

Texas fawnsfoot an LPN of 2. 

Texas hornshell (Popenaias popei)— 

We continue to find that listing this 

species is warranted but precluded as of 

the date of publication of this notice. 

However, we are working on a proposed 

listing determination that we expect to 

publish prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted petition 12-month finding. 

In the course of preparing the proposed 

listing rule, we are continuing to 

monitor new information about this 

species’ status so that we can make 

prompt use of our authority under 

section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 

emergency posing a significant risk to 

the species. 

Golden orb (Quadrula aurea)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. The 

golden orb is a small, round-shaped 

freshwater mussel that is endemic to 

central Texas. This species historically 

occurred throughout the Nueces-Frio 

and Guadalupe-San Antonio River 

basins and is now known from only 

nine locations in four rivers. The golden 

orb has been eliminated from nearly the 

entire Nueces-Frio River basin. Four of 

these populations appear to be stable 

and reproducing, and the remaining five 

populations are small and isolated and 

show no evidence of recruitment. It 

appears that the populations in the 

middle Guadalupe and lower San 

Marcos Rivers are likely connected. The 

remaining extant populations are highly 

fragmented and restricted to short 

reaches. 

The golden orb is primarily 

threatened by habitat destruction and 

modification from impoundments, 

which scour river beds (thereby 

removing mussel habitat), decrease 

water quality, modify stream flows, and 

prevent fish host migration and 

distribution of freshwater mussels. The 

species is also threatened by 

sedimentation, dewatering, sand and 

gravel mining, and chemical 

contaminants. Additionally, these 

threats may be exacerbated by the 

current and projected effects of climate 

change, population fragmentation and 

isolation, and the anticipated threat of 

nonnative species. Threats to the golden 

orb and its habitat are not being 

adequately addressed through existing 

regulatory mechanisms. Because of the 

limited distribution of this endemic 

species and its lack of mobility, these 

threats may be likely to result in the 

golden orb becoming in danger of 

extinction in the foreseeable future. 

The threats to the golden orb are 

moderate in magnitude. Although 

habitat loss and degradation from 

impoundments, sedimentation, sand 

and gravel mining, and chemical 

contaminants are widespread 

throughout the range of the golden orb, 

and are likely to be exacerbated by 

climate change, which will increase the 

frequency and magnitude of droughts, 

four large populations remain, including 

one that was recently discovered, 

suggesting that the threats are not high 

in magnitude. The threats from habitat 

loss and degradation are imminent 

because habitat loss and degradation 

have already occurred and will likely 

continue as the human population 

continues to grow in central Texas. 

Several golden orb populations may 

already be below the minimum viable 

population requirement, which causes a 

reduction in the number of populations 

and an increase in the species’ 

vulnerability to extinction. Based on 

imminent, moderate threats, we 

maintain an LPN of 8 for the golden orb. 

Smooth pimpleback (Quadrula 

houstonensis)—The following summary 

is based on information contained in 

our files. The smooth pimpleback is a 

small, round-shaped freshwater mussel 

that is endemic to central Texas. This 

species historically occurred throughout 

the Colorado and Brazos River basins 

and is now known from only nine 

locations. The smooth pimpleback has 

been eliminated from nearly the entire 

Colorado River and all but one of its 

tributaries, and has been limited to the 

central and lower Brazos River drainage. 

Five of the populations are represented 

by no more than a few individuals and 

are small and isolated. Six of the 

existing populations appear to be 

relatively stable and recruiting. 

The smooth pimpleback is primarily 

threatened by habitat destruction and 

modification from impoundments, 

which scour river beds (thereby 

removing mussel habitat), decrease 

water quality, modify stream flows, and 

prevent fish host migration and 

distribution of freshwater mussels. The 

species is also threatened by 

sedimentation, dewatering, sand and 

gravel mining, and chemical 

contaminants. Additionally, these 

threats may be exacerbated by the 

current and projected effects of climate 

change, population fragmentation and 

isolation, and the anticipated threat of 

nonnative species. Threats to the 

smooth pimpleback and its habitat are 

not being adequately addressed through 

existing regulatory mechanisms. 

Because of the limited distribution of 

this endemic species and its lack of 

mobility, these threats may be likely to 

result in the smooth pimpleback 

becoming in danger of extinction in the 

foreseeable future. 

The threats to the smooth pimpleback 

are moderate in magnitude. Although 

habitat loss and degradation from 

impoundments, sedimentation, sand 

and gravel mining, and chemical 

contaminants are widespread 

throughout the range of the smooth 

pimpleback, and may be exacerbated by 

climate change, which will increase the 

frequency and magnitude of droughts, 

several large populations remain, 

including one that was recently 

discovered, suggesting that the threats 

are not high in magnitude. The threats 

from habitat loss and degradation are 

imminent because they have already 

occurred and will continue as the 

human population continues to grow in 

central Texas. Several smooth 

pimpleback populations may already be 

below the minimum viable population 

requirement, which causes a reduction 

in the number of populations and an 

increase in the species’ vulnerability to 

extinction. Based on imminent, 

moderate threats, we maintain an LPN 

of 8 for the smooth pimpleback. 

Texas pimpleback (Quadrula 

petrina)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. The Texas pimpleback is a large, 

freshwater mussel that is endemic to 

central Texas. This species historically 

occurred throughout the Colorado and 

Guadalupe-San Antonio River basins, 

but is now known to only occur in four 

streams within these basins. Only two 

populations appear large enough to be 

stable, but evidence of recruitment is 

limited in the Concho River population 

and is present in the San Saba River 

population, which may be the only 

remaining recruiting populations of 

Texas pimpleback. The remaining two 

populations are represented by one or 

two individuals and are highly disjunct. 

The Texas pimpleback is primarily 

threatened by habitat destruction and 

modification from impoundments, 

which scour river beds (thereby 

removing mussel habitat), decrease 

water quality, modify stream flows, and 

prevent fish host migration and 

distribution of freshwater mussels. This 

species is also threatened by 

sedimentation, dewatering, sand and 

gravel mining, and chemical 

contaminants. Additionally, these 

threats may be exacerbated by the 

current and projected effects of climate 

change (which will increase the 

frequency and magnitude of droughts), 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 72471 

population fragmentation and isolation, 

and the anticipated threat of nonnative 

species. Threats to the Texas 

pimpleback and its habitat are not being 

adequately addressed through existing 

regulatory mechanisms. Because of the 

limited distribution of this endemic 

species and its lack of mobility, these 

threats may be likely to result in the 

Texas pimpleback becoming in danger 

of extinction in the foreseeable future. 

The threats to the Texas pimpleback 

are high in magnitude, because habitat 

loss and degradation from 

impoundments, sedimentation, sand 

and gravel mining, and chemical 

contaminants are widespread 

throughout the entire range of the Texas 

pimpleback and profoundly affect its 

survival and recruitment. The only 

remaining populations are small, 

isolated, and highly vulnerable to 

stochastic events, which could lead to 

extirpation or extinction. The threats are 

imminent because habitat loss and 

degradation have already occurred and 

will continue as the human population 

continues to grow in central Texas. All 

Texas pimpleback populations may 

already be below the minimum viable 

population requirement, which causes a 

reduction in the number of populations 

and an increase in the species’ 

vulnerability to extinction. Based on 

imminent, high-magnitude threats, we 

assigned the Texas pimpleback an LPN 

of 2. 

Snails 

Black mudalia (Elimia melanoides)— 

We continue to find that listing this 

species is warranted but precluded as of 

the date of publication of this notice. 

However, we are working on a proposed 

listing determination that we expect to 

publish prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted petition 12-month finding. 

In the course of preparing the proposed 

listing rule, we are continuing to 

monitor new information about this 

species’ status so that we can make 

prompt use of our authority under 

section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 

emergency posing a significant risk to 

the species. 

Magnificent ramshorn (Planorbella 

magnifica)—Magnificent ramshorn, is 

the largest North American air-breathing 

freshwater snail in the family 

Planorbidae. It has a relatively thin 

discoidal (i.e., coiling in one plane) 

shell that reaches a diameter commonly 

exceeding 35mm and heights exceeding 

20mm. The great width of its shell, in 

relation to the diameter, makes it easily 

identifiable at all ages. The shell is 

brown colored (often with leopard-like 

spots) and fragile, thus indicating it is 

adapted to still or slow-flowing aquatic 

habitats. The magnificent ramshorn is 

believed to be a southeastern North 

Carolina endemic. The species is known 

from only four sites in the lower Cape 

Fear River Basin in North Carolina. 

Although the complete historical range 

of the species is unknown, the size of 

the species and the fact that it was not 

reported until 1903 are indications that 

the species may have always been rare 

and localized. 

Salinity and pH are major factors 

limiting the distribution of the 

magnificent ramshorn, as the snail 

prefers freshwater bodies with 

circumneutral pH (i.e., pH within the 

range of 6.8–7.5). While members of the 

family Planorbidae are hermaphroditic, 

it is currently unknown whether 

magnificent ramshorns self-fertilize 

their eggs, mate with other individuals 

of the species, or both. Like other 

members of the Planorbidae family, the 

magnificent ramshorn is believed to be 

primarily a vegetarian, feeding on 

submerged aquatic plants, algae, and 

detritus. While several factors likely 

have contributed to the possible 

extirpation of the magnificent ramshorn 

in the wild, the primary factors include 

loss of habitat associated with the 

extirpation of beavers (and their 

impoundments) in the early 20th 

century and increased salinity and 

alteration of flow patterns, as well as 

increased input of nutrients and other 

pollutants. 

The magnificent ramshorn appears to 

be extirpated from the wild due to 

habitat loss and degradation resulting 

from a variety of human-induced and 

natural factors. The only known 

surviving individuals of the species are 

presently being held and propagated at 

a private residence, a lab at North 

Carolina State University’s Veterinary 

School, and the North Carolina Wildlife 

Resources Commission’s Watha State 

Fish Hatchery. While efforts have been 

made to restore habitat for the 

magnificent ramshorn at one of the sites 

known to have previously supported the 

species, all of the sites continue to be 

affected or threatened by the same 

factors (i.e., salt water intrusion and 

other water-quality degradation, 

nuisance aquatic plant control, storms, 

sea level rise, etc.) believed to have 

resulted in extirpation of the species 

from the wild. Currently, only three 

captive populations exist; a single 

robust captive population of the species 

comprised of greater than 200 adults, 

and two small populations of 50 or more 

individuals. Although the robust captive 

population of the species has been 

maintained since 1993, a single 

catastrophic event affecting this captive 

population, such as a severe storm, 

disease, or predator infestation, could 

result in the near extinction of the 

species. Therefore, we assigned this 

species a LPN of 2. 

Sisi snail (Ostodes strigatus)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

The sisi snail is a ground-dwelling 

species in the Potaridae family, and is 

endemic to American Samoa. The 

species is now known from a single 

population on the island of Tutuila, 

American Samoa. 

This species is currently threatened 

by habitat loss and modification and by 

predation from nonnative predatory 

snails. The decline of the sisi snail in 

American Samoa has resulted, in part, 

from loss of habitat to logging and 

agriculture, and loss of forest structure 

to hurricanes and nonnative weeds that 

become established after these storms. 

All live sisi snails have been found in 

the leaf litter beneath remaining intact 

forest canopy. No snails were found in 

areas bordering agricultural plots or in 

forested areas that were severely 

damaged by hurricanes. Under natural 

historical conditions, loss of forest 

canopy to storms did not pose a great 

threat to the long-term survival of these 

snails; enough intact forest with healthy 

populations of snails would support 

dispersal back into newly regrown forest 

canopy. However, the presence of 

nonnative weeds such as mile-a-minute 

vine (Mikania micrantha) may reduce 

the likelihood that native forests will reestablish in areas damaged by 

hurricanes. This loss of habitat to storms 

is greatly exacerbated by expanding 

agriculture. Agricultural plots on 

Tutuila have spread from low elevation 

up to middle and some high elevations, 

greatly reducing the forested area and 

thus reducing the resilience of native 

forests and populations of native snails. 

These reductions also increase the 

likelihood that future storms will lead to 

the extinction of populations or species 

that rely on the remaining forest canopy. 

In an effort to eradicate the nonnative 

giant African snail (Achatina fulica), the 

nonnative rosy carnivore snail 

(Euglandina rosea) was introduced in 

1980. The rosy carnivore snail has 

spread throughout the main island of 

Tutuila. Numerous studies show that 

the rosy carnivore snail feeds on 

endemic island snails, including the sisi 

snail, and is a major agent in their 

declines and extirpations. At present, 

the major threat to the long-term 

survival of the native snail fauna in 

American Samoa, including the sisi 

snail, is predation by nonnative 

predatory snails. The threats are 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72472 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

imminent and of high magnitude, since 

they are severe enough to affect the 

continued existence of the species, 

leading to a relatively high likelihood of 

extinction. Therefore, we have retained 

an LPN of 2 for this species. 

Tutuila tree snail (Eua zebrina)—A 

tree-dwelling species, the Tutuila tree 

snail is a member of the Partulidae 

family of snails and is endemic to 

American Samoa. The species is known 

from 32 populations on the islands of 

Tutuila, Manua, and Ofu. 

This species is currently threatened 

by habitat loss and modification and by 

predation from nonnative predatory 

snails and rats (Rattus spp.). All live 

Tutuila tree snails were found on 

understory vegetation beneath 

remaining intact forest canopy. No 

snails were found in areas bordering 

agricultural plots or in forested areas 

that were severely damaged by three 

hurricanes (1987, 1990, and 1991). (See 

summary for the sisi snail, above, 

regarding impacts of nonnative weeds 

and of the rosy carnivore snail.) Rats 

have also been shown to devastate snail 

populations, and rat-damaged snail 

shells have been found at sites where 

the Tutuila snail occurs. At present, the 

major threat to the long-term survival of 

the native snail fauna in American 

Samoa is ongoing predation by 

nonnative predatory snails and rats. The 

magnitude of threats is high because 

they result in direct mortality leading to 

significant population declines to the 

Tutuila tree snail rangewide. Therefore, 

we have retained an LPN of 2 for this 

species. 

Huachuca springsnail (Pyrgulopsis 

thompsoni)—The following is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition received on May 11, 2004. The 

Huachuca springsnail is endemic to 

Santa Cruz and Cochise Counties in 

southeastern Arizona and adjacent 

portions of northern Sonora, Mexico. 

Currently, the Huachuca springsnail 

inhabits at least 21 spring sites in 

southeastern Arizona and northern 

Sonora, Mexico. The species is most 

commonly found in shallow water 

habitats, often in rocky seeps at the 

spring source. Threats include habitat 

modification and destruction through 

catastrophic wildfire, unmanaged 

grazing at the landscape scale, and the 

inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms. 

Overall, the threats are low in 

magnitude, because threats are not 

occurring throughout the range of the 

species uniformly and not all 

populations would likely be affected 

simultaneously by the known threats. 

We have no site-specific information 

indicating that grazing is currently 

ongoing in or adjacent to occupied 

habitats, and catastrophic wildfire is not 

known to be an imminent threat. 

Accordingly, threats are nonimminent. 

Therefore, we retain an LPN of 11 for 

the Huachuca springsnail. 

Page springsnail (Pyrgulopsis 

morrisoni)—We continue to find that 

listing this species is warranted but 

precluded as of the date of publication 

of this notice. However, we are working 

on a proposed listing determination that 

we expect to publish prior to making the 

next annual resubmitted petition 12- 

month finding. In the course of 

preparing the proposed listing rule, we 

are continuing to monitor new 

information about this species’ status so 

that we can make prompt use of our 

authority under section 4(b)(7) in the 

case of an emergency posing a 

significant risk to the species. 

Insects 

Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (Hylaeus 

anthracinus)—The following summary 

is based on information contained in 

our files and in the petition that we 

received for this species on March 23, 

2009. Hylaeus anthracinus is a species 

of Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (family 

Colletidae) found in certain coastal 

areas and dry lowland forests containing 

native plant communities on the islands 

of Hawaii, Kahoolawe, Lanai, Maui, 

Molokai, and Oahu, Hawaii. Hylaeus 

anthracinus is currently known from 16 

populations containing an unknown 

number of individuals. This species is 

threatened by ongoing habitat loss and 

modification due to the effects of feral 

ungulates, nonnative plants, wildfire, 

and climate change. Hylaeus 

anthracinus is directly threatened by 

predation from yellow jacket wasps 

(Vespula pensylvanica) and several 

species of nonnative ants. Additional 

indirect threats to the species include 

the limited number and small size of 

populations, competition from 

European honey bees (Apis mellifera), 

the possibility of habitat destruction 

from stochastic and catastrophic events, 

and a lack of regulatory mechanisms 

affording protection to the species. 

Some H. anthracinus populations 

occur in areas that are managed for one 

or more of the threats affecting habitat; 

however, no population is entirely 

protected from impacts to habitat, and 

predation on the species is not currently 

managed at any population site. Because 

the ongoing threats adversely affect H. 

anthracinus throughout its entire range, 

and cause impacts that are sufficiently 

severe that they could lead to 

population declines, the threats are high 

in magnitude and are imminent. 

Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 

2 for this species. 

Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (Hylaeus 

assimulans)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files and in the petition that we received 

for this species on March 23, 2009. 

Hylaeus assimulans is a species of 

Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (family 

Colletidae) found in certain coastal 

areas and dry lowland forests containing 

native plant communities on the islands 

of Hawaii, Kahoolawe, Lanai, Maui, 

Molokai, and Oahu, Hawaii. Hylaeus 

assimulans is currently known from five 

populations containing an unknown 

number of individuals. This species is 

threatened by ongoing habitat loss and 

modification due to the effects of feral 

ungulates, nonnative plants, wildfire, 

and climate change. Hylaeus assimulans 

is directly threatened by predation from 

yellow jacket wasps (Vespula 

pensylvanica) and several species of 

nonnative ants. Additional indirect 

threats to the species include the 

limited number and small size of 

populations, competition from 

European honey bees (Apis mellifera), 

the possibility of habitat destruction 

from stochastic and catastrophic events, 

and a lack of regulatory mechanisms 

affording protection to the species. 

Some H. assimulans populations 

occur in areas that are managed for one 

or more of the threats affecting habitat; 

however, no population is entirely 

protected from impacts to habitat, and 

predation on the species is not currently 

managed at any population site. Because 

the ongoing threats adversely affect H. 

assimulans throughout its entire range, 

and cause impacts that are sufficiently 

severe that they could lead to 

population declines, the threats are high 

in magnitude and are imminent. 

Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 

2 for this species. 

Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (Hylaeus 

facilis)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files and in the petition that we received 

for this species on March 23, 2009. 

Hylaeus facilis is a species of Hawaiian 

yellow-faced bee (family Colletidae) 

with a wide historical range of native 

plant community habitat including 

coastal areas, lowland dry and wet 

forests, and montane mesic forests on 

the islands of Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and 

Oahu, Hawaii. Now extirpated from the 

islands of Lanai and Maui, H. facilis is 

currently known from two populations 

containing an unknown number of 

individuals. This species is threatened 

by ongoing habitat loss and 

modification due to the effects of feral 

ungulates, nonnative plants, wildfire, 

and climate change. H. facilis is directly 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 72473 

threatened by predation from yellow 

jacket wasps (Vespula pensylvanica) 

and several species of nonnative ants. 

Additional indirect threats to the 

species include the limited number and 

small size of populations, competition 

from European honey bees (Apis 

mellifera), the possibility of habitat 

destruction from stochastic and 

catastrophic events, and a lack of 

regulatory mechanisms affording 

protection to the species. 

Both of the Hylaeus facilis 

populations occur in areas that are 

managed for one or more of the threats 

affecting habitat; however, neither 

population is entirely protected from 

impacts to habitat and predation upon 

the species is not currently managed 

within either population site. The 

threats to H. facilis are high in 

magnitude because their severity 

endangers the species with a relatively 

high likelihood of extinction throughout 

its entire range. The threats are ongoing 

throughout its entire range, thus the 

threats are imminent. Therefore, we 

have retained an LPN of 2 for this 

species. 

Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (Hylaeus 

hilaris)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files and in the petition that we received 

for this species on March 23, 2009. 

Hylaeus hilaris is a cleptoparasitic 

species of Hawaiian yellow-faced bee 

(family Colletidae) with a historical 

range in coastal habitat on the islands of 

Lanai, Maui, and Molokai, Hawaii. Now 

extirpated from the islands of Lanai and 

Maui, H. hilaris is currently known from 

a single population on Molokai 

containing an unknown number of 

individuals. This species is threatened 

by ongoing habitat loss and 

modification due to the effects of feral 

ungulates, nonnative plants, wildfire, 

and climate change. H. hilaris is directly 

threatened by predation from yellow 

jacket wasps (Vespula pensylvanica) 

and several species of nonnative ants. 

Additional indirect threats to the 

species include the small size of its 

remaining population, lack of additional 

populations, competition from 

European honey bees (Apis mellifera), 

possibility of habitat destruction from 

stochastic and catastrophic events, and 

a lack of regulatory mechanisms 

affording protection to the species. 

The Hylaeus hilaris population occurs 

within a private preserve that is 

managed for some of the threats 

affecting habitat; however, the 

population is not entirely protected 

from impacts to habitat, and predation 

upon the species is not currently 

managed at all. The threats to H. hilaris 

are high in magnitude because their 

severity presents a relatively high 

likelihood of extinction throughout its 

entire range. The threats to H. hilaris are 

imminent, since they are ongoing. 

Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 

2 for this species. 

Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (Hylaeus 

kuakea)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files and in the petition that we received 

for this species on March 23, 2009. 

Hylaeus kuakea is a species of Hawaiian 

yellow-faced bee (family Colletidae) 

found in lowland mesic forests on the 

island of Oahu, Hawaii. H. kuakea is 

currently known from two populations 

containing an unknown number of 

individuals. This species is threatened 

by ongoing habitat loss and 

modification due to the effects of feral 

ungulates, nonnative plants, wildfire, 

and climate change. H. kuakea is 

directly threatened by predation from 

yellow jacket wasps (Vespula 

pensylvanica) and several species of 

nonnative ants. Additional indirect 

threats to the species include the 

limited number and small size of 

populations, competition from 

European honey bees (Apis mellifera), 

the possibility of habitat destruction 

from stochastic and catastrophic events, 

and a lack of regulatory mechanisms 

affording protection to the species. 

Both Hylaeus kuakea populations 

occur in areas that are managed for one 

or more of the threats affecting habitat; 

however, neither population is entirely 

protected from impacts to habitat, and 

predation on the species is not currently 

managed within either population site. 

The threats to H. kuakea are high in 

magnitude because their severity 

presents a relatively high likelihood of 

extinction throughout its entire range. 

The threats to H. kuakea are imminent, 

since they are ongoing. Therefore, we 

have retained an LPN of 2 for this 

species. 

Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (Hylaeus 

longiceps)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files and in the petition that we received 

for this species on March 23, 2009. 

Hylaeus longiceps is a species of 

Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (family 

Colletidae) found in certain coastal 

areas and dry lowland forest containing 

native plant communities on the islands 

of Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu, 

Hawaii. H. longiceps is currently known 

from six populations containing an 

unknown number of individuals. This 

species is threatened by ongoing habitat 

loss and modification due to the effects 

of feral ungulates, nonnative plants, 

wildfire, and climate change. H. 

longiceps is directly threatened by 

predation from yellow jacket wasps 

(Vespula pensylvanica) and several 

species of nonnative ants. Additional 

indirect threats to the species include 

the limited number and small size of 

populations, competition from 

European honey bees (Apis mellifera), 

the possibility of habitat destruction 

from stochastic and catastrophic events, 

and a lack of regulatory mechanisms 

affording protection to the species. 

Some Hylaeus longiceps populations 

occur in areas that are managed for one 

or more of the threats affecting habitat; 

however, no population is entirely 

protected from impacts to habitat, and 

predation on the species is not currently 

managed within any population site. 

The threats to H. longiceps are high in 

magnitude because their severity 

presents a relatively high likelihood of 

extinction throughout its entire range. 

The threats to H. longiceps are 

imminent, since they are ongoing. 

Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 

2 for this species. 

Hawaiian yellow-faced bee (Hylaeus 

mana)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files and in the petition that we received 

for this species on March 23, 2009. 

Hylaeus mana is a species of Hawaiian 

yellow-faced bee (family Colletidae) 

found in lowland mesic forests on the 

island of Oahu, Hawaii. H. mana is 

currently known from four populations 

containing an unknown number of 

individuals. This species is threatened 

by ongoing habitat loss and 

modification due to the effects of feral 

ungulates, nonnative plants, wildfire, 

and climate change. H. mana is directly 

threatened by predation from yellow 

jacket wasps (Vespula pensylvanica) 

and several species of nonnative ants. 

Additional indirect threats to the 

species include the limited number and 

small size of populations, competition 

from European honey bees (Apis 

mellifera), the possibility of habitat 

destruction from stochastic and 

catastrophic events, and a lack of 

regulatory mechanisms affording 

protection to the species. 

The Hylaeus mana populations occur 

in areas that are managed for one or 

more of the threats affecting habitat; 

however, the population is not entirely 

protected from impacts to habitat, and 

predation on the species is not currently 

managed at all. The threats to H. mana 

are high in magnitude because their 

severity presents a relatively high 

likelihood of extinction throughout its 

entire range. The threats to H. mana are 

imminent, since they are ongoing. 

Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 

2 for this species. 

Hermes copper butterfly 

(Hermelycaena [Lycaena] hermes)— 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72474 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Hermes copper butterfly primarily 

occurs in San Diego County, California, 

and a few records of the species have 

been documented in Baja California, 

Mexico. The species inhabits coastal 

sage scrub and southern mixed 

chaparral, and is dependent on its larval 

host plant, Rhamnus crocea (spiny 

redberry), to complete its lifecycle. 

Adult Hermes copper butterflies lay 

single eggs on spiny redberry stems 

where they hatch and feed until 

pupation occurs at the base of the plant. 

Hermes copper butterflies have one 

flight period occurring in mid-May to 

early-July, depending on weather 

conditions and elevation. We estimate 

there were at least 59 known separate 

historical populations throughout the 

species’ range since the species was first 

described. Of the 59 known Hermes 

copper butterfly populations, 21 are 

extant, 27 are believed to have been 

extirpated, and 11 are of unknown 

status. 

Primary threats to Hermes copper 

butterfly are megafires (large wildfires), 

and small and isolated populations. 

Secondary threats include increased 

wildfire frequency that results in habitat 

loss, and combined impacts of existing 

development, possible future (limited) 

development, existing dispersal barriers, 

and fires that fragment habitat. Hermes 

copper butterfly occupies scattered 

areas of sage scrub and chaparral habitat 

in an arid region susceptible to wildfires 

of increasing frequency and size. The 

likelihood that individuals of the 

species will be burned as a result of 

catastrophic wildfires, combined with 

the isolation and small size of extant 

populations, makes Hermes copper 

butterfly particularly vulnerable to 

population extirpation rangewide. 

Overall, the threats that Hermes copper 

butterfly faces are high in magnitude, 

because the major threats (particularly 

mortality due to wildfire and increased 

wildfire frequency) occur throughout all 

of the species’ range and are likely to 

result in significant adverse impacts to 

the status of the species. The threats are 

nonimminent overall, because the 

impact of wildfire to Hermes copper 

butterfly and its habitat occurs on a 

sporadic basis, and we do not have the 

ability to predict when wildfires will 

occur. This species faces highmagnitude nonimminent threats; 

therefore, we assigned this species a 

LPN of 5. 

Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly 

(Atlantea tulita)—The following 

summary is based on information in our 

files and in the petition we received on 

February 29, 2009. The Puerto Rican 

harlequin butterfly is endemic to Puerto 

Rico, and one of the four species 

endemic to the Greater Antilles within 

the genus Atlantea. This species occurs 

within the subtropical moist forest life 

zone in the northern karst region (i.e., 

municipality of Quebradillas) of Puerto 

Rico, and in the subtropical wet forest 

(i.e., Maricao Commonwealth Forest, 

municipality of Maricao). The Puerto 

Rican harlequin butterfly has only been 

found utilizing Oplonia spinosa (prickly 

bush) as its host plant (i.e., a plant that 

is used for laying the eggs, and also 

serves as a food source for development 

of the larvae). 

The primary threats to the Puerto 

Rican harlequin butterfly are 

development, habitat fragmentation, and 

other natural or manmade factors such 

as human-induced fires, use of 

herbicides and pesticides, vegetation 

management, and climate change. These 

threats would substantially affect the 

distribution and abundance of the 

species, as well as its habitat. In 

addition, the lack of effective 

enforcement makes the existing policies 

and regulations inadequate for the 

protection of the species’ habitat. 

Activities leading to habitat 

modification and destruction are 

expected to continue and potentially 

increase in the foreseeable future. These 

threats are high in magnitude and 

imminent because known populations 

occur in areas that are subject to 

ongoing development, increased traffic, 

and increased road maintenance and 

construction and they directly affect 

populations during all life stages 

throughout the range of the species. 

Therefore, we assigned a LPN of 2 to 

this species. 

Sequatchie caddisfly (Glyphopsyche 

sequatchie)—We continue to find that 

listing this species is warranted but 

precluded as of the date of publication 

of this notice. However, we are working 

on a proposed listing determination that 

we expect to publish prior to making the 

next annual resubmitted petition 12- 

month finding. In the course of 

preparing the proposed listing rule, we 

are continuing to monitor new 

information about this species’ status so 

that we can make prompt use of our 

authority under section 4(b)(7) in the 

case of an emergency posing a 

significant risk to the species.. 

Clifton Cave beetle 

(Pseudanophthalmus caecus)—The 

following summary is based upon 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Clifton Cave beetle is a small, eyeless, 

reddish-brown, predatory insect that 

feeds upon small cave invertebrates. It 

is cave dependent and is not found 

outside the cave environment. Clifton 

Cave beetle is known only from two 

privately owned caves in Woodford 

County, Kentucky. Soon after the 

species was first observed in 1963, the 

cave entrance was blocked due to road 

construction and placement of fill 

material along KY Highway 1964. We do 

not know whether the species still 

occurs at the original location or if it has 

been extirpated from the site by the 

closure of the cave entrance. A 2008 

attempt to re-open the cave was 

unsuccessful. Other caves in the vicinity 

of this cave were surveyed for the 

species during 1995 and 1996, and only 

one additional site (Richardson’s 

Spring) was found to support the Clifton 

Cave beetle. 

The limestone caves in which the 

Clifton Cave beetle is found provide a 

unique and fragile environment that 

supports a variety of species that have 

evolved to survive and reproduce under 

the demanding conditions found in cave 

ecosystems. The limited distribution of 

the species makes it vulnerable to 

isolated events that would only have a 

minimal effect on more wide-ranging 

insects. Events such as toxic chemical 

spills, discharges of large amounts of 

polluted water or indirect impacts from 

off-site construction activities, closure 

of entrances, alteration of entrances, or 

the creation of new entrances could 

have serious adverse impacts on on the 

survival of this species. Therefore, the 

magnitude of threat is high for this 

species. The threats are nonimminent 

because there are no known projects 

that would affect the species in the near 

future. We therefore have assigned an 

LPN of 5 to this species. 

Coleman cave beetle 

(Pseudanophthalmus colemanensis)— 

We continue to find that listing this 

species is warranted but precluded as of 

the date of publication of this notice. 

However, we are working on a proposed 

listing determination that we expect to 

publish prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted petition 12-month finding. 

In the course of preparing the proposed 

listing rule, we are continuing to 

monitor new information about this 

species’ status so that we can make 

prompt use of our authority under 

section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 

emergency posing a significant risk to 

the species. 

Icebox Cave beetle 

(Pseudanophthalmus frigidus)—The 

following summary is based upon 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Icebox Cave beetle is a small, eyeless, 

reddish-brown, predatory insect that 

feeds upon small cave invertebrates. It 

is not found outside the cave 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 72475 

environment, and is only known from 

one privately owned Kentucky cave in 

Bell County. 

The limestone cave in which this 

species is found provides a unique and 

fragile environment that supports a 

variety of species that have evolved to 

survive and reproduce under the 

demanding conditions found in cave 

ecosystems. The species has not been 

observed since it was originally 

collected, but species experts believe 

that it may still exist in the cave in low 

numbers. The limited distribution of the 

species makes it vulnerable to isolated 

events that would only have a minimal 

effect on more wide-ranging insects. 

Events such as toxic chemical spills or 

discharges of large amounts of polluted 

water, or indirect impacts from off-site 

construction activities, closure of 

entrances, alteration of entrances, or the 

creation of new entrances, could have 

serious adverse impacts on the survival 

of this species. The magnitude of threat 

is high for this species because it is 

limited in distribution and the threats 

would result in a high level of mortality 

or reduced reproductive capacity. The 

threats are nonimminent because there 

are no known projects that would affect 

the species in the near future. We 

therefore have assigned an LPN of 5 to 

this species. 

Inquirer Cave beetle 

(Pseudanophthalmus inquisitor)—We 

continue to find that listing this species 

is warranted but precluded as of the 

date of publication of this notice. 

However, we are working on a proposed 

listing determination that we expect to 

publish prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted petition 12-month finding. 

In the course of preparing the proposed 

listing rule, we are continuing to 

monitor new information about this 

species’ status so that we can make 

prompt use of our authority under 

section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 

emergency posing a significant risk to 

the species. 

Louisville Cave beetle 

(Pseudanophthalmus troglodytes)—The 

following summary is based upon 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

The Louisville cave beetle is a small, 

eyeless, reddish-brown, predatory insect 

that feeds upon cave invertebrates. It is 

not found outside the cave environment 

and is only known from two privately 

owned Kentucky caves in Jefferson 

County. The cave entrance at the 

species’ original location (Oxmoor, also 

called Highbaugh Cave) was closed due 

to residential development and 

placement of fill in the early 1990s. We 

do not know whether the species still 

occurs at the original location or if it has 

been extirpated from the site by the 

closure of the cave entrance. Several 

other caves in Jefferson County were 

surveyed for the species in 1994, but 

individuals of the species were observed 

at only one additional location, Eleven 

Jones Cave. This cave is located on the 

southeast bank of Beargrass Creek near 

Cave Hill Cemetery and Arboretum. Due 

to pollution and reportedly high carbon 

dioxide levels in the cave, additional 

searches of the cave have not been 

possible. 

The limestone caves in which this 

species is found provide a unique and 

fragile environment that supports a 

variety of species that have evolved to 

survive and reproduce under the 

demanding conditions found in cave 

ecosystems. The limited distribution of 

the species makes it vulnerable to 

isolated events that would only have a 

minimal effect on more wide-ranging 

insects. Events such as toxic chemical 

spills, discharges of large amounts of 

polluted water, or indirect impacts from 

off-site construction activities, closure 

of entrances, alteration of entrances, or 

the creation of new entrances, could 

have serious adverse impacts on the 

survival of this species. The magnitude 

of threat is high for this species, because 

it is limited in distribution and the 

threats would have severe negative 

impacts on the species. The threats are 

non-imminent because there are no 

known projects that would affect the 

species in the near future. We therefore 

have assigned an LPN of 5 to this 

species. 

Tatum Cave beetle 

(Pseudanophthalmus parvus)—The 

following summary is based upon 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Tatum Cave beetle is a small, eyeless, 

reddish-brown predatory insect that 

feeds upon cave invertebrates. It is not 

found outside the cave environment and 

is only known from one privately 

owned Kentucky cave (Tatum Cave) in 

Marion County. Despite searches in 

1980, 1996, 2004, and 2005, the species 

has not been observed in Tatum Cave 

since 1965. 

The limestone cave in which this 

species is found provides a unique and 

fragile environment that supports a 

variety of species that have evolved to 

survive and reproduce under the 

demanding conditions found in cave 

ecosystems. The species has not been 

observed since 1965, but species experts 

believe that it still exists in low 

numbers. The limited distribution of the 

species makes it vulnerable to isolated 

events that would only have a minimal 

effect on more wide-ranging insects. 

Events such as toxic chemical spills, 

discharges of large amounts of polluted 

water, or indirect impacts from off-site 

construction activities, closure of 

entrances, alteration of entrances, or the 

creation of new entrances, could have 

serious adverse impacts on this species. 

The magnitude of threat is high for this 

species, because its limited numbers 

mean that any threats could severely 

affect its continued existence. The 

threats are nonimminent, because there 

are no known projects that would affect 

the species in the near future. We 

therefore have assigned an LPN of 5 to 

this species. 

Orangeblack Hawaiian damselfly 

(Megalagrion xanthomelas)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

The orangeblack Hawaiian damselfly is 

a stream- and pool-dwelling species 

endemic to the Hawaiian Islands of 

Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Maui, Lanai, and 

Hawaii. The species no longer is found 

on Kauai, and is now restricted to a total 

of 16 populations distributed across the 

islands of Oahu, Maui, Molokai, Lanai, 

and Hawaii. This species is threatened 

by predation from nonnative aquatic 

species such as fish and predacious 

insects, and habitat loss through 

dewatering of streams and invasion by 

nonnative plants. Nonnative fish and 

insects prey on the larval-stage naiads of 

the damselfly, and loss of water reduces 

the amount of suitable habitat for the 

naiad life stage. Invasive plants (e.g., 

California grass (Brachiaria mutica)) 

also contribute to loss of habitat by 

forming dense, monotypic stands that 

completely eliminate open water. 

Nonnative fish and plants are found in 

all the streams where orangeblack 

Hawaiian damselflies occur, except at 

the single Oahu population, where there 

are no nonnative fish. We have retained 

an LPN of 8 for this species because, 

although the threats are ongoing and 

therefore imminent, they affect the 

different populations of the species to 

varying degrees throughout the species’ 

range and are thus of moderate 

magnitude. 

Rattlesnake-master borer moth 

(Papaipema eryngii)—The following 

information is based on information in 

our files. Rattlesnake-master borer 

moths are obligate residents of 

undisturbed prairie remnants, savanna, 

and pine barrens that contain their only 

food plant—rattlesnake-master 

(Eryngium yuccifolium). The 

rattlesnake-master borer moth is known 

from 16 sites distributed over 5 States: 

Illinois, Arkansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72476 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

and North Carolina. Currently 12 of the 

sites contain extant populations, 3 

contain populations with unknown 

status, and 1 contains a population that 

is considered extirpated. 

Although the rattlesnake-master plant 

is widely distributed across 26 States 

and is a common plant in remnant 

prairies, it is a conservative species, 

meaning it is not found in disturbed 

areas, with relative frequencies of less 

than 1 percent. The habitat range for the 

rattlesnake-master borer moth is very 

narrow and appears to be limiting for 

the species. The ongoing effects of 

habitat loss, fragmentation, degradation, 

and modification from agriculture, 

development, flooding, invasive species, 

and secondary succession have resulted 

in fragmented populations and 

population declines. Rattlesnake-master 

borer moths are affected by habitat 

fragmentation and population isolation. 

Almost all of the sites with extant 

populations of the rattlesnake-master 

borer moth are isolated from one 

another, with the populations in 

Kentucky, North Carolina, and 

Oklahoma occurring within a single site 

for each State, thus precluding 

recolonization from other populations. 

These small, isolated populations are 

likely to become unviable over time due 

to lower genetic diversity reducing their 

ability to adapt to environmental 

change, effects of stochastic events, and 

inability to recolonize areas where they 

are extirpated. 

Rattlesnake-master borer moths have 

life-history traits that make them more 

susceptible to outside stressors. They 

are univoltine (having a single flight per 

year), do not disperse widely, and are 

monophagous (have only one food 

source). The life history of the species 

makes it particularly sensitive to fire, 

which is the primary practice used in 

prairie management. The species is only 

safe from fire once it bores into the root 

of the host plant, which makes adult, 

egg, and first larval stages subject to 

mortality during prescribed burns and 

wildfires. Fire and grazing cause direct 

mortality to the moth and destroy food 

plants if the intensity, extent, or timing 

is not conducive to the species’ biology. 

Although fire management is a threat to 

the species, lack of management is also 

a threat, and at least one site has become 

extirpated likely because of the 

succession to woody habitat. The 

species is sought after by collectors, and 

the host plant is very easy to identify, 

making the moth susceptible to 

collection, and thus many sites are kept 

undisclosed to the public. 

Existing regulatory mechanisms 

provide protection for 12 of the 16 sites 

containing rattlesnake-master borer 

moth populations. Illinois’ endangered 

species statute provides regulatory 

mechanisms to protect the species from 

potential impacts from actions such as 

development and collecting on the 10 

Illinois sites; however, illegal 

collections of the species have occurred 

at two sites. A permit is required for 

collection by site managers within the 

sites in North Carolina and Oklahoma. 

The rattlesnake-master borer moth is 

also listed as endangered in Kentucky 

by the State’s Nature Preserves 

Commission, although at this time the 

Kentucky legislature has not enacted 

any statute that provides legal 

protection for species listed as 

threatened or endangered. There are no 

statutory mechanisms in place to protect 

the populations in North Carolina, 

Arkansas, or Oklahoma. 

Some threats that the rattlesnakemaster moth faces are high in 

magnitude, such as habitat conversion 

and fragmentation, and population 

isolation. These threats with the highest 

magnitude occur in many of the 

populations throughout the species’ 

range, but although they are likely to 

affect each population at some time, 

they are not likely to affect all of the 

populations at any one time. Other 

threats, such as agricultural and 

nonagricultural development, mortality 

from implementation of some prairie 

management tools (such as fire), 

flooding, succession, and climate 

change are of moderate to low 

magnitude. For example, the life history 

of rattlesnake-master borer moths makes 

them highly sensitive to fire, which can 

cause mortality of individuals through 

most of the year and can affect entire 

populations. Conversely, complete fire 

suppression can also be a threat to 

rattlesnake-master borer moths as 

prairie habitat declines and woody or 

invasive species become established 

such that the species’ only food plant is 

not found in disturbed prairies. 

Although these threats can cause direct 

and indirect mortality of the species, 

they are of moderate or low magnitude 

because they affect only some 

populations throughout the range and to 

varying degrees. Overall, the threats are 

moderate. The threats are imminent 

because they are ongoing; every known 

population of rattlesnake-master borer 

moth has at least one ongoing threat, 

and some have several working in 

tandem. Thus, we assigned a LPN of 8 

to this species. 

Stephan’s riffle beetle (Heterelmis 

stephani)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. No new information was provided 

in the petition received on May 11, 

2004. The Stephan’s riffle beetle is an 

endemic riffle beetle historically found 

in limited spring environments within 

the Santa Rita Mountains, Pima County, 

Arizona. In the most recent surveys 

conducted in 1993, the Stephan’s riffle 

beetle was documented only in 

Sylvester Spring in Madera Canyon, 

Santa Cruz County, within the Coronado 

National Forest. Suspected potential 

threats to that spring are largely from 

habitat modification, and potential 

changes in water quality and quantity 

due to catastrophic natural events (such 

as wildfire or flooding from storms). The 

threats are of low to moderate 

magnitude because the Forest Service 

has no plans to modify the springs 

where this species occurs. In addition, 

the effects of the other threats are 

unlikely to be permanent, as they stem 

from occasional natural events that do 

not result in permanent water quality 

degradation. In addition, because of the 

physical habitat structure (large 

boulders surrounding the springs) and 

the location of the springs (on hillsides 

above the stream or in the headwaters 

where there is little watershed to 

generate large flood flows), flooding, 

resulting from thunderstorms or postfire runoff is not a factor affecting this 

species at this time. Additionally, there 

is a higher likelihood that the species 

will persist in areas that are unaffected 

by the threats; it is unlikely that all 

areas of the spring would be 

simultaneously be affected. Threats 

from habitat modification have already 

occurred and are no longer ongoing. 

Therefore, the threats are not imminent. 

Thus, we retain an LPN of 11 for the 

Stephan’s riffle beetle. 

Arapahoe snowfly (Capnia 

arapahoe)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. This insect is a winter stonefly 

associated with clean, cool, running 

waters. Adult snowflies emerge in late 

winter from the space underneath 

stream ice. The Arapahoe snowfly is 

known to be found only in a short 

section of Elkhorn Creek, a small 

tributary of the Cache la Poudre River in 

the Roosevelt National Forest, Larimer 

County, Colorado. New surveys 

completed in 2013 indicate that the 

Arapahoe snowfly may occur in 

additional drainages other than Elkhorn 

Creek; however, the results are 

preliminary, and surveys are continuing 

in 2014. We will evaluate and 

incorporate the results of these new 

surveys into our review when they 

become available. The species 

previously occurred downriver at Young 

Gulch, but it is likely that either habitat 

became unsuitable or other unknown 

causes extirpated the species. Habitats 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 72477 

at Young Gulch were further degraded 

by the High Park Fire in 2012, and 

potentially by a flash flood disaster in 

September 2013. 

Climate change is a threat to the 

Arapahoe snowfly, and modifies its 

habitats by reducing snowpacks, 

increasing temperatures, fostering 

mountain pine beetle outbreaks, and 

increasing the frequency of destructive 

wildfires. Limited dispersal capabilities, 

an extremely restricted range, 

dependence on pristine habitats, and a 

small population size make the 

Arapahoe snowfly vulnerable to 

demographic stochasticity, 

environmental stochasticity, and 

random catastrophes. Furthermore, 

regulatory mechanisms inadequately 

reduce these threats, which may act 

cumulatively to affect the species. The 

threats to the Arapahoe snowfly are high 

in magnitude because they occur 

throughout the species’ limited range. 

However, the threats are nonimminent. 

While limited dispersal capabilities, 

restricted range, dependence on pristine 

habitats, and small population size are 

characteristics that make this species 

vulnerable to stochastic events and 

catastrophes (and potential impacts 

from climate change), these events are 

not currently occurring and increased 

temperatures will adversely affect the 

species in the future. Therefore, we have 

assigned the Arapahoe snowfly an LPN 

of 5. 

Meltwater lednian stonefly (Lednia 

tumana)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files and in the petition we received on 

July 30, 2007. This species is an aquatic 

insect in the order Plecoptera 

(stoneflies). Stoneflies are primarily 

associated with clean, cool streams and 

rivers. Eggs and nymphs (juveniles) of 

the meltwater lednian stonefly are 

found in high-elevation, alpine, and 

subalpine streams, most typically in 

locations closely linked to glacial 

runoff. The species is generally 

restricted to streams with mean summer 

water temperature less than 10 °C 

(50 °F). The only known meltwater 

lednian stonefly occurrences are within 

Glacier National Park (NP), Montana. 

Climate change, and the associated 

effects of glacier loss (with glaciers 

predicted to be gone by 2030)— 

including reduced streamflows, and 

increased water temperatures—are 

expected to significantly reduce the 

occurrence of populations and extent of 

suitable habitat for the species in 

Glacier NP. In addition, the existing 

regulatory mechanisms are not adequate 

to address these environmental changes 

due to global climate change. We 

determined that the meltwater lednian 

stonefly was a candidate for listing in a 

warranted-but-precluded 12-month 

petition finding published on April 5, 

2011 (76 FR 18684). We have assigned 

the species an LPN of 5, based on three 

criteria: (1) The high magnitude of 

threat, which is projected to 

substantially reduce the amount of 

suitable habitat relative to the species’ 

current range; (2) the low immediacy of 

the threat based on the lack of 

documented evidence that climate 

change is affecting stonefly habitat; and 

(3) the taxonomic status of the species, 

which is a full species. 

Highlands tiger beetle (Cicindela 

highlandensis)—We continue to find 

that listing this species is warranted but 

precluded as of the date of publication 

of this notice. However, we are working 

on a proposed listing determination that 

we expect to publish prior to making the 

next annual resubmitted petition 12- 

month finding. In the course of 

preparing the proposed listing rule, we 

are continuing to monitor new 

information about this species’ status so 

that we can make prompt use of our 

authority under section 4(b)(7) in the 

case of an emergency posing a 

significant risk to the species. 

Crustaceans 

Anchialine pool shrimp (Metabetaeus 

lohena)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. No new information was provided 

in the petition we received on May 11, 

2004. Metabetaeus lohena is a species of 

shrimp belonging to the family 

Alpheidae that inhabits anchialine 

pools. This species is endemic to the 

Hawaiian Islands, with populations on 

the islands of Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii. 

The primary threats to this species are 

predation by fish (i.e., fish species that 

do not naturally occur in the pools 

inhabited by this species) and habitat 

loss from degradation (primarily from 

illegal trash dumping). Populations of 

M. lohena on the islands of Maui and 

Hawaii are located within State Natural 

Area Reserves (NARs) and in a National 

Park. Both the State NARs and the 

National Park prohibit the collection of 

the species and the disturbance of the 

pools. However, enforcement of 

collection and disturbance prohibitions 

is difficult, and the negative effects from 

the introduction of fish can occur 

suddenly and could quickly decimate a 

population. On Oahu, four pools 

containing this species are located in a 

National Wildlife Refuge and are 

protected from collection and 

disturbance to the pool; however, on 

State-owned land where the species 

occurs, there is no protection from 

collection or disturbance of the pools. 

Threats to this species could have a 

significant adverse effect on the survival 

of the species, leading to a relatively 

high likelihood of extinction, and are 

thus of a high magnitude. The primary 

threats of predation from fish and loss 

of habitat due to degradation are 

nonimminent, because on the islands of 

Maui and Hawaii no fish were observed 

in any of the pools where this species 

occurs, and there has been no 

documented trash dumping in these 

pools. Therefore, we have retained an 

LPN of 5 for this species. 

Anchialine pool shrimp 

(Palaemonella burnsi)—The following 

summary is based on information 

contained in our files. No new 

information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Palaemonella burnsi is a species of 

shrimp belonging to the family 

Palaemonidae, that inhabits anchialine 

pools. This species is endemic to the 

Hawaiian Islands with populations on 

the islands of Maui and Hawaii. The 

primary threats to this species are 

predation by nonnative fish (i.e., fish 

species that do not naturally occur in 

the pools inhabited by this species) and 

habitat loss due to degradation 

(primarily from illegal trash dumping). 

This species’ populations on Maui are 

located within a State Natural Area 

Reserve (NAR). Hawaii’s State statutes 

prohibit the collection of the species 

and the disturbance of the pools in State 

NARs. On the island of Hawaii, the 

species occurs within a State NAR and 

a National Park, where collection and 

disturbance are also prohibited. 

However, enforcement of these 

prohibitions is difficult, and the 

negative effects from the introduction of 

fish can occur suddenly and could 

quickly decimate a population. 

Therefore, threats to this species could 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

survival of the species, leading to a 

relatively high likelihood of extinction, 

and thus are of a high magnitude. The 

threats are nonimminent, because 

surveys in 2004 and 2007 did not find 

fish in the pools where these shrimp 

occur on Maui or the island of Hawaii. 

Also, there was no evidence of recent 

habitat degradation at those pools. 

Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 

5 for this species. 

Anchialine pool shrimp (Procaris 

hawaiana)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. No new information was provided 

in the petition we received on May 11, 

2004. Procaris hawaiana is a species of 

shrimp belonging to the family 

Procarididae that inhabits anchialine 

pools. This species is endemic to the 

Hawaiian Islands, and is currently 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72478 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

known from 2 pools on the island of 

Maui and 12 pools on the island of 

Hawaii. The primary threats to this 

species are predation from nonnative 

fish (i.e., fish species that do not 

naturally occur in the pools inhabited 

by this species) and habitat loss due to 

degradation (primarily from illegal trash 

dumping). This species’ populations on 

Maui are located within a State Natural 

Area Reserve (NAR). Twelve pools 

containing this species on the island of 

Hawaii are also located within a State 

NAR. Hawaii’s State statutes prohibit 

the collection of the species and the 

disturbance of the pools in State NARs. 

However, enforcement of these 

prohibitions is difficult, and the 

negative effects from the introduction of 

fish can occur suddenly and could 

quickly decimate a population. In 

addition, there are no prohibitions for 

either removal of the species or 

disturbance to one pool containing this 

species located outside a NAR on the 

island of Hawaii. Therefore, threats to 

this species could have a significant 

adverse effect on the survival of the 

species, leading to a relatively high 

likelihood of extinction, and thus 

remain at a high magnitude. The threats 

to the species are nonimminent, 

because, during 2004 and 2007 surveys, 

no nonnative fish were observed in the 

pools where these shrimp occur on 

Maui, nor were they observed in the one 

pool on the island of Hawaii that was 

surveyed in 2005. In addition, there 

were no signs of dumping or fill in any 

of the pools where the species occurs. 

Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 

5 for this species. 

Flowering Plants 

Abronia alpina (Ramshaw Meadows 

sand-verbena)—The following summary 

is based on information contained in 

our files. No new information was 

provided in the petition we received on 

May 11, 2004. Abronia alpina is a small 

perennial herb in the Nyctaginaceae 

(four-o’clock) family, 2.5 to 15.2 cm (1 

to 6 in) across, forming compact mats 

with lavender-pink, trumpet-shaped, 

and generally fragrant flowers. Abronia 

alpina is known from one main 

population center at Ramshaw Meadow 

and a smaller population at the adjacent 

Templeton Meadow. The meadows are 

located on the Kern River Plateau in the 

Sierra Nevada, on lands administered by 

the Inyo National Forest, in Tulare 

County, California. The total estimated 

area occupied is approximately 6 

hectares (15 acres). The population 

fluctuates from year to year without any 

clear trends. Population estimates for 

the years from 1985 up to, but not 

including, 2012 range from a high of 

approximately 130,000 plants in 1997 to 

a low of approximately 40,000 plants in 

2003. In 2012, when the population was 

last monitored, the estimated total 

population increased to approximately 

156,000 plants. 

The factors currently threatening 

Abronia alpina include natural and 

human habitat alteration, lowering of 

the water table due to erosion within the 

meadow system, and recreational use 

within meadow habitats. Lodgepole 

pines are encroaching upon meadow 

habitat with trees germinating within A. 

alpina habitat, occupying up to 20 

percent of two A. alpina 

subpopulations. Lodgepole pine 

encroachment may alter soil 

characteristics by increasing organic 

matter levels, decreasing porosity, and 

moderating diurnal temperature 

fluctuations thus reducing the 

competitive ability of A. alpina to 

persist in an environment more 

hospitable to other plant species. The 

habitat occupied by Abronia alpina 

directly borders the meadow system, 

which is supported by the South Fork 

of the Kern River. The river flows 

through the meadow, at times coming 

within 15 m (50 ft) of Abronia alpina 

habitat, particularly in the vicinity of 

five subpopulations. Past livestock 

trampling and past removal of bankstabilizing vegetation by grazing 

livestock have contributed to downcutting of the river channel through the 

meadow, leaving the meadow subject to 

potential alteration by lowering of the 

water table. In 2001, the Forest Service 

began resting the grazing allotment for 

10 years, thereby eliminating cattle use. 

The allotment is still being rested while 

the Forest Service assesses the data 

collected on the rested allotment for 

eventual inclusion in an environmental 

analysis to consider resumption of 

grazing. Established hiker, packstock, 

and cattle trails pass through A. alpina 

subpopulations. Two main hiker trails 

pass through Ramshaw Meadow, but in 

1988 and 1997, they were rerouted out 

of A. alpina subpopulations. Occasional 

incidental use by horses and hikers 

sometimes occurs on the remnants of 

cattle trails that pass through 

subpopulations in several places. 

The Service has funded studies to 

determine appropriate conservation 

measures for the species and is working 

with the U.S. Forest Service on 

developing a conservation strategy for 

the species. The remaining threats affect 

individuals in the population and have 

not appeared to have population-level 

effects. Therefore, the threats are low in 

magnitude. In addition, because the 

grazing activities have been eliminated 

for the time being and the hiking trails 

have been rerouted, the threats are not 

imminent. The LPN for A. alpina 

remains an 11 due to the presence of 

moderate-to-low threats, and the 

determination that the threats are not 

imminent at this point in time. 

Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett’s 

silverbush)—We continue to find that 

listing this species is warranted but 

precluded as of the date of publication 

of this notice. However, we are working 

on a proposed listing determination that 

we expect to publish prior to making the 

next annual resubmitted petition 12- 

month finding. In the course of 

preparing the proposed listing 

determination, we are continuing to 

monitor new information about this 

species’ status so that we can make 

prompt use of our authority under 

section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 

emergency posing a significant risk to 

the species. 

Artemisia borealis var. wormskioldii 

(Northern wormwood)—The following 

summary is based on information 

contained in our files. No new 

information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Historically known from eight sites, 

Artemisia campestris var. wormskioldii 

(formerly A. borealis var. wormskioldii) 

is currently known from two natural 

populations (one in Klickitat County 

and one in Grant County, Washington) 

and four outplanted populations in 

Oregon and Washington. This plant is 

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

the shore of, and on islands within, the 

Columbia River. Annual monitoring 

indicates that the two natural 

populations have declined from 

historical numbers and now total 

roughly 550 individuals. Two 

populations were outplanted with 

approximately 3,000 individuals, and 

when monitored in 2012, approximately 

900 individuals still remained; the other 

two outplanted populations have not 

been monitored since 120 individuals 

were outplanted at the sites in 2013. It 

is possible that additional natural 

populations of the species exist as there 

are relatively large stretches of the midColumbia River and its tributaries that 

have not been surveyed specifically for 

this plant; however, we currently know 

of the species only from the above six 

locations. The species is also cultivated 

ex situ for future translocation projects. 

Habitat loss from inundation behind 

hydroelectric dams and placement of 

riprap along the Columbia River is 

thought to be the cause of historical 

population loss. Current threats to 

northern wormwood include possible 

direct loss of habitat through regulation 

of water levels in the Columbia River; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 72479 

human trampling of plants from 

recreation; competition with nonnative 

invasive species; burial by wind- and 

water-borne sediments; small 

population sizes; susceptibility to 

genetic drift and inbreeding; and the 

potential for hybridization with two 

other species of Artemisia. At the Grant 

County site, ongoing conservation 

actions have reduced trampling, but 

have not eliminated or reduced the 

other threats. At the Klickitat County 

site (Miller Island), active conservation 

measures are not currently in place. The 

magnitude of these threats is high, as 

the remaining populations are small, 

isolated, and each could be eliminated 

by a single disturbance. The threats are 

imminent because recreational use is 

ongoing, invasive nonnative species 

occur at both sites, erosion of the 

substrate is ongoing at the Klickitat 

County site, and high water flows may 

occur unpredictably in any year. 

Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 

3 for this variety. 

Astragalus anserinus (Goose Creek 

milkvetch)—The following summary is 

based on information in our files and in 

the petition received on February 3, 

2004. The majority (over 80 percent) of 

Goose Creek milkvetch sites in Idaho, 

Utah, and Nevada occur on Federal 

lands managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management. The rest of the sites occur 

as small populations on private and 

State lands in Utah and on private land 

in Idaho and Nevada. Goose Creek 

milkvetch occurs in a variety of habitats, 

but is typically associated with dry, 

tuffaceous soils (made up of rock 

consisting of smaller kinds of volcanic 

detritus) from the Salt Lake Formation. 

The species grows on steep or flat sites, 

with soil textures ranging from silty to 

sandy to somewhat gravelly. The 

species tolerates some level of 

disturbance, based on its occurrence on 

steep slopes, where downhill movement 

of soil is common. 

The primary threat to Goose Creek 

milkvetch is habitat degradation and 

modification resulting from an altered 

wildfire regime, fire suppression 

activities, and rehabilitation efforts to 

recover lands that have burned. Other 

factors that also appear to threaten 

Goose Creek milkvetch include 

livestock use and invasive nonnative 

species. The existing regulatory 

mechanisms are not adequate to address 

these threats. Climate change effects to 

Goose Creek drainage habitats are 

possible, but we are unable to predict 

the specific impacts of this change to 

Goose Creek milkvetch at this time. 

The magnitude of threats is high as 

available monitoring data indicate 

declines in excess of 70 percent within 

the perimeter of wildfires that occurred 

in 2007 which negatively affected nearly 

50 percent of the known occurrences in 

Nevada and Utah. In addition, livestock 

use impacts were observed at all sites 

visited in Utah in 2011 with 25 percent 

of the sites (containing 73 percent of the 

individuals) being directly affected. The 

threats to the species are imminent, or 

currently occurring, largely as a result of 

land management actions taken since 

fires initially altered the habitat. The 

threats associated with livestock grazing 

and invasive species are occurring 

throughout a large portion of the 

species’ range. The high magnitude and 

immediacy of threats leave the species 

and its small populations more 

vulnerable to stochastic events. 

Therefore, we have assigned the Goose 

Creek milkvetch an LPN of 2. 

Astragalus microcymbus (Skiff 

milkvetch)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files and in the petition we received on 

July 30, 2007. Skiff milkvetch is a 

perennial forb that dies back to the 

ground every year. It has a very limited 

range and a spotty distribution within 

Gunnison and Saguache Counties in 

Colorado, where it is found in open, 

park-like landscapes in the sagebrushsteppe ecosystem on rocky or cobbly, 

moderate-to-steep slopes of hills and 

draws. 

The most significant threats to skiff 

milkvetch are recreation, roads, trails, 

and habitat fragmentation and 

degradation. Existing regulatory 

mechanisms are not adequate to protect 

the species from these threats. 

Recreational impacts are likely to 

increase, given the close proximity of 

skiff milkvetch to the town of Gunnison 

and the increasing popularity of 

mountain biking, motorcycling, and allterrain vehicles. Furthermore, the 

Hartman Rocks Recreation Area draws 

users, and contains over 40 percent of 

the skiff milkvetch units. Other threats 

to the species include residential and 

urban development; livestock, deer, and 

elk use; climate change; increasing 

periodic drought; nonnative invasive 

cheatgrass; and wildfire. The threats to 

skiff milkvetch are moderate in 

magnitude, because, while serious and 

occurring rangewide, they do not 

collectively result in population 

declines on a short time scale. The 

threats are imminent, because the 

species is currently facing them in many 

portions of its range. Therefore, we have 

assigned skiff milkvetch an LPN of 8. 

Astragalus schmolliae (Schmoll 

milkvetch)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files and in the petition we received on 

July 30, 2007. Schmoll milkvetch is a 

narrow endemic perennial plant that 

grows in the mature pinyon-juniper 

woodland of mesa tops in the Mesa 

Verde National Park area and in the Ute 

Mountain Ute Tribal Park in Colorado. 

The most significant threats to the 

species are degradation of habitat by 

fire, followed by invasion by nonnative 

cheatgrass and subsequent increase in 

fire frequency. These threats currently 

affect about 40 percent of the species’ 

entire known range, and cheatgrass is 

likely to increase, given (1) its rapid 

spread and persistence in habitat 

disturbed by wildfires, fire and fuels 

management and development of 

infrastructure, and (2) the inability of 

land managers to control it on a 

landscape scale. Other threats to 

Schmoll milkvetch include fire break 

clearings, drought, and feral livestock 

grazing; existing regulatory mechanisms 

are not adequate to address these 

threats. The threats to the species 

overall are imminent, because they are 

ongoing, and moderate in magnitude, 

because the species is currently facing 

them in many portions of its range, but 

the threats do not collectively result in 

population declines on a short time 

scale. Therefore, we have assigned 

Schmoll milkvetch an LPN of 8. 

Astragalus tortipes (sleeping Ute 

milkvetch)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. No new information was provided 

in the petition we received on May 11, 

2004. Sleeping Ute milkvetch is a 

perennial plant that grows only on the 

Smokey Hills layer of the Mancos Shale 

Formation on the Ute Mountain Ute 

Indian Reservation in Montezuma 

County, Colorado. 

In 2000, a total of 3,744 plants were 

recorded at 24 locations covering 500 

acres within an overall range of 6,400 

acres. Available information from 2000 

and 2009 indicated that the species’ 

status was stable at that time. However, 

previous and ongoing threats from 

borrow pit excavation, off-highway 

vehicles, irrigation canal construction, 

and a prairie dog colony have had minor 

impacts that reduced the range and 

number of plants by small amounts. Off 

road-vehicle use of the habitat has 

reportedly been controlled by fencing. 

Oil and gas development is active in the 

general area, but the Service has 

received no information to indicate that 

there is development within plant 

habitat. In 2011, the tribal 

Environmental Programs Department 

reported habitat disturbance by vehicles 

and activity at the shooting range 

located within the plant habitat. The 

Tribe reported that the status of the 

species remained unchanged. The Tribe 

has been working on a management 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72480 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

plan that will include a monitoring 

program for this species, among others. 

We had expected the final plan to be 

released in 2010, but it still has not been 

completed. We have no documentation 

concerning the current status of the 

plants, condition of habitat, and terms 

of the species management plan being 

drafted by the Tribe. Thus, at this time, 

we cannot accurately assess whether 

populations are being adequately 

protected from previously existing 

threats. The threats are moderate in 

magnitude, since they have had only 

minor impacts. Until the management 

plan is completed there are no 

regulatory mechanisms in place to 

protect the species from the threats 

described above. Overall, we conclude 

that threats are moderate to low and 

nonimminent. Therefore, we assigned 

an LPN of 11 to this species. 

Boechera pusilla (Fremont County 

rockcress)—The following summary is 

based on information in our files and in 

the petition received on July 24, 2007. 

Boechera pusilla is a perennial herb that 

occupies sparsely vegetated, coarse 

granite soil pockets in exposed granitepegmatite outcrops, with slopes 

generally less than 10 degrees, at an 

elevation between 2,438 and 2,469 m 

(8,000 and 8,100 ft). The only known 

population of B. pusilla is located in 

Wyoming on lands administered by the 

Bureau of Land Management in the 

southern foothills of the Wind River 

Range. B. pusilla is likely restricted in 

distribution by the limited occurrence of 

pegmatite (a very coarse-grained rock 

formed from magma or lava) in the area. 

The specialized habitat requirements of 

B. pusilla have allowed the plant to 

persist without competition from other 

herbaceous plants or sagebrushgrassland species that are present in the 

surrounding landscape. 

Boechera pusilla has a threat that is 

not identified, but that is indicated by 

the small and overall declining 

population size. Although the threat is 

not fully understood, we know it exists 

as indicated by the declining 

population. The population size may be 

declining from a variety of unknown 

causes, with drought or disease possibly 

contributing to the trend. The 

downward trend may have been leveled 

off somewhat recently, but without 

improved population numbers, the 

species may reach a population level at 

which other stressors become threats. 

We are unable to determine how climate 

change may affect the species in the 

future. To the extent that we understand 

the species, other potential habitatrelated threats have been removed 

through the implementation of Federal 

regulatory mechanisms and associated 

actions. Overutilization, predation, and 

the inadequacy of regulatory 

mechanisms are likely threats to the 

species. The threats that B. pusilla faces 

are moderate in magnitude, primarily 

because of the recent leveling off of the 

population decline. The threat to B. 

pusilla is imminent, because we have 

evidence that the species is currently 

facing a threat indicated by reduced 

population size. The threat appears to 

be ongoing, although we are unsure of 

the extent and timing of its effects on 

the species. Thus, we have assigned B. 

pusilla an LPN of 8. 

Calamagrostis expansa (Maui 

reedgrass)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. No new information was provided 

in the petition we received on May 11, 

2004. Calamagrostis expansa is a 

perennial grass found in wet forests and 

bogs, and in bog margins, on the 

Hawaiian Islands of Maui and Hawaii. 

This species is known from 13 

populations collectively totaling fewer 

than 750 individuals. 

Calamagrostis expansa is threatened 

by habitat degradation and loss by feral 

pigs (Sus scrofa), and by competition 

with nonnative plants. All of the known 

populations of C. expansa on Maui 

occur in managed areas. Pig exclusion 

fences have been constructed, and 

control of nonnative plants is ongoing 

within the exclosures but still pose a 

threat to the species. On the island of 

Hawaii, the population in the Upper 

Waiakea Forest Reserve has been fenced 

entirely. This species is not represented 

in an ex situ collection. Threats to this 

species from feral pigs and nonnative 

plants are still ongoing despite the 

conservation actions, and are thus 

imminent and of high magnitude, given 

the limited number of individuals, 

leading to a relatively high likelihood of 

extinction. Therefore, we have retained 

an LPN of 2 for this species. 

Calochortus persistens (Siskiyou 

mariposa lily)—The following summary 

is based on information contained in 

our files and the petition we received on 

September 10, 2001. The Siskiyou 

mariposa lily is a narrow endemic that 

is restricted to three disjunct ridge tops 

in the Klamath-Siskiyou Range near the 

California-Oregon border. The 

southernmost occurrence of this species 

is composed of nine separate sites on 

approximately 17.6 ha (43.4 ac) of 

Klamath National Forest and privately 

owned lands that stretch for 10 km (6 

mi) along the Gunsight-Humbug Ridge, 

Siskiyou County, California. In 2007, a 

new occurrence was confirmed in the 

locality of Cottonwood Peak and Little 

Cottonwood Peak, Siskiyou County, 

where several populations are 

distributed over 164 ha (405 ac) on three 

individual mountain peaks in the 

Klamath National Forest and on private 

lands. The northernmost occurrence 

consists of not more than five Siskiyou 

mariposa lily plants that were 

discovered in 1998, on Bald Mountain, 

west of Ashland, Jackson County, 

Oregon. 

Major threats include competition and 

shading by native and nonnative species 

fostered by suppression of wildfire; 

increased fuel loading and subsequent 

risk of wildfire; fragmentation by roads, 

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

construction around radio towers and 

telephone relay stations located on 

Gunsight Peak and Mahogany Point; and 

soil disturbance, direct damage, and 

nonnative weed and grass species 

introduction as a result of heavy 

recreational use and construction of fire 

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

invasive, nonnative plant that may 

prevent germination of Siskiyou 

mariposa lily seedlings, has invaded 75 

percent of the known lily habitat on 

Gunsight-Humbug Ridge, the 

southernmost California occurrence. 

Forest Service staff and the KlamathSiskiyou Wildlands Center cite 

competition with dyer’s woad as a 

significant and chronic threat to the 

survival of Siskiyou mariposa lily. 

The combination of restricted range, 

extremely low numbers (five plants) in 

one of three disjunct populations, poor 

competitive ability, short seed dispersal 

distance, slow growth rates, low seed 

production, apparently poor survival 

rates in some years, herbivory, habitat 

disturbance, and competition from 

nonnative invasive plants threatens the 

continued existence of this species. The 

main threat is competition by dyer’s 

woad. However, because efforts are 

under way to reduce the threat of dyer’s 

woad where it is found and there is no 

evidence of a decline in C. persistens 

populations where this weed has 

become most widely distributed, the 

magnitude of existing threats is 

moderate. Overall, the threats are 

nonimment since the threats of 

competition from nonnative invasive 

plants has been reduced to localized 

areas and are not anticipated to 

overwhelm a large portion of the 

species’ range in the immediate future. 

The likelihood that a large proportion of 

the Gunsight-Humbug Ridge range 

would be affected by disturbance, and 

therefore invaded by dyer’s woad at the 

same time, is low. Therefore, we have 

assigned a LPN of 11 to this species. 

Chamaecrista lineata var. keyensis 

(Big Pine partridge pea)—We continue 

to find that listing this species is 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 72481 

warranted but precluded as of the date 

of publication of this notice. However, 

we are working on a proposed listing 

determination that we expect to publish 

prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted petition 12-month finding. 

In the course of preparing the proposed 

listing determination, we are continuing 

to monitor new information about this 

species’ status so that we can make 

prompt use of our authority under 

section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 

emergency posing a significant risk to 

the species. 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum 

(Pineland sandmat)—We continue to 

find that listing this species is 

warranted but precluded as of the date 

of publication of this notice. However, 

we are working on a proposed listing 

determination that we expect to publish 

prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted petition 12-month finding. 

In the course of preparing the proposed 

listing determination, we are continuing 

to monitor new information about this 

species’ status so that we can make 

prompt use of our authority under 

section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 

emergency posing a significant risk to 

the species. 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. serpyllum 

(Wedge spurge)—We continue to find 

that listing this species is warranted but 

precluded as of the date of publication 

of this notice. However, we are working 

on a proposed listing determination that 

we expect to publish prior to making the 

next annual resubmitted petition 12- 

month finding. In the course of 

preparing the proposed listing 

determination, we are continuing to 

monitor new information about this 

species’ status so that we can make 

prompt use of our authority under 

section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 

emergency posing a significant risk to 

the species. 

Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina 

(San Fernando Valley spineflower)— 

The following summary is based on 

information contained in our files and 

the petition received on December 14, 

1999. Chorizanthe parryi var. 

fernandina is a low-growing herbaceous 

annual plant in the buckwheat family. 

Germination occurs following the onset 

of late-fall and winter rains and 

typically represents different cohorts 

from the seed bank. Flowering occurs in 

the spring, generally between April and 

June. The plant currently is known from 

two disjunct localities: The first is in the 

southeastern portion of Ventura County 

on a site within the Upper Las Virgenes 

Canyon Open Space Preserve, formerly 

known as Ahmanson Ranch, and the 

second is in an area of southwestern Los 

Angeles County known as Newhall 

Ranch. Investigations of historical 

locations and seemingly suitable habitat 

within the range of the species have not 

revealed any other occurrences. 

The threats facing C. parryi var. 

fernandina include threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

(Factor A), inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms (Factor D), and 

other natural or manmade factors 

(Factor E). The threats to C. parryi var. 

fernandina from habitat destruction or 

modification are lower in magnitude 

than they were 9 years ago when we 

originally determined that the species 

was a candidate for listing. One of the 

two populations (Upper Las Virgenes 

Canyon Open Space Preserve) is now in 

permanent public ownership and is 

being managed by an agency that is 

working to conserve the plant; however, 

the use of adjacent habitat for 

Hollywood film productions was 

brought to our attention in 2007, and the 

potential impacts to C. parryi var. 

fernandina are not yet clear. During a 

site visit to the Preserve in April 2012, 

we noted an abundance of nonnative 

species that, if not managed, could 

degrade the quality of the habitat for C. 

parryi var. fernandina over time. We 

will be working with the landowners to 

manage the site for the benefit of C. 

parryi var. fernandina. 

The other population (Newhall 

Ranch) is under the threat of 

development. A CCA was being 

developed with the landowner to 

address conservation of the plants; 

however, as of 2014, work on the CCA 

has been suspended. Until such an 

agreement is finalized, the threat of 

development and the potential damage 

to the Newhall Ranch population still 

exist, as shown by the destruction of 

some plants during installation of an 

agave farm. Furthermore, cattle grazing 

on Newhall Ranch may be a current 

threat. Cattle grazing may harm C. parryi 

var. fernandina by trampling and soil 

compaction. Grazing activity could also 

alter the nutrient (e.g., elevated organic 

material levels) content of the soils for 

C. parryi var. fernandina habitat 

through fecal inputs, which in turn may 

favor the growth of other plant species 

that would otherwise not grow so 

readily on the mineral-based soils. Over 

time, changes in species composition 

may render the sites less favorable for 

the persistence of C. parryi var. 

fernandina. Chorizanthe parryi var. 

fernandina may be threatened by 

invasive nonnative plants, including 

grasses, which could potentially 

displace it from available habitat; 

compete for light, water, and nutrients; 

and reduce survival and establishment. 

Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina is 

particularly vulnerable to extinction due 

to its concentration in two isolated 

areas. The existence of only two areas of 

occurrence, and a relatively small range, 

makes the variety highly susceptible to 

extinction or extirpation from a 

significant portion of its range due to 

random events such as fire, drought, 

and erosion. We retained an LPN of 6 

for this species due to high-magnitude, 

nonimminent threats. 

Cirsium wrightii (Wright’s marsh 

thistle)—The following summary is 

based on information from the 12-month 

warranted-but-precluded finding 

published November 4, 2010 (75 FR 

67925), as well as any new information 

gathered since then. Wright’s marsh 

thistle is a flowering plant in the 

sunflower family. It is prickly with short 

black spines and a 3- to 8-foot (ft) (0.9- 

to 2.4-meter (m)) single stalk covered 

with succulent leaves. Flowers are 

white to pale pink in areas of the 

Sacramento Mountains, but are vivid 

pink in all the Pecos Valley locations. 

There are eight general confirmed 

locations of Wright’s marsh thistle in 

New Mexico: Santa Rosa, Guadalupe 

County; Bitter Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge, Chaves County; Blue Spring, 

Eddy County; La Luz Canyon, Karr 

Canyon, Silver Springs, and Tularosa 

Creek, Otero County; and Alamosa 

Creek, Socorro County. Wright’s marsh 

thistle has been extirpated from all 

previously known locations in Arizona, 

and was misidentified and likely not 

ever present in Texas. The status of the 

species in Mexico is uncertain, with few 

verified collections. 

Wright’s marsh thistle faces threats 

primarily from natural and humancaused modifications of its habitat due 

to ground and surface water depletion, 

drought, invasion of Phragmites 

australis, and from the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms. The 

species occupies relatively small areas 

of seeps, springs, and wetland habitat in 

an arid region plagued by drought and 

ongoing and future water withdrawals. 

The species’ highly specific 

requirements of saturated soils with 

surface or subsurface water flow make it 

particularly vulnerable. 

Long-term drought, in combination 

with ground and surface 

waterwithdrawal, pose a current and 

future threat to Wright’s marsh thistle 

and its habitat. In addition, we expect 

that these threats will likely intensify in 

the foreseeable future. However, the 

threats are moderate in magnitude 

because the majority of the threats 

(habitat loss and degradation due to 

alteration of the hydrology of its rare 

wetland habitat), while serious and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72482 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

occurring rangewide, do not at this time 

collectively and significantly adversely 

affect the species at a population level. 

All of the threats are ongoing and 

therefore imminent. Thus, we continue 

to assign an LPN of 8 to Wright’s marsh 

thistle. 

Dalea carthagenensis ssp. floridana 

(Florida prairie-clover)—We continue to 

find that listing this species is 

warranted but precluded as of the date 

of publication of this notice. However, 

we are working on a proposed listing 

determination that we expect to publish 

prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted petition 12-month finding. 

In the course of preparing the proposed 

listing rule, we are continuing to 

monitor new information about this 

species’ status so that we can make 

prompt use of our authority under 

section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 

emergency posing a significant risk to 

the species. 

Dichanthelium hirstii (Hirst Brothers’ 

panic grass)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. No new information was provided 

in the petition we received on May 11, 

2004. Dichanthelium hirstii is a 

perennial grass that produces erect, 

leafy, flowering stems from May to 

October. The species occurs in coastal 

plain intermittent ponds, usually in wet 

savanna or pine barren habitats, and is 

known to occur at only three sites in 

New Jersey, one site in Delaware, and 

two sites in North Carolina. While all 

six extant D. hirstii populations are 

located on public land, threats to the 

species from encroachment of woody 

and herbaceous vegetation, competition 

from rhizomatous perennials, 

fluctuations in hydrology, and threats 

associated with small population 

number and size are significant. Given 

the naturally fluctuating number of 

plants found at each site, and the 

isolated nature of the wetlands (limiting 

dispersal opportunities), even small 

changes in the species’ habitat could 

result in local extirpation. With so few 

populations, the loss of any known sites 

would constitute a significant 

contraction of the species’ range and 

increase the risk of extinction of the 

species. Because most of the significant 

threats to D. hirstii affect the species 

over a period of years and, in some 

cases, are being managed to some 

extent, the threats are nonimminent. 

Based on nonimminent threats of a high 

magnitude, we retain a LPN of 5 for this 

species. 

Digitaria pauciflora (Florida pineland 

crabgrass)—We continue to find that 

listing this species is warranted but 

precluded as of the date of publication 

of this notice. However, we are working 

on a proposed listing determination that 

we expect to publish prior to making the 

next annual resubmitted petition 12- 

month finding. In the course of 

preparing the proposed listing 

determination, we are continuing to 

monitor new information about this 

species’ status so that we can make 

prompt use of our authority under 

section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 

emergency posing a significant risk to 

the species. 

Eriogonum soredium (Frisco 

buckwheat)—The following summary is 

based on information in our files and 

the petition we received on July 30, 

2007. Frisco buckwheat is a narrow 

endemic perennial plant restricted to 

soils derived from Ordovician limestone 

outcrops. The range of the species is less 

than 5 sq mi (13 sq km), with four 

known populations. All four 

populations occur exclusively on 

private lands in Beaver County, Utah, 

and each population occupies a very 

small area with high densities of plants. 

Available population estimates are 

highly variable and inaccurate due to 

the limited access for surveys associated 

with private lands. 

The primary threat to Frisco 

buckwheat is habitat destruction from 

precious metal and gravel mining. 

Mining for precious metals historically 

occurred within the vicinity of all four 

populations. Three of the populations 

are currently in the immediate vicinity 

of active limestone quarries. Ongoing 

mining in the species’ habitat has the 

potential to extirpate one population in 

the near future and extirpate all 

populations in the foreseeable future. 

Ongoing exploration for precious metals 

and gravel indicate that mining will 

continue, but will take time for the 

mining operations to be put into place. 

This will result in the loss and 

fragmentation of Frisco buckwheat 

populations over a longer time scale. 

Other threats to the species include 

nonnative species, vulnerability 

associated with small population size, 

and climate change. Existing regulatory 

mechanisms are inadequate to protect 

the species from these threats. The 

threats that Frisco buckwheat faces are 

moderate in magnitude, because while 

serious and occurring rangewide, the 

threats do not significantly reduce 

populations on a short time scale. The 

threats are imminent, because three of 

the populations are currently in the 

immediate vicinity of active limestone 

quarries. Therefore, we have assigned 

Frisco buckwheat an LPN of 8. 

Festuca hawaiiensis (no common 

name)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. No new information was provided 

in the petition we received on May 11, 

2004. This species is a cespitose 

(growing in dense, low tufts) annual 

found in dry forests on Hawaii Island. 

Festuca hawaiiensis is known from four 

populations collectively totaling 

approximately 1,000 individuals in and 

around the Pohakuloa Training Area. 

Historically, this species was also found 

on Hualalai and Puu Huluhulu, but it no 

longer occurs at these sites. In addition, 

the historical range of F. hawaiiensis 

may have included Maui. 

This species is threatened by pigs 

(Sus scrofa), goats (Capra hircus), 

mouflon (Ovis musimon), and feral 

sheep (O. aries) that degrade and 

destroy habitat; fire; military training 

activities; and nonnative plants that 

outcompete and displace it. Feral pigs, 

goats, mouflon, and feral sheep have 

been fenced out of a portion of the 

populations of F. hawaiiensis and 

nonnative plants have been reduced in 

the fenced area, but the majority of the 

populations are still affected by threats 

from ungulates. The threats are 

imminent because they are not 

controlled and are ongoing in the 

remaining, unfenced populations. 

Firebreaks have been established to 

protect two populations, but fire is an 

imminent threat to the remaining 

populations that have no firebreaks. 

There are no ex situ collections. The 

threats are of a high magnitude because 

they could adversely affect the majority 

of F. hawaiiensis populations resulting 

in direct mortality or reduced 

reproductive capacity which could 

bring about extinction on a relatively 

short time scale. Therefore, we have 

retained an LPN of 2 for this species. 

Festuca ligulata (Guadalupe fescue)— 

The following summary is based on 

information obtained from the original 

species petition, received in 1975, and 

from our files, on-line herbarium 

databases, and scientific publications. 

Six small populations of Guadalupe 

fescue, a member of the Poaceae (grass 

family), have been documented in 

mountains of the Chihuahuan desert in 

Texas and in Coahuila, Mexico. Only 

two extant populations have been 

confirmed in the last 5 years: One in the 

Chisos Mountains, Big Bend National 

Park (BIBE), Texas, and one in the 

privately owned Area de Proteccio ́n de 

Flora y Fauna (APFF, Protected Area for 

Flora and Fauna) Maderas del Carmen 

in northern Coahuila. Despite intensive 

searches, a population known from 

Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 

Texas, has not been found since 1952, 

and is presumed extirpated. In 2009, 

botanists confirmed Guadalupe fescue at 

one site in APFF Maderas del Carmen, 

but could not find the species at the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 72483 

original site, known as Sierra El Jardı ́n, 

which was first reported in 1973. Two 

additional Mexican populations, near 

Fraile in southern Coahuila, and the 

Sierra de la Madera in central Coahuila, 

have not been monitored since 1941 and 

1977, respectively. A great amount of 

potentially suitable habitat in Coahuila 

and adjacent Mexican States has never 

been surveyed; due to prevailing 

security issues in northern Mexico. We 

do not know if or when these sites can 

be safely monitored. The BIBE site was 

monitored in September 2013; at that 

time the total population was estimated 

to be less than 200 individual plants. 

The potential threats to Guadalupe 

fescue include changes in the wildfire 

cycle and vegetation structure, 

trampling from humans and pack 

animals, possible grazing, trail runoff, 

fungal infection of seeds, small sizes 

and isolation of populations, and 

limited genetic diversity. A historically 

unprecedented period of exceptional 

drought and high temperatures 

prevailed throughout the species’ range 

from October 2010 until November 

2011. The Service and the National Park 

Service established a candidate 

conservation agreement (CCA) in 2008 

to provide additional protection for the 

Chisos Mountains population and to 

promote cooperative conservation 

efforts with U.S. and Mexican partners. 

The threats to Guadalupe fescue are of 

moderate magnitude and are not 

imminent due to the provisions of the 

CCA and other conservation efforts that 

address threats from trampling, grazing, 

trail runoff, and genetic diversity. Thus, 

we maintained an LPN of 11 for this 

species. 

Gardenia remyi (Nanu)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Gardenia remyi is a tree found in mesic 

to wet forests on the Hawaiian Islands 

of Kauai, Molokai, Maui, and Hawaii. 

Gardenia remyi is known from 19 

populations collectively totaling 

between 85 and 87 individuals. This 

species is threatened by pigs (Sus 

scrofa), goats (Capra hircus), and deer 

(Axis axis and Odocoileus hemionus), 

which degrade and destroy habitat and 

possibly forage upon the species, and by 

nonnative plants that outcompete and 

displace it. G. remyi is also threatened 

by landslides and reduced reproductive 

vigor on the island of Hawaii. This 

species is represented in ex situ 

collections. On Kauai, G. remyi 

individuals have been outplanted 

within ungulate-proof exclosures in two 

locations. Feral pigs have been fenced 

out of the west Maui populations of G. 

remyi, and nonnative plants have been 

reduced in those areas. However, these 

threats are ongoing in the remaining, 

unfenced populations, and are therefore 

imminent. In addition, the threat from 

goats and deer is ongoing and imminent 

throughout the range of the species, 

because no goat or deer control 

measures have been undertaken for any 

of the populations of G. remyi. All of the 

threats are of a high magnitude, because 

habitat destruction, predation, and 

landslides could significantly affect the 

entire species, resulting in direct 

mortality or reduced reproductive 

capacity, leading to a relatively high 

likelihood of extinction. Therefore, we 

have retained an LPN of 2 for this 

species. 

Joinvillea ascendens ssp. ascendens 

(Ohe)—The following summary is based 

on information contained in our files. 

No new information was provided in 

the petition we received on May 11, 

2004. Joinvillea ascendens ssp. 

ascendens is an erect herb found in wet 

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

montane forests on the Hawaiian Islands 

of Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Maui, and 

Hawaii. This subspecies is known from 

44 widely scattered populations 

collectively totaling approximately 200 

individuals. Many of the populations, 

which are widely separated, include 

only one or two individuals. This 

subspecies is threatened by destruction 

or modification of habitat by pigs (Sus 

scrofa), goats (Capra hircus), and deer 

(Axis axis and Odocoileus hemionus), 

and by nonnative plants that 

outcompete and displace native plants. 

Herbivory by pigs, goats, deer, and rats 

(Rattus exulans, R. norvegicus, and R. 

rattus) is a likely threat to this species. 

Landslides are a potential threat to 

populations on Kauai and Molokai. 

Seedlings have rarely been observed in 

the wild. Seeds germinate in cultivation, 

but most die soon thereafter. It is 

uncertain if the apparent low seedling 

recruitment is typical of this subspecies, 

or if it is related to habitat disturbance. 

Feral pigs have been fenced out of a few 

of the populations of this subspecies, 

and nonnative plants have been reduced 

in those populations that are fenced. 

However, these threats are not 

controlled and are ongoing in the 

remaining, unfenced populations. This 

species is represented in ex situ 

collections. The threats are imminent 

because they are ongoing and are of high 

magnitude because habitat degradation, 

nonnative plants, and predation result 

in mortality and may severely affect the 

reproductive capacity of the majority of 

populations of this species, leading to a 

relatively high probability of extinction. 

Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 

3 for this subspecies. 

Kadua (=Hedyotis) fluviatilis 

(Kamapuaa)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. No new information was provided 

in the petition we received on May 11, 

2004. Kadua fluviatilis (formerly 

Hedyotis fluviatilis) is a scandent 

(climbing) shrub found in mixed 

shrubland to wet lowland forests on the 

islands of Oahu and Kauai, Hawaii. This 

species is known from 11 populations 

collectively totaling between 400 and 

900 individuals. Kadua fluviatilis is 

threatened by pigs (Sus scrofa) and 

goats (Capra hircus) that degrade and 

destroy habitat, and by nonnative plants 

that outcompete and displace it. 

Landslides and hurricanes are a 

potential threat to populations on Kauai. 

Herbivory by pigs and goats is a likely 

threat. This species is not represented in 

an ex situ collection. Threats to this 

species are imminent because they are 

ongoing, and are of high magnitude, 

leading to a relatively high likelihood of 

extinction. Therefore, we have retained 

an LPN of 2 for this species. 

Lepidium ostleri (Ostler’s 

peppergrass)—The following summary 

is based on information in our files and 

the petition we received on July 30, 

2007. Ostler’s peppergrass is a longlived perennial herb in the mustard 

family that grows in dense, cushion-like 

tufts. Ostler’s peppergrass is a narrow 

endemic restricted to soils derived from 

Ordovician limestone outcrops. The 

range of the species is less than 5 sq mi 

(13 sq km), with only four known 

populations. All four populations occur 

exclusively on private lands in the 

southern San Francisco Mountains of 

Beaver County, Utah. Available 

population estimates are highly variable 

and inaccurate due largely to the limited 

access for surveys associated with 

private lands. 

The primary threat to Ostler’s 

peppergrass is habitat destruction from 

precious metal and gravel mining. 

Mining for precious metals historically 

occurred within the vicinity of all four 

populations. Three of the populations 

are currently in the immediate vicinity 

of active limestone quarries, but mining 

is only currently occurring in the area 

of one population. Ongoing mining in 

the species’ habitat has the potential to 

extirpate one population in the near 

future. Ongoing exploration for precious 

metals and gravel indicate that mining 

will continue, but will take time for the 

mining operations to be put into place. 

This will result in the loss and 

fragmentation of Ostler’s peppergrass 

populations over a longer time scale. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72484 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Other threats to the species include 

nonnative species, vulnerability 

associated with small population size, 

climate change, and the overall 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms. The threats that Ostler’s 

peppergrass faces are moderate in 

magnitude, because, while serious and 

occurring rangewide, the threats do not 

collectively result in significant 

population declines on a short time 

scale. The threats are imminent because 

the species is currently facing them 

across its entire range. Therefore, we 

have assigned Ostler’s peppergrass an 

LPN of 8. 

Linum arenicola (Sand flax)—We 

continue to find that listing this species 

is warranted but precluded as of the 

date of publication of this notice. 

However, we are working on a proposed 

listing determination that we expect to 

publish prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted petition 12-month finding. 

In the course of preparing the proposed 

listing determination, we are continuing 

to monitor new information about this 

species’ status so that we can make 

prompt use of our authority under 

section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 

emergency posing a significant risk to 

the species. 

Myrsine fosbergii (Kolea)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Myrsine fosbergii is a branched shrub or 

small tree found in lowland mesic and 

wet forests, on watercourses or stream 

banks, on the islands of Kauai and 

Oahu, Hawaii. This species is currently 

known from 14 populations collectively 

totaling a little more than 100 

individuals. Myrsine fosbergii is 

threatened by feral pigs (Sus scrofa) and 

goats (Capra hircus) that degrade and 

destroy habitat and may forage upon the 

plant, and by nonnative plants that 

compete for light and nutrients. This 

species is represented in an ex situ 

collection. Although there are plans to 

fence and remove ungulates from the 

Helemano area of Oahu, which may 

benefit this species, no conservation 

measures have yet been taken to protect 

this species from nonnative herbivores. 

Feral pigs and goats are found 

throughout the known range of M. 

fosbergii, as are nonnative plants. The 

threats from feral pigs, goats, and 

nonnative plants are imminent and of 

high magnitude because because they 

are ongoing and they pose a severe 

threat throughout the limited range of 

this species leading to a relatively high 

likelihood of extinction. Therefore, we 

have retained an LPN of 2 for this 

species. 

Nothocestrum latifolium (1Aiea)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Nothocestrum latifolium is a small tree 

found in dry to mesic forests on the 

islands of Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Molokai, 

and Lanai, Hawaii. N. latifolium is 

known from 17 declining populations 

collectively totaling fewer than 1,200 

individuals. This species is threatened 

by feral pigs (Sus scrofa), goats (Capra 

hircus), and deer (Axis axis and 

Odocoileus hemionus) that degrade and 

destroy habitat and may forage upon it; 

by nonnative plants that compete for 

light and nutrients; and by decreased 

reproductive viability through the loss 

of pollinators. This species is 

represented in an ex situ collection. 

Ungulates have been fenced out of four 

areas where N. latifolium currently 

occurs, hundreds of N. latifolium 

individuals have been outplanted in 

fenced areas, and nonnative plants have 

been reduced in some populations that 

are fenced. However, these ongoing 

conservation efforts for this species 

benefit only a few of the known 

populations. The threats are not 

controlled and are ongoing in the 

remaining unfenced populations. In 

addition, little natural regeneration has 

been observed in this species. The 

threats are imminent because they are 

ongoing and of high magnitude, since 

they are severe enough to affect the 

continued existence of the species, 

leading to a relatively high likelihood of 

extinction. Therefore, we have retained 

an LPN of 2 for this species. 

Ochrosia haleakalae (Holei)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Ochrosia haleakalae is a tree found in 

dry to mesic forests, often on lava, on 

the islands of Hawaii and Maui, Hawaii. 

This species is currently known from 8 

populations collectively totaling 

between 64 and 76 individuals. 

Ochrosia haleakalae is threatened by 

fire; by feral pigs (Sus scrofa), goats 

(Capra hircus), and cattle (Bos taurus) 

that degrade and destroy habitat and 

may directly forage upon it; and, by 

nonnative plants that compete for light 

and nutrients. This species is 

represented in ex situ collections. Feral 

pigs, goats, and cattle have been fenced 

out of one wild and one outplanted 

population on private lands on the 

island of Maui and one outplanted 

population in Hawaii Volcanoes 

National Park on the island of Hawaii. 

Nonnative plants have been reduced in 

the fenced areas. The threat from fire is 

of a high magnitude and imminent 

because no control measures have been 

undertaken to address this threat that 

could adversely affect most O. 

haleakalae population sites. The threats 

from feral pigs, goats, and cattle are 

ongoing to the unfenced populations of 

O. haleakalae. The threat from 

nonnative plants is imminent and of a 

high magnitude to the wild populations 

on both islands, because it is ongoing 

and adversely affects the survival and 

reproductive capacity of the majority of 

the individuals of this species, leading 

to a relatively high likelihood of 

extinction. Therefore, we have retained 

an LPN of 2 for this species. 

Pinus albicaulis (Whitebark pine)— 

The following summary is based on 

information in our files and in the 

petition received on December 9, 2008. 

Pinus albicaulis is a hardy conifer found 

at alpine tree line and subalpine 

elevations in Washington, Oregon, 

Nevada, California, Idaho, Montana, and 

Wyoming, and in British Columbia and 

Alberta, Canada. In the United States, 

approximately 96 percent of land where 

the species occurs is federally owned or 

managed, primarily by the U.S. Forest 

Service. Pinus albicaulis is a slowgrowing, long-lived tree that often lives 

for 500 and sometimes more than 1,000 

years. It is considered a keystone, or 

foundation, species in western North 

America, where it increases biodiversity 

and contributes to critical ecosystem 

functions. 

The primary threat to the species is 

from disease in the form of the 

nonnative white pine blister rust and its 

interaction with other threats. Pinus 

albicaulis also is currently experiencing 

significant mortality from predation by 

the native mountain pine beetle. We 

also anticipate that continuing 

environmental effects resulting from 

climate change will result in direct 

habitat loss for P. albicaulis. Models 

predict that suitable habitat for P. 

albicaulis will decline precipitously 

within the next 100 years. Past and 

ongoing fire suppression is also 

negatively affecting populations of P. 

albicaulis through direct habitat loss. 

Additionally, environmental changes 

resulting from changing climatic 

conditions are acting alone and in 

combination with the effects of fire 

suppression to increase the frequency 

and severity of wildfires. Lastly, the 

existing regulatory mechanisms are 

inadequate to address the threats 

presented above. The threats that face P. 

albicaulis are high in magnitude, 

because the major threats occur 

throughout all of the species’ range and 

are having a major population-level 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 72485 

effect on the species. The threats are 

imminent, because rangewide disease, 

predation, fire and fire suppression, and 

environmental effects of climate change 

are affecting P. albicaulis currently and 

are expected to continue and likely 

intensify in the foreseeable future. Thus, 

we have assigned P. albicaulis an LPN 

of 2. 

Platanthera integrilabia (Correll) Leur 

(White fringeless orchid)—We continue 

to find that listing this species is 

warranted but precluded as of the date 

of publication of this notice. However, 

we are working on a proposed listing 

determination that we expect to publish 

prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted petition 12-month finding. 

In the course of preparing the proposed 

listing rule, we are continuing to 

monitor new information about this 

species’ status so that we can make 

prompt use of our authority under 

section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 

emergency posing a significant risk to 

the species. 

Pseudognaphalium (= Gnaphalium) 

sandwicensium var. molokaiense 

(Enaena)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. No new information was provided 

in the petition we received on May 11, 

2004. Pseudognaphalium 

sandwicensium var. molokaiense is a 

perennial herb found in strand 

vegetation in dry consolidated dunes on 

the islands of Molokai and Maui, 

Hawaii. Historically, this variety was 

also found on Oahu and Lanai. This 

variety is known from five populations 

collectively totaling approximately 200 

to 20,000 individuals (depending upon 

rainfall) in the Moomomi area on the 

island of Molokai, and from 2 

populations of a few individuals at 

Waiehu dunes and at Puu Kahulianapa 

on west Maui. Pseudognaphalium s. var. 

molokaiense is threatened by feral goats 

(Capra hircus) and axis deer (Axis axis) 

that degrade and destroy habitat and 

possibly browse upon it, and by 

nonnative plants that compete for light 

and nutrients. Potential threats also 

include collection for cultural use, and 

off-road vehicles that directly damage 

plants and degrade habitat. Weed 

control is conducted for one population 

on Molokai; however, no conservation 

efforts have been initiated to date for the 

other populations on Molokai or for the 

individuals on Maui. This species is 

represented in an ex situ collection. The 

ongoing threats from feral goats, axis 

deer, nonnative plants, collection, and 

off-road vehicles are of a high 

magnitude, because no control measures 

have been undertaken for the Maui 

population or for the four of the five 

Molokai populations, and the threats 

result in direct mortality or significantly 

reduce reproductive capacity for the 

majority of the populations, leading to 

a relatively high likelihood of 

extinction. Therefore, we have retained 

an LPN of 3 for this plant variety. 

Ranunculus hawaiensis (Makou)— 

The following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Ranunculus hawaiensis is an erect or 

ascending perennial herb found in 

mesic to wet forests dominated by 

Metrosideros polymorpha (ohia) and 

Acacia koa (koa) with scree substrate 

(loose stones or rocky debris on a slope) 

on the Hawaiian Islands of Maui and 

Hawaii. This species is currently known 

from 6 populations collectively totaling 

14 individuals on the island of Hawaii. 

On Maui, it was historically known 

from an area in east Maui, but 

individuals have not been seen at this 

location since 1995. Ranunculus 

hawaiensis is threatened by direct 

predation by feral pigs (Sus scrofa), 

goats (Capra hircus), cattle (Bos taurus), 

mouflon (Ovis musimon), feral sheep 

(O. aries), and slugs (Limax maximus, 

Milax gagates, and Vaginulus plebeius); 

by degradation and destruction of 

habitat by feral ungulates; and by 

nonnative plants that compete for light 

and nutrients. This species is 

represented in ex situ collections, and 

three populations have been outplanted 

into protected exclosures; however, feral 

ungulates and nonnative plants are not 

controlled in the remaining, unfenced 

populations. In addition, the threat from 

introduced slugs is of a high magnitude 

because slugs occur throughout the 

limited range of this species and no 

effective measures have been 

undertaken to control them or prevent 

them from predating on the plants 

which can result in death or reduction 

in reproductive capacity. Overall, the 

threats to the species from pigs, goats, 

cattle, mouflon, feral sheep, slugs, and 

nonnative plants are imminent and of 

high magnitude. Therefore, we have 

retained an LPN of 2 for this species. 

Ranunculus mauiensis (Makou)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Ranunculus mauiensis is an erect to 

weakly ascending perennial herb found 

in open sites in mesic to wet forests and 

along streams on the islands of Maui, 

Kauai, and Molokai, Hawaii. This 

species is currently known from 14 

populations collectively totaling 198 

individuals. Ranunculus mauiensis is 

threatened by direct predation by feral 

pigs (Sus scrofa), goats (Capra hircus), 

mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), axis 

deer (Axis axis), and slugs (Limax 

maximus, Milax gagates, and Vaginulus 

plebeius); by habitat degradation and 

destruction by feral ungulates; and by 

nonnative plants that compete for light 

and nutrients. This species is 

represented in an ex situ collection. 

Feral pigs have been fenced out of one 

Maui population of R. mauiensis, and 

nonnative plants have been reduced in 

the fenced area. One individual occurs 

in the Kamakou Preserve on Molokai, 

managed by The Nature Conservancy. 

However, ongoing conservation efforts 

benefit only two populations. The 

threats are imminent and of high 

magnitude, since they are severe enough 

to affect the continued existence of the 

species, leading to a relatively high 

likelihood of extinction. Therefore, we 

have retained an LPN of 2 for this 

species. 

Rorippa subumbellata (Tahoe yellow 

cress)—The following summary is based 

on information contained in our files 

and the petition received on December 

27, 2000. Rorippa subumbellata is a 

small, branching perennial herb known 

only from the shores of Lake Tahoe in 

California and Nevada. 

Data collected over the last 25 years 

generally indicate that species 

occurrence fluctuates yearly as a 

function of both lake level and the 

amount of exposed habitat. Records kept 

since 1900 show a preponderance of 

years with high lake levels that would 

isolate and reduce R. subumbellata 

occurrences at higher beach elevations. 

From the standpoint of the species, less 

favorable peak years have occurred 

almost twice as often as more favorable 

low-level years. Annual surveys are 

conducted to determine population 

numbers, site occupancy, and general 

disturbance regime. At least within a 

certain range, the data clearly show that 

more individuals are present when lake 

levels are low and fewer when lake 

levels are high. 

Many Rorippa subumbellata sites are 

intensively used for commercial and 

public purposes, and are subject to 

various activities such as erosion 

control, marina developments, pier 

construction, and recreation. The U.S. 

Forest Service, California Tahoe 

Conservancy, and California Department 

of Parks and Recreation have 

management programs for R. 

subumbellata that include monitoring, 

fenced enclosures, and transplanting 

efforts when funds and staff are 

available. Public agencies (including the 

Service), private landowners, and 

environmental groups collaborated to 

develop a Conservation Strategy 

coupled with a Memorandum of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72486 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Understanding–Conservation 

Agreement. The Conservation Strategy, 

completed in 2003, contains goals and 

objectives for recovery and survival and 

a research and monitoring agenda, and 

serves as the foundation for an adaptive 

management program. Because of the 

continued commitments to conservation 

demonstrated by regulatory and land 

management agencies participating in 

the conservation strategy, the threats to 

R. subumbellata from various land uses 

have been reduced to a moderate 

magnitude. In high lake level years such 

as 2011 and 2013, however, recreational 

use is concentrated within R. 

subumbellata habitat, and we consider 

this threat in particular to be ongoing 

and imminent. Therefore, we are 

maintaining an LPN of 8 for this species. 

Schiedea pubescens (Maolioli)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Schiedea pubescens is a reclining or 

weakly climbing vine found in diverse 

mesic to wet forests on the Hawaiian 

Islands of Maui, Molokai, and Hawaii. It 

is presumed extirpated from Lanai. 

Currently, this species is known from 8 

populations collectively totaling 

between 30 and 32 individuals on Maui, 

from 4 populations collectively totaling 

between 21 and 22 individuals on 

Molokai, and from 1 population of 4 to 

6 individuals on the island of Hawaii. 

Schiedea pubescens is threatened by 

feral pigs (Sus scrofa) and goats (Capra 

hircus) that consume it and degrade and 

destroy habitat, and by nonnative plants 

that compete for light and nutrients. 

Feral ungulates have been fenced out of 

the population of S. pubescens on the 

island of Hawaii. Feral goats have been 

fenced out of a few of the west Maui 

populations of S. pubescens. Nonnative 

plants have been reduced in the 

populations that are fenced on Maui. 

However, the threats are not controlled 

and are ongoing in the remaining 

unfenced populations on Maui and the 

four populations on Molokai. 

Additional fenced areas are planned for 

the Hawaii Island population at 

Pohakuloa Training Area. Nonnative 

feral ungulates and nonnative plants 

will be controlled within these fenced 

areas. Fire is a potential threat to the 

Hawaii Island population. This species 

is not represented in an ex situ 

collection. Due to the extremely low 

number of individuals of this species, 

the ongoing threats from goats and 

nonnative plants are imminent and of 

high magnitude. These threats cause 

mortality and reduced reproductive 

capacity for the majority of the 

populations, leading to a relatively high 

likelihood of extinction. Therefore, we 

have retained an LPN of 2 for this 

species. 

Sicyos macrophyllus (1Anunu)—We 

continue to find that listing this species 

is warranted but precluded as of the 

date of publication of this notice. 

However, we are working on a proposed 

listing determination that we expect to 

publish prior to making the next annual 

resubmitted petition 12-month finding. 

In the course of preparing the proposed 

listing determination, we are continuing 

to monitor new information about this 

species’ status so that we can make 

prompt use of our authority under 

section 4(b)(7) in the case of an 

emergency posing a significant risk to 

the species. 

Solanum conocarpum (marron 

bacora)—The following summary is 

based on information in our files and in 

the petition we received on November 

21, 1996. Solanum conocarpum is a dryforest shrub in the island of St. John, 

U.S. Virgin Islands. Its current 

distribution includes eight localities in 

the island of St. John, each ranging from 

1 to 144 individuals. The species has 

been reported to occur on dry, poor 

soils. It can be locally abundant in 

exposed topography on sites disturbed 

by erosion, areas that have received 

moderate grazing, and around ridgelines 

as an understory component in diverse 

woodland communities. A habitat 

suitability model suggests that the vast 

majority of Solanum conocarpum 

habitat is found in the lower elevation 

coastal scrub forest. Efforts have been 

conducted to propagate the species to 

enhance natural populations, and 

planting of seedlings has been 

conducted in the island of St. John. 

Solanum conocarpum is threatened 

by the lack of natural recruitment, 

absence of dispersers, fragmented 

distribution, lack of genetic variation, 

climate change, and habitat destruction 

or modification by exotic mammal 

species. These threats are evidenced by 

the reduced number of individuals, low 

number of populations, and lack of 

connectivity between populations. 

Overall, the threats are of high 

magnitude because they are leading to 

populations declines for a species that 

already has low population numbers 

and fragmented distribution; the threats 

are also ongoing and therefore 

imminent. Therefore, we assigned a LPN 

of 2 to Solanum conocarpum. 

Solanum nelsonii (popolo)—The 

following summary is based on 

information contained in our files. No 

new information was provided in the 

petition we received on May 11, 2004. 

Solanum nelsonii is a sprawling or 

trailing shrub found in coral rubble or 

sand in coastal sites. This species is 

known from populations on Molokai 

(approximately 300 individuals), the 

island of Hawaii (5 individuals), and the 

northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), 

Hawaii. The current populations in the 

NWHI are found on Kure (unknown 

number of individuals), Midway 

(approximately 260 individuals), Laysan 

(approximately 490 individuals), Pearl 

and Hermes (unknown number of 

individuals), and Nihoa (8,000 to 15,000 

individuals). On Molokai, S. nelsonii is 

moderately threatened by ungulates 

which degrade and destroy habitat and 

which may eat individuals. On Molokai 

and the NWHI, this species is exposed 

to threats from nonnative plants that 

outcompete and displace it. Solanum 

nelsonii is exposed to threats by 

herbivory by a nonnative grasshopper 

(Schistocera nitens) in the NWHI. On 

Kure, Midway, Laysan, and Pearl and 

Hermes in the NWHI, tsunamis are also 

a potential threat to S. nelsonii. This 

species is represented in ex situ 

collections. Ungulate exclusion fences, 

routine fence monitoring and 

maintenance, and weed control protect 

the population of S. nelsonii on 

Molokai. Limited weed control is 

conducted in the NWHI. However, the 

threats are ongoing and are not being 

controlled in the majority of sites, they 

are therefore imminent. These threats 

are of moderate magnitude because of 

the relatively large number of plants, 

and the fact that this species is found on 

more than one island. Therefore, we 

have retained an LPN of 8 for this 

species. 

Trifolium friscanum (Frisco clover)— 

The following summary is based on 

information in our files and the petition 

we received on July 30, 2007. Frisco 

clover is a narrow endemic perennial 

herb found only in Utah, with five 

known populations restricted to 

sparsely vegetated, pinion-juniper 

sagebrush communities and shallow, 

gravel soils derived from volcanic 

gravels, Ordovician limestone, and 

dolomite outcrops. The majority (68 

percent) of Frisco clover plants occur on 

private lands, with the remaining plants 

found on Federal and State lands. 

On the private and State lands, the 

most significant threat to Frisco clover 

is habitat destruction from mining for 

precious metals and gravel. Active 

mining claims, recent prospecting, and 

an increasing demand for precious 

metals and gravel indicate that mining 

in Frisco clover habitats will increase in 

the foreseeable future, likely resulting in 

the loss of large numbers of plants. 

Other threats to Frisco clover include 

nonnative, invasive species; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 72487 

vulnerability associated with small 

population size; and drought associated 

with climate change. Existing regulatory 

mechanisms are inadequate to protect 

the species from these threats. The 

threats to Frisco clover are moderate in 

magnitude because, while serious and 

occurring rangewide, they are not acting 

independently or cumulatively to have 

a highly significant negative impact on 

its survival or reproductive capacity. 

For example, although mining for 

precious metals and gravel historically 

occurred throughout Frisco clover’s 

range, and mining operations may 

eventually expand into occupied 

habitats, there are no active mines 

within the immediate vicinity of any 

known population. The threats are 

imminent because the species is 

currently facing them across its entire 

range. Therefore, we have assigned 

Frisco clover an LPN of 8. 

Ferns and Allies 

Cyclosorus boydiae (no common 

name)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. No new information was provided 

in the petition we received on May 11, 

2004. Cyclosorus boydiae is a small- to 

medium-sized fern found in mesic to 

wet forests along stream banks on the 

Hawaiian Islands of Oahu and Maui. It 

has been extirpated from the island of 

Hawaii. Currently, C. boydiae is known 

from seven populations collectively 

totaling approximately 400 individuals. 

This species is threatened by feral pigs 

that degrade and destroy habitat and 

may eat this plant, and by nonnative 

plants that compete for light and 

nutrients. Feral pigs have been fenced 

out of the largest population on Maui, 

and nonnative plants have been reduced 

in the fenced area. No conservation 

efforts are under way to alleviate threats 

to the other two populations on Maui, 

or the two populations on Oahu. This 

species is represented in an ex situ 

collection. The threats are imminent 

because they are ongoing, and of 

moderate magnitude because pigs no 

longer threaten the largest population 

and nonnative plants have been 

reduced. Therefore, we have retained an 

LPN of 8 for this species. 

Huperzia stemmermanniae 

(Waewaeiole)—The following summary 

is based on information contained in 

our files. No new information was 

provided in the petition we received on 

May 11, 2004. Huperzia 

stemmermanniae is an epiphytic, 

pendant clubmoss found in mesic-towet Metrosideros polymorpha-Acacia 

koa (ohia-koa) forests on the Hawaiian 

Islands of Maui and Hawaii. Only 3 

populations are known, collectively 

totaling approximately 20 individuals. 

The Maui population has not been 

observed since 1995. Huperzia 

stemmermanniae is threatened by feral 

pigs (Sus scrofa), goats (Capra hircus), 

cattle (Bos taurus), and axis deer (Axis 

axis) that degrade and destroy habitat, 

and by nonnative plants that compete 

for light, space, and nutrients. Huperzia 

stemmermanniae is also threatened by 

randomly occurring natural events due 

to its small population size. One 

individual at Waikamoi Preserve may 

benefit from fencing for axis deer and 

pigs. This species is represented in ex 

situ collections. The threats from pigs, 

goats, cattle, axis deer, and nonnative 

plants are imminent and of a high 

magnitude because they are sufficiently 

severe to adversely affect the species 

throughout its limited range, resulting 

in direct mortality or significantly 

reducing reproductive capacity and 

leading to a relatively high likelihood of 

extinction. Therefore, we have retained 

an LPN of 2 for this species. 

Microlepia strigosa var. mauiensis 

(Palapalai)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. No new information was provided 

in the petition we received on May 11, 

2004. Microlepia strigosa var. mauiensis 

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

Hawaiian Islands of Maui, Oahu, and 

Hawaii in 9 known populations 

collectively totaling at least 50 

individuals. M. s. var. mauiensis is 

threatened by feral pigs (Sus scrofa) that 

degrade and destroy habitat, and by 

nonnative plants that compete for light 

and nutrients. Pigs have been fenced out 

of some areas on east and west Maui, 

Oahu, and on Hawaii, where M. s. var. 

mauiensis currently occurs and 

nonnative plants have been reduced in 

the fenced areas. However, the threats 

are not controlled and are ongoing in 

the remaining unfenced populations on 

Maui, Oahu, and Hawaii. Therefore, the 

threats from feral pigs and nonnative 

plants are imminent. The threats are of 

a high magnitude because they are 

sufficiently severe to adversely affect 

the species throughout its range, 

resulting in direct mortality or 

significantly reducing reproductive 

capacity and leading to a relatively high 

likelihood of extinction. Therefore, we 

have retained an LPN of 3 for this plant 

variety. 

Petitions To Reclassify Species Already 

Listed 

We previously made warranted-butprecluded findings on five petitions 

seeking to reclassify threatened species 

to endangered status. The taxa involved 

in the reclassification petitions are three 

populations of the grizzly bear (Ursus 

arctos horribilis), delta smelt 

(Hypomesus transpacificus), and 

Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette 

cactus). Because these species are 

already listed under the ESA, they are 

not candidates for listing and are not 

included in Table 1. However, this 

notice and associated species 

assessment forms or 5-year review 

documents also constitute the findings 

for the resubmitted petitions to 

reclassify these species. Our updated 

assessments for these species are 

provided below. We find that 

reclassification to endangered status for 

one grizzly bear ecosystem population, 

delta smelt, and Sclerocactus 

brevispinus are all currently warranted 

but precluded by work identified above 

(see Findings for Petitioned Candidate 

Species). We find that uplisting the 

Selkirk ecosystem population and the 

Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem population of 

grizzly bear is no longer warranted; the 

species remains listed as threatened. 

One of the primary reasons that the 

work identified above is considered to 

have higher priority is that the grizzly 

bear population, delta smelt, and 

Sclerocactus brevispinus are currently 

listed as threatened, and therefore 

already receive certain protections 

under the ESA. We promulgated 

regulations extending take prohibitions 

for wildlife and plants under section 9 

to threatened species (50 CFR 17.31 and 

50 CFR 17.71, respectively). Prohibited 

actions under section 9 for wildlife 

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

to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 

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

attempt to engage in such activity). For 

plants, prohibited actions under section 

9 include removing or reducing to 

possession any listed plant from an area 

under Federal jurisdiction (50 CFR 

17.61). Other protections that apply to 

these threatened species even before we 

complete proposed and final 

reclassification rules include those 

under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, 

whereby Federal agencies must insure 

that any action they authorize, fund, or 

carry out is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered 

or threatened species. 

Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos 

horribilis)—North Cascades ecosystem 

population (Region 6)—Since 1990, we 

have received and reviewed five 

petitions requesting a change in status 

for the North Cascades grizzly bear 

population (55 FR 32103, August 7, 

1990; 56 FR 33892, July 24, 1991; 57 FR 

14372, April 20, 1992; 58 FR 43856, 

August 18, 1993; 63 FR 30453, June 4, 

1998). In response to these petitions, we 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72488 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

determined that grizzly bears in the 

North Cascade ecosystem warrant a 

change to endangered status. In 2014, 

we continue to find that reclassifying 

this population as endangered is 

warranted but precluded and we 

continue to assign a LPN of 3 for the 

uplisting of the North Cascades 

population based on high magnitude 

threats that are ongoing, thus imminent. 

However, higher priority listing actions, 

including court-approved settlements, 

court-ordered and statutory deadlines 

for petition findings and listing 

determinations, emergency listing 

determinations, and responses to 

litigation, continue to preclude 

reclassifying grizzly bears in this 

ecosystem. Furthermore, proposed rules 

to reclassify threatened species to 

endangered are a lower priority than 

listing currently unprotected species 

(i.e., candidate species), since species 

currently listed as threatened are 

already afforded the protection of the 

ESA and the implementing regulations. 

We continue to monitor this population 

and will change its status or implement 

an emergency uplisting if necessary. 

Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos 

horribilis)—Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem 

population (Region 6)—Since 1992, we 

have received and reviewed six 

petitions requesting a change in status 

for the Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear 

population (57 FR 14372, April 20, 

1992; 58 FR 8250, February 12, 1993; 58 

FR 43856, August 18, 1993; 58 FR 

43856, August 18, 1993; 63 FR 30453, 

June 4, 1998; 64 FR 26725, May 17, 

1999). In response to these petitions, we 

previously determined that grizzly bears 

in the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem 

warranted a change to endangered 

status. However, for several years, this 

population’s status has been improving. 

The population trend has now changed 

from declining to stable. The U.S. Forest 

Service has established regulatory 

mechanisms for motorized access 

management and attractant storage, and 

researchers have documented some 

movement between the Cabinet-Yaak 

and other populations in Canada. 

Together, these improvements have 

reduced the threats to this population. 

Until the Record of Decision for 

motorized access management is more 

fully implemented and we have several 

more years of a positive population 

trend, we remain cautious in our 

interpretation. We conclude that the 

Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem population 

continues to face several threats, and 

retain this populations’s threatened 

status, but we no longer find that the 

population is warranted for uplisting to 

endangered status (i.e., ‘‘on the brink of 

extinction’’). This constitutes our notwarranted finding on the six uplisting 

petitions we received. 

Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos 

horribilis)—Selkirk ecosystem 

population (Region 6)—Since 1992, we 

have received and reviewed four 

petitions requesting a change in status 

for individual grizzly bear populations 

(57 FR 14372, April 20, 1992; 58 FR 

8250, February 12, 1993; 58 FR 43856, 

August 18, 1993; 64 FR 26725, May 17, 

1999). In response to these petitions, we 

previously determined that grizzly bears 

within the Selkirk ecosystem warranted 

a change to endangered status but 

reclassification was precluded by higher 

priority listing actions. However, 

improvements to habitat and the 

institutionalization of those 

improvements in National Forest Land 

Management Plans, as well as new 

information about population size have 

significantly reduced threats to this 

population from habitat destruction, 

and improved the adequacy of 

regulatory mechanisms. Population 

estimates indicate that the population is 

approaching recovery goals of 90 bears, 

and levels of human-caused mortality 

have been low in recent years. 

Additionally, food storage orders have 

been implemented and some movement 

between the Selkirk Mountains and 

other populations in Canada has been 

documented. However, until there are 

significant improvements to regulatory 

mechanisms in Canada, full 

implementation of motorized access 

management by the U.S. Forest Service, 

and improved population connectivity, 

we remain cautious in our 

interpretation. We conclude that the 

Selkirk ecosystem population continues 

to face several threats and will retain 

this populations’s threatened status, but 

we no longer find that the population is 

warranted for uplisting to endangered 

status (i.e., ‘‘on the brink of extinction’’). 

This constitutes our not-warranted 

finding on the four uplisting petitions 

we received. 

Delta smelt (Hypomesus 

transpacificus) (Region 8) (see 75 FR 

17667, April 7, 2010, for additional 

information on why reclassification to 

endangered is warranted but 

precluded)—The following summary is 

based on information contained in our 

files. In April, 2010 we completed a 12- 

month finding for delta smelt in which 

we determined that a change in status 

from threatened to endangered was 

warranted, although precluded by other 

high priority listings. The primary 

rationale for reclassifying delta smelt 

from threatened to endangered was the 

significant declines in delta smelt 

abundance that have occurred since 

2001. Delta smelt abundance, as 

indicated by the Fall Mid-Water Trawl 

survey, was exceptionally low between 

2004 and 2010, increased during the wet 

year of 2011, and decreased again to a 

very a low level in 2012. 

The primary threats to the delta smelt 

are direct entrainments by State and 

Federal water export facilities, summer 

and fall increases in salinity and water 

clarity resulting from decreases in 

freshwater flow into the estuary, and 

effects from introduced species. 

Ammonia in the form of ammonium 

may also be a significant threat to the 

survival of the delta smelt. Additional 

potential threats are predation by 

striped and largemouth bass and inland 

silversides, entrainment into power 

plants, contaminants, and small 

population size. Existing regulatory 

mechanisms have not proven adequate 

to halt the decline of delta smelt since 

the time of listing as a threatened 

species. 

As a result of our analysis of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

data, we have retained the 

recommendation of uplisting the delta 

smelt to an endangered species with a 

LPN of 2, based on high magnitude and 

imminent threats. The magnitude of the 

threats is high, because the threats occur 

rangewide and result in mortality at a 

population level, or significantly reduce 

the reproductive capacity of the species. 

Threats are imminent because they are 

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

nonnative species), considered 

irreversible. 

Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette 

cactus) (Region 6) (see 72 FR 53211, 

September 18, 2007, and the species 

assessment form (see ADDRESSES) for 

additional information on why 

reclassification to endangered is 

warranted but precluded)—Sclerocactus 

brevispinus is restricted to clay 

badlands of the Uinta geologic 

formation in the Uinta Basin of 

northeastern Utah. The species is 

restricted to one population with an 

overall range of approximately 16 mi by 

5 mi in extent. The species’ entire 

population is within a developed and 

expanding oil and gas field. The 

location of the species’ habitat exposes 

it to destruction from road, pipeline, 

and well-site construction in connection 

with oil and gas development. The 

species may be collected as a specimen 

plant for horticultural use. Recreational 

off-road vehicle use and livestock 

trampling are additional potential 

threats. The species is currently 

federally listed as threatened by its 

previous inclusion within the species 

Sclerocactus glaucus. The threats are of 

a high magnitude because any one of the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 72489 

threats has the potential to severely 

affect the survival of this species, a 

narrow endemic with a highly limited 

range and distribution. Threats are 

ongoing and, therefore, are imminent. 

Thus, we assigned an LPN of 2 to this 

species for uplisting. 

Current Notice of Review 

We gather data on plants and animals 

native to the United States that appear 

to merit consideration for addition to 

the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants (Lists). This notice 

identifies those species that we 

currently regard as candidates for 

addition to the Lists. These candidates 

include species and subspecies of fish, 

wildlife, or plants, and DPSs of 

vertebrate animals. This compilation 

relies on information from status 

surveys conducted for candidate 

assessment and on information from 

State Natural Heritage Programs, other 

State and Federal agencies, 

knowledgeable scientists, public and 

private natural resource interests, and 

comments received in response to 

previous notices of review. 

Tables 1 and 2 list animals arranged 

alphabetically by common names under 

the major group headings, and list 

plants alphabetically by names of 

genera, species, and relevant subspecies 

and varieties. Animals are grouped by 

class or order. Plants are subdivided 

into two groups: (1) Flowering plants 

and (2) ferns and their allies. Useful 

synonyms and subgeneric scientific 

names appear in parentheses with the 

synonyms preceded by an ‘‘equals’’ 

sign. Several species that have not yet 

been formally described in the scientific 

literature are included; such species are 

identified by a generic or specific name 

(in italics), followed by ‘‘sp.’’ or ‘‘ssp.’’ 

We incorporate standardized common 

names in these notices as they become 

available. We sort plants by scientific 

name due to the inconsistencies in 

common names, the inclusion of 

vernacular and composite subspecific 

names, and the fact that many plants 

still lack a standardized common name. 

Table 1 lists all candidate species, 

plus species currently proposed for 

listing under the ESA. We emphasize 

that in this notice we are not proposing 

to list any of the candidate species; 

rather, we will develop and publish 

proposed listing rules for these species 

in the future. We encourage State 

agencies, other Federal agencies, and 

other parties to give consideration to 

these species in environmental 

planning. 

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

the left side of the table identifies the 

status of each species according to the 

following codes: 

PE—Species proposed for listing as 

endangered. Proposed species are 

those species for which we have 

published a proposed rule to list as 

endangered or threatened in the 

Federal Register. This category does 

not include species for which we have 

withdrawn or finalized the proposed 

rule. 

PT—Species proposed for listing as 

threatened. 

PSAT—Species proposed for listing as 

threatened due to similarity of 

appearance. 

C—Candidates: Species for which we 

have on file sufficient information on 

biological vulnerability and threats to 

support proposals to list them as 

endangered or threatened. Issuance of 

proposed rules for these species is 

precluded at present by other higher 

priority listing actions. This category 

includes species for which we made 

a 12-month warranted-but-precluded 

finding on a petition to list. We made 

new findings on all petitions for 

which we previously made 

‘‘warranted-but-precluded’’ findings. 

We identify the species for which we 

made a continued warranted-butprecluded finding on a resubmitted 

petition by the code ‘‘C*’’ in the 

category column (see the Findings for 

Petitioned Candidate Species section 

for additional information). 

The ‘‘Priority’’ column indicates the 

LPN for each candidate species, which 

we use to determine the most 

appropriate use of our available 

resources. The lowest numbers have the 

highest priority. We assign LPNs based 

on the immediacy and magnitude of 

threats, as well as on taxonomic status. 

We published a complete description of 

our listing priority system in the 

Federal Register (48 FR 43098, 

September 21, 1983). 

The third column, ‘‘Lead Region,’’ 

identifies the Regional Office to which 

you should direct information, 

comments, or questions (see addresses 

under Request for Information at the 

end of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section). 

Following the scientific name (fourth 

column) and the family designation 

(fifth column) is the common name 

(sixth column). The seventh column 

provides the known historical range for 

the species or vertebrate population (for 

vertebrate populations, this is the 

historical range for the entire species or 

subspecies and not just the historical 

range for the distinct population 

segment), indicated by postal code 

abbreviations for States and U.S. 

territories. Many species no longer 

occur in all of the areas listed. 

Species in Table 2 of this notice are 

those we included either as proposed 

species or as candidates in the previous 

CNOR (published November 22, 2013, at 

78 FR 70104) that are no longer 

proposed species or candidates for 

listing. Since November 22, 2013, we 

listed 33 species, withdrew 3 species 

from proposed status, and removed 13 

species from the candidate list. The first 

column indicates the present status of 

each species, using the following codes 

(not all of these codes may have been 

used in this CNOR): 

E—Species we listed as endangered. 

T—Species we listed as threatened. 

Rc—Species we removed from the 

candidate list because currently 

available information does not 

support a proposed listing. 

Rp—Species we removed from because 

we have withdrawn the proposed 

listing. 

The second column indicates why the 

species is no longer a candidate or 

proposed species using the following 

codes (not all of these codes may have 

been used in this CNOR): 

A—Species that are more abundant or 

widespread than previously believed 

and species that are not subject to the 

degree of threats sufficient that the 

species is a candidate for listing (for 

reasons other than that conservation 

efforts have removed or reduced the 

threats to the species). 

F—Species whose range no longer 

includes a U.S. territory. 

I—Species for which we have 

insufficient information on biological 

vulnerability and threats to support 

issuance of a proposed rule to list. 

L—Species we added to the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. 

M—Species we mistakenly included as 

candidates or proposed species in the 

last notice of review. 

N—Species that are not listable entities 

based on the ESA’s definition of 

‘‘species’’ and current taxonomic 

understanding. 

U—Species that are not subject to the 

degree of threats sufficient to warrant 

issuance of a proposed listing and 

therefore are not candidates for 

listing, due, in part or totally, to 

conservation efforts that remove or 

reduce the threats to the species. 

X—Species we believe to be extinct. 

The columns describing lead region, 

scientific name, family, common name, 

and historical range include information 

as previously described for Table 1. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72490 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Request for Information 

We request you submit any further 

information on the species named in 

this notice as soon as possible or 

whenever it becomes available. We are 

particularly interested in any 

information: 

(1) Indicating that we should add a 

species to the list of candidate species; 

(2) Indicating that we should remove 

a species from candidate status; 

(3) Recommending areas that we 

should designate as critical habitat for a 

species, or indicating that designation of 

critical habitat would not be prudent for 

a species; 

(4) Documenting threats to any of the 

included species; 

(5) Describing the immediacy or 

magnitude of threats facing candidate 

species; 

(6) Pointing out taxonomic or 

nomenclature changes for any of the 

species; 

(7) Suggesting appropriate common 

names; and 

(8) Noting any mistakes, such as 

errors in the indicated historical ranges. 

Submit information, materials, or 

comments regarding a particular species 

to the Regional Director of the Region 

identified as having the lead 

responsibility for that species. The 

regional addresses follow: 

Region 1. Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, 

Washington, American Samoa, Guam, 

and Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands. Regional Director 

(TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Eastside Federal Complex, 911 NE. 

11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232– 

4181 (503/231–6158). 

Region 2. Arizona, New Mexico, 

Oklahoma, and Texas. Regional 

Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 500 Gold Avenue SW., Room 

4012, Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505/

248–6920). 

Region 3. Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, 

and Wisconsin. Regional Director 

(TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990, 

Bloomington, MN 55437–1458 (612/

713–5334). 

Region 4. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, Puerto Rico, and 

the U.S. Virgin Islands. Regional 

Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, 

Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30345 (404/

679–4156). 

Region 5. Connecticut, Delaware, 

District of Columbia, Maine, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, 

Virginia, and West Virginia. Regional 

Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 300 Westgate Center Drive, 

Hadley, MA 01035–9589 (413/253– 

8615). 

Region 6. Colorado, Kansas, Montana, 

Nebraska, North Dakota, South 

Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Regional 

Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, P.O. Box 25486, Denver 

Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225– 

0486 (303/236–7400). 

Region 7. Alaska. Regional Director 

(TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 

99503–6199 (907/786–3505). 

Region 8. California and Nevada. 

Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, 

Suite W2606, Sacramento, CA 95825 

(916/414–6464). 

We will provide information received 

in response to the previous CNOR to the 

Region having lead responsibility for 

each candidate species mentioned in the 

submission. We will likewise consider 

all information provided in response to 

this CNOR in deciding whether to 

propose species for listing and when to 

undertake necessary listing actions 

(including whether emergency listing 

under section 4(b)(7) of the ESA is 

appropriate). Information and comments 

we receive will become part of the 

administrative record for the species, 

which we maintain at the appropriate 

Regional Office. 

Public Availability of Comments 

Before including your address, phone 

number, email address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

submission, be advised that your entire 

submission—including your personal 

identifying information—may be made 

publicly available at any time. Although 

you can ask us in your submission to 

withhold from public review your 

personal identifying information, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Authority 

This notice is published under the 

authority of the Endangered Species Act 

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

seq.). 

Dated: November 18, 2014. 

David Cottingham, 

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

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

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

Status Lead 

region Scientific name Family Common name Historical range 

Category Priority 

MAMMALS 

PE .......... ................ R3 .......... Myotis septentrionalis .... ........................................ Bat, northern long-eared U.S.A. (AL, AR, CT, DE, 

DC, FL, GA, IL, IN, IA, 

KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, 

MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, 

MT, NE, NH, NJ, NY, 

NC, ND, OH, OK, PA, 

RI, SC, SD, TN, VT, 

VA, WV, WI, WY); 

Canada (AB, BC, LB, 

MB, NB, NF, NS, NT, 

ON, PE, QC, SK, YT). 

PE .......... 3 ............. R1 .......... Emballonura 

semicaudata rotensis.

Emballonuridae .............. Bat, Pacific sheath-tailed 

(Mariana Islands subspecies).

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

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

semicaudata 

semicaudata.

Emballonuridae .............. Bat, Pacific sheath-tailed 

(American Samoa 

DPS).

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

Tonga, Vanuatu. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 72491 

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

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

Status Lead 

region Scientific name Family Common name Historical range 

Category Priority 

C * .......... 6 ............. R2 .......... Tamias minimus 

atristriatus.

Sciuridae ........................ Chipmunk, Pen ̃asco 

least.

U.S.A. (NM). 

C * .......... 2 ............. R5 .......... Sylvilagus transitionalis .. Leporidae ....................... Cottontail, New England U.S.A. (CT, MA, ME, 

NH, NY, RI, VT). 

PT .......... 6 ............. R8 .......... Martes pennanti ............. Mustelidae ...................... Fisher (west coast DPS) U.S.A. (CA, CT, IA, ID, 

IL, IN, KY, MA, MD, 

ME, MI, MN, MT, ND, 

NH, NJ, NY, OH, OR, 

PA, RI, TN, UT, VA, 

VT, WA, WI, WV, 

WY), Canada. 

C * .......... 8 ............. R1 .......... Urocitellus endemicus .... Sciuridae ........................ Squirrel, Southern Idaho 

ground.

U.S.A. (ID). 

C * .......... 5 ............. R1 .......... Urocitellus washingtoni .. Sciuridae ........................ Squirrel, Washington 

ground.

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

C * .......... 9 ............. R1 .......... Arborimus longicaudus .. Cricetidae ....................... Vole, Red (north Oregon 

coast DPS).

U.S.A. (OR). 

C * .......... 9 ............. R7 .......... Odobenus rosmarus 

divergens.

Odobenidae ................... Walrus, Pacific ............... U.S.A. (AK), Russian 

Federation 

(Kamchatka and 

Chukotka). 

PE .......... ................ R2 .......... Canis lupus baileyi ......... Canidae .......................... Wolf, Mexican gray ........ U.S.A. (AZ, NM). 

BIRDS 

C * .......... 3 ............. R1 .......... Porzana tabuensis ......... Rallidae .......................... Crake, spotless (American Samoa DPS).U.S.A. (AS), Australia, 

Fiji, Independent 

Samoa, Marquesas, 

Philippines, Society Islands, Tonga. 

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

(American Samoa 

DPS).

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

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

Canada, South America. 

C ............ 2 ............. R1 .......... Gymnomyza samoensis Meliphagidae .................. Ma’oma’o ....................... U.S.A. (AS), Independent Samoa. 

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

hypoleucus.

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

C * .......... 2 ............. R2 .......... Amazona viridigenalis .... Psittacidae ..................... Parrot, red-crowned ....... U.S.A. (TX), Mexico. 

C * .......... 8 ............. R6 .......... Anthus spragueii ............ Motacillidae .................... Pipit, Sprague’s .............. U.S.A. (AR, AZ, CO, KS, 

LA, MN, MS, MT, ND, 

NE, NM, OK, SD, TX), 

Canada, Mexico. 

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

urophasianus.

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

MT, ND, NE, NV, OR, 

SD, UT, WA, WY), 

Canada (AB, BC, SK). 

PT .......... 3 ............. R8 .......... Centrocercus 

urophasianus.

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

(Bi-State DPS).

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

MT, ND, NE, NV, OR, 

SD, UT, WA, WY), 

Canada (AB, BC, SK). 

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

urophasianus.

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

(Columbia Basin DPS).

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

MT, ND, NE, NV, OR, 

SD, UT, WA, WY), 

Canada (AB, BC, SK). 

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

UT). 

C * .......... 3 ............. R1 .......... Oceanodroma castro ..... Hydrobatidae .................. Storm-petrel, bandrumped (Hawaii DPS).U.S.A. (HI), Atlantic 

Ocean, Ecuador (Galapagos Islands), 

Japan. 

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


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72492 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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

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

Status Lead 

region Scientific name Family Common name Historical range 

Category Priority 

REPTILES 

C * .......... 8 ............. R3 .......... Sistrurus catenatus ........ Viperidae ........................ Massasauga 

(=rattlesnake), eastern.

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

MN, MO, NY, OH, PA, 

WI), Canada. 

PE .......... ................ R1 .......... Emoia slevini .................. Scincidae ....................... Skink, Slevin’s (Guali’ek 

Halom Tano).

U.S.A. (Guam, Mariana 

Islands). 

PT .......... 3 ............. R4 .......... Pituophis melanoleucus 

lodingi.

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

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

C * .......... 5 ............. R2 .......... Gopherus morafkai ........ Testudinidae .................. Tortoise, Sonoran desert U.S.A. (AZ, CA, NV, 

UT). 

C * .......... 8 ............. R4 .......... Gopherus polyphemus ... Testudinidae .................. Tortoise, gopher (eastern population).U.S.A. (AL, FL, GA, LA, 

MS, SC). 

C * .......... 6 ............. R2 .......... Kinosternon sonoriense 

longifemorale.

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

AMPHIBIANS 

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

(Great Basin DPS).

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

OR, UT, WA, WY), 

Canada (BC). 

C * .......... 8 ............. R8 .......... Lithobates onca ............. Ranidae .......................... Frog, relict leopard ......... U.S.A. (AZ, NV, UT). 

C * .......... 8 ............. R4 .......... Notophthalmus 

perstriatus.

Salamandridae ............... Newt, striped .................. U.S.A. (FL, GA). 

C * .......... 8 ............. R4 .......... Gyrinophilus gulolineatus Plethodontidae ............... Salamander, Berry Cave U.S.A. (TN). 

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

(Huachuca/Canelo 

DPS).

U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico (Sonora). 

C * .......... 2 ............. R4 .......... Necturus alabamensis ... Proteidae ........................ Waterdog, black warrior 

(=Sipsey Fork).

U.S.A. (AL). 

FISHES 

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

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

Colorado River Basin 

DPS).

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

UT, WY). 

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

MO, OK). 

C ............ 8 ............. R4 .......... Etheostoma sagitta ........ Percidae ......................... Darter, Cumberland 

arrow.

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

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

WV). 

C ............ 2 ............. R4 .......... Etheostoma spilotum ..... Percidae ......................... Darter, Kentucky arrow .. U.S.A. (KY). 

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

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

C * .......... 3 ............. R8 .......... Spirinchus thaleichthys .. Osmeridae ..................... Smelt, longfin (San Francisco bay-delta DPS).U.S.A. (AK, CA, OR, 

WA), Canada. 

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

CLAMS 

C * .......... 2 ............. R2 .......... Lampsilis bracteata ........ Unionidae ....................... Fatmucket, Texas .......... U.S.A. (TX). 

C * .......... 2 ............. R2 .......... Truncilla macrodon ........ Unionidae ....................... Fawnsfoot, Texas .......... U.S.A. (TX). 

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

C * .......... 8 ............. R2 .......... Quadrula aurea .............. Unionidae ....................... Orb, golden .................... U.S.A. (TX). 

C * .......... 8 ............. R2 .......... Quadrula houstonensis .. Unionidae ....................... Pimpleback, smooth ...... U.S.A. (TX). 

C * .......... 2 ............. R2 .......... Quadrula petrina ............ Unionidae ....................... Pimpleback, Texas ........ U.S.A. (TX). 

SNAILS 

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

C * .......... 2 ............. R4 .......... Planorbella magnifica .... Planorbidae .................... Ramshorn, magnificent .. U.S.A. (NC). 

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

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

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


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 72493 

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

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

Status Lead 

region Scientific name Family Common name Historical range 

Category Priority 

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

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

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

C * .......... 11 ........... R2 .......... Pyrgulopsis thompsoni ... Hydrobiidae .................... Springsnail, Huachuca ... U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico. 

C * .......... 11 ........... R2 .......... Pyrgulopsis morrisoni .... Hydrobiidae .................... Springsnail, Page ........... U.S.A. (AZ). 

INSECTS 

C * .......... 2 ............. R1 .......... Hylaeus anthracinus ...... Colletidae ....................... Bee, Hawaiian yellowfaced.U.S.A. (HI). 

C * .......... 2 ............. R1 .......... Hylaeus assimulans ....... Colletidae ....................... Bee, Hawaiian yellowfaced.U.S.A. (HI). 

C * .......... 2 ............. R1 .......... Hylaeus facilis ................ Colletidae ....................... Bee, Hawaiian yellowfaced.U.S.A. (HI). 

C * .......... 2 ............. R1 .......... Hylaeus hilaris ............... Colletidae ....................... Bee, Hawaiian yellowfaced.U.S.A. (HI). 

C * .......... 2 ............. R1 .......... Hylaeus kuakea ............. Colletidae ....................... Bee, Hawaiian yellowfaced.U.S.A. (HI). 

C * .......... 2 ............. R1 .......... Hylaeus longiceps .......... Colletidae ....................... Bee, Hawaiian yellowfaced.U.S.A. (HI). 

C * .......... 2 ............. R1 .......... Hylaeus mana ................ Colletidae ....................... Bee, Hawaiian yellowfaced.U.S.A. (HI). 

C * .......... 5 ............. R8 .......... Hermelycaena [Lycaena] 

hermes.

Lycaenidae ..................... Butterfly, Hermes copper U.S.A. (CA). 

PE .......... 3 ............. R1 .......... Hypolimnas octucula 

mariannensis.

Nymphalidae .................. Butterfly, Mariana eightspot.U.S.A. (GU, MP). 

PE .......... 2 ............. R1 .......... Vagrans egistina ............ Nymphalidae .................. Butterfly, Mariana wandering.U.S.A. (GU, MP). 

C * .......... 2 ............. R4 .......... Atlantea tulita ................. Nymphalidae .................. Butterfly, Puerto Rican 

harlequin.

U.S.A. (PR). 

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

sequatchie.

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

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

insularis.

Carabidae ...................... Cave beetle, Baker Station (=insular).U.S.A. (TN). 

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

caecus.

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

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

colemanensis.

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

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

fowlerae.

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

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

frigidus.

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

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

tiresias.

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

Grave Point (= Soothsayer).

U.S.A. (TN). 

C * .......... 5 ............. R4 .......... Pseudanophthalmus inquisitor.Carabidae ...................... Cave beetle, inquirer ..... U.S.A. (TN). 

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

troglodytes.

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

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

paulus.

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

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

parvus.

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

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

xanthomelas.

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

Hawaiian.

U.S.A. (HI). 

PE .......... ................ R1 .......... Ischnura luta .................. Coenagrionidae .............. Damselfly, Rota blue ..... U.S.A. (Mariana Islands). 

C ............ 2 ............. R8 .......... Ambrysus funebris ......... Naucoridae ..................... Naucorid bug (=Furnace 

Creek), Nevares 

Spring.

U.S.A. (CA). 

C * .......... 8 ............. R3 .......... Papaipema eryngii ......... Noctuidae ....................... Moth, rattlesnake-master 

borer.

U.S.A. (AR, IL, KY, NC, 

OK). 

C * .......... 11 ........... R2 .......... Heterelmis stephani ....... Elmidae .......................... Riffle beetle, Stephan’s .. U.S.A. (AZ). 

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

IL), Canada. 

PE .......... 2 ............. R3 .......... Oarisma poweshiek ....... Hesperiidae .................... Skipperling, Poweshiek .. U.S.A. (IA, IL, IN, MI, 

MN, ND, SD, WI), 

Canada (MB). 

C * .......... 5 ............. R6 .......... Capnia arapahoe ........... Capniidae ....................... Snowfly, Arapahoe ......... U.S.A. (CO). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72494 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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

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

Status Lead 

region Scientific name Family Common name Historical range 

Category Priority 

C * .......... 5 ............. R6 .......... Lednia tumana ............... Nemouridae ................... Stonefly, meltwater 

lednian.

U.S.A. (MT). 

C * .......... 5 ............. R4 .......... Cicindela highlandensis Cicindelidae ................... Tiger beetle, highlands .. U.S.A. (FL). 

CRUSTACEANS 

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

C * .......... 5 ............. R1 .......... Metabetaeus lohena ...... Alpheidae ....................... Shrimp, anchialine pool U.S.A. (HI). 

C * .......... 5 ............. R1 .......... Palaemonella burnsi ...... Palaemonidae ................ Shrimp, anchialine pool U.S.A. (HI). 

C * .......... 5 ............. R1 .......... Procaris hawaiana ......... Procarididae ................... Shrimp, anchialine pool U.S.A. (HI). 

FLOWERING PLANTS 

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

Ramshaw Meadows.

U.S.A. (CA). 

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

C * .......... 3 ............. R1 .......... Artemisia borealis var. 

wormskioldii.

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

C * .......... 2 ............. R6 .......... Astragalus anserinus ..... Fabaceae ....................... Milkvetch, Goose Creek U.S.A. (ID, NV, UT). 

C * .......... 8 ............. R6 .......... Astragalus microcymbus Fabaceae ....................... Milkvetch, skiff ............... U.S.A. (CO). 

C * .......... 8 ............. R6 .......... Astragalus schmolliae .... Fabaceae ....................... Milkvetch, Schmoll ......... U.S.A. (CO). 

C * .......... 11 ........... R6 .......... Astragalus tortipes ......... Fabaceae ....................... Milkvetch, Sleeping Ute U.S.A. (CO). 

C * .......... 8 ............. R6 .......... Boechera (Arabis) pusilla Brassicaceae ................. Rockcress, Fremont 

County or small.

U.S.A. (WY). 

PE .......... ................ R1 .......... Bulbophyllum guamense Orchidaceae ................... Cebello halumtano ......... U.S.A. (Guam, Mariana 

Islands). 

C * .......... 2 ............. R1 .......... Calamagrostis expansa Poaceae ......................... Reedgrass, Maui ............ U.S.A. (HI). 

C * .......... 11 ........... R8 .......... Calochortus persistens .. Liliaceae ......................... Mariposa lily, Siskiyou ... U.S.A. (CA, OR). 

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

var. keyensis.

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

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

pinetorum.

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

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

serpyllum.

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

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

fernandina.

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

C * .......... 8 ............. R2 .......... Cirsium wrightii .............. Asteraceae ..................... Thistle, Wright’s ............. U.S.A. (AZ, NM), Mexico. 

C ............ 2 ............. R1 .......... Cyanea kauaulaensis .... Campanulaceae ............. No common name ......... U.S.A. (HI). 

PT .......... ................ R1 .......... Cycas micronesica ......... Cycadaceae ................... Fadang ........................... U.S.A. (Guam, Mariana 

Islands). 

C ............ 2 ............. R1 .......... Cyperus neokunthianus Cyperaceae .................... No common name ......... U.S.A. (HI). 

C ............ 2 ............. R1 .......... Cyrtandra hematos ........ Gesneriaceae ................. Ha1iwale ......................... U.S.A. (HI). 

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

var. floridana.

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

PE .......... ................ R1 .......... Dendrobium guamens ... Orchidaceae ................... No common name ......... U.S.A. (Guam, Mariana 

Islands). 

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

NJ). 

C * .......... 5 ............. R4 .......... Digitaria pauciflora ......... Poaceae ......................... Crabgrass, Florida pineland.U.S.A. (FL). 

C * .......... 8 ............. R6 .......... Eriogonum soredium ...... Polygonaceae ................ Buckwheat, Frisco ......... U.S.A. (UT). 

PE .......... ................ R1 .......... Eugenia bryanii .............. Myrtaceae ...................... No common name ......... U.S.A. (Guam). 

C ............ 2 ............. R1 .......... Exocarpos menziesii ...... Santalaceae ................... Menzies ballart ............... U.S.A. (HI). 

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

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

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

PE .......... ................ R1 .......... Hedyotis megalantha ..... Rubiaceae ...................... Paudedo ......................... U.S.A. (Guam). 

PE .......... ................ R1 .......... Heritiera longipetiolata ... Malvaceae ...................... Ufa-halomtano ............... U.S.A. (Guam, Mariana 

Islands). 

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

ascendens.

Joinvilleaceae ................ 1Ohe ............................... U.S.A. (HI). 

C * .......... 2 ............. R1 .......... Kadua (=Hedyotis) 

fluviatilis.

Rubiaceae ...................... Kampua1a ....................... U.S.A. (HI). 

C ............ 2 ............. R1 .......... Kadua haupuensis ......... Rubiaceae ...................... No common name ......... U.S.A. (HI). 

C ............ 2 ............. R1 .......... Labordia lorenciana ....... Loganiaceae .................. No common name ......... U.S.A. (HI). 

C ............ 2 ............. R1 .......... Lepidium orbiculare ....... Brassicaceae ................. No common name ......... U.S.A. (HI). 

C * .......... 8 ............. R6 .......... Lepidium ostleri .............. Brassicaceae ................. Peppergrass, Ostler’s .... U.S.A. (UT). 

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


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 72495 

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

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

Status Lead 

region Scientific name Family Common name Historical range 

Category Priority 

PE .......... ................ R1 .......... Maesa walkeri ................ Primulaceae ................... No common name ......... U.S.A. (Guam, Mariana 

Islands). 

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

PE .......... ................ R1 .......... Nervilia jacksoniae ......... Orchidaceae ................... No common name ......... U.S.A. (Guam, Mariana 

Islands). 

C * .......... 2 ............. R1 .......... Nothocestrum latifolium Solanaceae .................... 1Aiea ............................... U.S.A. (HI). 

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

PE .......... ................ R1 .......... Phyllanthus saffordii ....... Phyllanthaceae .............. No common name ......... U.S.A. (Guam). 

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

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

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

C * .......... 2 ............. R6 .......... Pinus albicaulis .............. Pinaceae ........................ Pine, whitebark .............. U.S.A. (CA, ID, MT, NV, 

OR, WA, WY), Canada (AB, BC). 

C * .......... 8 ............. R4 .......... Platanthera integrilabia .. Orchidaceae ................... Orchid, white fringeless U.S.A. (AL, GA, KY, MS, 

NC, SC, TN, VA). 

C ............ 2 ............. R1 .......... Portulaca villosa ............. Portulacaceae ................ Ihi ................................... U.S.A. (HI). 

C ............ 2 ............. R1 .......... Pritchardia bakeri ........... Arecaceae ...................... Lo1ulu (=Lo1ulu lelo) ....... U.S.A. (HI). 

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

(=Gnaphalium) 

sandwicensium var. 

molokaiense.

Asteraceae ..................... 1Ena1ena ......................... U.S.A. (HI). 

PE .......... ................ R1 .......... Psychotria malaspinae ... Rubiaceae ...................... Aplokating-palaoan ........ U.S.A. (Guam). 

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

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

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

C ............ 2 ............. R1 .......... Sanicula sandwicensis ... Apiaceae ........................ No common name ......... U.S.A. (HI). 

C ............ 2 ............. R1 .......... Santalum involutum ....... Santalaceae ................... No common name ......... U.S.A. (HI). 

C ............ 3 ............. R1 .......... Schiedea diffusa ssp. 

diffusa.

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

C * .......... 2 ............. R1 .......... Schiedea pubescens ..... Caryophyllaceae ............ Ma1oli1oli ......................... U.S.A. (HI). 

C ............ 2 ............. R1 .......... Sicyos lanceoloideus ..... Cucurbitaceae ................ No common name ......... U.S.A. (HI). 

C * .......... 2 ............. R1 .......... Sicyos macrophyllus ...... Cucurbitaceae ................ 1Anunu ............................ U.S.A. (HI). 

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

austrofloridense.

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

C * .......... 2 ............. R4 .......... Solanum conocarpum .... Solanaceae .................... Bacora, marron .............. U.S.A. (PR). 

PE .......... ................ R1 .......... Solanum guamense ....... Solanaceae .................... Bereng-henas halomtano U.S.A. (Guam, Mariana 

Islands). 

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

C ............ 3 ............. R1 .......... Stenogyne kaalae ssp. 

sherffii.

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

C ............ 8 ............. R2 .......... Streptanthus bracteatus Brassicaceae ................. Twistflower, bracted ....... U.S.A. (TX). 

PT .......... ................ R1 .......... Tabernaemontana 

rotensis.

Apocynaceae ................. No common name ......... U.S.A. (Guam, Mariana 

Islands). 

PE .......... ................ R1 .......... Tinospora homosepala .. Menispermaceae ........... No common name ......... U.S.A (Guam). 

C * .......... 8 ............. R6 .......... Trifolium friscanum ........ Fabaceae ....................... Clover, Frisco ................. U.S.A. (UT). 

PE .......... ................ R1 .......... Tuberolabium guamense Orchidaceae ................... No common name ......... U.S.A. (Guam, Mariana 

Islands). 

C ............ 2 ............. R1 .......... Wikstroemia 

skottsbergiana.

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

FERNS AND ALLIES 

C ............ 2 ............. R1 .......... Asplenium diellaciniatum Aspleniaceae ................. No common name ......... U.S.A. (HI). 

C * .......... 8 ............. R1 .......... Cyclosorus boydiae ....... Thelypteridaceae ........... No common name ......... U.S.A. (HI). 

C ............ 2 ............. R1 .......... Deparia kaalaana ........... Woodsiaceae ................. No common name ......... U.S.A. (HI). 

C ............ 3 ............. R1 .......... Dryopteris glabra var. 

pusilla.

Dryopteridaceae ............. Kilau ............................... U.S.A. (HI). 

C ............ 3 ............. R1 .......... Hypolepis hawaiiensis 

var. mauiensis.

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

C * .......... 2 ............. R1 .......... Huperzia 

(=Phlegmariurus) 

stemmermanniae.

Lycopodiaceae ............... Wawae1iole ..................... U.S.A. (HI). 

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

mauiensis (=Microlepia 

mauiensis).

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

PE .......... 3 ............. R4 .......... Trichomanes punctatum 

floridanum.

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


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72496 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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

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

Status Lead 

region Scientific name Family Common name Historical range 

Code Expl. 

MAMMALS 

T ............. L ............. R6 .......... Lynx canadensis ............ Felidae ........................... Lynx, Canada (New 

Mexico population).

U.S.A. (CO, ID, ME, MI, 

MN, MT, NH, NY, OR, 

UT, VT, WA, WI, WY), 

Canada. 

E ............ L ............. R2 .......... Zapus hudsonius luteus Zapodidae ...................... Mouse, New Mexico 

meadow jumping.

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

T ............. L ............. R1 .......... Thomomys mazama 

glacialis.

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

Prairie.

U.S.A. (WA). 

T ............. L ............. R1 .......... Thomomys mazama 

pugetensis.

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

T ............. L ............. R1 .......... Thomomys mazama 

tumuli.

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

T ............. L ............. R1 .......... Thomomys mazama 

yelmensis.

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

Rc .......... A ............ R6 .......... Cynomys gunnisoni ....... Sciuridae ........................ Prairie dog, Gunnison’s 

(populations in central 

and south-central Colorado, north-central 

New Mexico).

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

Rp .......... A ............ R6 .......... Gulo gulo luscus ............ Mustelidae ...................... Wolverine, North American (Contiguous U.S. 

DPS).

U.S.A. (CA, CO, ID, MT, 

OR, UT, WA, WY). 

BIRDS 

T ............. L ............. R8 .......... Coccyzus americanus .... Cuculidae ....................... Cuckoo, yellow-billed 

(Western U.S. DPS).

U.S.A. (Lower 48 

States), Canada, Mexico, Central and South 

America. 

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

Norway, Russia, 

coastal waters of 

southern Pacific and 

North Sea. 

T ............. L ............. R2 .......... Tympanuchus 

pallidicinctus.

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

OK, TX). 

REPTILES 

T ............. L ............. R2 .......... Thamnophis 

rufipunctatus.

Colubridae ...................... Gartersnake, narrowheaded.U.S.A. (AZ, NM). 

T ............. L ............. R2 .......... Thamnophis eques 

megalops.

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

Mexican.

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

Mexico. 

Rc .......... A ............ R2 .......... Chionactis occipitalis 

klauberi.

Colubridae ...................... Snake, Tucson shovelnosed.U.S.A. (AZ). 

AMPHIBIANS 

E ............ L ............. R8 .......... Rana muscosa ............... Ranidae .......................... Frog, mountain yellowlegged (northern California DPS).U.S.A (CA, NV). 

T ............. L ............. R1 .......... Rana pretiosa ................ Ranidae .......................... Frog, Oregon spotted .... U.S.A. (CA, OR, WA), 

Canada (BC). 

E ............ L ............. R8 .......... Rana sierrae .................. Ranidae .......................... Frog, Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog.U.S.A. (CA, NV). 

T ............. L ............. R2 .......... Eurycea naufragia .......... Plethodontidae ............... Salamander, Georgetown.U.S.A. (TX). 

T ............. L ............. R2 .......... Eurycea chisholmensis .. Plethodontidae ............... Salamander, Salado ...... U.S.A. (TX). 

T ............. L ............. R8 .......... Anaxyrus canorus .......... Bufonidae ....................... Toad, Yosemite .............. U.S.A. (CA). 

FISHES 

Rc .......... A ............ R6 .......... Iotichthys phlegethontis Cyprinidae ...................... Chub, least ..................... U.S.A. (UT). 

Rc .......... A ............ R6 .......... Thymallus arcticus ......... Salmonidae .................... Grayling, Arctic (upper 

Missouri River DPS).

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

WY), Canada, northern Asia, northern Europe. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 72497 

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

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

Status Lead 

region Scientific name Family Common name Historical range 

Code Expl. 

E ............ L ............. R2 .......... Notropis oxyrhynchus .... Cyprinidae ...................... Shiner, sharpnose .......... U.S.A. (TX). 

E ............ L ............. R2 .......... Notropis buccula ............ Cyprinidae ...................... Shiner, smalleye ............ U.S.A. (TX). 

E ............ L ............. R2 .......... Catostomus discobolus 

yarrowi.

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

Rc .......... U ............ R2 .......... Oncorhynchus clarki 

virginalis.

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

INSECTS 

E ............ L ............. R4 .......... Strymon acis bartrami .... Lycaenidae ..................... Butterfly, Bartram’s 

scrub-hairstreak.

U.S.A. (FL). 

E ............ L ............. R4 .......... Anaea troglodyta 

floridalis.

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

leafwing.

U.S.A. (FL). 

ARACHNIDS 

Rc .......... N ............ R2 .......... Cicurina wartoni ............. Dictynidae ...................... Meshweaver, Warton’s 

cave.

U.S.A. (TX). 

FLOWERING PLANTS 

E ............ L ............. R4 .......... Agave eggersiana .......... Agavaceae ..................... No common name ......... U.S.A. (VI). 

T ............. L ............. R4 .......... Arabis georgiana ............ Brassicaceae ................. Rockcress, Georgia ....... U.S.A. (AL, GA). 

Rc .......... A ............ R1 .......... Astragalus cusickii var. 

packardiae.

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

E ............ L ............. R4 .......... Brickellia mosieri ............ Asteraceae ..................... Brickell-bush, Florida ..... U.S.A. (FL). 

Rc .......... A ............ R8 .......... Eriogonum corymbosum 

var. nilesii.

Polygonaceae ................ Buckwheat, Las Vegas .. U.S.A. (NV). 

Rc .......... A ............ R8 .......... Eriogonum diatomaceum Polygonaceae ................ Buckwheat, Churchill 

Narrows.

U.S.A (NV). 

Rc .......... A ............ R8 .......... Eriogonum kelloggii ....... Polygonaceae ................ Buckwheat, Red Mountain.U.S.A. (CA). 

E ............ L ............. R4 .......... Gonocalyx concolor ....... Ericaceae ....................... No common name ......... U.S.A. (PR). 

E ............ L ............. R4 .......... Helianthus verticillatus ... Asteraceae ..................... Sunflower, whorled ........ U.S.A. (AL, GA, TN). 

T ............. L ............. R8 .......... Ivesia webberi ................ Rosaceae ....................... Ivesia, Webber ............... U.S.A. (CA, NV). 

E ............ L ............. R4 .......... Leavenworthia crassa .... Brassicaceae ................. Gladecress, fleshy-fruit .. U.S.A. (AL). 

T ............. L ............. R4 .......... Leavenworthia exigua 

var. laciniata.

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

E ............ L ............. R4 .......... Linum carteri var. carteri Linaceae ........................ Flax, Carter’s small-flowered.U.S.A. (FL). 

E ............ L ............. R8 .......... Mimulus fremontii var. 

vandenbergensis.

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

Rp .......... A ............ R6 .......... Penstemon grahamii ...... Scrophulariaceae ........... Beardtongue, Graham’s U.S.A. (CO, UT). 

Rp .......... A ............ R6 .......... Penstemon scariosus 

var. albifluvis.

Scrophulariaceae ........... Beardtongue, White 

River.

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

E ............ L ............. R4 .......... Physaria globosa ........... Brassicaceae ................. Bladderpod, Short’s ....... U.S.A. (IN, KY, TN). 

Rc .......... A ............ R8 .......... Sedum eastwoodiae ...... Crassulaceae ................. Stonecrop, Red Mountain.U.S.A. (CA). 

Rc .......... U ............ R4 .......... Symphyotrichum 

georgianum.

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

SC). 

T ............. L ............. R4 .......... Varronia (=Cordia) 

rupicola.

Boraginaceae ................. No common name ......... U.S.A. (PR), Anegada. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28536 Filed 12–4–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2