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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That Are Candidates or Proposed 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 or have proposed for addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Identification of candidate species can assist environmental planning efforts by providing advance notice of potential listings, allowing landowners and resource managers to alleviate threats and thereby possibly remove the need to list species as endangered or threatened. Even if we subsequently list a candidate species, the early notice provided here could result in more options for species management and recovery by prompting candidate conservation measures to alleviate threats to the species.

The CNOR summarizes the status and threats that we evaluated in order to determine that species qualify as candidates and to assign a listing priority number to each species, or to remove species from candidate status. Additional material that we relied on is available in the Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Forms (species assessment forms, previously called candidate forms) for each candidate species.

Overall, this CNOR recognizes 7 new candidates, changes the listing priority number for 24 candidates, and removes 10 species from candidate status. Combined with other decisions for individual species that were published separately from this CNOR, the new number of species that are candidates for listing is 279.

We request additional status information that may be available for the 279 candidate species identified in this CNOR. We will consider this information in preparing listing documents and future revisions to the notice of review, as it will help us in monitoring changes in the status of candidate species and in management for conserving them. We also request information on additional species that we should consider including as candidates as we prepare future updates of this notice.

This document also includes our findings on resubmitted petitions and describes our progress in revising the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants during the period May 2, 2005, through August 23, 2006.

DATES:

We will accept comments on the Candidate Notice of Review at any time.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments regarding a particular species to the Regional Director of the Region identified in

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

as having the lead responsibility for that species. You may submit comments of a more general nature to the Chief, Division of Conservation and Classification, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203 (703/358-2171). Written comments and materials received in response to this notice will be available for public inspection by appointment at the Division of Conservation and Classification (for comments of a general nature only) or at the appropriate Regional Office listed in

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

.

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 Division of Conservation and Classification, Arlington, Virginia (see address above), or on our Internet Web site (

http://endangered.fws.gov/candidates/index.html

).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

The Endangered Species Coordinator(s) in the appropriate Regional Office(s) or Chris Nolin, Chief, Division of Conservation and Classification (703-358-2171).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Candidate Notice of Review

Background

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531

et seq.

) (Act), requires that we identify species of wildlife and plants that are endangered or threatened, based on the best available scientific and commercial information. As defined in section 3 of the Act, an endangered species is any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a threatened species is any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Through the Federal rulemaking process, we add species that meet these definitions to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11 or the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants at 50 CFR 17.12. As part of this program, we maintain a list of species that we regard as candidates for listing. A candidate species is one for which we have on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened, but for which preparation and publication of a proposal is precluded by higher-priority listing actions.

We maintain this list of candidates for a variety of reasons: To notify the public that these species are facing threats to their survival; to provide advance knowledge of potential listings that could affect decisions of environmental planners and developers; to provide information that may stimulate and guide conservation efforts that will remove or reduce threats to these species and possibly make listing unnecessary; to solicit input from interested parties to help us identify those candidate species that may not require protection under the Act or additional species that may require the Act's protections; and to solicit necessary information for setting priorities for preparing listing proposals. We strongly encourage collaborative conservation efforts for candidate species and offer technical and financial assistance to facilitate such efforts. For additional information regarding such assistance, please contact the appropriate Regional Office listed in

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

or visit our Internet Web site,

http://endangered.fws.gov/candidates/index.html.

Previous Notices of Review

The Act directed the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to prepare a report on endangered and threatened plant species, which was published as House Document No. 94-51. We published a notice in the

Federal Register

on July 1, 1975 (40 FR 27823), in which we announced we would review more than 3,000 native plant species named in the Smithsonian's report and other species added by the 1975 notice for possible addition to the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants, referring to them as species considered to be candidate endangered

or threatened species. We published a new comprehensive notice of review for native plants on December 15, 1980 (45 FR 82479), which took into account the earlier Smithsonian report and other accumulated information. On November 28, 1983 (48 FR 53640), our supplemental plant notice of review announced changes in the status of various species. We published complete updates of the plant notice on September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39526); February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184); September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144); and, as part of combined animal and plant notices, on February 28, 1996 (61 FR 7596); September 19, 1997 (62 FR 49398); October 25, 1999 (64 FR 57534); October 30, 2001 (66 FR 54808); June 13, 2002 (67 FR 40657); May 4, 2004 (69 FR 24876); and May 11, 2005 (70 FR 24870). Additionally, on January 8, 2001 (66 FR 1295), we published our resubmitted petition finding for one plant species having an outstanding “warranted-but-precluded finding” on a petition to list.

We published earlier comprehensive reviews for vertebrate animals in the

Federal Register

on December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58454), and on September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37958). We published an initial comprehensive review for invertebrate animals on May 22, 1984 (49 FR 21664). We published a combined (

i.e.

vertebrate and invertebrate) animal notice of review on January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554), with minor corrections on August 10, 1989 (54 FR 32833). We again published comprehensive animal notices on November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804) and November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982). Beginning in 1996 we published combined animal and plant notices, including those published on February 28, 1996 (61 FR 7596); September 19, 1997 (62 FR 49398); October 25, 1999 (64 FR 57534); October 30, 2001 (66 FR 54808); June 13, 2002 (67 FR 40657); May 4, 2004 (69 FR 24876); and May 11, 2005 (70 FR 24870). Additionally, on January 8, 2001 (66 FR 1295), we published our resubmitted petition findings for 25 animal species having outstanding “warranted-but-precluded” petition findings as well as notice of one candidate removal.

On September 21, 1983, we published guidance for assigning a listing priority number (LPN) for each candidate species (48 FR 43098). We continue to use this guidance to assign each candidate a LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats, imminence of threats, and taxonomic status. Such a priority ranking guidance system is required under section 4(h)(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1533(h)(3)).

This revised notice supersedes all previous animal, plant, and combined notices of review.

Summary of This CNOR

Since publication of the 2004 CNOR on May 11, 2005 (70 FR 24870), we reviewed the available information on candidate species to ensure that a proposed listing is justified for each species and reevaluated the relative listing priority number assigned to each species. We also evaluated the need to emergency-list any of these species, particularly species with high priorities (

i.e.

species with listing priority numbers 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, the Service has worked on numerous findings in response to petitions to list species and has prepared proposed and final determinations for rules to list species under the Act; some of these findings and determinations have been completed and published in the

Federal Register

while work on others is still underway (see Preclusion and Expeditious Progress, below, for details). Since publication of the CNOR last year the Service has completed and published final rules listing 2 species as endangered and 17 species as threatened; reviewed the status of and published findings that listing proposals are not warranted for 4 species; and published proposed rules for listing for 3 species for which final determinations are pending.

Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial information, this CNOR identifies 7 new candidate species (

see New Candidates

, below), changes the listing priority number for 24 candidates (

see

Listing Priority Changes in Candidates, below) and determined that listing proposals are not warranted for an additional 10 species and thus have removed them from candidate status (

see Candidate Removals

, below). Combined with the other decisions published separately from this CNOR for individual species that previously were candidates, a total of 279 species, including 140 plant and 139 animal species, are now candidates awaiting preparation of rules proposing their listing. These 279 species, along with the 3 species currently proposed for listing, are included in Table 1.

Table 2 includes 33 species identified in the previous CNOR as either proposed for listing or classified as candidates that are no longer in those categories. This includes the 19 species we listed as threatened or endangered since the previous CNOR and the 4 species for which we published separate findings that listing is not warranted, plus the 10 species that we have determined do not warrant preparation of a rule to propose listing and therefore have removed from candidate status in this CNOR.

New Candidates

Below we present brief summaries of seven new candidates that we are recognizing in this CNOR, including one species of mammal, one bird, two snails, two insects, and one plant. Complete information, including references, can be found in the species assessment forms. You may obtain a copy of these forms from the Regional Office having the lead for the species, or from our Internet Web site (

http://endangered.fws.gov/candidates/index.html

). For each of these seven species, we find that we have on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened, but that preparation and publication of a proposal is precluded by higher-priority listing actions (

i.e.

these meet our definition of a candidate species). Two of these seven species were petitioned for listing, and for those two species this constitutes our finding, as required pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act, that the immediate issuance of a proposed rule and timely promulgation of a final rule for each of these species has been, for the preceding months, and continues to be, precluded by higher priority listing actions, and that expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to the lists of threatened and endangered species and to remove from such lists species for which the protections of the Act are no longer necessary. (Additional information is provided in the sections entitled

Petition Findings

and

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress

, below). We also note below that one other species, a fish, was identified as a candidate earlier this year in a separate finding published in the

Federal Register

.

Mammals

New England cottontail (

Sylvilagus transitionalis

)—The following summary is based on information from our files and information collected during the public comment period on our 90-day petition finding. On August 30, 2000, we received a petition to list this species. We published our 90-day finding on June 30, 2004 (69 FR 39395).

The New England cottontail (NEC) is a medium- to large-sized cottontail rabbit that may reach 1,000 grams in weight, and is one of two species within

the genus

Sylvilagus

occurring in New England. New England cottontails are considered habitat specialists, in so far as they are dependent upon early-successional habitats typically described as thickets. The species is the only endemic cottontail in New England.

Historically, the NEC ranged from southeastern New York (east of the Hudson River) north through the Champlain Valley, southern Vermont, the southern half of New Hampshire, southern Maine, and south throughout Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. The species is now considered to be extirpated from Vermont, the current range elsewhere has declined substantially, and occurrences have become increasingly separated. The species' current distribution is fragmented into five apparently isolated metapopulations in about 14 percent of the species' historical range. The range has contracted from approximately 90,000 sq km to 12,180 sq km, and much of the suitable habitat within the current range is in small patches that are not occupied by the NEC. A multi-state, regional inventory conducted in 2001-2004 found New England cottontails were absent from 93% of approximately 2,300 habitat patches within the recent historical range (1990 to present) that were searched for the presence of the species. Many of the occupied sites were quite small (3 acres or less) and are considered by some researchers to be population “sinks.” It is estimated that less than one-third of the occupied sites occur on lands in conservation status, and fewer than 10 percent of these sites in conservation status are being managed for early successional forest species such as the NEC.

The primary threat to the New England cottontail is ongoing destruction and modification of its remaining habitat through natural succession processes and through alteration related to human development and other activities. Isolation of occupied patches of habitat by areas of unsuitable habitat, as well as predation, appears to be resulting in local extirpation of New England cottontails from small patches. Based on current land uses in the region, the loss of about 2 percent of its current range per year is expected to continue. Additional threats include competition for food and habitat with introduced eastern cottontails and large numbers of native white-tailed deer, and inadequate regulatory mechanisms in effect to protect the habitat. Based on threats of high magnitude that are imminent, we assigned this species a listing priority number of 2. (

See also

the section entitled

Petition Findings

, below)

Birds

Red knot (

Calidris canutus rufa

)—The following summary is based on information from our files and information provided by petitioners. We received one petition on August 9, 2004, and two others were each received on August 5, 2005.

The

rufa

subspecies is one of six recognized subspecies of red knot and one of three subspecies occurring in North America (hereafter all mention of red knot refers strictly to the

rufa

subspecies). This subspecies makes one of the longest distance migrations known in the animal kingdom as it travels between breeding areas in the central Canadian Arctic and wintering areas that are primarily in southern South America along the coast of Chile and Argentina. They migrate along the Atlantic coast of the United States (U.S.), where they may be found from Maine to Florida. The Delaware Bay area (in Delaware and New Jersey) is the largest known spring migration stopover area, with far fewer migrants congregating elsewhere along the Atlantic coast. The concentration in the Delaware Bay area occurs from the middle of May to early June, corresponding to the spawning season of horseshoe crabs. The knots feed on horseshoe crab eggs, rebuilding energy reserves needed to complete migration to the Arctic and arrive on the breeding grounds in good condition.

Surveys at wintering areas and at Delaware Bay during spring migration indicate a substantial decline in recent years. At the Delaware Bay area, peak counts between 1982 and 1998 were as high as 95,360 knots. Although counts may vary considerably between years, some of the population fluctuations can be attributed to predator-prey cycles in the breeding grounds, and counts show that knots rebound from such reductions. In the past, horseshoe crab eggs were so numerous that a knot could eat enough in two to three weeks to double its weight. Research shows that from 1997 to 2002 an increasing proportion of red knots leaving the Delaware Bay failed to achieve threshold departure masses needed to fly to breeding grounds and survive an initial few days of snow cover, and this corresponded to reduced annual survival rates. Recently, peak counts at the Delaware Bay area have been lower than in the past and do not show a rebound. The peaks were 13,315 in 2004, 15,345 in 2005, and 13,455 in 2006. Counts in recent years at the principal wintering areas in South America also are substantially lower than in the past and do not show a rebound.

The primary factor threatening the red knot is destruction and modification of its habitat, particularly the reduction in key food resources resulting from reductions in horseshoe crabs, which are harvested primarily for use as bait and secondarily to support a biomedical industry. Commercial harvest increased substantially in the 1990's. Since 1999, a series of timing restrictions and substantially lower harvest quotas have been adopted by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), as well as New Jersey and Delaware. In May 2006, the ASMFC adopted restrictions effective from October 1, 2006 to September 30, 2008, including a prohibition on harvest and landing of horseshoe crabs in New Jersey and Delaware from January 1 through June 7, harvest of males only from June 8 through December 31, and harvest limited to no more than 100,000 horseshoe crabs per state per year. The ASMFC also adopted other restrictions applicable to Maryland and Virginia. New Jersey has established restrictions which supersede those of the ASMFC; as a result there is a moratorium on all horseshoe crab harvest in New Jersey from May 15, 2006 through June 7, 2008, after which the restrictions adopted by ASMFC apply.

The reductions in commercial harvest since 1999 are substantial: 726,660 horseshoe crab landings for bait were reported in 1999 in Delaware and New Jersey, compared to 173,777 in 2004. However, we do not know whether horseshoe crab populations will rebuild or how long a lag time there may be in increased availability of eggs, as they need 8-10 years to reach sexual maturity and other key information for estimating population response is lacking. A survey in Delaware Bay showed spawning activity was stable or slightly declining from 1999 to 2004. In 2004, availability of horseshoe crab eggs on principal shorebird foraging beaches increased over recent years. The peak number of migrant red knots observed at Delaware Bay increased slightly in 2005 compared to 2004, and in 2006 the peak count was similar to that in 2004. Also, body weights of red knots at the time of departure from Delaware Bay improved in 2005 over previous years. Counts of red knots at key wintering areas in South America, although much reduced from the past, were similar in 2006 to the counts in 2005. Thus in recent years the number of knots has been much lower than in the past and the trend in the abundance is not improving despite

a four-fold reduction in horseshoe crab landings since the late 1990's.

Other identified threat factors include habitat destruction due to beach erosion and various shoreline protection and stabilization projects that are impacting areas used by migrating knots for foraging, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, human disturbance, and competition with other species for limited food resources. Also, the concentration of red knots in the Delaware Bay area and at a relatively small number of wintering areas make the species vulnerable to potential large-scale events in those areas such as large oil spills or severe weather.

Overall, we conclude that the threats, in particular the modification of habitat through harvesting of horseshoe crabs to such an extent that it puts the viability of the knot at substantial risk, are of a high magnitude, but are nonimminent because of reductions and restrictions on harvesting horseshoe crabs. Accordingly, we assigned a listing priority number of 6 to this subspecies. (See also the section entitled

Petition Findings

, below)

Fish

Headwater chub (

Gila nigra

)—We previously announced candidate status for this species in a separate warranted-but-precluded 12-month petition finding, published on May 3, 2006 (71 FR 26007).

Snails

Black mudalia (

Elimia melanoides

)—The following summary is based on information in our files. The historical and current range of the black mudalia, an aquatic snail, is in Alabama. The historical range included much of the upper half of the Black Warrior River drainage, including the main stem Black Warrior above Tuscaloosa, as well as the Sipsey Fork and Locust Fork. The black mudalia is currently known from five localized shoals in an approximately 30-mile reach of the upper Locust Fork of the Black Warrior River, and from two shoals in a 1-mile reach of the Blackburn Fork of the Little Warrior River, a tributary of the Locust Fork. The black mudalia requires flowing water, and the construction of two major dams on the main stem Black Warrior River above the Fall Line (Oliver Lock and Dam, 1940; Holt Dam, 1966) and another dam on the lower Sipsey Fork (Bankhead Dam, 1975), impounded much of the species' historical habitat. Dams eliminate or reduce currents within impounded areas, allowing sediments to accumulate on inundated channel habitats. Impounded waters also experience changes in water chemistry that can affect survival or reproduction of black mudalia.

The primary threats to the black mudalia in the areas it currently occupies involve habitat destruction and modification, particularly in relation to poor water quality and habitat deterioration. Point-source discharges and surface runoff cause nutrification, decreased dissolved oxygen concentration, increased acidity and conductivity, and other changes in water chemistry which are likely to seriously affect aquatic snails. Pollution from surface runoff can originate from a wide array of land use activities, and may include sediments, fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, animal wastes, septic tank and gray water leakage, and oils and greases. Land uses in the vicinity of black mudalia populations include pasture, row crops, timber production, and chicken farms. Because the threats to black mudalia are of a high magnitude and are imminent, we assigned a listing priority of 2 to this species.

Rough hornsnail (

Pleurocera foremani

)—The following summary is based on information in our files. The rough hornsnail is an aquatic snail endemic to the Coosa River system in Alabama. It currently is known to occur at two locations: The lower Yellowleaf Creek in Shelby County, and the lower Coosa River below Wetumpka Shoals in Elmore County. Searches of historical habitats in the Coosa River and its tributaries have failed to locate the species at other localities. The two surviving populations are extremely small and localized. The historical habitats of the rough hornsnail have been extensively modified by six large dams constructed for hydropower production. Dams eliminate or reduce currents within impounded areas, allowing sediments to accumulate on inundated channel habitats. Impounded waters also experience changes in water chemistry that can affect survival or reproduction of pleurocerid snails. Currently, the primary threat to the rough hornsnail is habitat destruction and modification related to poor water quality and habitat deterioration that result from point source discharges and/or surface runoff. These actions cause nutrification, decreased dissolved oxygen concentration, increased acidity and conductivity, and other changes in water chemistry that can seriously affect aquatic snails. Both populations of the rough hornsnail are in areas currently experiencing high human population growth and development. Because the threats are ongoing and are of a high magnitude, we assigned the rough hornsnail a listing priority of 2.

Insects

Florida leafwing butterfly (

Anaea troglodyta floridalis

)—The Florida leafwing is endemic to south Florida and the Keys; it occurs only within pine rocklands that retain its sole hostplant, pineland croton (

Croton linearis

). Once locally common within the formerly widespread pine rockland habitat that occurred within Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties and less common and sporadic within Collier, Martin, Palm Beach, and Broward Counties, the leafwing now has small and isolated populations at only two locations: On Big Pine Key in the lower Florida Keys, and Long Pine Key on the Florida mainland. On Big Pine Key, the butterfly and its habitat occur on National Key Deer Refuge (NKDR) and also on other scattered private and public lands within the vicinity of NKDR. On the Florida mainland, the population on Long Pine Key is within Everglades National Park (ENP). Pine rockland fragments on the mainland near or adjacent to ENP may still retain the potential to support some small, localized, and sporadic populations of the butterfly, but no Florida leafwings have been documented as occurring in such areas outside ENP for the last several years.

Land developments of various types have greatly reduced pinelands in Florida. Within the Keys, pinelands containing the pineland croton hostplant now occur only on Big Pine Key, with an estimated 80 hectares (ha) (198 acres) within NKDR and small, scattered relict sites elsewhere. On the mainland, an estimated 1,068 ha (2,638 acres) of appropriate hostplant-bearing habitat occur within ENP on Long Pine Key; outside that area, in Miami-Dade County, scattered fragments of pine rockland containing pineland croton occur in fragments that collectively total approximately 370 (ha) (916 acres), roughly half of which are in private ownership. Collectively, the Big Pine Key, Long Pine Key, and relict pine rocklands adjacent to ENP presently support an estimated total of 100-800 adult Florida leafwing butterflies at any given time.

The Florida leafwing is vulnerable to impacts that probably did not pose significant risks to its continued existence in the past, when suitable habitat and the species were much more abundant and widespread. Habitat destruction and modification is a continuing problem on public and private lands. This includes habitat loss due to unnatural or altered fire regimes. Natural fires are important in maintaining the herbaceous layer of

pine rocklands, of which the butterfly's sole hostplant, pineland croton, is a part. Without these fires, succession from pinelands to hardwood hammocks is rapid, with loss of suitable habitat for the Florida leafwing. Due to the proximity of remaining pine rockland habitat to urban areas in southern Florida and the Keys, most natural fires have been and are suppressed, often replaced by inconsistent regimes of managed or prescribed fires that do not necessarily result in habitat conditions suitable for the Florida leafwing. Prescribed burning occurs on portions of ENP on Long Pine Key, and ENP is working on incorporating considerations for life histories of select butterfly species into their management. At NKDR, private homes and light commercial uses are embedded within or in close proximity to the fire-sustained pineland habitat. Thus management of pine rocklands is particularly difficult due to the mixed pattern of land ownership and development. Fire suppression to protect residential areas results in the invasion and replacement of native pine rockland habitat by hardwood hammocks, thereby causing continued loss of habitat for the leafwing. Survey data collected from mid-2003 through July 2006 indicate a substantial decline in leafwing numbers on NKDR, even within an area where prescribed burning occurs. Outside of NKDR and ENP, much of the remaining suitable habitat for the Florida leafwing on private land is subject to destruction or modification due to the effects of fire suppression or due to the nature of prescribed fire activities, and continued economic development that results in conversion of pine rocklands to other uses.

The continued existence of the Florida leafwing also is threatened due to other natural and human-related factors. Pesticides used in mosquito control practices are a major threat on Big Pine Key, where nearly all occupied and suitable habitat for the Florida leafwing is exposed to mosquito control chemicals. Studies have shown that the pesticides used for mosquito control at field application rates are extremely toxic to non-target butterflies, skippers, and moths. Essentially all of the pine rocklands within NKDR except one area, Watson's Hammock, are sprayed and residential areas and roadsides across Big Pine Key are treated. Also, chemical drift of pesticides has been found 750 meters (2,460 feet) within the borders of the no-spray zone on Watson's Hammock. Mosquito control poses much less of a risk to the leafwings in ENP, as mosquito control on Long Pine Key is limited to residential areas and campgrounds. Additional natural and human-related factors include the risk of direct mortality and habitat loss due to extreme weather events (

e.g.

hurricanes, tropical storms), and risk of reduced genetic diversity; both of these risks are heightened due to the reduction of the Florida leafwing to small, isolated populations.

The established interest in specimens of the leafwing and information requests regarding its location from collectors, researchers, and others suggests that collection may be occurring and has the potential to occur at any time. However, we do not have sufficient information to conclude that overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is a factor that threatens the Florida leafwing. The principal threats to the Florida leafwing at this time are the destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range, and other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Based threats of high magnitude that are imminent, we assigned a listing priority number of 3 to the Florida eafwing butterfly.

Bartram's hairstreak butterfly (

Strymon acis bartrami

)—The following summary is based on information in our files. The Bartram's hairstreak is a subspecies endemic to south Florida and the Keys. Like the Florida leafwing butterfly (described above) it occurs only within pine rocklands that retain its sole hostplant, pineland croton (

Croton linearis

). Once locally common within the formerly widespread pine rockland habitat that occurred within Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, and less common and sporadic within Collier, Palm Beach, and Broward Counties, the Bartram's hairstreak is now largely restricted to two locations: Big Pine Key in the Florida Keys, and Long Pine Key on the Florida mainland. On Big Pine Key, the butterfly and its habitat occur on National Key Deer Refuge and also on other scattered private and public lands in the vicinity of NKDR. On Long Pine Key the species is within Everglades National Park. Pine rockland fragments near or adjacent to ENP also appear to retain some small, localized, and sporadic populations of the butterfly. The same factors identified as threats to the Florida leafwing butterfly (summarized above) also threaten Bartram's hairstreak. Based on threats of high magnitude that are imminent, we assigned a listing priority number of 3 to Bartram's hairstreak butterfly.

Flowering Plants

Harrisia aboriginum

(Aboriginal pricklyapple)—The following summary is based on information in our files. This cylindrical-stemmed cactus currently occurs in coastal strand vegetation and tropical coastal hammocks on coastal islands of Sarasota, Charlotte, and Lee Counties, Florida, from Longboat Key south to Buck Key in the J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge. Populations are likely to be on shell mounds or sites with shelly substrates; plants may be quite close to the mangrove zone, but not in it. This plant always had a restricted distribution and is now vulnerable to extinction because only 10 populations are remaining. Each population occurs just above sea level along the coast, and is threatened by the rise in sea level that has occurred during the past century and is continuing. Each population is also threatened by nonnative plant invasions and, in at least one case, predation by introduced iguanas. Some populations are on private lands, and these are all vulnerable to habitat destruction and/or improper management. Additionally, the proximity to the coast, combined with the very small number of plants in each population, makes the species vulnerable to hurricanes which have the potential to overwash islands and extirpate populations. For these reasons, the magnitude of threats is high. Overall, threats are nonimminent because public land managers have been and are continuing to address exotic invasive plant issues. Therefore, we assigned this species a listing priority number of 5.

Listing Priority Changes in Candidates

We reviewed the listing priority number for all candidate species and are changing the numbers for the following species. Some of the changes reflect actual changes in either the magnitude or imminence of the threats, and in one case, reflects a change in the taxonomy of the species. For some species, our changes in the listing priority number reflect efforts to ensure national consistency as well as closer adherence to the 1983 guidelines in assigning these numbers, rather than a change in the nature of the threats.

Birds

Friendly ground-dove, American Samoa DPS (

Gallicolumba stairi stairi

)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. 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. All six species have some level of threatened status on the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red List. 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 morphological differences between the two are minimal.

In American Samoa, the friendly ground-dove has been found on the islands of Ofu and Olosega (Manua Group). Threats to this subspecies have not changed over the past year. Of the primary threats to the subspecies (predation by nonnative species, poaching, and habitat loss), predation by nonnative species is thought to be occurring now, and predation likely has been occurring for several decades. This predation may be an important impediment to increasing the population. Predation by introduced species has played a significant role in reducing, limiting, and extirpating populations of island birds, especially ground-nesters, in the Pacific and other locations worldwide. Nonnative predators known or thought to occur in the range of the friendly ground-dove in American Samoa are feral cats (

Felis catus

), Polynesian rats (

Rattus exulans

), black rats (

R. rattus

), and Norway rats (

R. norvegicus

).

In February of 2005, a hurricane destroyed the habitat of

G. stairi

in an area on Olosega Island where the species had been most frequently recorded. Although this species has coexisted with severe storms for millennia, this example illustrates the potential for natural disturbance to exacerbate the effect of anthropogenic disturbance on small populations. Consistent monitoring using a variety of methods over the last 5 years yielded few observations of this taxon in American Samoa. The total population size is poorly known, but is unlikely to number more than a few hundred pairs. The distribution of the friendly ground-dove is limited to forested slopes with an open understory and a substrate of fine scree or exposed earth; this habitat is not common in American Samoa. We revised the listing priority number from a 3 to a 6 to better reflect the fact that the threats posed to the friendly ground-dove (its small population size and nonnative predators) are nonimminent but still may occur throughout its range.

Streaked horned lark (

Eremophila alpestris strigata

)—The following information is based on information contained in our files. No new information was provided in the petition received December 11, 2002. The streaked horned lark occurs in British Columbia (Canada), Washington State, and Oregon. The streaked horned lark nests on the ground in sparsely vegetated sites in short-grass dominated habitats, such as native prairies, coastal dunes, fallow agricultural fields, lightly to moderately grazed pastures, seasonal mudflats, airports, and dredged-material formed islands in the Columbia River. It is essentially extirpated from Canada. In Washington State, surveys show that there are approximately 380 remaining breeding birds (Pearson and Altman 2005). In Oregon, the breeding population is estimated to be approximately 400 birds.

The streaked horned lark's breeding habitat is threatened by loss and degradation due to conversion of native grasslands to other uses (such as agriculture, homes, recreational areas, and industry), encroachment of woody vegetation, and invasion of nonnative plant species (

e.g.

, Scot's broom and sod-forming grasses). Native prairies have been nearly eliminated throughout the range of the species. It is estimated that less than 1 to 3 percent of the native grassland and savanna remains. Those that remain have been invaded by nonnative sod-forming grasses. Coastal nesting areas have suffered the same fate. Wintering habitats are seemingly few, and susceptible to unpredictable conversion to unsuitable overwintering habitat. Where larks inhabit nonnative habitats similar in structure to native prairies (such as airports, military reservations, agricultural fields, and dredge formed islands), they are subjected to a variety of unintentional human disturbances such as mowing, recreational and military activities, plowing, flooding, and dredge spoil dumping during the nesting season, as well as intentional disturbances such as at the McChord AFB where falcons and dogs are used to haze the birds in order to avoid aircraft collisions. In some areas, landowners have taken steps to improve streaked horned lark nesting habitat.

The magnitude of threat is high due to small populations with low genetic diversity and patchy and isolated habitats in areas desirable for development. The threat of invasive plant species is high and constant. The numbers of individuals are low and the numbers of populations are few. Overwintering birds are concentrated in larger flocks and subject to unpredictable wintering habitat loss, potentially affecting a large portion of the population at one time. In Washington, known populations occur on airports and two military bases where management and training activities can negatively affect streaked horned lark breeding. In British Columbia, the one potentially remaining site with breeding birds occurs at an airport. The immediacy of threat is imminent, due to the continued loss of suitable lark habitat, risks to the wintering populations, plans for development on and adjacent to two of its nesting areas, use of falcons and dogs to haze breeding birds at McChord AFB, planned expansions of the McChord AFB west ramp and Olympia airport, the planned addition of 130 more helicopters at the Gray Army Airfield, and annual Air Force military training and fire bombing on top of lark nesting habitat. Because of the increased imminence of threats, we changed the listing priority number for the streaked horned lark from 6 to 3.

Reptiles

Black pine snake (

Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi

)— There are historical records for the black pine snake from one parish in Louisiana, 14 counties in Mississippi, and 3 counties in Alabama west of the Mobile River Delta. Black pine snake surveys and trapping indicate that this species has been extirpated from Louisiana and from two counties in Mississippi. Moreover, the distribution of remaining populations has become highly restricted due to the destruction and fragmentation of the remaining longleaf pine habitat within the range of the species. Most of the known Mississippi populations are concentrated on the DeSoto National Forest. Populations occurring on properties managed by city and State agencies as gopher tortoise mitigation banks or wildlife management areas represent the best opportunities for long-term survival of the species in Alabama. Other factors affecting the black pine snake include vehicular mortality and low reproductive rates, which magnify other threats and increase the likelihood of local extinctions. Due to the imminent threat of high magnitude caused by the past destruction of most of the longleaf pine habitat of the black pine snake, and the continuing persistent degradation of what remains, we assigned a listing priority number of 3 to this subspecies. Although there is no actual change in threats over the past year, habitat loss represents an ongoing or imminent threat to the black pine snake. Therefore, to help ensure consistency in

the application of our listing priority process, we changed the listing priority number from a 6 to a 3 to reflect that the threats are imminent.

Louisiana pine snake (

Pituophis ruthveni

)—The Louisiana pine snake historically occurred in fire-maintained longleaf-pine ecosystems of west-central Louisiana and extreme east-central Texas. Louisiana pine snakes are closely associated with Baird's pocket gophers (

Geomys breviceps

) and make extensive use of their burrow systems for foraging, nocturnal and diurnal retreats, escape from predators and fire, and hibernation sites. Within some of the best remaining habitat in their historic range, Louisiana pine snakes have not been documented in over a decade. Results of Louisiana pine snake trapping and radiotelemetry surveys suggest that extensive population declines and local extirpations have occurred during the last 50 to 80 years.

Most of the historical longleaf pine habitat of the Louisiana pine snake has been destroyed, and the habitat quality of that which remains has been degraded due to logging, fire suppression, roadways, short-rotation silviculture, and grazing. Louisiana pine snake habitat loss is continuing, albeit at a slower rate than in the past. The best remaining Louisiana pine snake habitat occurs on lands where periodic burning has continued. Other factors affecting Louisiana pine snakes include low fecundity (reproductive output), which magnifies other threats and increases the likelihood of local extinctions, and vehicular mortality, which may significantly affect Louisiana pine snake population and community structure.

The Candidate Conservation Agreement for the Louisiana pine snake, a comprehensive and voluntary partnership encompassing all Federal lands where pine snake occurrences are known, was recently completed in order to protect known Louisiana pine snake populations and maintain the ecosystem upon which it depends. Several private landowners with known Louisiana pine snake populations are interested in joining that partnership or developing a similar one. The pro-active partnerships to address key management concerns and research needs are growing and these conservation efforts have reduced the magnitude of the threats from high to moderate. However, the primary threat from habitat loss continues and is, therefore, imminent. Thus, based on threats of moderate to low magnitude that are imminent, we have changed the listing priority number from a 5 to an 8.

Amphibians

Relict leopard frog (

Rana onca

)—This leopard frog was considered extinct since the 1950s, until it was rediscovered in two relatively small areas in southern Nevada and a spring in extreme northwestern Arizona. We estimate that the current distribution of the species is 10 to 20 percent of its historical distribution. Habitat conversion to agriculture, water diversions, habitat fragmentation such as construction of Hoover Dam and creation of Lake Mead and Lake Mojave, and introduction and establishment of nonnative predators and competitors are believed to be the primary causes of historical population declines and reduction in the range and distribution of the frog. Currently, the primary threats are low numbers of individuals and populations, nonnative predators and competitors, and the potential for water diversion or ground water pumping. A conservation agreement and strategy completed in 2005 will serve as the management plan for the species. As prescribed in the agreement and strategy, annual work plans will be developed and implemented to monitor threats and the status of the species as well as accomplish conservation actions for the species. The magnitude of existing threats is moderate, which we lowered from the previous determination of high magnitude in 2005. This change in magnitude is largely based on successful captive-rearing and translocation efforts. These threats remain nonimminent since there are no known projects or actions that would adversely affect frog populations or threaten surface water associated with known sites occupied by the frog. Thus, we changed the listing priority number from a 5 to an 11 for this species.

Fishes

Cumberland darter (

Etheostoma susanae

)—The following information is based on information contained in our files. No new information was provided in the petition received on May 11, 2004. This fish species is an approximately 3-inch member of the family Percidae that is endemic to the upper Cumberland River system (above Cumberland Falls) in Kentucky and Tennessee. Currently, the species is restricted to 16 headwater streams in Kentucky and 2 streams in Tennessee. Within these streams, the Cumberland darter inhabits low-velocity, shallow riffles and backwater areas of moderate-to low-gradient stream reaches with stable sand or sandy-gravel substrates. The primary threat to the species is siltation of instream habitats caused by coal mining activities, silvicultural practices, road construction, and urban development. Because the species is limited to only 18 known populations, the magnitude of threat for the species is high; these populations are isolated from one another by poor-quality habitat, impoundments, or natural barriers. The immediacy of threat is nonimminent because (1) Federal and State water quality laws have reduced water quality and habitat threats to some degree, (2) non-point pollution threats and modification of reach geomorphology and hydrology are cumulative and gradual, and (3) approximately 40 percent of watersheds supporting the species are provided habitat and water quality protection through Federal ownership (Daniel Boone National Forest). Consequently, we assigned a listing priority number of 5 to this species. This represents a change in the previous listing priority number, from 6 to 5, due to a change in taxonomic status for the species, not because of a change in threat magnitude or imminence. The Cumberland Johnny darter, E. nigrum susanae, was elevated to specific status (

E. susanae

, Cumberland darter) based on new molecular evidence showing that this subspecies has distinct mitochondrial DNA haplotypes not found in the Johnny darter,

E. nigrum nigrum

.

Rush darter (

Etheostoma phytophilum

)—The following summary is based on information from our files. No new information was provided in the petition received on May 11, 2004. This species is endemic to upland portions of the Black Warrior River system in Alabama where it occurs in shallow headwater streams. This species is uncommon and sporadic within its range, as it favors shallow, flowing water in spring runs and spring-associated streams with emergent vegetation. Only three disjunct populations are known: One in the Clear Creek system in Winston County, one in spring-fed tributaries of Turkey Creek in Jefferson County; and one population in Little Cove Creek (Cove Springs) in Etowah County.

The Jefferson County population (Turkey Creek), which is located in a large metropolitan area, is threatened by urbanization and commercialization of its habitat. Siltation from bridge, road, and sewer line construction has been recently documented within the Turkey Creek watershed by academic researchers and Service biologists. The major threat to the Winston County population of rush darters is erosion in Mill Creek, Doe Branch, and Wildcat Branch, and the cumulative increase of

sediments caused from gravel roads and roadside ditches. Within the past year, biologists have observed increased erosion along roads adjacent to Doe and Wildcat Branches which resulted in increased siltation within those streams. Increased urbanization, road maintenance and silviculture practices contribute to increased sedimentation in the watershed. The major threat to the Cove Springs population is contamination of the water with chlorine. Efforts are underway to improve habitat and water quality; however, at this time all populations are being negatively affected by declining water quality. The magnitude of threat is high due to the limited number of populations. We changed the listing priority from a 5 to a 2 based on the imminent threat; the threat is imminent because water quality is currently declining for all populations.

Clams

Altamaha spinymussel (

Elliptio spinosa

)—The following summary is based on information in our files. The Altamaha spinymussel is a freshwater mussel endemic to the Altamaha River drainage of southeastern Georgia. The historical range was restricted to the Coastal Plain portion of the Altamaha River and the lower portions of its three major tributaries, the Ohoopee, Ocmulgee, and Oconee Rivers. The species is associated with stable, coarse to fine sandy sediments of sandbars and sloughs and appears to be restricted to swiftly flowing water. The species appears to be extirpated from the Ohoopee and Oconee Rivers, and its numbers are greatly reduced in the Ocmulgee and Altamaha Rivers. Altamaha spinymussels face severe habitat degradation from a number of sources. Primary among these are threats from sedimentation and contaminants within the rivers that the Altamaha spinymussel inhabits. A new threat of deadhead logging has recently emerged. These threats to the Altamaha spinymussel are further compounded by its limited distribution and the low population size identified in recent survey efforts. Efforts to identify the host fish and expand our understanding of the spinymussels' life cycle have not produced results, attempts to investigate potential impacts caused by heavy metals have not received funding, a survey conducted in 2004 in the Ocmulgee found no spinymussels, and deadhead logging presents an added threat. Consequently, we now consider the threats to be imminent and have changed the listing priority number from a 5 to a 2 for this species.

Insects

Wekiu bug (

Nysius wekiuicola

)—The wekiu bug belongs to the true bug family, Lygaeidae, and is endemic to the island of Hawaii. This species only occurs on the summit of Mauna Kea and feeds upon other insect species which are blown to the summit of this large volcano. The wekiu bug is primarily threatened by the loss of its habitat from astronomy development. In 2004 and early 2005, surveys were conducted that found multiple new locations of the wekiu bug on Mauna Kea summit. Several of these cinder cones within the Mauna Kea Science Reserve, as well as two other cinder cones located in the State Ice Age Natural Area Reserve, are not currently undergoing development nor is development planned. With the discovery of these new locations, the threats, though ongoing, do not occur across the entire range of the wekiu bug. The immediacy of the threats is imminent in some part of the weiku bug's range because ongoing development is occurring in the Keck Observatory Outrigger telescope project area. This development will establish six new interferometry telescopes around the existing Keck facility. A mitigation plan is in place that will require a 3:1 replacement of damaged habitat. However, the effectiveness of this mitigation is untested and unknown. Although the threats are ongoing in some areas of wekiu bug habitat, the recent discoveries of new locations of the wekiu bug in areas that are not subject to the primary threat of astronomy development reduces the magnitude of the threat from high to moderate. Therefore, we are changing the listing priority number for this species from a 2 to an 8.

Crustaceans

Anchialine pool shrimp (

Vetericaris chaceorum

)—

Vetericaris chaceorum

is an anchialine pool-inhabiting species of shrimp belonging to the family, Procarididae; it is the only species in its genus. This species is endemic to the Hawaiian Islands and is only known from one population in a single pool on the island of Hawaii. There are two primary threats to this species. First, fish do not naturally occur in the pool inhabited by the species, and it would be highly vulnerable to predation by any intentionally or accidentally introduced fish. Anchialine pools have been used to discard or hold bait-fish and/or aquarium fish. Second, the species is vulnerable to habitat loss due to degradation by dumping or fill, or recreational activities. This activity has occurred in the past but this pool now lies within lands administered by the State of Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. There are no conservation efforts underway to eliminate the potential for any of these threats. The magnitude of threats remains high because of the devastating effect that realization of these threats could have on the species because of its restriction to a single pool. However, we changed the listing priority number for this species from a 1 to a 4 because the threats are nonimminent: Fish have not been introduced into the pool (nor is there any reason to believe that introduction is imminent) and a site visit in early 2005 showed there were no signs of dumping or fill.

Anchialine pool shrimp (

Metabetaeus lohena

)—

Metabetaeus lohena

is an anchialine pool inhabiting species of shrimp belonging to the family Alpheidae. This species is endemic to the Hawaiian Islands and is currently known from populations on the islands of Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii. The primary threats to this species are predation by fish (which do not naturally occur in the pools inhabited by this species) and habitat loss from degradation. The pools where this species occurs on Maui and Hawaii are located within State Natural Area Reserves (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 are extensive and happen quickly. Therefore, threats to this species are of a high magnitude. However, we now consider the threat of predation from fish to be nonimminent because no fish were observed during the surveys conducted in the NARs for this shrimp in 2004 and no recent habitat degradation has occurred. In addition, no nonnative fish were observed during several site visits to the Oahu location in 2005. Therefore, we changed the listing priority number of this species from a 2 to a 5.

Anchialine pool shrimp (

Palaemonella burnsi

)—

Palaemonella burnsi

is an anchialine pool inhabiting species of shrimp belonging to the family, Palaemonidae. This species is endemic to the Hawaiian Islands and is currently known from three populations on the island of Maui and one population on the island of Hawaii. The primary threats to this species are predation by fish (which do not naturally occur in the pools inhabited by this species) and habitat loss due to degradation. The pools where this species occurs on Maui are located within a State Natural Area Reserve

(NAR). Hawaii's State statutes prohibit the collection of the species and the disturbance of the pools in State NARs. On the island of Hawaii, the species occurs within a National Park and collection and disturbance are also prohibited. However, enforcement of these prohibitions is difficult, and the negative effects from the introduction of fish are extensive and happen quickly. Therefore, threats to this species are of high magnitude. However, we no longer consider the threats to be imminent, because during a 2004 survey no fish were observed in the pools where these shrimp occur on Maui or the island of Hawaii and there was no evidence of recent habitat degradation. Therefore, the threats of predation from fish and habitat degradation are nonimminent, and consequently we changed the listing priority number of this species from a 2 to a 5.

Anchialine pool shrimp (

Procaris hawaiana

)—

Procaris hawaiana

is an anchialine pool inhabiting species of shrimp belonging to the family, Procarididae. This species is endemic to the Hawaiian Islands and is currently known from two populations on the island of Maui and one population on the island of Hawaii. The primary threats to this species are predation from fish (which do not naturally occur in the pools inhabited by this species) and habitat loss due to degradation. The pools where this species occurs on Maui are located within a State Natural Area Reserve (NAR). Hawaii's State statutes prohibit the collection of the species and the disturbance of the pools in State NARs. However, enforcement of these prohibitions is difficult and the negative effects from the introduction of fish are extensive and happen quickly. There are no conservation efforts underway to alleviate the potential for any of these threats in the one pool on the island of Hawaii. Therefore, threats to this species remain at high magnitude. However, we no longer consider the threats to be imminent because, during a 2004 survey, no fish were observed in the pools where these shrimp occur on Maui or the island of Hawaii. In addition, there were no signs of dumping or fill on a site visit to the location on the island of Hawaii in early 2005. Therefore, we changed the listing priority number of this species from a 2 to a 5.

Flowering plants

Abronia alpina

(Ramshaw Meadows sand-verbena)—

Abronia alpina

is a small perennial herb, 2.5 to 15.2 centimeters (1 to 6 inches) across forming compact mats with lavender-pink, trumpet-shaped, and generally fragment flowers.

Abronia alpina

is known from one main population center in Ramshaw Meadow on the Kern Plateau of the Sierra Nevada, California and from one subpopulation found in adjacent Templeton Meadow. The total estimated area occupied is approximately 6 hectares (15 acres). Population estimates from 1985-1994 range from a low of 69,652 plants in 1986 to 132,215 plants in 1987. Surveys conducted since 1994 indicate that no significant changes have occurred in population size or location, although, the 2003 survey showed population numbers to be at the low end of the range. The population fluctuates from year to year without any clear trends.

The major threats facing

A. alpina

include habitat disturbance and trampling from incidental livestock trailing, pack animals, and hikers; campsite development; and erosion associated with such disturbances. An additional threat is encroachment of lodgepole pine into areas occupied by the species. Lodgepole pine encroachment has altered the meadow and becoming established within

A. alpina

habitat. Lodgepole pine encroachment may alter soil characteristics by increasing organic matter levels, decreasing porosity, and moderating diurnal temperature fluctuations thus reducing the competitive ability of

A. alpina

to persist in an environment more hospitable to other plant species. The Ramshaw Meadow ecosystem is subject to alteration by lowering of the water table due to downcutting of the South Fork of the Kern River (SFKR). The SFKR flows through Ramshaw Meadow, at times coming within 15 meters (50 feet) of

A. alpina

habitat, particularly in the vicinity of five subpopulations. The habitat occupied by

A. alpina

directly borders the meadow system supported by the SFKR. Drying out of the meadow system could affect

A. alpina

pollinators and/or seed dispersal agents. Established hiker, packstock, and cattle trails pass through

A. alpina

subpopulations. Two main hiker trails pass through Ramshaw Meadow, but were rerouted out of

A. alpina

subpopulations where feasible, in 1988 and 1997. Remnants of cattle trails that pass through subpopulations in several places receive occasional incidental use by horses and sometimes hikers. In 2001, the U.S. Forest Service discontinued grazing on the Templeton allotment, which includes Ramshaw Meadow, for a period of 10 years. Consequently, livestock grazing does not currently occur in the two meadow areas where the species is found. However, the Forest Service could change their decision when the 10-year period ends and livestock grazing within

A. alpina

habitat may resume. To ensure consistency in our interpretation of the imminence of threats, we revised the listing priority for

A. alpina

from an 11 to an 8 to reflect the fact that most of these moderate threats are imminent.

Arabis georgiana

(Georgia rockcress)—The Georgia rockcress grows in a variety of dry situations, including shallow soil accumulations on rocky bluffs, ecotones of gently sloping rock outcrops, and in sandy loam along eroding river banks. It is occasionally found in adjacent mesic woods, but it will not persist in heavily shaded conditions. Currently a total of 18 populations are known from the Gulf Coastal Plain, Piedmont, and Ridge and Valley physiographic provinces of Alabama and Georgia. Populations of this species typically have a limited number of individuals over a small area.

Habitat degradation, more than outright habitat destruction, is the most serious threat to this species' continued existence. Disturbance associated with timber harvesting, road building, and grazing has created favorable conditions for the invasion of nonnative weeds, especially Japanese honeysuckle (

Lonicera japonica

), in this species' habitat. Eight populations are currently or potentially threatened by the presence of nonnative plants. The heritage programs in Alabama and Georgia have initiated plans for exotic control at several populations. The magnitude of threats to this species is moderate to low due to the number of populations (18) across multiple counties in two states and the insidious nature of the threats. However, since a number of the populations are currently being impacted by nonnative plants, we now consider the threats to be imminent. Thus, we changed the listing priority number from an 11 to an 8 for this species.

Astralagus toritpes

(Sleeping Ute milkvetch)—The following information is based on information contained in our files. Sleeping Ute milkvetch is a perennial plant that grows only on the Smokey Hills layer of the Mancos Shale Formation on the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Reservation in Montezuma County, Colorado. In 2000, 3,744 plants were recorded at 24 locations covering 500 acres within an overall range of 64,000 acres. Available information from 2000 indicates that the species remains stable. 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 in the past and are potential future threats. Off-highway vehicle use of the habitat is reportedly increasing but we do not have direct evidence of this. Oil and gas development is active in the general area, but we have received no information from the tribe to indicate whether there is development within the habitat for the plants on their land. Because the threats are nonimminent, we changed the listing priority number for Sleeping Ute milkvetch from 8 to 11.

Bidens campylotheca

ssp.

waihoiensis

(Kookoolau)—The following information is based on information contained in our files. Kookoolau is an erect, perennial found in wet

Acacia-Metrosideros

(koa-ohia) forest on Maui, Hawaii.

Bidens campylotheca

ssp.

waihoiensis

is known from one population of 200 individuals. It is threatened by cattle, which eat this plant, and degrade and destroy habitat. The area in which all individuals of this subspecies are currently found is fenced and cattle have been removed. The threats remain of high magnitude, but predation, and habitat degradation and destruction by feral cattle are no longer imminent because they are not currently occurring. Therefore, we have changed the listing priority number for this species from 3 to 6.

Castilleja christii

(Christ's paintbrush)—The following information is based on information contained in our files. This species of paintbrush is found in one population on the summit of Mount Harrison in Cassia County, Idaho. This endemic species is considered a hemiparasite and it grows in association with subalpine meadow and sagebrush habitats. The population found on 85 ha (220 ac) may be large in number (greater than 10,000 individual plants), but, current population estimates are not available. Monitoring indicates that reproductive stems per plant and plant density have decreased significantly since 1995. Although these trends were upward between 2004 and 2005, it is not known if that trend will continue. The habitat on Mount Harrison is bisected by several roads, has been until recently utilized by unauthorized livestock, and is subject to a high degree of recreational use. However, these threats occur seasonally during the growing season, in late-spring and summer periods, and they are currently being controlled by the U.S. Forest Service with fencing, rock barriers, and interpretative signs. The largest threat to the species is from nonnative invasive plants, the majority of which are smooth brome (

Bromus inermis

). The smooth brome infestation was treated in 2003, 2004, and 2005 by the U.S. Forest Service. The success of treating smooth brome that was present in 13.6 percent of the range of

C. christii

in 2005 will not be known immediately, although there is a commitment in a recently signed Conservation Agreement by the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to continue these efforts until they are successful or for the next 10 years. The magnitude of the threats with these conservation measures appears low at this time. However, the smooth brome continues to threaten the habitat for

C. christii

despite control efforts. Plant monitoring transects still contained significant densities of smooth brome following the eradication efforts in 2005. This threat from smooth brome is imminent because this threat still persists in levels that affect the native plant community that provides habitat for

C. christii

. Thus, we changed the listing priority number from an 11 to an 8 for this species since the threats are imminent.

Chamaesyce deltoidea pinetorum

(Pineland sandmat)—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 largest population of the pineland sandmat, estimated at approximately 10,000 plants, is located on Long Pine Key within Everglades National Park. All other populations of the pineland sandmat are smaller and occur on isolated pine rockland fragments in heavily urbanized Miami-Dade County. Those populations on private lands are at risk from development and habitat degradation. Populations on most public and private lands in urban Miami-Dade County are inherently vulnerable to invasion by exotic plants, fire suppression or inadequate prescribed fire, and limited management. Overall, the magnitude of threats to this species is moderate since by applying regular prescribed fire, the National Park Service has kept Long Pine Key's pineland vegetation intact and relatively free of exotic pest plants. In addition, after a thorough review of the status and threats to the pineland sandmat, we determined that the threats are non-imminent. Therefore, we changed the listing priority number from a 9 to a 12 for this subspecies.

Erigeron lemmonii

(Lemmon fleabane)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files and the petition received in July of 1975. The species is known from one site in a canyon in the Fort Huachuca Military Reservation of southeastern Arizona. As of 1991, approximately 400 plants were known from this site. No formal surveys have been done since that time, but the population seemed stable throughout the 1990s. The threats to this species are from catastrophic wildfire in the canyon and on-going drought conditions. We do not know if this species has any adaptations to fire. Due to its location on cliffs, we suspect that fires that may have occurred at more regular intervals and burned at low intensities may have had little to no effect on this species. It is due only to lack of fire and the accumulated fuel load that the fire intensity and associated heat may be high enough to damage or kill plants on adjacent cliffs, especially near the ground. On the other hand, the plants that are much higher on the cliff face would probably not be affected. Ft. Huachuca has indicated a willingness to develop a conservation agreement for this species. We now consider the magnitude of threats to be moderate rather than high because we believe that not all of the population would be adversely affected by a wildfire or drought. The threats are still imminent because the likelihood of a fire is high. Therefore, we changed the listing priority number from a 5 to an 8 due to moderate, imminent threats.

Geranium hanaense

(Nohoanu)—This species is a decumbent shrub found in bogs on Maui, Hawaii. This species is known from one population with 300 to 500 individuals.

Geranium hanaense

is threatened by pigs that degrade and destroy habitat, and by nonnative plants that outcompete and displace it. However, feral pigs have been fenced out of and removed from both bogs in which this species currently occurs, and a control program has reduced nonnative plants in all fenced areas. This changes the immediacy of the threats form imminent to nonimminent. Therefore, we have changed the listing priority number for this species from 2 to 5.

Geranium kauaiense

(Nohoanu)—Nohoanu is a decumbent subshrub found in bogs and bog margins on Kauai, Hawaii. This species is known from three populations totaling 100 to 200 individuals in the Alakai Swamp area.

Geranium kauaiense

is threatened by pigs that directly prey upon it, degrade and destroy habitat, and by nonnative plants that outcompete and displace it. Feral pigs have been fenced out of the three bogs where

G. kauaiense

currently occurs, and nonnative plants have been greatly reduced in all three fenced bogs, and are not found in the immediate vicinity of any

G. kauaiense

individuals. Because these threats are of high magnitude but no longer are imminent, we have changed the listing priority number from 2 to 5.

Pediocactus peeblesianus

var.

fickeiseniae

(Fickeisen plains cactus) “ The Fickeisen plains cactus is a small cactus known from the Gray Mountain vicinity to the Arizona strip in Coconino and Mohave Counties, Arizona. The cactus grows on exposed layers of Kaibab limestone on canyon margins and well-drained hills in Navajoan desert or grassland. In 1999, the Arizona Game and Fish Department noted 23 occurrences for the species, including historical ones. The species is located on BLM, Forest Service, tribal, and possibly State lands. Recent reports from the BLM and Navajo Nation describe populations of the species as being in decline. The main human-induced threats to this cactus are off-road vehicles and trampling associated with livestock grazing. Monitoring data has detected mortality associated with livestock grazing. Illegal collection of this species has been noted in the past, but we do not know if it is a continuing threat. The populations that have been monitored have been affected, in part, by the continuing drought. There has been very low recruitment and rabbits and rodents have consumed adult plants since there is reduced forage available during these dry conditions. In our prior assessments, we concluded that threats were not imminent. However, using a consistent interpretation of imminence related to whether threats are on-going, we are correcting our ranking to reflect that the threats are imminent. As a result, we changed the LPN for this plant variety from a 6 to a 3.

Potentilla basaltica

(Soldier Meadow cinquefoil or basalt cinquefoil)—Soldier Meadow cinquefoil is a low growing, rhizomatous, herbaceous perennial that is associated with alkali meadows, seeps, and occasionally marsh habitats bordering perennial thermal springs, outflows, and meadow depressions. In Humboldt County, Nevada, the species is known only from Soldier Meadow, which is located at the northern extreme of the western arm of the Black Rock Desert in the transition zone between the Basin and Range Physiographic Province and the Columbia Plateau Province. In northeastern California, the species is known from Ash Valley near Ash Creek in Lassen County. In Nevada, Soldier Meadow cinquefoil has been documented from 10 discrete occurrences within an area of about 70 acres that supports about 130,000 individuals. The California population occupies less than an acre on private lands and supports fewer than 1,000 plants.

The species and its habitat are threatened by increasing recreational use in the areas where it occurs as well as historic livestock grazing and activities associated with the use of authorized and unauthorized roads. Conservation measures implemented recently by the Bureau of Land Management include the installation of fencing to exclude livestock wild horses, burros and other large mammals; closing of access roads to spring, riparian, and wetland areas and the limiting of vehicles to designated routes; the establishment of a designated campground away from the habitats of sensitive species; the installation of educational signage and, an increased staff presence, including law enforcement and a volunteer site steward during the six-month period of peak visitor use. These conservation measures have reduced the magnitude of threat to the species from high to moderate; all remaining threats are nonimminent and involve long-term changes to the habitat for the species resulting from past impacts. In consideration of these conservation measures, we lowered the listing priority number from 5 to 11.

Other Taxonomic Changes in Candidates

Flowering Plants

Physaria tuplashensis

, (White Bluffs bladder-pod)—The following summary is based on information from our files. No new information was provided in the petition received on May 11, 2004. This species is in the Cruciferae (Mustard family). Historically and currently, White Bluffs bladder-pod has only been known from a single population that occurs along the White Bluffs of the Columbia River in Franklin County, Washington.

Physaria tuplashensis

was originally described as

Lesquerella tuplashensis

in 1996, which is the name we have used for it in prior CNORs. In 2002, there was a suggestion that the

Lesquerella

and

Physaria

genera should be united as

Physaria

, and that

L. tuplashensis

should be reduced to

P. douglasii

subspecies

tuplashensis

. A recent study (2005) recommended accepting the new genus name of

Physaria

and, supported by metamorphic work, proposed retaining full species status for the taxon, and a new nomenclature:

Physaria tuplashensis

. We recognize this new nomenclature in this notice. There are no changes in the magnitude or imminence of threats to the taxon, so we continue to assign a listing priority number of 5 to this species.

Candidate Removals

As summarized below, we have evaluated the threats to the following 10 species and considered factors that, individually and in combination, presently or potentially could pose a risk to these species and their habitat. After a review of the best available scientific and commercial data, we conclude that listing these 10 species under the Endangered Species Act is not warranted because the species are not likely to become endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their range. Therefore, we find that proposing a rule to list these species is not warranted, and we no longer consider them to be candidate species for listing. We will continue to monitor the status of these species, and to accept additional information and comments concerning this finding. We will reconsider this determination in the event that new information indicates that the threats to these species are of a considerably greater magnitude or imminence than identified through assessments of information in our files, as summarized here. The summary below also notes four other species for which we published separate findings removing them from candidate status since the most recent CNOR.

Birds

Many-colored fruit-dove (

Ptilinopus perousii perousii

)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files.

P. p. perousii

, is found in American Samoa on the four main islands of Tutuila, Olosega, Ofu, and Tau, and in Independent Samoa. It is primarily associated with mature rainforest habitat. The many-colored fruit-dove is highly mobile and may travel large distances, presumably in search of fruiting banyans (

Ficus prolixa

and

F. obliqua

). The American Samoa population of

P. p. perousii

is the only population of this subspecies under U.S. jurisdiction. The primary threats we recognized in the past are its small population size, stochastic natural disturbances such as hurricanes, the accidental introduction of new pathogens or parasites, and possibly predation by introduced mammalian predators. We previously assigned a listing priority number of 12 to this taxon, reflecting threats that we determined were of low magnitude and not imminent. Five years of monitoring documented an increase in the relative abundance of the subspecies prior to Hurricane Heta in January of 2004 and Hurricane Olaf in February 2005. The upward trend has been stalled by these severe storms, but continued monitoring should indicate whether (as we expect) effects of the 2004 and 2005 hurricanes have caused a temporary, but natural,

interruption in the trend of increase, or whether hurricane effects have reversed this trend. Avian malaria, once thought to possibly pose a threat to this subspecies, likely is not pathogenic in Samoa. The stable distribution of the subspecies and recent documented increase in relative abundance in American Samoa suggest that the threats summarized above currently are not having a detrimental effect on the subspecies' overall population, and it is unlikely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. Therefore, listing is not warranted.

Gunnison sage-grouse (

Centrocercus minimus

)—

See

separate revised 12-month petition finding published in the

Federal Register

on April 18, 2006 (71 FR 19953).

Reptiles

Cagle's map turtle (

Graptemys caglei

)—The following information is based on information contained in our files, including information from the petition received April 26, 1991. Cagle's map turtle occurs in scattered sites in seven counties in Texas on the Guadalupe, San Marcos, and Blanco Rivers. We previously identified loss and degradation of riverine habitat from large and small impoundments (dams or reservoirs) as the primary threat to the Cagle's map turtle. One effect of impoundment is the loss of riffle and riffle/pool transition areas used by males for foraging. Depending on its size, a dam itself may be a partial or complete barrier to Cagle's map turtle movement and could fragment populations. In the past, construction of smaller impoundments and human activities on the rivers known to be occupied by the Cagle's map turtle have likely eliminated or reduced foraging and basking habitats. Currently, there are no firm plans for reservoirs in the Guadalupe-San Antonio River System. Cagle's map turtle is also vulnerable to overcollecting and target shooting but actions taken by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) have increased protection of the species against collecting and shooting. Cagle's map turtle was listed as threatened by TPWD, effective November 16, 2000, and TPWD regulations prohibit the taking, possession, transportation, or sale of any of the animal species designated by state law as endangered or threatened without the issuance of a permit. Estimates of population numbers of the species in the Guadalupe and San Marcos Rivers in 1991 and 2001 indicates an overall population increase, although estimated populations at some sites declined. Because of stable population size, increased protection, and no foreseeable threats from reservoir construction, we find that listing Cagle's map turtle is not warranted.

Amphibians

Boreal toad (Southern Rocky Mountains DPS) (

Bufo boreas boreas

)—

see

separate revised 12-month petition finding published in the

Federal Register

on September 29, 2005 (70 FR 56880).

Insects

Lesser Adams Cave beetle (

Pseudanophthalmus cataryctos

Krekeler) and Greater Adams Cave beetle (

P. pholeter

Krekeler)—

see

Federal Register

notice published on December 8, 2005 (70 FR 72973).

Po’olanui gall fly (

Phaeogramma

sp.)—Because there is no published name or description for this fly, this taxa is not considered valid and does not meet the Act’s definition of a species and is not eligible for listing. Therefore, we find that listing is not warranted.

Crustaceans

Anchialine pool shrimp (

Antecaridina lauensis

)—This species has a disjunct, Indo-Pacific distribution. It has been reported from the Fiji Islands, Mozambique Channel (Madagascar), the Red Sea-Dahlak, Ryukyu and Daito Islands (Japan), the Solomon Islands and the Hawaiian Islands. In Hawaii,

A. lauensis

is known from two pool groups on Maui (Ahihi-Kinau State Natural Area Reserve) and two pools on the southern end of the island of Hawaii (Lua o Palahemo, and one on private land). Like other anchialine pool shrimp species, it is believed that this species inhabits an extensive network of water-filled interstitial spaces (cracks and crevices) leading to and from the actual pool, and this trait has precluded researchers from obtaining population size estimates during surveys for the species. In Lua o Palahemo on the island of Hawaii,

A. lauensis

co-occurs with two other candidate species of anchialine pool shrimp,

Procaris hawaiana

and

Vetericaris chaceorum

, and with

Calliasmata pholidota

(see below).

Although we have information on the threats to the population in Hawaii, population numbers and threats to the species where it occurs elsewhere in the world are unknown. We find that listing is not warranted because there is insufficient information on the species' status throughout its range to determine whether it warrants protection under the Act. We are unable to consider listing the Hawaii population as a distinct population segment since this animal is not a vertebrate.

Anchialine pool shrimp (

Calliasmata pholidota

) “ This species has a disjunct, Indo-Pacific distribution. It has been reported from the Red Sea-Sinai Peninsula, Funafuti Atoll (Ellice Islands), and the Hawaiian Islands of Maui and Hawaii. On the island of Hawaii,

C. pholidota

occurs in one pool at Ka Lae (South Point) at Lua o Palahemo and in one pool group in the Manuka Natural Area Reserve (NAR). On Maui,

C. pholidota

is found in four pool groups in the Ahihi-Kinau NAR. At Lua o Palahemo,

C. pholidota

co-occurs with two other candidate species of anchialine pool shrimp,

Procaris hawaiana

and

Vetericaris chaceorum

, and with

Antecaridina lauensis

(see above). Like other anchialine pool shrimp species, it is believed that this species inhabits an extensive network of water-filled interstitial spaces (cracks and crevices) leading to and from the actual pool, and this trait has precluded researchers from obtaining more accurate population size estimates during surveys for the species. Worldwide species status information, including population numbers and threats to the species outside the U.S. is unknown. We find that listing is not warranted because there is insufficient information on the species status throughout its range to determine whether this species warrants protection under the Act. We are unable to consider listing the Hawaii population as a distinct population segment since this animal is not a vertebrate.

Flowering Plants

Aliciella cespitosa

(=

Gilia caespitosa

) (wonderland alice-flower or Rabbit Valley gilia)—The wonderland alice-flower (also known as Rabbit Valley gilia) is a plant within the Phlox family found in Wayne County, Utah. The species is primarily associated with sand-filled pockets and crevices of Navajo Sandstone on slopes having mechanical weathering or erosion of rock in pinyon-juniper/mountain mahogany vegetation communities between 5,200 and 9,000 feet in elevation.

This species occurs in more sites and is much more abundant than was initially thought. In 1996 we knew of 6 population areas with an estimated total of 5,000 plants. However, increased surveys from 2000 to 2003 identified 50 known sites at the 6 population areas, with an estimated 25,350 individual plants. For the past several years our assessments of this species concluded that threats were moderate to low and were nonimminent, and we assigned it

a listing priority number of 11. We identified potential collection of plants and seeds as a significant threat. However, we have no evidence that collection is occurring, or if it is occurring that it is impacting the overall status of the species. We also have no information to suggest that collection in the future is likely to put populations at risk at any of the sites currently known to be occupied. Other threats we identified included impacts associated with recreational trails, off-road vehicle use, livestock trampling, and low natural recruitment. Although some of these threats are ongoing, they are localized, and appear to have little impact. The majority of sites are not easily accessible, and the factors that currently or potential could impact individuals have not been shown to affect the species rangewide, nor do we expect that to become the case. In addition, a Conservation Agreement and Strategy, signed in 1996 and currently being updated, promotes continued cooperation among the agencies and helps to direct a variety of conservation actions, including: Inventory remaining suitable habitats; identify research needs and conduct studies; refine monitoring protocols; continue monitoring; implement land management policies and regulations for protection of Navajo endemic plant species; and continue to pursue public awareness opportunities. Based on our updated assessment, we find that listing this species is not warranted.

Astragalus equisolensis

(horseshoe milkvetch)—Horseshoe milkvetch is a plant in the pea family and is found on the Duchesne River Formation in Uintah county, Utah and Mesa county, Colorado. It is associated with mixed desert and salt desert shrub vegetation communities that are generally dominated by sagebrush, shadscale and horsebrush. Surveys in 1992 estimated the population at 10,000 in Utah and there is no recent information indicating it has declined; the Colorado population is a recent discovery. The only potential threat of substance is from future energy development, but that does not threaten the species through most of its range. Based on available information, including the recent discovery of the species in Colorado and an apparent low level of potential threat, we do not have sufficient information to justify a determination that the species should be proposed for listing. Therefore, we find that listing this species is not warranted.

Castilleja aquariensis

(Aquarius paintbrush)—The Aquarius paintbrush is a plant in the figwort family found only on the Aquarius plateau of south central Utah. Habitat characteristics are meadow openings and open spruce-fir stands. A recent survey conducted in 2004 and 2005 counted 74,100 individuals, a much higher number than earlier estimates. Factors affecting the species include off-road vehicle use; wildlife and livestock grazing; predation by pocket gophers, aphids, crickets and grasshoppers; and low precipitation. However, we do not have any evidence that these factors are a significant threat to population levels. Therefore, we find that listing the species is not warranted.

Paronychia congesta

(Bushy whitlow-wort)—Bushy whitlow-wort is endemic to Jim Hogg County, Texas, known from only two populations that occur within the drainage of two tributaries of the Arroyo Grande. Historically, this species was documented only from the type locality with 2,000 individual plants counted. A second small population of 100 individuals was found two miles north-northeast of the type locality in 1987. The two known populations occur on small areas that cover approximately 5 and 15 acres. Little quantitative data have been collected for this species, therefore we do not know whether populations have expanded or contracted. The sparse information that is available suggests the current range and distribution of the species has not changed from the historical description. The types of factors believed to potentially adversely affect this species include destruction, modification, and fragmentation of the habitat, as well as eradication of individual plants. However, conversion of rangeland to residential development is not considered a significant threat since this part of southern Texas is not undergoing rapid residential or industrial development. The extent of alteration of the whitlow-wort's habitat via conversion of native brush to nonnative forage grasses is unknown since all of its habitat is privately owned and not accessible. Other potential threats include displacement or destruction of individual plants by construction activities associated with highways, pipeline installation, oil and gas exploration, well-pad construction and right-of-way maintenance. However, we do not have any information on the likely implementation of these potential activities and no ongoing imminent threats have been identified for this species. We have determined that listing is not warranted because insufficient information exists on biological vulnerability and threats to support a proposal to list this species.

Sidalcea hickmanii parishii

(Parish's checkerbloom)—Parish's checkerbloom is an herbaceous perennial plant in the mallow family (Malvaceae), with multiple stems emerging annually from a woody root crown. It most commonly appears following fires, apparently having evolved to rapidly take advantage of unvegetated openings in forest or chaparral. Most historic collections, and all currently known populations, are known from open areas along roads, trails, firebreaks, small landslides, or in recently burned areas. All known populations are on USDA Forest Service lands. Parish's checkerbloom has been collected from San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties, California. Its distribution in San Bernardino County appears to be particularly restricted, although the vagueness of historical location information and the plant's emergence primarily following fire make it difficult to accurately assess its distribution. The discovery of a new, albeit small, population found on the desert-facing slopes of the San Bernardino Mountains in 2000 suggests that habitat not previously considered suitable may in fact be so.

Threats identified for this taxon fall into two groups—those that negatively affect individual or small groups of plants (the “expressed” portions of what may be larger populations in seedbanks), and those that have the potential to substantially alter a large area of surrounding habitat or damage any unexpressed seedbanks that may occur in surrounding soils. Activities in the former group include livestock grazing on individual plants along roads and grading of existing roads. Those in the later group include altered fire regimes (

e.g.

aggressive fire suppression, prescribed burning in winter or spring), post-fire livestock grazing, development or expansion of roads and facilities (

e.g.

recreational, military communication facilities, or development of private inholdings), and invasion by nonnative species. The southern portion of this taxon's range, in San Bernardino County, is most vulnerable to these activities due to its more restricted distribution there, its closer proximity to human population centers, and the area's greater recreational use.

Review of recent information indicates the number of populations located is greater and the known range of the taxon is larger than we previously understood. Also, our conclusion regarding the magnitude and the immediacy of the threats has shifted with the additional information we have about the species. We considered the magnitude of threats to individuals, as well as habitat with unexpressed seedbank, was greater when we only knew of 3 small extant locations for the species as compared to now, when we

are aware of 5 extant locations, including 1 with a large population. We also considered the immediacy of the threats to be greater when we only knew of 3 small extant locations for the species. For some human-caused activities, such as road grading and construction of fire breaks, we have had the opportunity to observe that these activities most likely caused the expression of a portion of the seedbank, in a sense providing some of the same habitat conditions that are provided by wildfire (removal of litter, scarification of seed). This suggests that at least certain human activities can be altered (such as in timing of grading) so that they will not negatively impact the species. Although there is great uncertainty regarding how and to what extent future wildfires may release the seedbank of this species, we do not believe that the threat from lack of fires or any human-caused activities are imminent (as compared to a known threat from a planned activity with a definite timeline, such as a housing development) or substantial. Therefore, we find that listing is not warranted.

Petition Findings

The Act provides two mechanisms for considering species for listing. One method allows the Secretary, on his own initiative, to identify species for listing under the standards of section 4(a)(1). We implement this through the candidate program, discussed above. The second method for listing a species provides a mechanism for the public to petition us to add a species to the Lists. Under section 4(b)(3)(A), when we receive such a petition, we must determine within 90 days, to the maximum extent practicable, whether the petition presents substantial information that listing may be warranted (a “90-day finding”). If we make a positive 90-day finding, we must promptly commence a status review of the species under section 4(b)(3)(A); we must then make and publish one of three possible findings within 12 months of the receipt of the petition (a “12-month finding”):

1. The petitioned action is not warranted;

2. The petitioned action is warranted (in which case we are required to promptly publish a proposed regulation to implement the petitioned action; once we publish a proposed rule for a species, section 4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) govern further procedures regardless of whether we issued the proposal in response to a petition); or

3. The petitioned action is warranted but that (a) the immediate proposal of a regulation and final promulgation of regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by pending proposals, and (b) expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to the lists of endangered or threatened species. (We refer to this as a “warranted-but-precluded finding.”)

Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that when we make a warranted-but-precluded finding on a petition, we are to treat such a petition as one that is resubmitted on the date of such a finding. Thus, we are required to publish new 12-month findings on these “resubmitted” petitions on an annual basis.

On December 5, 1996, we made a final decision to redefine “candidate species” to mean those species for which the Service has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support issuance of a proposed rule to list, but for which issuance of the proposed rule is precluded (61 FR 64481, December 6, 1996). Therefore, the standard for making a species a candidate through our own initiative is identical to the standard for making a warranted-but-precluded 12-month petition finding on a petition to list, and we add all petitioned species for which we have made a warranted-but-precluded 12-month finding to the candidate list.

This publication also provides notice of substantial 90-day findings and the warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings pursuant to section 4(b)(3) for candidate species listed on Table 1 that we identified on our own initiative, and that subsequently have been the subject of a petition to list. Even though all candidate species identified through our own initiative already have received the equivalent of substantial 90-day and warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings, we reviewed the status of the newly petitioned candidate species and through this CNOR are publishing 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.

Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act, once a petition is filed regarding a candidate species, we must make a 12-month petition finding in compliance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act at least once a year, until we publish a proposal to list the species or make a final not-warranted finding. We make this annual finding for petitioned candidate species through the CNOR.

Section 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the Act requires us to “implement a system to monitor effectively the status of all species” for which we have made a warranted-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 candidate, whether it was identified through our own initiative or through the petition process, we will make prompt use of the emergency listing authority under section 4(b)(7). We have been reviewing and will continue to review, at least annually, the status of every candidate whether or not we have received a petition to list it. Thus, the CNOR and accompanying species assessment forms also constitute the Service's annual finding on the status of petitioned species pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i).

On June 20, 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the 1999 CNOR (64 FR 57534, October 25, 1999) did not demonstrate that we fulfilled the second component of the warranted-but-precluded 12-month petition findings for the Gila chub and Chiracahua leopard frog (

Center for Biological Diversity

v.

Norton

, 254 F.3d 833 (9th Cir. 2001)). The court found that the one-line designation in the table of candidates in the 1999 CNOR, with no further explanation, did not satisfy section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii)'s requirement that the Service publish a finding “together with a description and evaluation of the reasons and data on which the finding is based.” The court suggested that this one-line statement of candidate status also precluded meaningful judicial review.

On June 21, 2004, the United States District Court for Oregon agreed that we can use the CNOR as a vehicle for making petition findings and that our reasoning for why listing is precluded does not need to be based on an assessment at a regional level (as opposed to a national level) (

Center for Biological Diversity

v.

Norton

Civ. No. 03-1111-AA (D. Or.)). However, this court found that our discussion on why listing the candidate species were precluded by other actions lacked

specificity; in the list of species that were the subject of listing actions that precluded us from proposing to list candidate species, we did not state the specific action at issue for each species in the list and we did not indicate which actions were court-ordered.

On June 22, 2004, in a similar case, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California also concluded that our determination of preclusion may appropriately be based on a national analysis (

Center for Biological Diversity

v.

Norton

No. CV S-03-1758 GEB/DAD (E.D. Cal.)). This court also found that the Act's imperative that listing decisions be based solely on science applies only to the determination about whether listing is warranted, not the question of when listing is precluded.

On March 24, 2005, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that we may not consider critical habitat activities in justifying our inability to list candidate species, requiring that we justify both our preclusion findings and our demonstration of expeditious progress by reference to listing proceedings for unlisted species (

California Native Plant Society

v.

Norton

, Civ. No. 03-1540 (JR) (D.D.C.)). The court further found that we must adequately itemize priority listings, explain why certain species are of high priority, and explain why actions on these high-priority species preclude listing species of lower priority. The court approved our reliance on national rather than regional priorities and workload in establishing preclusion and approved our basic explanation that listing candidate species may be precluded by statutorily mandated deadlines, court-ordered actions, higher-priority listing activities, and a limited budget.

We drafted the previous CNOR to address the concerns of these courts and continue to incorporate those changes that addressed the courts' concerns in this CNOR. We include a description of the reasons why the listing of every petitioned candidate species is both warranted and precluded at this time. We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first and also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis (

see

below). Regional priorities can also be discerned from Table 1, which includes the lead region and the listing priority number for each species. Our preclusion determinations are further based upon our budget for listing activities for unlisted species and we explain the priority system and why the work we have accomplished does preclude action on listing candidate species.

Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(ii) and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 206), any party with standing may challenge the merits of any not-warranted or warranted-but-precluded petition finding incorporated in this CNOR. The analysis included herein, together with the administrative record for the decision at issue (particularly the supporting species assessment form), will provide an adequate basis for a court to review the petition finding.

Nothing in this document or any of our policies should be construed as in any way modifying the Act's requirement that we make a resubmitted 12-month petition finding for each petitioned candidate within one year of the date of publication of this CNOR. If we fail to make any such finding on a timely basis, whether through publication of a new CNOR or some other form of notice, any party with standing may seek judicial review.

In this CNOR, we are addressing the concerns of the courts by adding more specific information into our discussion on preclusion (

see

below). In preparing this CNOR, we reviewed the current status of and threats to the 245 candidates and 5 listed species for which we have received a petition and for which we have found listing or reclassification from threatened to endangered to be warranted-but-precluded. We find that the immediate issuance of a proposed rule and timely promulgation of a final rule for each of these species has been, for the preceding months, and continues to be, precluded by higher priority listing actions. Additional information that is the basis for this finding is found in the species assessments and our administrative record for each species.

This is the first 12-month petition finding for two species, the New England cottontail and the red knot, that were petitioned prior to this CNOR but for which we have not already published a separate warranted-but-precluded 12-month finding. We previously published a separate substantial 90-day petition finding for the New England cottontail (69 FR 39395).

Our review included updating the status of and threats to petitioned candidate or listed species for which we published findings, pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(B), in the previous CNOR. We have incorporated new information we gathered since the prior finding and, as a result of this review, we are making continued warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings on the petitions for these species.

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. As discussed above, 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 May 2, 2005, through August 23, 2006. We will continue to monitor the status of all candidate species, including petitioned species, as new information becomes available. This review will determine if a change in status is warranted, including the need to emergency-list a species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act.

In addition to identifying petitioned candidate species in Table 1 below, we also present brief summaries of why these particular candidates warrant 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://endangered.fws.gov/.

As described above, under section 4 of the Act we may identify and propose species for listing based on the factors identified in section 4(a)(1), and section 4 also provides a mechanism for the public to petition us to add a species to the lists of species determined to be threatened species or endangered species under the Act. Below we describe the actions that continue to preclude the immediate proposal of a regulation and final promulgation of a regulation implementing the petitioned action, and we describe the expeditious progress we are making to add qualified species to the lists of endangered or threatened species.

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress

Preclusion is a function of the listing priority of a species in relation to the resources that are available and competing demands for those resources. (As described above in the Summary, the listing priority of a species is represented by the listing priority number we assign to it.) Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate whether it will be possible to undertake work on a proposed listing regulation or whether promulgation of such a proposal is warranted but precluded by higher priority listing actions.

The resources available for listing actions are determined through the annual appropriations process, and we cannot spend more than is appropriated for the Listing Program without

violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341 (a)(1)(A)). The number of listing actions that we can undertake in a given year also is influenced by the complexity of those listing actions,

i.e.

, more complex actions generally are more costly. For example, for FY 2005, the costs (excluding publication costs) for conducting a 12-month finding, without a proposed rule, ranged from approximately $11,000 for one species with a restricted range and involving a relatively uncomplicated analysis, to $305,000 for another species that was wide-ranging and involved a complex analysis.

In FY 1998 and for each fiscal year since then, Congress placed a statutory cap on funds which may be expended for listing and critical habitat actions (

i.e.

, the Listing Program), equal to the amount expressly appropriated for that purpose in that fiscal year. This cap was designed to prevent funds appropriated for other ESA functions, or for other Service programs, from being used for listing or critical habitat actions (

see

House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st Session, July 1, 1997).

Beginning in FY 2002, Congress also put in place the critical habitat “subcap,” which put an upper limit on the Listing Program funds that could be spent on work related to critical habitat designations for already listed species. Recognizing that designation of critical habitat for species already listed would consume most of the overall Listing Program appropriation, Congress put the subcap in place to ensure that some funds would be available to make other listing determinations: “The critical habitat designation subcap will ensure that some funding is available to address other listing activities” (H.R. Rep. No. 103, 107th Cong., 1st Sess. 2001 at 30, 2001 WL 695998). Because the Service has had to use virtually the entire critical habitat subcap to address court-mandated designations of critical habitat, Congress and the Courts have in effect determined, through the listing cap, the critical habitat subcap, and the amount of funds needed to address court-mandated critical habitat designations, the amount available for other listing activities. It is this amount (

i.e.

, the funds in the listing cap other than those needed to address court-mandated critical habitat for already listed species) that is used in the determination here of preclusion and expeditious progress.

Congress also recognized that the availability of resources was the key element in deciding whether we would issue a listing proposal or make a “warranted but precluded” finding for a given species. The Conference Report accompanying Public Law 97-304, which established the current statutory deadlines and the warranted-but-precluded finding, states (in a discussion on 90-day petition findings that by its own terms also covers 12-month findings) that the deadlines were “not intended to allow the Secretary to delay commencing the rulemaking process for any reason other than that the existence of pending or imminent proposals to list species subject to a greater degree of threat would make allocation of resources to such a petition [

i.e.

, for a lower-ranking species] unwise.” Therefore, in fiscal year 2005, the outer parameter within which “expeditious progress” must be measured is that amount of progress that could be achieved by spending $5.6 million, which included $4.6 million available in the Listing Program appropriation not within the critical habitat subcap plus approximately $1.0 million from the critical habitat subcap that was not needed to comply with court orders or court-approved settlement agreements for critical habitat designations. The rest of the critical habitat subcap funds were used to comply with court orders or court-approved settlement agreements for designating critical habitat for previously listed species, and thus were not available for other listing activities.

Our process is to make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first and also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis. However, through court orders and court-approved settlements, federal district courts have mandated that we must complete certain listing activities with respect to specified species and have established the schedules by which we must complete those activities. The species involved in these court-mandated listing activities are not always those that we have identified as being most in need of listing. A large majority of the appropriation available for new listings of species (

i.e.

$5.6 million) was consumed by such court-mandated listing activities in FY 2005, and by ordering or sanctioning these actions the courts essentially determined that these were the highest priority actions to be undertaken with available funding. Copies of the court orders and settlement agreements referred to below are available from the Service and are part of the administrative record for these resubmitted petition findings.

On December 8, 2004, the President signed the 2005 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 108-447), which, as a result of the subcap and subsequent rescissions, in effect included $4,643,000 for listing activities not related to critical habitat designations for species that already are listed. However, as discussed above, a relatively small portion of the critical habitat subcap was used for listing actions resulting in a total of $5,604,178 being expended for listing actions. This appropriation was fully allocated to fund the following categories of actions in the Listing Program: Essential litigation-related, and administrative- and program-management functions; compliance with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements requiring that petition findings or listing determinations be completed by a specific date; section 4 listing actions with absolute statutory deadlines; and a few high-priority listing actions. While more funds were available in FY 2005 than in previous years to work on listing actions that were not the subject of court-orders or court-approved settlement agreements, based on the available funds and their allocation for these purposes, only limited FY 2005 funds were available for work on proposed listing determinations for the following candidate species included in Table 1 of this notice: Arctic grayling, Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail,

Astelia waialealae, Cyrtandra kaulantha,

and

Phyllostegia hispida.

FY 2005 Listing Allocation

Allocated

Available

balance

FY05 Appropriation (including space reprogramming)

$5,604,178

$5,604,178

Space reprogramming (program's portion of rent for building space)

254,749

5,349,429

Regional & Washington Offices (staff salaries & benefits)

1,344,660

4,004,769

Printing

612,405

3,392,364

90-day findings

613,224

2,779,140

12-month findings

1,342,159

1,436,981

Proposed Listing/CH

579,370

857,611

Final Listing/CH

550,116

307,495

Attorney Fees/Litigation Expenses

307,400

95

Specific details regarding the individual actions taken using the FY 2005 funding, which precluded our ability to undertake listing proposals for any of the candidate species, except the species noted above, are provided below (information on the cost of individual actions is part of our administrative record).

We note here that the category of “high-priority listing actions” mentioned above refers to actions for which no timeline has been established by a court order or settlement agreement, and that also are not subject to an absolute statutory deadline. Our ability to work on such listing actions is quite limited. Until FY 2006, our allocation of Listing Program funds has included a limited amount of funding (100,000) to each Regional office to ensure that the office maintains minimal core capacity (at least one staff person) for listing actions (

e.g.

, evaluating the status of species to help ensure that a emergency listing action can be taken if necessary, and participating in work to meet the statutory requirement to annually review and make findings on resubmitted petitions). In a Region that faces a relatively limited workload in the Listing Program with regard to deadlines resulting from court orders or settlement agreements, and a relatively limited workload related to meeting statutory deadlines, some of this “capability” funding may be available to address high priority listing actions. However, in most Regions the limited amount of capability funding for Regional offices included in an allocation is used for work associated with supporting listing actions related to court orders or settlement agreements, and for meeting statutory deadlines. This work includes providing training and oversight of field personnel and reviewing their work and making recommendations to the Regional Director on listing actions. Where this is the case, there are no funds available for high-priority listing actions.

The overall Listing Program situation in FY 2006 is similar to that in FY 2005. For FY 2006, Congress appropriated $5,131,000 (after rescissions) to the listing program for activities other than critical habitat designations for already listed species (Pub. L. 109-54, signed on August 2, 2005). We have fully allocated the $5,131,000 to fund the following listing actions: Any emergency listings; essential litigation-related, administrative, and program management functions; compliance with court orders or court-approved settlement agreements requiring petition findings or listing determinations; statutorily-required petition findings; other high-priority listing actions; and work on proposed listing determinations for some high-priority candidate species. In addition, by the end of FY 2005 we had realized some savings, largely in printing costs, as compared to our estimated costs. Therefore, we were able to reallocate these remaining FY 2005 funds to help cover some of the printing costs associated with listing actions in FY 2006. As a result, The FY 2006 funds needed for printing costs were reduced and we are able to fund more work than otherwise would have been possible with only our FY 2006 listing budget.

FY 2006 Listing Allocation

Allocated

Available \

balance

FY06 Appropriation (including space reprogramming)

$5,130,594

$5,130,594

Space reprogramming (program's portion of rent for building space)

261,817

4,868,777

Regional & Washington Offices (staff salaries and benefits)

1,610,150

3,258,627

Printing

33,000

3,225,627

90-day findings

508,796

2,716,831

12-month findings

1,350,653

1,366,178

Proposed Listing/CH

813,460

552,718

Final Listing/CH

452,718

100,000

Attorney Fees/Litigation Expenses

100,000

0

For FY 2006 we have eliminated capability funding, and instead have allocated to the regions an amount necessary to support a regional office staff capable of supervising the workload of packages in the region. With respect to funds appropriated for designation of critical habitat, the majority of these funds in the critical habitat subcap will be spent complying with designating critical habitat under court-order or court-approved settlement agreements. We allocated a small portion of the money not needed to fund these critical habitat designations for work on statutorily-required petition findings. While we have more funds in FY 2006 (than in FY 2005) available for listing actions that are not court-ordered or the subject of court-approved settlement agreements, we must use the majority of these funds to work on or complete statutorily-required petition findings. During the current fiscal year, we will issue proposed listing rules for the highest priority candidate species only if doing so does not jeopardize our ability to comply with court orders, court-approved settlement agreements, or unqualified statutory deadlines. Thus, as of the date of the publication of this CNOR, we anticipate that we will have only limited FY 2006 funds available to work on proposals to list any of the candidate species included in Table 1. Consequently we continue to find that proposals to list all of the petitioned candidate species included in Table 1

are warranted but precluded, except the Arctic grayling, Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail,

Astelia waialealae

,

Cyrtandra kaulantha

, and

Phyllostegia hispida

(which are being funded this year). We note also that all of the actions that demonstrate our expeditious progress on listing that we have completed to date or will complete in FY 2006 (see below) contribute to the preclusion of work on listing proposals for these candidate species.

In addition to being precluded by lack of available funds, work on proposed rules for candidates with lower priority (

i.e.

, those that have listing priority numbers of 4-12) is also precluded by the need to issue proposed rules for higher priority species facing high-magnitude, imminent threats (

i.e.

, listing priority numbers of 1-3). Table 1 shows the listing priority number for each candidate species. Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened species to endangered are lower priority, since the listing of the species already affords the protection of the Act and implementing regulations.

As explained above, part of the basis for making a warranted-but-precluded finding is that expeditious progress is being made to add and remove qualified species to the Lists. Our progress in FY 2005 includes work in the following categories: (1) Preparation and publication of final listing determinations involving 6 species; (2) preparation of final listing determinations (not completed in FY 2005) for 13 species; (3) preparation of proposed listing actions (not yet completed so not yet published) for 8 species; and (4) listing petition findings for 303 species (includes 10 completed, 33 not completed, and 260 resubmitted findings). Specific information regarding each of these categories for FY 2005 is provided below, followed by a description of our anticipated FY 2006 progress.

FY 2005 (1) Final listing determinations—We prepared and published in the

Federal Register

final listing determinations for six species, all of which had absolute statutory deadlines imposed by section 4(b)(6). These included final regulations listing the following species:

• Southwest Alaska distinct population segment of the northern sea otter (70 FR 46365; August 9, 2005; LPN=3) (This final listing was not the result of a deadline established by a court order or a court-approved settlement agreement. Rather, this was the highest priority listing action for the Alaska Region. The Alaska Region generally has not faced the relatively heavy Listing Program workload experienced by several other Regions, and consequently was able to use their limited Regional office capability funding in FY 2005 to support the completion of this listing regulation. We could not have utilized this capability funding to complete listing actions in other Regions without eliminating the ability of this Region to monitor the status of candidate species and address any emergency situations that might arise).

• Koster's springsnail, Roswell springsnail, Noel's amphipod, and Pecos assiminea (70 FR 46303; August 9, 2005, LPN=2) (The work on the final listing package that included these four species was in response to a court-approved settlement agreement as well as having an absolute statutory deadline).

• Salt Creek tiger beetle (70 FR 58335; October 6, 2005; LPN=3) (The work on this species was in response to a court-order).

We note that the work on these species, except the northern sea otter and Salt Creek tiger beetle, included funding for the designation of critical habitat. The critical habitat subcap pertains to critical habitat designations for species already listed; we may use listing funds for critical habitat designation work conducted in conjunction with a listing action, as was the case with these four species. This work was necessary to comply with the Act's deadline for designating critical habitat: Concurrent with listing or within one year thereafter if concurrent designation is not determinable.

(2) We funded work on final listing determinations for the Gila chub and 12 species of picture wing flies from Hawaii for which work was not completed in FY 2005. The work on these species was also in response to court-approved settlement agreements.

(3) We funded work on proposed listing determinations for the following species for which work was not completed in FY 2005: Cowhead Lake tui chub (reproposal), fluvial Arctic grayling (distinct population segment of the Upper Missouri River) (LPN=3) (the work on this species was also in response to a court-approved settlement agreement), Georgia pigtoe (LPN=2), interrupted rocksnail (LPN=2),

Astelia waialealae

(LPN=2),

Cyrtandra kaulantha

(LPN=2),

Penstemon grahamii

(Graham's beardtongue) (LPN=2) (the work on this species was also in response to a court-approved settlement agreement), and

Phyllostegia hispida

(LPN=2).

(4) We funded work on 300 petition findings. This involved 90-day findings, initial 12-month findings, and findings on resubmitted petitions. As explained below, in some instances, the work has been based on meeting deadlines established by court order or by settlement agreements. In other instances, the work has been done in order to meet statutory deadlines. All 12-month findings are subject to an unqualified statutory deadline. With regard to 90-day findings, the decision in

Biodiversity Legal Foundation

v.

Badgley,

309 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2002), held that the Act requires that 90-day petition findings (

i.e.

, the initial finding as to whether a petition contains substantial information, which the Act directs us to make within 90 days of receipt of a petition, if practicable) must be made no later than 12 months after receipt of the petition, regardless of whether it is practicable to do so. Thus, all 90-day findings are arguably subject to an absolute statutory deadline. As a result of this ruling, which was contrary to our previous interpretation of section 4(b)(3) of the Act, we have been working to issue petition findings on most of the outstanding petitions for those species that we have not previously determined to warrant candidate status.

Some petition findings are “complete” actions. This includes 12-month petition findings in which we determine that listing was not warranted and 90-day petition findings in which we determine that the petition did not present substantial information. In these cases, our listing work is complete.

In FY 2005, we funded work on and published petition findings for the following 10 species: Pygmy rabbit (not-substantial 90-day finding) (70 FR 29253; May 20, 2005), California spotted owl (substantial 90-day finding) (70 FR 35607; June 21, 2005), boreal toad (not-warranted 12-month finding) (70 FR 56880; September 29, 2005), headwater chub and Lower Colorado River Basin population of the roundtail chub (substantial 90-day finding) (70 FR 39981; July 12, 2005), American eel (substantial 90-day finding) (70 FR 38849; July 6, 2005), 3 springsnails (Jackson Lake, Harney Lake, and Columbia) (substantial 90-day finding) (70 FR 20515; April 20, 2005), and

Dalea tentaculoides

(Gentry indigo bush) (not-warranted 12-month finding) (70 FR 56426; September 27, 2005). All 12-month findings have absolute statutory deadlines. Because of

Badgley

, all 90-day findings arguably also have absolute statutory deadlines. In addition, the work on all these species, with the following exception, was in response to court orders or court-approved settlement agreements. The American eel was the highest priority listing action for the Northeast Region.

The Northeast Region generally has not faced the relatively heavy Listing Program workload experienced by several other Regions, and consequently was able to use their limited Regional office capability funding in FY 2005 to support the completion of this petition finding. We could not have utilized this capability funding to complete listing actions in other Regions without eliminating the ability of this Region to monitor the status of candidate species and address any emergency situations that might arise.

The allocated funds also supported work on petition findings that were not completed in FY 2005 for the following 34 species (we worked on these petition findings pursuant to a court order, a court-approved settlement agreement, or to meet statutory deadlines; those marked with a “+” we worked on pursuant to a court order/court-approved settlement agreement, the others (unmarked) we worked on to meet statutory deadlines): Yellowstone population of buffalo (90-day finding), New England cottontail (warranted but precluded 12-month finding—published as part of this CNOR), Douglas County subspecies of northern pocket gopher

+

(90-day finding), Anacapa deer mouse (90-day finding), American dipper

+

(90-day finding), long-tailed duck

+

(90-day finding), red knot (90-day finding), yellow-billed loon

+

(90-day finding), southeastern snowy plover and wintering population of piping plover (90-day finding), cerulean warbler (12-month finding), Mexican garter snake

+

(90-day finding), northern water snake (90-day finding), Berry Cave salamander (90-day finding), American eel (12-month finding), kokanee (90-day finding), longnose sucker (90-day finding), California golden trout (12-month finding), Yellowstone cutthroat trout

+

(12-month finding) (we published the opening of a comment period for a 12-month finding for this species on September 1, 2005; 70 FR 52059), Black Hills (Cooper's Rocky) mountainsnail

+

(90-day finding), Uinta mountainsnail

+

(90-day finding),

Cicurina cueva

+

(12-month finding) (

we published two notices to

reopen the comment period (on May 23, 2005, and August 16, 2005) (70 FR 29471 and 70 FR 48093) in order to provide the public an opportunity to consider and comment on new information we received after publishing the 90-day finding for this species), 4 subspecies of

Pseudocopacodes enus

(12-month finding), Andrew's dune scarab beetle (90-day finding), 3 invertebrates (

Stygobromus kenki, Stygobromus phreaticus,

and

Acanthocyclops columbiensis

—90-day finding),

Castanea ozarkensis

(Ozark chinquapin) (90-day finding),

Gilia

(=Alicellia)

tenuis

(Mussentuchit gilia)

+

(90-day finding),

Sidalcea hendersonii

(Henderson's checkermallow) (90-day finding),

Usnea longissima

(90-day finding).

In addition, we completed some initial and some resubmitted petition findings required by statute for a total of 260 petitioned species that are candidates. We published these findings on May 11, 2005, as part of the previous Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR) (70 FR 24870). Since we had identified the majority of these species as candidates prior to receiving a petition to list them, we had already assessed their status using funds from our Candidate Conservation Program (a separate budget item within the Endangered Species Program).

Our anticipated progress in FY 2006 includes work in the following categories: (1) Work toward preparation and publication of final listing actions for 15 species; (2) work toward preparation and publication of proposed listing actions for 6 species; and (3) work on petition findings for 72 species that are not candidate species (we made or are making these petition findings pursuant to a court order, a court-approved settlement agreement, or to meet statutory deadlines), initial petition findings for 2 species that are also included in this notice as candidate species, resubmitted petition findings for 245 candidate and 5 listed species that were petitioned prior to the last CNOR, and revised 12-month petition findings for 10 candidate species that are we removing from candidate status through this notice. Specific information regarding each of these categories for FY 2006 is provided below. We note also that Regions will continue to monitor the status of candidates and prepare emergency listing packages as needed.

FY 2006 (1) We funded work on the final listing determinations for the following species: Queen Charlotte goshawk (remand of our previous listing determination), Gila chub (70 FR 66663; November 2, 2005, LPN=2), 12 species of picture-wing flies from Hawaii (71 FR 26835; May 9, 2006) (prior to publishing the final rule, we published a notice to reopen the comment period on the proposed listing rule; 70 FR 57851; October 4, 2005), and

Penstemon grahamii

(Graham's beardtongue) (work not yet completed). These final listing determinations were in response to court orders or court-approved settlement agreements. Additionally, since the Gila chub, 12 species of picture-wing flies, and Graham's beardtongue were proposed for listing, a final listing determination is subject to an absolute statutory deadline.

(2) We funded listing determinations for flat-tailed horned lizard (remand of our withdrawal of a proposed rule to list) (we published a withdrawal of the proposed rule on June 28, 2006; 71 FR 36745)(we also had published notices to reopen the comment period on our reinstated proposed rule on March 2 and again on April 21, 2006; 71 FR 10631 and 71 FR 20637), fluvial Arctic grayling (distinct population segment of the Upper Missouri River) (LPN=3) (the work on this species was also in response to a court-approved settlement agreement), Cowhead Lake tui chub (reproposal), and

Penstemon grahamii

(Graham's beardtongue) (71 FR 3157; January 19, 2006). We also funded work on proposed listing proposals for the following 5 high-priority candidate species for which work was not completed in FY 2006 prior to the publication of this CNOR: Rough hornsnail (LPN=2), black mudalia (LPN=2), Georgia pigtoe (LPN=2), interrupted rocksnail (LPN=2),

Astelia waialealae

(LPN=2),

Cyrtandra kaulantha

(LPN=2), and

Phyllostegia hispida

(LPN=2).

(3) We funded work on and published petition findings for the following species (listing actions for species marked with a “+” are per court order/court-approved settlement agreement in addition to having a statutory deadline): Gunnison's prairie dog

+

(not-substantial 90-day finding) (71 FR 6241; February 7, 2006); Douglas County subspecies of the northern pocket gopher

+

(not-substantial 90-day finding (71 FR 7715; February 14, 2006); polar bear (substantial 90-day finding) (71 FR 6745; January 9, 2006); Black Hills, South Dakota, population of the American dipper

+

(not-substantial 90-day finding) (71 FR 4341; January 26, 2006); Florida scrub-jay

+

(not-substantial 90-day petition findings on 2 petitions to reclassify as endangered) (71 FR 4092; January 25, 2006); Gunnison sage-grouse

+

(not-warranted 12-month finding) (71 FR 19953; April 18, 2006); California spotted owl

+

(not warranted 12-month finding) (71 FR 298896; May 24, 2006) (we also published a notice to reopen the comment period on the 90-day petition on October 14, 2005; 70 FR 60051); northern Mexican gartersnake

+

(substantial 90-day finding) (71 FR 315; January 4, 2006); Siskiyou Mountains and Scotts Bar salamanders

+

(not-substantial 90-day finding) (71 FR 23886; April 25, 2006); Distinct Population Segment of the roundtail

chub in the Lower Colorado River Basin and the Headwater chub

+

(not-warranted and warranted 12-month findings) (71 FR 26007; May 3, 2006), Yellowstone cutthroat trout

+

(not-warranted 12-month finding) (71 FR 8818; February 21, 2006); Black Hills (Cooper's Rocky) mountainsnail

+

(not-substantial 90-day finding) (71 FR 9988; February 28, 2006), Uinta mountainsnail

+

(not-substantial 90-day finding) (70 FR 69303; November 15, 2005); Greater Adams cave beetle and Lesser Adams cave beetle (not-warranted 12-month finding) (70 FR 72973; December 8, 2005); Casey's June beetle (substantial 90-day finding) (71 FR 44960; August 8, 2006); Andrews' Dune scarab beetle (not-substantial 90-day finding) (71 FR 26444 May 5, 2006); island marble butterfly

+

(substantial 90-day finding) (71 FR 7497; February 13, 2006); Hermes copper butterfly (not-substantial 90-day finding) (71 FR 44966; August 8, 2006); Sand Mountain blue butterfly (substantial 90-day finding) (FR 71 44988; August 8, 2006); Thorne's hairstreak butterfly (not-substantial 90-day finding) (71 FR 44980; August 8, 2006);

Cicurina cueva

+

(not-warranted 12-month finding) (70 FR 75071; December 19, 2005); 16 insect species from Algondones Dunes (not-substantial 90-day finding) (71 FR 47765; August 18, 2006);

Agave eggersiana

and

Solanum conocarpum

+

(not-warranted 12-month finding) (71 FR 11367; March 7, 2006);

Gilia

(=

Aliciella

)

tenuis

+

(Mussentuchit gilia) (not-substantial 90-day finding) (71 FR 4337; January 26, 2006); and

Sidalcea hendersonii

(Henderson's checkermallow—not-substantial 90-day finding) (71 FR 8252; February 16, 2006). We funded work on statutorily-required petition findings for the following species (not yet completed so not yet published): Polar bear (12-month finding) (we reopened the comment period on the status review for the 12-month petition finding on May 17, 2006; 71 FR 28653) , Utah prairie dog (90-day finding on reclassification to endangered), black-footed albatross (90-day finding), tricolored blackbird (90-day finding), long-tailed duck

+

(90-day finding), southwestern population of bald eagle (90-day finding), Columbian sharp-tailed grouse (90-day finding), yellow-billed loon

+

(90-day finding), Mono Basin population of greater sage-grouse (90-day finding), southeastern snowy plover and wintering population of piping plover (12-month finding), cerulean warbler (12-month finding), northern Mexican garter snake

+

(12-month finding), northern water snake (12-month finding), Tucson shovel-nosed snake (90-day finding), Florida population of gopher tortoise (90-day finding), Berry Cave salamander (12-month finding), Jollyville plateau salamander (90-day finding), American eel (12-month finding), San Felipe gambusia (90-day finding), longnose sucker (12-month finding), 3 springsnails (Jackson Lake, Harney Lake, and Columbia) (12-month finding), 3 invertebrates (

Stygobromus kenki, Stygobromus phreaticus,

and

Acanthocyclops columbiensis

) (12-month finding), island marble butterfly

+

(12-month finding), Mt. Charleston blue butterfly (90-day finding),

Astragalus anserinus

(Goose Creek milkvetch) (90-day finding),

Astragalus debequaeus

(DeBeque milkvetch) (90-day finding),

Castanea ozarkensis

(Ozark chinquapin) (90-day finding),

Sclerocactus brevispinus

(Pariette cactus) (90-day finding). We funded work on statutorily-required initial 12-month petition findings for the New England cottontail (substantial 90-day finding was published on June 30, 2004) and red knot (we also made the statutorily-required 90-day finding through this CNOR), which are being published as part of this CNOR (warranted but precluded findings). We also funded work on resubmitted petitions findings for 245 candidate species and 5 listed species (species petitioned prior to the last CNOR). Note, we have not updated our resubmitted petition findings for the Columbia Basin population of the greater sage-grouse or for the Missouri River population of fluvial Arctic grayling in this notice as we are considering new information and will update our findings at a later date. As explained above, these resubmitted petition findings are required by statute and findings for these 245 candidates and 5 listed species are being published as part of this CNOR. We also funded revised 12-month petition findings for 10 candidate species that we are removing from candidate status, which are being published as part of this CNOR (

see Summary of Candidate Removals

). We are also funding work on the next annual review of those resubmitted petition findings, which will be published as part of the next CNOR. Because the majority of these species were already candidate species prior to our receipt of a petition to list them, we had already assessed their status using funds from our Candidate Conservation Program. We also continue to monitor the status of these species through our Candidate Conservation Program. The cost of updating the species assessment forms and publishing the joint publication of the CNOR and resubmitted petition findings is shared between the Listing Program and the Candidate Conservation Program.

As with our “precluded” finding, “expeditious progress” is a function of the resources that are available and the competing demands for those funds. As discussed above, the funds in the Listing Program that would be otherwise available for adding other qualified species to the Lists in FY 2005 and FY 2006 have been spent or must be spent on complying with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements to make petition findings, court orders and court-approved settlement agreements to make final listing determinations for other species, meeting statutory deadlines for petition findings or listing determinations, a few high-priority Service-initiated listing determinations, essential litigation support, and administrative and management tasks. We note that we are not discussing specific actions we have taken on progress towards removing species from the lists of threatened or endangered species in this notice since that work is conducted with appropriations to our Recovery program, a separately-budgeted component of the Endangered Species Program. However, we do note that in FY 2005 we delisted one species (

Helianthus eggertii

(Eggert's sunflower); 70 FR 48482; August 18, 2005) and, to date in FY2006, we have delisted two species (the Arizona Distinct Population Segment of the Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-owl; 71 FR 19452; April 14, 2006; and,

Agave arizonica

(Arizona agave); 71 FR 35195; June 19, 2006).

The majority of the money to add qualified species to the list is consumed in complying with court orders or court-approved settlement agreements requiring petition findings or listing determinations, and essential litigation-related, administrative, and program management functions related to these findings and determinations (including preparing and allocating budgets, responding to Congressional and public inquiries, public outreach, gathering and assessing the scientific information used as the basis for our listing decisions, writing the document, and reviewing those listing recommendations made by our Field and Regional Office staff). Therefore, we have endeavored to make our listing actions as efficient and timely as possible, given the requirements of the relevant law and regulations, and constraints relating to workload and personnel. We are continually considering ways to streamline processes or achieve economies of scale,

such as by batching related actions together. Given our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the Act, these actions described above collectively constitute expeditious progress.

Although we have not been able to resolve the listing status of many of the candidates, several programs in the Service contribute to the conservation of these species. In particular, we have a separate budgeted program, the Candidate Conservation program, which focuses on providing technical expertise for developing conservation strategies and agreements to guide voluntary on-the-ground conservation work for candidate and other at-risk species. The main goal of this program is to address the threats facing candidate species. If sufficiently successful, this eliminates the need to list them, allowing us to remove them from the candidate list. Through this program, we work with our partners (other Federal agencies, State agencies, Tribes, private landowners, and private conservation organizations) to address the threats to candidate species and other species at-risk. We are actively engaged in the conservation of these species and have over 115 voluntary conservation agreements that are being implemented for 190 species covering 4.8 million acres of habitat. For example, we are currently implementing a Candidate Conservation Agreement for the Louisiana pine snake, a candidate species. This agreement between the Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Defense, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries was completed in 2003 and is designed to identify and establish management for the Louisiana pine snake on Federal lands in Texas and Louisiana. The agreement provides a means for all the partnering agencies to work cooperatively on projects that avoid and minimize impacts to the snake. We also have provided funds from the Endangered Species Private Landowner Incentive Program and Private Stewardship Grants to a private landowner for habitat restoration and prescribed burning at Louisiana pine snake sites on their property. Several other Service programs (

e.g.

Fisheries, Partners for Fish and Wildlife, Refuge Wildlife and Habitat Management, and Federal Assistance) contribute to candidate conservation.

Through sustained implementation of strategically designed conservation efforts, we are actively working to conserve many candidate species. In some instances, this culminates in making listing unnecessary. In the past two years, for example, we have obviated the need to list six species through conservation efforts, including four candidate species: The Greater and Lesser Adams Cave beetles, Camp Shelby burrowing crayfish, and Holsinger's cave beetle.

Findings for Petitioned Candidate Species

For our revised 12-month petition findings for species we are removing from candidate status,

see

summaries above under “

Summary of Candidate Removals

.”

Mammals

Pacific Sheath-tailed Bat, American Samoa DPS (

Emballonura semicaudata semicaudata

)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. This small bat is a member of the Emballonuridae, an Old World bat family that has an extensive distribution, primarily in the tropics. The Pacific sheath-tailed bat was once common and widespread in Polynesia and Micronesia and it is the only insectivorous bat recorded from a large part of this area. The species as a whole (

E. semicaudata

) occurred on several of the Caroline Islands (Palau, Chuuk, and Pohnpei), Samoa (Independent and American), the Mariana Islands (Guam and the CNMI), Tonga, Fiji, and Vanuatu. While populations appear to be healthy in some locations, mainly in the Caroline Islands, they have declined drastically 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. This candidate assessment form addresses the distinct population segment of E. s. semicaudata that occurs in American Samoa.

E. s. semicaudata

historically occurred in American and Independent Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, and Vanuatu. It is extant in Fiji and Tonga, but may be extirpated from Vanuatu and Independent Samoa.

Current threats to this subspecies include habitat loss, predation by introduced species, small population size, and disturbance to roosting caves. The greatest threats at this time are likely habitat loss and degradation, the small numbers of bats detected in the past two decades, and tropical storms. Habitat loss and degradation and predation by nonnative species are believed to have been occurring for several decades. The Listing Priority Number for

E. s. semicaudata

remains at 3 because the magnitude of the threats is high, the threats are imminent, and the taxon in question is a population of a subspecies.

Pacific Sheath-tailed Bat (

Emballonura semicaudata rotensis

), Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. No new information was provided in the petition received on May 11, 2004. This small bat is a member of the Emballonuridae, an Old World bat family that has an extensive distribution, primarily in the tropics. The Pacific sheath-tailed bat was once common and widespread in Polynesia and Micronesia and it is the only insectivorous bat recorded from a large part of this area. The species as a whole (

E. semicaudata

) occurred on several of the Caroline Islands (Palau, Chuuk, and Pohnpei), Samoa (Independent and American), the Mariana Islands (Guam and the CNMI), Tonga, Fiji, and Vanuatu. While populations appear to be healthy in some locations, mainly in the Caroline Islands, they have declined drastically 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. This candidate assessment form addresses the Mariana Islands subspecies.

E. s. rotensis

is historically known from the Mariana Islands and formerly occurred on Guam and in the CNMI on Rota, Aguiguan, Tinian (known from prehistoric records only), Saipan, and possibly Anatahan and Maug. Currently,

E. s. rotensis

appears to be extirpated from all but one island in the Mariana archipelago. The single remaining population of this subspecies occurs on Aguiguan, CNMI.

Threats to this subspecies have not changed over the past year. The primary threats to the subspecies include predation by nonnative species, habitat loss and degradation, small population size, occurrence on one small island, and disturbance to roosting caves. Habitat loss and degradation (through various means, but mainly by feral ungulates at present) and predation by nonnative species are believed to be occurring now, and likely have been occurring for several decades on

Aguiguan and are, therefore, affecting the entire remaining population of

E. s. rotensis

. The subspecies may be near the point where stochastic events, such as typhoons, are increasingly likely to affect its continued survival. The disappearance of the remaining population on Aguiguan would result in the extinction of the subspecies. In addition, scientists believe that a more complete genetic examination of the subspecies may result in its elevation to a distinct species. The Listing Priority Number for

E. s. rotensis

remains at 3 because the magnitude of the threats is high, the threats are imminent, and the taxon is question is a subspecies.

Cottontail, New England (Sylvilagus transitionalis)—See above in “

Summary of New Candidates.

” The above summary is based on information in our file and in the petition dated August 30, 2000.

Fisher, West Coast DPS (

Martes pennanti

)—The following summary is based on information in our files and in the Service's initial warranted-but-precluded finding published in the

Federal Register

on April 8, 2004 (68 FR 18770). The fisher is a carnivore in the family Mustelidae and is the largest member of the genus

Martes

. Historically the West Coast population of the fisher extended south from British Columbia into western Washington and Oregon, and in the North Coast Ranges, Klamath-Siskiyou Mountains and Sierra Nevada in California. The fisher is believed to be extirpated or reduced to scattered individuals from the lower mainland of British Columbia through Washington and in the central and northern Sierra Nevada range in California. Native populations of fisher currently occur in the North Coast Ranges of California, the Klamath-Siskiyou Mountains of northern California and southern Oregon, and in isolated populations occurring in the southern Sierra Nevada in California. Descendents of a fisher reintroduction effort also occur in the southern Cascade range in Oregon. There is a lack of precise empirical data on West Coast DPS fisher numbers. However, there is a lack of detections over much of the fisher's historic range, even with standardized survey and monitoring efforts in California, Oregon and Washington. There is also a high degree of genetic relatedness within some populations, and populations of native fisher in California are separated by four times the species' maximum dispersal distance. The above listed factors all indicate that the likely extant fisher populations are small and isolated from one another.

Major threats that fragment or remove key elements of fisher habitat include various forest vegetation management practices such as timber harvest and fuels reduction treatments. Other potential major threats include: Stand-replacing fire, Sudden Oak Death Phytophthora, urban and rural development, recreation development, and highways. Major threats to fisher that lead to direct mortality and injury to fisher include; collisions with vehicles, predation, and viral borne diseases such as rabies, parvovirus, canine distemper and

Anaplasma phagocytophilum

. Existing regulatory mechanisms on Federal, State and private lands affect key elements of fisher habitat and do not provide sufficient certainty that conservation efforts will be effective or will be implemented. The magnitude of threats is high as they occur across the range of the DPS resulting in a negative impact on fisher distribution and abundance. However, the threats are non-imminent as the greatest long-term risks to the fisher in its west coast range are the subsequent ramifications of the isolation small populations, and the three remaining areas containing fisher populations appear to be stable or not rapidly declining based on recent survey and monitoring efforts. We assigned this DPS a listing priority number of 6 due to nonimminent threats of a high magnitude.

Mazama pocket gopher (

Thomomys mazama

(ssp.

couchi, glacialis, louiei, melanops, pugetensis, tacomensis, tumuli, yelmensis

)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. No new information was provided in the petition received December 11, 2002. These eight subspecies of pocket gopher are associated with glacial outwash prairies in western Washington. Of these eight subspecies, six are likely still extant (

couchi, glacialis, melanops, pugetensis, tumuli

, and

yelmensis

). Few of these glacial outwash prairies remain in Washington today. Historically, such prairies were only patchily distributed. Now, residential and commercial development, fire regime alteration, and ingrowth of woody vegetation have further

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.