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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2010-27686

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** November 10, 2010
- **Citation:** 75 FR 69222

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2010-0065; MO-9221050083-B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions

AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:

Notice of review.

SUMMARY:

In this Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), present an updated list of plant and animal species native to the United States that we regard as candidates for or have proposed for addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Identification of candidate species can assist environmental planning efforts by providing advance notice of potential listings, allowing landowners and resource managers to alleviate threats and thereby possibly remove the need to list species as endangered or threatened. Even if we subsequently list a candidate species, the early notice provided here could result in more options for species management and recovery by prompting candidate conservation measures to alleviate threats to the species.

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

Overall, this CNOR recognizes five new candidates, changes the LPN for four candidates, and removes one species from candidate status. Combined with other decisions for individual species that were published separately from this CNOR in the past year, the current number of species that are candidates for listing is 251.

This document also includes our findings on resubmitted petitions and describes our progress in revising the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants during the period October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010.

We request additional status information that may be available for the 251 candidate species identified in this CNOR.

DATES:

We will accept information on any of the species in this Candidate Notice of Review at any time.

ADDRESSES:

This notice is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov
and
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/cnor.html.
Species assessment forms with information and references on a particular candidate species' range, status, habitat needs, and listing priority assignment are available for review at the appropriate Regional Office listed below in
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
or at the Branch of Candidate Conservation, Arlington, VA (
see
address below), or on our Web site (
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/SpeciesReport.do?listingType=C&mapstatus=1
). Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions of a general nature on this notice to the Arlington, VA, address listed below. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions pertaining to a particular species to the address of the Endangered Species Coordinator in the appropriate Regional Office listed in
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

The Endangered Species Coordinator(s) in the appropriate Regional Office(s), or Chief, Branch of Candidate Conservation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203 (telephone 703-358-2171; facsimile 703-358-1735). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

We request additional status information that may be available for any of the candidate species identified in this CNOR. We will consider this information to monitor changes in the status or LPN of candidate species and to manage candidates as we prepare listing documents and future revisions to the notice of review. We also request information on additional species to consider including as candidates as we prepare future updates of this notice.

You may submit your information concerning this notice in general or for any of the species included in this notice by one of the methods listed in the
ADDRESSES
section.

Species-specific information and materials we receive will be available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at the appropriate Regional Office listed below under
Request for Information
in
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
. General information we receive will be available at the Branch of Candidate Conservation, Arlington, VA (
see
address above).

Candidate Notice of Review

Background

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.
) (Act), requires that we identify species of wildlife and plants that are endangered or threatened, based on the best available scientific and commercial information. As defined in section 3 of the Act, an endangered species is any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a threatened species is any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Through the Federal rulemaking process, we add species that meet these definitions to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11 or the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants at 50 CFR 17.12. As part of this program, we maintain a list of species that we regard as candidates for listing. A candidate species is one for which we have on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened, but for which preparation and publication of a proposal is precluded by higher priority listing actions. We may identify a species as a candidate for listing after we have conducted an evaluation of its status on our own initiative, or after we have made a positive finding on a petition to list a species, in particular we have found that listing is warranted but precluded by other higher priority listing action (
see
the Petition Findings section, below).

We maintain this list of candidates for a variety of reasons: To notify the public that these species are facing threats to their survival; to provide advance knowledge of potential listings that could affect decisions of environmental planners and developers; to provide information that may stimulate and guide conservation efforts that will remove or reduce threats to these species and possibly make listing unnecessary; to request input from interested parties to help us identify those candidate species that may not

require protection under the Act or additional species that may require the Act's protections; and to request necessary information for setting priorities for preparing listing proposals. We strongly encourage collaborative conservation efforts for candidate species, and offer technical and financial assistance to facilitate such efforts. For additional information regarding such assistance, please contact the appropriate Regional Office listed under
Request for Information
or visit our Web site,
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/cca.html.

Previous Notices of Review

We have been publishing candidate notices of review (CNOR) since 1975. The most recent CNOR (prior to this CNOR) was published on November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804). CNORs published since 1994 are available on our Web site,
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/cnor.html.
For copies of CNORs published prior to 1994, please contact the Branch of Candidate Conservation (
see

ADDRESSES
section above).

On September 21, 1983, we published guidance for assigning an LPN for each candidate species (48 FR 43098). Using this guidance, we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats, immediacy of threats, and taxonomic status; the lower the LPN, the higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing priority). Section 4(h)(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1533(h)(3)) requires the Secretary to establish guidelines for such a priority-ranking guidance system. As explained below, in using this system we first categorize based on the magnitude of the threat(s), then by the immediacy of the threat(s), and finally by taxonomic status.

Under this priority-ranking system, magnitude of threat can be either “high” or “moderate to low.” This criterion helps ensure that the species facing the greatest threats to their continued existence receive the highest listing priority. It is important to recognize that all candidate species face threats to their continued existence, so the magnitude of threats is in relative terms. For all candidate species, the threats are of sufficiently high magnitude to put them in danger of extinction, or make them likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. But for species with higher magnitude threats, the threats have a greater likelihood of bringing about extinction or are expected to bring about extinction on a shorter time scale (once the threats are imminent) than for species with lower magnitude threats. Since we do not routinely quantify how likely or how soon extinction would be expected to occur absent listing, we must evaluate factors that contribute to the likelihood and time scale for extinction. We therefore consider information such as: The number of populations and/or extent of range of the species affected by the threat(s); the biological significance of the affected population(s), taking into consideration the life-history characteristics of the species and its current abundance and distribution; whether the threats affect the species in only a portion of its range, and if so the likelihood of persistence of the species in the unaffected portions; the severity of the effects and the rapidity with which they have caused or are likely to cause mortality to individuals and accompanying declines in population levels; whether the effects are likely to be permanent; and the extent to which any ongoing conservation efforts reduce the severity of the threat.

As used in our priority-ranking system, immediacy of threat is categorized as either “imminent” or “nonimminent” and is not a measure of how quickly the species is likely to become extinct if the threats are not addressed; rather, immediacy is based on when the threats will begin. If a threat is currently occurring or likely to occur in the very near future, we classify the threat as imminent. Determining the immediacy of threats helps ensure that species facing actual, identifiable threats are given priority for listing proposals over those for which threats are only potential or species that are intrinsically vulnerable to certain types of threats but are not known to be presently facing such threats.

Our priority ranking system has three categories for taxonomic status: Species that are the sole members of a genus; full species (in genera that have more than one species); and subspecies and distinct population segments of vertebrate species (DPS). We also apply this last category to species that are threatened or endangered in only significant portions of their ranges rather than their entire ranges.

The result of the ranking system is that we assign each candidate a listing priority number of 1 to 12. For example, if the threat(s) is of high magnitude, with immediacy classified as imminent, the listable entity is assigned an LPN of 1, 2, or 3 based on its taxonomic status (
i.e.,
a species that is the only member of its genus would be assigned to the LPN 1 category, a full species to LPN 2, and a subspecies, DPS, or a species that is threatened or endangered in only a significant portion of its range would be assigned to LPN 3). In summary, the LPN ranking system provides a basis for making decisions about the relative priority for preparing a proposed rule to list a given species. No matter which LPN we assign to a species, each species included in this notice as a candidate is one for which we have sufficient information to prepare a proposed rule to list it because it is in danger of extinction or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

For more information on the process and standards used in assigning LPNs, a copy of the 1983 guidance is available on our Web site at:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/48fr43098-43105.pdf.
For more information on the LPN assigned to a particular species, the species assessment for each candidate contains the LPN chart and a rationale for the determination of the magnitude and immediacy of threat(s) and assignment of the LPN; that information is summarized in this CNOR.

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

Summary of This CNOR

Since publication of the previous CNOR on November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), we reviewed the available information on candidate species to ensure that a proposed listing is justified for each species, and reevaluated the relative LPN assigned to each species. We also evaluated the need to emergency-list any of these species, particularly species with high priorities
(i.e.,
species with LPNs of 1, 2, or 3). This review and reevaluation ensures that we focus conservation efforts on those species at greatest risk first.

In addition to reviewing candidate species since publication of the last CNOR, we have worked on numerous findings in response to petitions to list species, and on proposed and final determinations for rules to list species under the Act. Some of these findings and determinations have been completed and published in the
Federal Register
, while work on others is still under way (
see Preclusion and Expeditious Progress,
below, for details).

Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial information, with this CNOR we identify five new candidate species (
see New Candidates,
below), change the LPN for four candidates (
see Listing Priority Changes in Candidates,
below) and determine that a listing proposal is not warranted for one species and thus remove it from candidate status (

see

Candidate Removals,

below). Combined with the other decisions published separately from this CNOR for individual species that previously were candidates, a total of 251 species (including 110 plant and 141 animal species) are now candidates awaiting preparation of rules proposing their listing. These 251 species, along with the 18 species currently proposed for listing (includes 1 species proposed for listing due to similarity in appearance), are included in Table 1.

Table 2 lists the changes from the previous CNOR, and includes 55 species identified in the previous CNOR as either proposed for listing or classified as candidates that are no longer in those categories. This includes 54 species for which we published a final rule to list, plus the 1 species that we have determined does not meet the definition of endangered or threatened and therefore does not warrant listing. We have removed this species from candidate status in this CNOR.

New Candidates

Below we present a brief summary of one new fish, one new snail, one new crustacean, and two new plant candidates, which we are recognizing in this CNOR. Complete information, including references, can be found in the species assessment forms. You may obtain a copy of these forms from the Regional Office having the lead for the species, or from our Web site (
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/SpeciesReport.do?listingType=C&mapstatus=1
). For these species, we find that we have on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened, but that preparation and publication of a proposal is precluded by higher priority listing actions (
i.e.,
it met our definition of a candidate species). We also note below that nine other species—Sprague's pipit, greater sage-grouse, Bi-State DPS of greater sage-grouse, Gunnison sage-grouse, least chub, upper Missouri River DPS of Arctic grayling, Tucson shovel-nosed snake, Jemez Mountains salamander, and
Agave eggersiana
—were identified as candidates earlier this year as a result of separate petition findings published in the
Federal Register.

Birds

Sprague's pipit (
Anthus spragueii
)—We previously announced candidate status for this species, and described the reasons and data on which the finding was based, in a separate warranted-but-precluded 12-month petition finding published on September 14, 2010 (75 FR 56028).

Greater sage-grouse (
Centrocercus urophasianus
)—We previously announced candidate status for this species, and described the reasons and data on which the finding was based, in a separate warranted-but-precluded 12-month petition finding published on March 23, 2010 (75 FR 13910).

Greater sage-grouse, Bi-State DPS (
Centrocercus urophasianus)
—We previously announced candidate status for this species, and described the reasons and data on which the finding was based, in a separate warranted-but-precluded 12-month petition finding published on March 23, 2010 (75 FR 13910).

Gunnison sage-grouse (
Centrocercus minimus
)—We previously announced candidate status for this species, and described the reasons and data on which the finding was based, in a separate warranted-but-precluded 12-month petition finding published on September 28, 2010 (75 FR 59803).

Reptiles

Tucson Shovel-Nosed Snake (
Chionactis occipitalis klauberi
)—We previously announced candidate status for this species, and described the reasons and data on which the finding was based, in a separate warranted-but-precluded 12-month petition finding published on March 31, 2010 (75 FR 16050).

Amphibians

Jemez Mountains salamander (
Plethodon neomexicanus
)—We previously announced candidate status for this species, and described the reasons and data on which the finding was based, in a separate warranted-but-precluded 12-month petition finding published on September 9, 2010 (75 FR 54822).

Fish

Least chub (
Iotichthys phlegethontis
)—We previously announced candidate status for this species, and described the reasons and data on which the finding was based, in a separate warranted-but-precluded 12-month petition finding published on June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35398).

Kentucky arrow darter (
Etheostoma sagitta spilotum
)—The following summary is based on information in our files. The Kentucky arrow darter is a rather large (total length of 4.6 inches (116 millimeters)), brightly colored darter that is restricted to the upper Kentucky River basin in eastern Kentucky. The species' preferred habitat consists of pools or transitional areas between riffles and pools (runs and glides) in moderate to high gradient streams with bedrock, boulder, and cobble substrates. In most recent surveys, the Kentucky arrow darter has been observed in streams ranging in size from first to third order, with most individuals occurring in second order streams in watersheds encompassing 7.7 square miles (20 square kilometers) or less. Kentucky arrow darters feed on a variety of aquatic invertebrates, but adults feed predominantly on larval mayflies (order Ephemeroptera), specifically the families Heptageniidae and Baetidae. Rangewide surveys from 2007 to 2009 revealed that the Kentucky arrow darter has disappeared from portions of its range. During these surveys, the species was observed at only 33 of 68 historical streams and 45 of 100 historical sites.

The subspecies' habitat and range have been severely degraded and limited by water pollution from surface coal mining and gas-exploration activities; removal of riparian vegetation; stream channelization; increased siltation associated with poor mining, logging, and agricultural practices; and deforestation of watersheds. The threats are high in magnitude because they are widespread across the subspecies' range. In addition, the magnitude (severity or intensity) of these threats, especially impacts from mining and gas-exploration activities, is high because these activities have the potential to alter stream water quality permanently throughout the range by contributing sediment, dissolved metals, and other solids to streams supporting Kentucky arrow darters, resulting in direct mortality or reduced reproductive capacity. The threats are imminent because the effects are manifested immediately and will continue for the foreseeable future. Consequently, we assigned an LPN of 3 to this subspecies.

Arctic grayling, Missouri River DPS (
Thymallus arcticus
)—We previously announced candidate status for this species, and described the reasons and data on which the finding was based, in a separate warranted-but-precluded 12-month petition finding published on September 8, 2010 (75 FR 54707).

Snails

Rosemont talussnail (
Sonorella rosemontensis
)—the following summary is based on information in our files. The petition we received on June 24, 2010, provided no new information beyond what we had already included in our assessment of this species. The Rosemont talussnail, a land snail in the family Helminthoglyptidae, is known

from three talus slopes in the Santa Rita Mountains, Pima County, Arizona. The primary threat to Rosemont talussnail is hard rock mining. The entire range of the species is located on patented mining claims and can reasonably be expected to be subjected to mining activities in the foreseeable future. Hard rock mining typically involves the blasting of hillsides and the crushing of ore-laden rock. Such activities would kill talussnails and render their habitats unsuitable for occupation. Since mining may occur across the entire range of the species within the foreseeable future, potentially resulting in rangewide habitat destruction and population losses, the threats are of a high magnitude. However, mining on patented mining claims, although a reasonably anticipated action, is neither currently ongoing nor imminent. Although the Rosemont Copper Mine is scheduled to commence as soon as 2011, there exists uncertainty regarding its scope, and therefore its potential effect on habitat of the Rosemont talussnail. Accordingly, we find that overall threats to the Rosemont talussnail are nonimminent and we assign an LPN of 5 to this species.

Crustaceans

Kenk's amphipod (
Stygobromus kenki
)—Amphipods of the genus
Stygobromus,
occur in groundwater and groundwater-related habitats. In the case of Kenk's amphipod, these include seeps, small springs, and possibly wells. Kenk's amphipod is a small, eyeless, unpigmented crustacean adapted for survival in subterranean habitats. It can be found in dead leaves or fine sediment submerged in the waters of its spring/seep outflows. The species is currently known only from five spring or seep sites in Washington, DC, and Montgomery County, Maryland. Four of these sites are within the Rock Creek drainage, and the fifth is within the Northwest Branch drainage.

Within the limited area encompassing the current range of this species, the vast majority of potential expanses of habitat large enough to support this species have been significantly impacted or completely destroyed by urban and suburban development. Kenk's amphipod is now vulnerable because of its limited geographic distribution and infringement of urban development on its habitat. Degradation of water quality and modifications of hydrology are among the principal threats to this species' spring or seep habitats. Specific threats include toxic spills, non-point source pollution, sanitary sewer leaks, excessive stormwater flows, and additional land disturbance. In addition, climate change has the potential to adversely affect the species, particularly if it results in a significant change in the amount of precipitation in the Washington, DC, area.

Although all five known sites of occurrence face threats to the hydrology and water quality of their springs, these threats are chronic in nature and appear to be increasing only gradually and are not currently resulting in major mortality events or impairment of reproduction. Thus, the threats are moderate in magnitude. Several threats are imminent because they are ongoing and expected to continue. Therefore, we assigned this species LPN of 8.

Flowering Plants

Agave eggersiana
(no common name)—We previously announced candidate status for this species, and described the reasons and data on which the finding was based, in a separate warranted-but-precluded 12-month petition finding published on September 22, 2010 (75 FR 57720).

Astragalus cusickii var. packardiae
(Packard's milkvetch)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. This plant is a narrow endemic located in northeastern Payette County, Idaho. Its entire known range is only approximately 10 square miles (26 square kilometers). The light-colored, sparsely vegetated sedimentary outcrops to which this species is restricted are found scattered throughout the landscape, but are limited in extent. The size of occupied outcrops ranges from less than 0.04 hectares (0.1 acre) to approximately 1.2 hectares (3 acres). The entire population of
A. cusickii var. packardiae
is currently estimated at 5,000 plants located within 26 occurrences (17 on Bureau of Land Management, 4 on State, and 5 on private land).

The primary threats to
Astragalus cusickii var. packardiae
include wildfire, nonnative invasive plant species, and more recently, off-road vehicle (ORV) use. Vegetation within the range of
A. cusickii var. packardiae
was originally sagebrush-steppe habitat; however, due to habitat impacts from a century of wildfires, livestock use, and invasive nonnative plant species, much of the area has been converted to annual grassland dominated by two nonnative grass species,
Bromus tectorum
(cheatgrass) and
Taeniatherum caput-medusae
(medusahead). Invasive nonnative plants affect
A. cusickii var. packardiae
directly through competition and indirectly by providing continuous fine fuels that contribute to the increased frequency and extent of wildfires.

ORV use, which is currently considered the most immediate threat to
Astragalus cusickii var. packardiae
and its habitat, was not identified as a threat during the original 1999 surveys for this species, but monitoring conducted in 2008 and 2009 indicate it has since become a widespread activity, occurring throughout the limited range of
A. cusickii var. packardiae.
ORVs are traveling directly through outcrops occupied by
A. cusickii var. packardiae,
as well as along the rims, spur ridges, and slope bases that form the margins of the occupied outcrops, with tracks ranging from single passage treads to major hill climbing runways. Based on monitoring data, this use appears to be increasing in scope and has resulted in the crushing of
A. cusickii var. packardiae
plants, as well as accelerated erosion of the fine, loose substrate occupied by this species.

Based on this information, the magnitude of the primary threats to
Astragalus cusickii var. packardiae
and its habitat is high because ORV use, wildfires, and nonnative invasive species affect the species throughout its range, appear to be increasing in extent, and result in severe and direct impacts to individuals and population levels., Because these threats are ongoing throughout
A. cusickii var. packardiae'
s limited range, these threats are imminent. Thus, we assign an LPN of 3 to this plant variety.

Mimulus fremontii var. vandenbergensis
(Vandenberg monkeyflower)—
Mimulus fremontii var. vandenbergensis
is a small, short-lived annual herb in the Phrymaceae family (no common family name). It ranges from 0.5 to 10 inches (1 to 20 centimeters) tall and produces flowers that are bright yellow with reddish brown markings near the mouth. The seeds are small and numerous, and seed is likely dispersed by the wind as the seed pods open. As with other annual species that are sensitive to annual levels of rainfall, germination of resident seed banks may be low or nonexistent in unfavorable years, with little or no aboveground expression of the species visible.

Mimulus fremontii var. vandenbergensis
occurs only in western Santa Barbara County, California, at lower elevations and closer to the coast, in sandy openings of coastal scrub, chaparral, and woodlands on an old dune sheet known as Burton Mesa. Seven populations occur across the mesa over a distance of approximately 6 miles, generally in alignment with the prevailing winds. Two populations

occur on Vandenberg Air Force Base, two occur on State Park lands at La Purisima State Historic Park, two occur primarily on Department of Fish and Game lands on Burton Mesa Ecological Reserve, and one occurs primarily on private lands.

The threats currently facing
Mimulus fremontii var. vandenbergensis
include alteration and destruction of habitat from development and associated secondary impacts, including increased fragmentation, alteration of hydrology, competition with nonnative species, and alteration of fire regimes. The taxon is also threatened with stochastic extinction due to small population size: Of the 7 populations, 3 have supported fewer than 100 individuals based on at least 2 years of observations. We consider competition with nonnative plant species to be the largest and most immediate threat: Veldt grass, pampas grass, bromes, Sahara mustard, star thistle, Italian thistle, and bull thistle are present at various sites where
Mimulus fremontii var. vandenbergensis
occurs. Habitat for one population on private land was graded in 2007 in preparation for construction of a housing development. Construction has been stalled, and in the meantime, veldt grass has become established in the graded lot and has increased the rate at which this species is spreading in adjacent habitat for
Mimulus fremontii var. vandenbergensis,
including the Burton Mesa Ecological Reserve. Veldt grass is also present and rapidly spreading at population sites on Vandenberg Air Force Base and La Purisima State Historic Park.

The threats are of a high magnitude because all three of the largest populations are at risk of being lost from the invasion of nonnative species. The third largest population is also threatened by secondary impacts from a planned development and firefighting activities. Losses of some or all of the three largest populations will increase the risk of extinction of the taxon as a whole because the remaining populations are smaller and more vulnerable to stochastic extirpation, which compounds the other threats these small populations face. The threats are ongoing and, therefore, imminent. Consequently, we have assigned a LPN of 3 to this plant variety.

Listing Priority Changes in Candidates

We reviewed the LPN for all candidate species and are changing the numbers for the following species discussed below. Some of the changes reflect actual changes in either the magnitude or immediacy of the threats. For some species, the LPN change reflects efforts to ensure national consistency as well as closer adherence to the 1983 guidelines in assigning these numbers, rather than an actual change in the nature of the threats.

Snails

Page springsnail (
Pyrgulopsis morrisoni
)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. The Page springsnail is known to exist only within a complex of springs located within an approximately 0.93-mi (1.5-km) stretch along the west side of Oak Creek around the community of Page Springs, and within springs located along Spring Creek, tributary to Oak Creek, Yavapai County, Arizona.

The primary threat to the Page springsnail is modification of habitat by domestic, agricultural, ranching, fish hatchery, and recreational activities. Many of the springs where the species occurs have been subjected to some level of such modification. Based on recent survey data, it appears that the Page springsnail is abundant within natural habitats and persists in modified habitats, albeit at reduced densities. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) management plans for the Bubbling Ponds and Page Springs fish hatcheries include commitments to replace lost habitat and to monitor remaining populations of invertebrates such as the Page springsnail. The AGFD and the Service recently entered into a Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances that calls for evaluating the restoration and creation of natural springhead integrity, including springs on AGFD properties. In fact, several conservation measures have already been implemented. Also, the National Park Service recently acquired Shea Springs, a site that the Page springsnail occupied historically, and has expressed an interest in restoring natural springhead integrity to that site. Accordingly, implementation of the CCAA reduces the magnitude of threats to a moderate level and greatly reduces the chances of extirpation or extinction. The immediacy of the threat of groundwater withdrawal is uncertain, due to conflicting information regarding imminence. However, overall, the threats are imminent, because modification of the species' habitat by threats other than groundwater withdrawal is currently occurring. Therefore, we are changing the LPN for the Page springsnail from a 2 to an 8.

Flowering Plants

Hibiscus dasycalyx
(Neches River rose-mallow)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. This species, found in eastern Texas, appears to be restricted to those portions of wetlands that are exposed to open sun and normally hold standing water early in the growing season, with water levels dropping during late summer and fall. This habitat has been affected by drainage or filling of floodplain depressions and oxbows, stream channelization, road construction, timber harvesting, agricultural activities (primarily mowing and grazing), and herbicide use. Threats that continue to affect the species include wetland alteration, herbicide use, grazing, mowing during the species' growing and flowering period, and genetic swamping by other
Hibiscus
species.

A 1995 status survey of 10 counties resulted in confirmation of the species at only three sites, but in three separate counties and three different watersheds, suggesting a relatively wide historical range. These three populations were all within highway rights-of-way and vulnerable to herbicides and adjacent agricultural activities. As of 2005, only 20 plants remained at one of these sites. Additional surveys for
Hibiscus dasycalyx
discovered new populations. About 300 plants were found on land owned by Temple-Inland Corporation in east Trinity County. Smaller plant numbers have been seen at this site and in 2005 no plants were observed. This site may be too dry to support this species, possibly due to changes in the wetland's hydrology. Another site discovered on land previously owned by Champion International Corporation (near White Rock Creek in west Trinity County) once supported 300-400 plants. This site was modified in 2007. In west Houston County, a population of 300 to 400 plants discovered on private land has been purchased by the Natural Area Preservation Association in order to protect this land in perpetuity. In east Houston County, a population discovered in Compartment 55 in Davy Crockett National Forest numbered over 1,000 in 2006. In 2000, nearly 800 plants were introduced into Compartments 16 and 20 of Davy Crockett National Forest as part of a reintroduction effort. One population retained high numbers (350 in 2006), but was subjected to high water conditions in 2007 and may have been adversely affected. The second site was affected by a change in hydrology and had declined to 50 plants in 2006. In 2004, 200 plants were placed in a wetland in Compartment 11 of Davy Crockett National Forest, but only 10 plants were seen in 2006. High water from heavy spring and summer rains

prevented further assessment of these rose-mallow sites.

The threats to the species continue to be of a high magnitude because all of the populations are severely affected by some combination of the threats, and the effectiveness of the re-introduction and preservation efforts has not been established. After evaluating the current conditions of the species' habitat, we now find that threats are imminent overall. Threats are currently occurring and ongoing for nearly all of the populations (herbicides and adjacent agricultural activities for the 3 populations identified in 1995, and hydrology alteration and other modifications for the 2 populations in east Trinity County and the 3 populations reintroduced in Davy Crockett National Forest). Thus, in light of this information and to ensure consistency in the application of our listing priority process we have changed the LPN from a 5 to a 2 for the Neches River rose-mallow to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.

Linum arenicola
(Sand flax)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. Sand flax is found in pine rockland and marl prairie habitats, which require periodic wildfires in order to maintain an open, shrub-free subcanopy and reduce leaf-litter levels. Based upon available data, there are 11 extant occurrences of sand flax; 11 others have been extirpated or destroyed. For the most part, only small and isolated occurrences remain in low lying areas in a restricted range of southern Florida and the Florida Keys. In general, viability is uncertain for 9 of 11 occurrences.

Sand flax is threatened by habitat loss and degradation due to development; climatic changes and sea-level rise, which ultimately are likely to substantially reduce the extent of available habitat; fire suppression and difficulty in applying prescribed fire; road maintenance activities; exotic species; illegal dumping; natural disturbances, such as hurricanes, tropical storms, and storm surges; and the small and fragmented nature of the current population. Reduced pollinator activity and suppression of pollinator populations from pesticides used in mosquito control and decreased seed production due to increased seed predation in a fragmented wildland urban interface may also affect sand flax; however, not enough information is known on this species' reproductive biology or life history to assess these potential threats. Some of the threats to the species—including fire suppression, difficulty in applying prescribed fire, road maintenance activities, exotic species, and illegal dumping—threaten nearly all remaining populations. However, some efforts are under way to use prescribed fire to control exotics on conservation lands where this species occurs.

There are some circumstances that may mitigate the impacts of the threats upon the species. For example, a survey conducted in 2009 showed approximately 74,000 plants on a non-conservation, public site in Miami-Dade County; this is far more plants than was previously known. Although a portion of the plants will be affected by development, approximately 60,000 are anticipated to be protected and managed through a Conservation Easement. Consequently, the majority of the largest occurrence in Miami-Dade County is expected to be conserved and managed. In addition, much of the pine rockland on Big Pine Key, the location of the largest occurrence in the Keys, is protected from development.

Nevertheless, due to the small and fragmented nature of the current population, stochastic events, disease, or genetic bottlenecks may strongly affect this species in the Keys. One example is Hurricane Wilma, which inundated most of the species' habitat on Big Pine Key in 2005, and plants were not found 8-9 weeks post-storm; the density of sand flax declined to zero in all management units at The Nature Conservancy's preserve in 2006. In a 2007 post-hurricane assessment, sand flax was found in northern plots, but not in any of the southern plots on Big Pine Key. More current data are not available.

Overall, the magnitude of threats is high, because the threats affect all 11 known occurrences of the species, and can result in a precipitous decline to the population levels, particularly when combined with the potential impacts from hurricanes or other natural disasters. Because development is not immediate for the majority of the largest population in Miami-Dade County and another population in the Keys is also largely protected from development since much of it is within public and private conservation lands, the threat of habitat loss is now nonimminent. In addition, sea level rise is a long-term threat since we do not have evidence that it is currently affecting any population of sand flax. Therefore, based upon new information (new survey date showing a much larger population of plants), and reduced immediacy of threats, we changed the LPN of this species from a 2 to a 5.

Penstemon scariosus
var.
albifluvis
(White River beardtongue)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files and the petition we received on October 27, 1983. This species is restricted to calcareous soils derived from oil shale barrens of the Green River Formation in the Uinta Basin of northeastern Utah and adjacent Colorado. There are 14 occurrences known in Utah and 1 in Colorado. Most of the occupied habitat of the White River beardtongue is within developed and expanding oil and gas fields. The location of the species' habitat exposes it to destruction from road, pipeline, and well site construction in connection with oil and gas development. Recreational off-road vehicle use, heavy grazing by livestock, and wildlife and livestock trampling are additional threats. A future threat (and potentially the greatest threat) to the species is oil shale development.

In the 2009 CNOR, we found the threats were nonimminent and high magnitude. However, traditional oil and gas energy development in the area has expanded into habitat for this species, and therefore the threat is now imminent. In addition, BLM has adopted a Special Status Species policy and has included in its current Resource Management Plan commitments to protect this species. These protections lessen the extent of traditional oil and gas development impacts to this species, so that the threat is now of moderate magnitude. The threat from off-road vehicles is also moderate because BLM limited all vehicles to designated routes, thus avoiding beardtongue habitat. Based on current information, we are changing the LPN from a 6 to a 9 for this plant variety.

Candidate Removals

As summarized below, we have evaluated the threats to the following species and considered factors that, individually and in combination, currently or potentially could pose a risk to this species and its habitat. After a review of the best available scientific and commercial data, we conclude that listing this species under the Endangered Species Act is not warranted because the species is not likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its' range. Therefore, we find that proposing a rule to list it is not warranted, and we no longer consider it to be a candidate species for listing. We will continue to monitor the status of this species and to accept additional information and comments concerning this finding. We will reconsider our determination in the event that new information indicates that the threats to the species is of a considerably greater magnitude or imminence than identified through

assessments of information contained in our files, as summarized here.

Mammals

Palm Springs round-tailed ground squirrel (
Xerospermophilus tereticaudus chlorus
)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. No new information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. The Palm Springs round-tailed ground squirrel was believed to be limited in range to the Coachella Valley region of Riverside County, California. The primary habitat in the Coachella Valley for round-tailed ground squirrel is the dunes and mesquite hummocks associated with
Prosopis glandulosa
var.
torreyana
(honey mesquite) and to a lesser extent those dunes and hummocks associated with
Larrea tridentata
(creosote), or other vegetation. The primary threat to
X. t.

chlorus
in the Coachella Valley was from habitat loss due to urban development and drops in the groundwater table, which eliminated much of the honey mesquite in the Coachella Valley and fragmented habitat occupied by this subspecies. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) developed a Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) that was reviewed and approved by the Service in 2008. Habitat conservation and monitoring actions that have been implemented since 2008 specifically for
X. t. chlorus
have significantly eliminated the threat of urban development to the taxon. To date, conservation for
X. t. chlorus
includes protection of 244 acres of mesquite hummocks as a result of the MSHCP, in addition to 104 acres of mesquite hummocks on conservation lands in existence prior to permitting the MSHCP. Protection of additional habitat (desert shrub communities and other sandy areas with appropriate vegetation known to harbor the subspecies at lower densities) is also anticipated in other portions of the plan area. Although we do not rely upon future implementation of the additional habitat protections anticipated in the MSHCP, we do expect conservation actions specific to
X. t. chlorus
to continue as a result of the commitment by CVAG and the MSHCP.

More significant than the ongoing conservation measures is the fact that recent results of both morphological and genetic studies indicate its range is substantially larger than previously believed. Analysis of experimental samples show
X. t. chlorus
is found in Hinkley Valley and Death Valley, expanding the range at minimum 150 miles northward. Because
X. t. chlorus
is more widespread in its range than was previously understood, and based on our review of the best available information, we no longer conclude that threats across this newly expanded range put the taxon in danger of extinction. Moreover, this subspecies is not endangered or threatened in a significant portion of the range because the conservation actions and current protections provided in Death Valley make it so it is not endangered or threatened in any portion of the range. In summary, the existing conservation provided by MSHCP in the Coachella Valley, along with the data showing the subspecies has an expanded range over which the threats are nonsignificant to the taxon as a whole, we find listing of the Palm Springs round-tailed ground squirrel (
X. t.

chlorus
) throughout all or a significant portion of its range is no longer warranted. The subspecies no longer meets our definition of a candidate, and we have removed it from candidate status.

Petition Findings

The Act provides two mechanisms for considering species for listing. One method allows the Secretary, on his own initiative, to identify species for listing under the standards of section 4(a)(1). We implement this through the candidate program, discussed above. The second method for listing a species provides a mechanism for the public to petition us to add a species to the Lists. The CNOR serves several purposes as part of the petition process: (1) In some instances (in particular, for petitions to list species that the Service has already identified as candidates on its own initiative), it serves as the petition finding; (2) it serves as a “resubmitted” petition finding that the Act requires the Service to make each year; and (3) it documents the Service's compliance with the statutory requirement to monitor the status of species for which listing is warranted-but-precluded to ascertain if they need emergency listing.

First, the CNOR serves as a petition finding in some instances. Under section 4(b)(3)(A), when we receive a listing petition, we must determine within 90 days, to the maximum extent practicable, whether the petition presents substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted (a “90-day finding”). If we make a positive 90-day finding, we must promptly commence a status review of the species under section 4(b)(3)(A); we must then make and publish one of three possible findings within 12 months of the receipt of the petition (a “12-month finding”):

1. The petitioned action is not warranted;

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

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

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

Therefore all candidate species identified through our own initiative already have received the equivalent of substantial 90-day and warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings. Nevertheless, we review the status of the newly petitioned candidate species and through this CNOR publish specific section 4(b)(3) findings (
i.e.,
substantial 90-day and warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings) in response to the petitions to list these candidate species. We publish these findings as part of the first CNOR following receipt of the petition. Since publication of the CNOR in 2009, we received petitions to list three candidate species, the Florida bonneted bat, headwater chub, and Rosemont talussnail (we received this petition after we initiated our assessment of this species for candidate status). We are making substantial 90-day findings and warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings for these species as part of this notice. We have identified the candidate species for which we received petitions by the code “C*” in the category column on the left side of Table 1.

Second, the CNOR serves as a “resubmitted” petition finding. Section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act requires that when we make a warranted-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 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 these annual findings for petitioned candidate species through the CNOR.

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

A number of court decisions have elaborated on the nature and specificity of information that must be considered in making and describing the findings in the CNOR. The previous CNOR, which was published on November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), describes these court decisions in further detail. As with previous CNORs, we continue to incorporate information of the nature and specificity required by the courts. For example, we include a description of the reasons why the listing of every petitioned candidate species is both warranted and precluded at this time. We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first and also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis (see below). Regional priorities can also be discerned from Table 1, which includes the lead region and the LPN for each species. Our preclusion determinations are further based upon our budget for listing activities for unlisted species only, and we explain the priority system and why the work we have accomplished does preclude action on listing candidate species.

Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(ii) and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), any party with standing may challenge the merits of any not-warranted or warranted-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 1 year of the date of publication of this CNOR. If we fail to make any such finding on a timely basis, whether through publication of a new CNOR or some other form of notice, any party with standing may seek judicial review.

In this CNOR, we continue to address the concerns of the courts by including specific information in our discussion on preclusion (
see
below). In preparing this CNOR, we reviewed the current status of, and threats to, the 166 candidates and 5 listed species for which we have received a petition and for which we have found listing or reclassification from threatened to endangered to be warranted but precluded. We also reviewed the current status of, and threats to, the Canada lynx in New Mexico for which we received a petition to add that State to the listed range. We find that the immediate issuance of a proposed rule and timely promulgation of a final rule for each of these species has been, for the preceding months, and continues to be, precluded by higher priority listing actions. Additional information that is the basis for this finding is found in the species assessments and our administrative record for each species.

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

The immediate publication of proposed rules to list these species was precluded by our work on higher priority listing actions, listed below, during the period from October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010. We will continue to monitor the status of all candidate species, including petitioned species, as new information becomes available to determine if a change in status is warranted, including the need to emergency-list a species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act.

In addition to identifying petitioned candidate species in Table 1 below, we also present brief summaries of why each of these candidates warrants listing. More complete information, including references, is found in the species assessment forms. You may obtain a copy of these forms from the Regional Office having the lead for the species, or from the Fish and Wildlife Service's Internet Web site:
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/SpeciesReport.do?listingType=C&mapstatus=1.
As described above, under section 4 of the Act we may identify and propose species for listing based on the factors identified in section 4(a)(1), and section 4 also provides a mechanism for the public to petition us to add a species to the lists of threatened species or endangered species under the Act. Below we describe the actions that continue to preclude the immediate proposal and final promulgation of a regulation implementing each of the petitioned actions for which we have made a warranted-but-precluded finding, and we describe the expeditious progress we are making to add qualified species to, and remove species from, the lists of endangered or threatened species.

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress

Preclusion is a function of the listing priority of a species in relation to the resources that are available and the cost and relative priority of competing demands for those resources. Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate whether it will be possible to undertake work on a listing proposal regulation or whether promulgation of such a proposal is precluded by higher priority listing actions.

The resources available for listing actions are determined through the annual Congressional appropriations

process. The appropriation for the Listing Program is available to support work involving the following listing actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 90-day and 12-month findings on petitions to add species to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) or to change the status of a species from threatened to endangered; annual “resubmitted” petition findings on prior warranted-but-precluded petition findings as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; critical habitat petition findings; proposed and final rules designating critical habitat; and litigation-related, administrative, and program-management functions (including preparing and allocating budgets, responding to Congressional and public inquiries, and conducting public outreach regarding listing and critical habitat). The work involved in preparing various listing documents can be extensive, and may include, but is not limited to: Gathering and assessing the best scientific and commercial data available and conducting analyses used as the basis for our decisions; writing and publishing documents; and obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating public comments and peer-review comments on proposed rules and incorporating relevant information into final rules. The number of listing actions that we can undertake in a given year also is influenced by the complexity of those listing actions; that is, more complex actions generally are more costly. The median cost for preparing and publishing a 90-day finding is $39,276; for a 12-month finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule with critical habitat, $345,000; and for a final listing rule with critical habitat, the median cost is $305,000.

We cannot spend more than is appropriated for the Listing Program without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (
see
31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal year since then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on funds which may be expended for the Listing Program, equal to the amount expressly appropriated for that purpose in that fiscal year. This cap was designed to prevent funds appropriated for other functions under the Act (for example, recovery funds for removing species from the Lists), or for other Service programs, from being used for Listing Program actions (see House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st Session, July 1, 1997).

Since FY 2002, the Service's budget has included a critical habitat subcap to ensure that some funds are available for other work in the Listing Program (“The critical habitat designation subcap will ensure that some funding is available to address other listing activities” (H.R. No. 107-103, 107th Congress, 1st Session, June 19, 2001)). In FY 2002 and each year until FY 2006, the Service has had to use virtually the entire critical habitat subcap to address court-mandated designations of critical habitat, and consequently none of the critical habitat subcap funds have been available for other listing activities. In FY 2007, we were able to use some of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing determinations for high-priority candidate species. In FY 2009, while we were unable to use any of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing determinations, we did use some of this money to fund the critical habitat portion of some proposed listing determinations so that the proposed listing determination and proposed critical habitat designation could be combined into one rule, thereby being more efficient in our work. In FY 2010, we are using some of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund listing actions with statutory deadlines.

We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first and also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis. Through the listing cap, the critical habitat subcap, and the amount of funds needed to address court-mandated critical habitat designations, Congress and the courts have in effect determined the amount of money available for other listing activities nationwide. Therefore, the funds in the listing cap, other than those needed to address court-mandated critical habitat for already listed species, represent the resources we must take into consideration when we make our determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.

Congress identified the availability of resources as the only basis for deferring the initiation of a rulemaking that is warranted. The Conference Report accompanying Public Law 97-304, which established the current statutory deadlines and the warranted-but-precluded finding, states that the amendments were “not intended to allow the Secretary to delay commencing the rulemaking process for any reason other than that the existence of pending or imminent proposals to list species subject to a greater degree of threat would make allocation of resources to such a petition [that is, for a lower-ranking species] unwise.” Although that statement appeared to refer specifically to the “to the maximum extent practicable” limitation on the 90-day deadline for making a “substantial information” finding, that finding is made at the point when the Service is deciding whether or not to commence a status review that will determine the degree of threats facing the species, and therefore the analysis underlying the statement is more relevant to the use of the warranted-but-precluded finding, which is made when the Service has already determined the degree of threats facing the species and is deciding whether or not to commence a rulemaking.

In FY 2010, $10,471,000 is the amount of money that Congress appropriated for the Listing Program (that is, the portion of the Listing Program funding not related to critical habitat designations for species that are already listed). Therefore, a proposed listing is precluded if pending proposals with higher priority will require expenditure of at least $10,471,000, and expeditious progress is the amount of work that can be achieved with $10,471,000. Since court orders requiring critical habitat work will not require use of all of the funds within the critical habitat subcap, we are using $1,114,417 of our critical habitat subcap funds in order to work on as many of our required petition findings and listing determinations as possible. This brings the total amount of funds we have for listing action in FY 2010 to $11,585,417.

The $11,585,417 is being used to fund work in the following categories: Compliance with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements requiring that petition findings or listing determinations be completed by a specific date; section 4 (of the Act) listing actions with absolute statutory deadlines; essential litigation-related, administrative, and listing program-management functions; and high-priority listing actions for some of our candidate species. In 2009, the responsibility for listing foreign species under the Act was transferred from the Division of Scientific Authority, International Affairs Program, to the Endangered Species Program. Therefore, starting in FY 2010, a portion of our funding is being used to work on the actions described above as they apply to listing actions for foreign species. This has the potential to further reduce funding available for domestic listing actions. Although there are currently no foreign species issues included in our high-priority listing actions at this time, many actions have statutory or court-approved settlement deadlines, thus increasing their priority. The budget allocations for each specific listing action are identified in the Service's FY

2010 Allocation Table (part of our administrative record).

Based on our September 21, 1983, guidance for assigning an LPN for each candidate species (48 FR 43098), we have a significant number of species with an LPN of 2. Under this guidance, we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats (high or moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or nonimminent), and taxonomic status of the species (in order of priority: Monotypic genus (a species that is the sole member of a genus), species, or part of a species (subspecies, distinct population segment, or significant portion of the range)). The lower the listing priority number, the higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing priority).

Because of the large number of high-priority species, we have further ranked the candidate species with an LPN of 2 by using the following extinction-risk type criteria: International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank, Heritage rank (provided by NatureServe), Heritage threat rank (provided by NatureServe), and species currently with fewer than 50 individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. Those species with the highest IUCN rank (critically endangered), the highest Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage threat rank (substantial, imminent threats), and currently with fewer than 50 individuals, or fewer than 4 populations, originally comprised a group of approximately 40 candidate species (“Top 40”). These 40 candidate species have had the highest priority to receive funding to work on a proposed listing determination. As we work through proposed and final listing rules for those 40 candidates, we apply the ranking criteria to the next group of candidates with LPNs of 2 and 3 to determine the next set of highest priority candidate species. Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened species to endangered are lower priority, since as listed species, they are already afforded the protection of the Act and implementing regulations. However, for efficiency reasons, we may choose to work on a proposed rule to reclassify a species to endangered if we can combine this with work that is subject to a court-determined deadline.

With our workload so much bigger than the amount of funds we have to accomplish it, it is important that we be as efficient as possible in our listing process. Therefore, as we work on proposed rules for the highest priority species in the next several years, we are preparing multi-species proposals when appropriate, and these may include species with lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same threats as a species with an LPN of 2. In addition, we take into consideration the availability of staff resources when we determine which high-priority species will receive funding to minimize the amount of time and resources required to complete each listing action.

Based on these prioritization factors, we continue to find that proposals to list the petitioned candidate species included in Table 1 are all warranted but precluded.

As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made to add and remove qualified species to and from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. As with our “precluded” finding, the evaluation of whether progress in adding qualified species to the Lists has been expeditious is a function of the resources available for listing and the competing demands for those funds. Given the limited resources available for listing, we find that we made expeditious progress in FY 2010 in the Listing Program. (Although we do not discuss it in detail here, we are making expeditious progress in removing species from the list under the Recovery program in light of the resource available for delisting, which is funded by a separate line item in the budget of the Endangered Species Program. During FY 2010, we have completed two proposed delisting rules and two final delisting rules.) Progress in adding qualified species to the list included preparing and publishing the following determinations:

FY 2010 Completed Listing Actions

Publication date
Title
Actions
FR pages

10/08/2009

Listing
Lepidium papilliferum
(Slickspot Peppergrass) as a Threatened Species Throughout Its Range

Final Listing Threatened
74 FR 52013-52064.

10/27/2009
90-day Finding on a Petition To List the American Dipper in the Black Hills of South Dakota as Threatened or Endangered
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial
74 FR 55177-55180.

10/28/2009

Status Review of Arctic Grayling (
Thymallus arcticus
) in the Upper Missouri River System

Notice of Intent to Conduct Status Review for Listing Decision
74 FR 55524-55525.

11/03/2009
Listing the British Columbia Distinct Population Segment of the Queen Charlotte Goshawk Under the Endangered Species Act: Proposed rule
Proposed Listing Threatened
74 FR 56757-56770.

11/03/2009
Listing the Salmon-Crested Cockatoo as Threatened Throughout Its Range with Special Rule
Proposed Listing Threatened
74 FR 56770-56791.

11/23/2009

Status Review of Gunnison sage-grouse (
Centrocercus minimus
)

Notice of Intent to Conduct Status Review for Listing Decision
74 FR 61100-61102.

12/03/2009
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Black-tailed Prairie Dog as Threatened or Endangered
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted
74 FR 63343-63366.

12/03/2009
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Sprague's Pipit as Threatened or Endangered
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
74 FR 63337-63343.

12/15/2009
90-Day Finding on Petitions To List Nine Species of Mussels From Texas as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
74 FR 66260-66271.

12/16/2009
Partial 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 475 Species in the Southwestern United States as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat Critical Habitat
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial and Substantial
74 FR 66865-66905.

12/17/2009
12-month Finding on a Petition To Change the Final Listing of the Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx To Include New Mexico
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded
74 FR 66937-66950.

1/05/2010
Listing Foreign Bird Species in Peru and Bolivia as Endangered Throughout Their Range
Proposed Listing Endangered
75 FR 605-649.

1/05/2010
Listing Six Foreign Birds as Endangered Throughout Their Range
Proposed Listing Endangered
75 FR 286-310.

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

1/05/2010
Final Rule to List the Galapagos Petrel and Heinroth's Shearwater as Threatened Throughout Their Ranges
Final Listing Threatened
75 FR 235-250.

1/20/2010

Initiation of Status Review for
Agave eggersiana
and
Solanum conocarpum

Notice of Intent to Conduct Status Review for Listing Decision
75 FR 3190-3191.

2/09/2010
12-month Finding on a Petition to List the American Pika as Threatened or Endangered
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted
75 FR 6437-6471.

2/25/2010
12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Sonoran Desert Population of the Bald Eagle as a Threatened or Endangered Distinct Population Segment
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted
75 FR 8601-8621.

2/25/2010

Withdrawal of Proposed Rule To List the Southwestern Washington/Columbia River Distinct Population Segment of Coastal Cutthroat Trout (
Oncorhynchus clarki clarki
) as Threatened

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

3/18/2010
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Berry Cave salamander as Endangered
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
75 FR 13068-13071.

3/23/2010

90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Southern Hickorynut Mussel (
Obovaria jacksoniana
) as Endangered or Threatened

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial
75 FR 13717-13720.

3/23/2010
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Striped Newt as Threatened
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
75 FR 13720-13726.

3/23/2010

12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse (
Centrocercus urophasianus
) as Threatened or Endangered

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded
75 FR 13910-14014.

3/31/2010

12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Tucson Shovel-Nosed Snake (
Chionactis occipitalis klauberi)
as Threatened or Endangered with Critical Habitat

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded
75 FR 16050-16065.

4/5/2010
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Thorne's Hairstreak Butterfly as threatened or Endangered
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
75 FR 17062-17070.

4/6/2010
12-month Finding on a Petition To List the Mountain Whitefish in the Big Lost River, Idaho, as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted
75 FR 17352-17363.

4/6/2010

90-Day Finding on a Petition to List a Stonefly (
Isoperla jewetti
) and a Mayfly (
Fallceon eatoni
) as Threatened or Endangered with Critical Habitat

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial
75 FR 17363-17367.

4/7/2010
12-Month Finding on a Petition to Reclassify the Delta Smelt From Threatened to Endangered Throughout Its Range
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded
75 FR 17667-17680.

4/13/2010
Determination of Endangered Status for 48 Species on Kauai and Designation of Critical Habitat
Final Listing Endangered
75 FR 18959-19165.

4/15/2010
Initiation of Status Review of the North American Wolverine in the Contiguous United States
Notice of Initiation of Status Review for Listing Decision
75 FR 19591-19592.

4/15/2010
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Wyoming Pocket Gopher as Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted
75 FR 19592-19607.

4/16/2010
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List a Distinct Population Segment of the Fisher in Its United States Northern Rocky Mountain Range as Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
75 FR 19925-19935.

4/20/2010

Initiation of Status Review for Sacramento splittail (
Pogonichthys macrolepidotus
)

Notice of Initiation of Status Review for Listing Decision
75 FR 20547-20548.

4/26/2010
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Harlequin Butterfly as Endangered
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
75 FR 21568-21571.

4/27/2010

12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Susan's Purse-making Caddisfly (
Ochrotrichia susanae
) as Threatened or Endangered

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted
75 FR 22012-22025.

4/27/2010
90-day Finding on a Petition to List the Mohave Ground Squirrel as Endangered with Critical Habitat
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
75 FR 22063-22070.

5/4/2010
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Hermes Copper Butterfly as Threatened or Endangered
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
75 FR 23654-23663.

6/1/2010

90-Day Finding on a Petition To List
Castanea pumila
var.
ozarkensis

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
75 FR 30313-30318.

6/1/2010
12-month Finding on a Petition to List the White-tailed Prairie Dog as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted
75 FR 30338-30363.

6/9/2010
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List van Rossem's Gull-billed Tern as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
75 FR 32728-32734.

6/16/2010
90-Day Finding on Five Petitions to List Seven Species of Hawaiian Yellow-faced Bees as Endangered
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
75 FR 34077-34088.

6/22/2010
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Least Chub as Threatened or Endangered
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded
75 FR 35398-35424.

6/23/2010
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Honduran Emerald Hummingbird as Endangered
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
75 FR 35746-35751.

6/23/2010

Listing
Ipomopsis polyantha
(Pagosa Skyrocket) as Endangered Throughout Its Range, and Listing
Penstemon debilis
(Parachute Beardtongue) and
Phacelia submutica
(DeBeque Phacelia) as Threatened Throughout Their Range

Proposed Listing Endangered
Proposed Listing Threatened

75 FR 35721-35746.

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

6/24/2010
Listing the Cumberland Darter, Rush Darter, Yellowcheek Darter, Chucky Madtom, and Laurel Dace as Endangered Throughout Their Ranges
Proposed Listing Endangered
75 FR 36035-36057.

6/29/2010
Listing the Mountain Plover as Threatened
Reinstatement of Proposed Listing Threatened
75 FR 37353-37358.

7/20/2010

90-Day Finding on a Petition to List
Pinus albicaulis
(Whitebark Pine) as Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
75 FR 42033-42040.

7/20/2010
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Amargosa Toad as Threatened or Endangered
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted
75 FR 42040-42054.

7/20/2010

90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Giant Palouse Earthworm (
Driloleirus americanus
) as Threatened or Endangered

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
75 FR 42059-42066.

7/27/2010
Determination on Listing the Black-Breasted Puffleg as Endangered Throughout its Range; Final Rule
Final Listing Endangered
75 FR 43844-43853.

7/27/2010

Final Rule to List the Medium Tree-Finch (
Camarhynchus pauper
) as Endangered Throughout Its Range

Final Listing Endangered
75 FR 43853-43864.

8/3/2010
Determination of Threatened Status for Five Penguin Species
Final Listing Threatened
75 FR 45497-45527.

8/4/2010
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Mexican Gray Wolf as an Endangered Subspecies With Critical Habitat
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
75 FR 46894-46898.

8/10/2010

90-Day Finding on a Petition to List
Arctostaphylos franciscana
as Endangered with Critical Habitat

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
75 FR 48294-48298.

8/17/2010
Listing Three Foreign Bird Species from Latin America and the Caribbean as Endangered Throughout Their Range
Final Listing Endangered
75 FR 50813-50842.

8/17/2010
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Brian Head Mountainsnail as Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial
75 FR 50739-50742.

8/24/2010
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Oklahoma Grass Pink Orchid as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
75 FR 51969-51974.

9/1/2010
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the White-Sided Jackrabbit as Threatened or Endangered
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted
75 FR 53615-53629.

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

9/8/2010
Revised 12-Month Finding to List the Upper Missouri River Distinct Population Segment of Arctic Grayling as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded
75 FR 54707-54753.

9/9/2010

12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Jemez Mountains Salamander (
Plethodon neomexicanus)
as Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded
75 FR 54822-54845.

9/15/2010
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Sprague's Pipit as Endangered or Threatened Throughout Its Range
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded
75 FR 56028-56050.

9/22/2010

12-Month Finding on a Petition to List
Agave eggersiana
(no common name) as Endangered

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded
75 FR 57720-57734.

9/28/2010
Determination of Endangered Status for the African Penguin
Final Listing Endangered
75 FR 59645-59656.

9/28/2010
Determination for the Gunnison Sage-grouse as a Threatened or Endangered Species
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded
75 FR 59803-59863.

9/30/2010
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Pygmy Rabbit as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted
75 FR 60515-60561.

Our expeditious progress also included work on listing actions that we funded in FY 2010 but have not yet been completed to date. These actions are listed below. Actions in the top section of the table are being conducted under a deadline set by a court. Actions in the middle section of the table are being conducted to meet statutory timelines, that is, timelines required under the Act. Actions in the bottom section of the table are high-priority listing actions. These actions include work primarily on species with an LPN of 2, and, as discussed above, selection of these species is partially based on available staff resources, and when appropriate, include species with a lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same threats as the species with the high priority. Including these species together in the same proposed rule results in considerable savings in time and funding, compared to preparing separate proposed rules for each of them in the future.

Actions Funded in FY 2010 But Not Yet Completed

Species
Action

Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement

6 Birds from Eurasia
Final listing determination.

Flat-tailed horned lizard
Final listing determination.

Mountain plover
3

Final listing determination.

6 Birds from Peru
Proposed listing determination.

Sacramento splittail
12-month petition finding.

Pacific walrus
12-month petition finding.

Wolverine
12-month petition finding.

Solanum conocarpum

12-month petition finding.

Desert tortoise—Sonoran population
12-month petition finding.

Thorne's Hairstreak butterfly
3

12-month petition finding.

Hermes copper butterfly
3

12-month petition finding.

Actions with Statutory Deadlines

Casey's june beetle
Final listing determination.

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

7 Bird species from Brazil
Final listing determination.

Southern rockhopper penguin—Campbell Plateau population
Final listing determination.

5 Bird species from Colombia and Ecuador
Final listing determination.

Queen Charlotte goshawk
Final listing determination.

5 species southeast fish (Cumberland darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, and laurel dace)
Final listing determination.

Salmon crested cockatoo
Proposed listing determination.

CA golden trout
12-month petition finding.

Black-footed albatross
12-month petition finding.

Mount Charleston blue butterfly
12-month petition finding.

Mojave fringe-toed lizard
1

12-month petition finding.

Kokanee—Lake Sammamish population
1

12-month petition finding.

Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl
1

12-month petition finding.

Northern leopard frog
12-month petition finding.

Tehachapi slender salamander
12-month petition finding.

Coqui Llanero
12-month petition finding.

Dusky tree vole
12-month petition finding.

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

12-month petition finding.

5 UT plants (
Astragalus hamiltonii, Eriogonum soredium, Lepidium ostleri, Penstemon flowersii, Trifolium friscanum
) from 206 species petition

12-month petition finding.

2 CO plants (
Astragalus microcymbus
, Astragalus

schmolliae
) from 206 species petition

12-month petition finding.

5 WY plants (
Abronia ammophila, Agrostis rossiae, Astragalus proimanthus, Boechere
(
Arabis
)
pusilla, Penstemon gibbensii
) from 206 species petition

12-month petition finding.

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

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

Gopher tortoise—eastern population
12-month petition finding.

Wrights marsh thistle
12-month petition finding.

67 of 475 southwest species
12-month petition finding.

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

Anacroneuria wipukupa
(a stonefly from 475 species petition)

12-month petition finding.

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

3 Texas moths (
Ursia furtiva, Sphingicampa blanchardi, Agapema galbina
) (from 475 species petition)

12-month petition finding.

2 Texas
shiners (
Cyprinella
sp.,
Cyprinella lepida
) (from 475 species petition)

12-month petition finding.

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

12-month petition finding.

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

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

Berry Cave salamander
1

12-month petition finding.

Striped Newt
1

12-month petition finding.

Fisher—Northern Rocky Mountain Range
1

12-month petition finding.

Mohave Ground Squirrel
1

12-month petition finding.

Puerto Rico Harlequin Butterfly
12-month petition finding.

Western gull-billed tern
12-month petition finding.

Ozark chinquapin (
Castanea pumila
var. ozarkensis)

12-month petition finding.

HI yellow-faced bees
12-month petition finding.

Giant Palouse earthworm
12-month petition finding.

Whitebark pine
12-month petition finding.

OK grass pink (
Calopogon oklahomensis
)
1

12-month petition finding.

Southeastern pop snowy plover & wintering pop. of piping plover
1

90-day petition finding.

Eagle Lake trout
1

90-day petition finding.

Smooth-billed ani
1

90-day petition finding.

Bay Springs salamander
1

90-day petition finding.

32 species of snails and slugs
1

90-day petition finding.

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

Red knot
roselaari
subspecies

90-day petition finding.

Peary caribou
90-day petition finding.

Plains bison
90-day petition finding.

Spring Mountains checkerspot butterfly
90-day petition finding.

Spring pygmy sunfish
90-day petition finding.

Bay skipper
90-day petition finding.

Unsilvered fritillary
90-day petition finding.

Texas kangaroo rat
90-day petition finding.

Spot-tailed earless lizard
90-day petition finding.

Eastern small-footed bat
90-day petition finding.

Northern long-eared bat
90-day petition finding.

Prairie chub
90-day petition finding.

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

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

Golden-winged warbler
90-day petition finding.

Sand-verbena moth
90-day petition finding.

404 Southeast species
90-day petition finding.

High-Priority Listing Actions

3

19 Oahu candidate species
2
(16 plants, 3 damselflies) (15 with LPN = 2, 3 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN =9)

Proposed listing.

19 Maui-Nui candidate species
2
(16 plants, 3 tree snails) (14 with LPN = 2, 2 with LPN = 3, 3 with LPN = 8)

Proposed listing.

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

Proposed listing.

2 Arizona springsnails
2
(
Pyrgulopsis bernadina
(LPN = 2),
Pyrgulopsis trivialis
(LPN = 2))

Proposed listing.

New Mexico springsnail
2
(
Pyrgulopsis chupaderae
(LPN = 2))

Proposed listing.

2 mussels
2
(rayed bean (LPN = 2), snuffbox No LPN)

Proposed listing.

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

Proposed listing.

Altamaha spinymussel
2
(LPN = 2)

Proposed listing.

8 southeast mussels (southern kidneyshell (LPN = 2), round ebonyshell (LPN = 2), Alabama pearlshell (LPN = 2), southern sandshell (LPN = 5), fuzzy pigtoe (LPN = 5), Choctaw bean (LPN = 5), narrow pigtoe (LPN = 5), and tapered pigtoe (LPN = 11))
Proposed listing.

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

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

3
Partially funded with FY 2010 funds; also will be funded with FY 2011 funds.

We also funded work on resubmitted petitions findings for 162 candidate species (species petitioned prior to the last CNOR). We did not include new information in our resubmitted petition finding for the Columbia Basin population of the greater sage-grouse in this notice, as the significance of the Columbia Basin DPS to the greater sage-grouse will require further review and we will update our finding at a later date (
see
75 FR 13909; March 23, 2010). We also did not include new information in our resubmitted petition findings for the 43 candidate species for which we are preparing proposed listing determinations;
see
summaries below regarding publication of these determinations (these species will remain on the candidate list until a proposed listing rule is published). We also funded a revised 12-month petition finding for the candidate species that we are removing from candidate status, which is being published as part of this CNOR (
see Candidate Removals
). Because the majority of these species were already candidate species prior to our receipt of a petition to list them, we had already assessed their status using funds from our Candidate Conservation Program. We also continue to monitor the status of these species through our Candidate Conservation Program. The cost of updating the species assessment forms and publishing the joint publication of the CNOR and resubmitted petition findings is shared

between the Listing Program and the Candidate Conservation Program.

During FY 2010, we also funded work on resubmitted petition findings for uplisting six listed species, for which petitions were previously received.

We have endeavored to make our listing actions as efficient and timely as possible, given the requirements of the relevant law and regulations, and constraints relating to workload and personnel. We are continually considering ways to streamline processes or achieve economies of scale, such as by batching related actions together. Given our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the Act, the actions described above collectively constitute expeditious progress.

Although we have not been able to resolve the listing status of many of the candidates, several programs in the Service contribute to the conservation of these species. In particular, the Candidate Conservation program, which is separately budgeted, focuses on providing technical expertise for developing conservation strategies and agreements to guide voluntary on-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. Through this program, we work with our partners (other Federal agencies, State agencies, Tribes, local governments, private landowners, and private conservation organizations) to address the threats to candidate species and other species at-risk. We are currently working with our partners to implement voluntary conservation agreements for more than 140 species covering 5 million acres of habitat. In some instances, the sustained implementation of strategically designed conservation efforts culminates in making listing unnecessary for species that are candidates for listing or for which listing has been proposed.

Findings for Petitioned Candidate Species

Below are updated summaries for petitioned candidates for which we published findings, pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(B). We are making continued warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings on the petitions for these species (for our revised 12-month petition findings for species we are removing from candidate status,
see
summaries above under
“Candidate Removals”
).

Mammals

Florida bonneted bat (
Eumops floridanus
)—The following summary is based on information in our files. No new information was presented in the petition received on January 29, 2010. Endemic to south Florida, this species has been found at 12 locations, 5 on private land and 7 on public land. The entire population may number less than a few hundred individuals. Results from a rangewide acoustical survey found a small number of locations where calls were recorded, and low numbers of calls were recorded at each location. Few active roost sites are known; all are artificial (
i.e.,
bat houses). Prolonged cold temperatures in January and February 2010 affected one active roost; it is not clear what effect the prolonged cold had on the species. Efforts are under way to confirm presence at all previously documented sites.

Occurrences are threatened by loss and conversion of habitat to other uses and habitat alteration (
e.g.,
removal of old trees with cavities, removal of manmade structures with suitable roosting sites); this threat is expected to continue and increase. Although occurrences on conservation lands are inherently more protected than those on private lands, habitat alteration during management practices may affect natural roosting sites even on conservation lands if Florida bonneted bats are present but undetected. Therefore, occupied and potential habitat on forested or wooded lands, both private and public, continues to be at risk. The species is vulnerable to a wide array of natural and human factors: Low population size, restricted range, low fecundity, large distances between occupied locations, and small number of occupied locations. Such factors may make recolonization unlikely if any site is extirpated and may make the species vulnerable to extinction due to genetic drift, inbreeding depression, extreme weather events, and random or chance changes to the environment. Where the species occurs in or near human dwellings or structures, it is at risk to persecution, removal, and disturbance. Disturbance from humans, either intentional or inadvertent, can occur at any of the occurrences of this bat on either private or conservation lands. Disturbance of maternity roosts is of particular concern due to this species' low fecundity and small population. Pesticide applications may be affecting its foraging base, especially in coastal areas.

Due to its overall vulnerability, intense hurricanes are a significant threat; this threat is expected to continue or increase in the future. Intense storms can cause mortality during the storm, exposure to predation immediately following the storm, loss of roost sites, impacts on foraging areas and insect abundance, and disruption of the maternal period. Prolonged periods of cold temperatures may have severe impacts on the population and increase risks from other threats by weakening individuals, extirpating colonies, or further reducing colony sizes. Although disease is a significant threat for other bat species, it is not known to be a threat for the Florida bonneted bat at this time. The protection currently afforded the Florida bonneted bat is limited, provides little protection to the species' occupied habitat, and includes no provisions to protect suitable but unoccupied habitat within the vicinity of known colony sites. Overall, we find the magnitude of threats is high due to the severity of the threats on this species. We find that most of the threats are currently occurring and, consequently, overall, threats are imminent. Therefore, we assigned an LPN of 2 to this species.

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

occurred on several of the Caroline Islands (Palau, Chuuk, and Pohnpei), Samoa (Independent and American), the Mariana Islands (Guam and the CNMI), Tonga, Fiji, and Vanuatu. While populations appear to be healthy in some locations, mainly in the Caroline Islands, they have declined substantially in other areas, including Independent and American Samoa, the Mariana Islands, Fiji, and possibly Tonga. Scientists recognize four subspecies:
E. s. rotensis,
endemic to the Mariana Islands (Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI));
E. s. sulcata,
occurring in Chuuk and Pohnpei;
E. s. palauensis,
found in Palau; and
E. s. semicaudata,
occurring in American and Independent Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, and Vanuatu. The candidate assessment form addresses the distinct population segment (DPS) of
E. s. semicaudata
that occurs in American Samoa.

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

concern that it is also extirpated from American Samoa, the location of this DPS, where surveys are currently ongoing to ascertain its status. The factors that led to the decline of this subspecies and the DPS are poorly understood; however, current threats to this subspecies and the DPS include habitat loss, predation by introduced species, and its small population size and distribution, which make the taxon extremely vulnerable to extinction due to typhoons and similar natural catastrophes. Thus, the threats are high in magnitude. The Pacific sheath-tailed bat may also by susceptible to disturbance to roosting caves. The LPN for
E. s. semicaudata
is 3 because the magnitude of the threats is high, the threats are ongoing, and therefore, imminent, and the taxon is a distinct population segment of a subspecies.

Pacific Sheath-tailed Bat (
Emballonura semicaudata rotensis
), Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. No new information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. This small bat is a member of the Emballonuridae, an Old World bat family that has an extensive distribution, primarily in the tropics. The Pacific sheath-tailed bat was once common and widespread in Polynesia and Micronesia and it is the only insectivorous bat recorded from a large part of this area.
E. s. rotensis
is historically known from the Mariana Islands and formerly occurred on Guam and in the CNMI on Rota, Aguiguan, Tinian (known from prehistoric records only), Saipan, and possibly Anatahan and Maug. Currently,
E. s. rotensis
appears to be extirpated from all but one island in the Mariana archipelago. The single remaining population of this subspecies occurs on Aguiguan, CNMI.

Threats to this subspecies have not changed over the past year. The primary threats to the subspecies are ongoing habitat loss and degradation as a result of feral goat (
Capra hircus
) activity on the island of Aguiguan and the taxon's small population size and limited distribution. Predation by nonnative species and human disturbance are also potential threats to the subspecies. The subspecies is believed near the point where stochastic events, such as typhoons, are increasingly likely to affect its continued survival. The disappearance of the remaining population on Aguiguan would result in the extinction of the subspecies. Thus, the threats are high in magnitude. The LPN for
E. s. rotensis
remains at 3 because the magnitude of the threats is high, the threats are ongoing, and therefore, imminent, and the taxon is a subspecies.

New England cottontail (
Sylvilagus transitionalis
)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files and information received in response to our notice published on June 30, 2004, when we announced our 90-day petition finding and initiation of a status review (69 FR 39395). We received the petition on August 30, 2000. The New England cottontail (NEC) is a medium-to-large sized cottontail rabbit that may reach 1,000 grams in weight, and is one of two species within the genus
Sylvilagus
occurring in New England. New England cottontails are considered habitat specialists, in so far as they are dependent upon early-successional habitats typically described as thickets. The species is the only endemic cottontail in New England. Historically, the NEC occurred in seven States and ranged from southeastern New York (east of the Hudson River) north through the Champlain Valley, southern Vermont, the southern half of New Hampshire, southern Maine, and south throughout Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island. The current range of the NEC has declined substantially and occurrences have become increasingly separated. The species' distribution is fragmented into five apparently isolated metapopulations. The area occupied by the cottontail has contracted from approximately 90,000 sq km to 12,180 sq km. Recent surveys indicate that the longterm decline in NEC continues. For example, surveys for the species in early 2008 documented the presence of NEC in 7 of the 23 New Hampshire locations that were known to be occupied in 2002 and 2003. Similarly, surveys in Maine found the species present in 12 of 57 sites identified in an extensive survey that spanned the years 2000 to 2004. Unlike the New Hampshire study, several new sites were documented in Maine during 2008. Some have suggested that the decline in NEC occurrences in 2008 may be attributed to persistent snow cover throughout northern New England during the winter of 2007-2008. Similar surveys were conducted during the winter of 2009 in Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and New York. The results are pending further analysis. It is estimated that less than one-third of the occupied sites occur on lands in conservation status and fewer than 10 percent are being managed for early-successional forest species.

The primary threat to the New England cottontail is loss of habitat through succession and alteration. Isolation of occupied patches by areas of unsuitable habitat and high predation rates are resulting in local extirpation of New England cottontails from small patches. The range of the New England cottontail has contracted by 75 percent or more since 1960 and current land uses in the region indicate that the rate of change, about 2 percent range loss per year, will continue. Additional threats include competition for food and habitat with introduced eastern cottontails and large numbers of native white-tailed deer; inadequate regulatory mechanisms to protect habitat; and mortality from predation. The magnitude of the threats continues to be high, because they occur rangewide, and have a severe negative effect on the survival of the species. They are imminent because they are ongoing. Thus, we retained an LPN of 2 for this species. Conservation measures that address the threats to the species are being developed.

Fisher, West Coast DPS (
Martes pennanti
)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files and in the Service's initial warranted-but-precluded finding published in the
Federal Register
on April 8, 2004 (68 FR 18770). The fisher is a carnivore in the family Mustelidae and is the largest member of the genus Martes. Historically, the West Coast population of the fisher extended south from British Columbia into western Washington and Oregon, and in the North Coast Ranges, Klamath-Siskiyou Mountains, and Sierra Nevada in California. Because of a lack of detections with standardized survey efforts over much of the fisher's historical range, the fisher is believed to be extirpated or reduced to scattered individuals from the lower mainland of British Columbia through Washington and northern Oregon and in the central and northern Sierra Nevada in California. Native extant populations of fisher are isolated to the North Coast of California, the Klamath-Siskiyou Mountains of northern California and southern Oregon, and the southern Sierra Nevada in California. Descendents of a fisher reintroduction effort also occur in the southern Cascades in Oregon. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in conjunction with the Olympic National Park has completed the third year of a reintroduction effort as the State's first step in implementing their recover goals for fisher. The California Department of Fish and Game and other collaborators began the first year of their translocation efforts into the northern Sierra Nevada during the winter of 2009-2010.

Estimates of fisher numbers in native populations of the West Coast DPS vary

widely. A rigorous monitoring program is lacking for the northern California southern Oregon and southern Oregon Cascades populations, making estimates of fisher numbers for these two populations difficult. The fisher monitoring program in the southern Sierra Nevada population has provided preliminary estimates indicating no decline in the index of abundance within the monitored portion of the population. There is a high degree of genetic relatedness within some populations. The two populations of native fisher in the northern California southern Oregon and southern Sierra Nevada are separated by four times the species' maximum dispersal distance. The extant fisher populations are either small (southern Sierra Nevada and southern Oregon Cascades) and are isolated from one another or both.

Major threats that fragment or remove key elements of fisher habitat include various forest vegetation management practices such as timber harvest and fuels-reduction treatments. Other potential major threats in portions of the range include: Large stand-replacing wildfires, changes in forest composition and structure related to climate change effects, forest and fuels management, and urban and rural development. Threats to fishers that lead to direct mortality and injury include: Collisions with vehicles; predation; and viral borne diseases such as rabies, parvovirus, and canine distemper
.
Existing regulatory mechanisms on Federal, State, and private lands do not provide sufficient protection for the key elements of fisher habitat, or the certainty that conservation efforts will be effective or implemented. The magnitude of threats is high as they occur across the range of the DPS resulting in a negative impact on fisher distribution and abundance. However, the threats are nonimminent as the greatest long-term risks to the fisher in its west coast range are the subsequent ramifications of the isolation of small populations and their interactions with the listed threats. The three remaining areas containing fisher populations appear to be stable or not rapidly declining based on recent survey and monitoring efforts. Therefore, we assigned an LPN of 6 to this DPS.

New Mexico meadow jumping mouse (
Zapus hudsonius luteus
)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files and the petition we received October 15, 2008. The New Mexico meadow jumping mouse (jumping mouse) is endemic to New Mexico, Arizona, and a small area of southern Colorado. The jumping mouse nests in dry soils but uses moist, streamside, dense riparian/wetland vegetation. Recent genetic studies confirm that the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is a distinct subspecies from other
Zapus hudsonius
subspecies, confirming the currently accepted subspecies designation.

The threats that have been identified are excessive grazing pressure, water use and management, highway reconstruction, development, recreation, and beaver removal.

Since the early to mid-1990s over 100 historical localities have been surveyed. Currently only 24 are extant, 11 in New Mexico (including one that is contiguous with the Colorado locality) and 13 in Arizona. Moreover, the highly fragmented nature of its distribution is also a major contributor to the vulnerability of this species and increases the likelihood of very small, isolated populations being extirpated. The insufficient number of secure populations, and the destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat, continue to pose the most immediate threats to this species. Because the threats affect the jumping mouse in all but two of the extant localities, the threats are of a high magnitude. These threats are currently occurring and, therefore, are imminent. Thus, we continue to assign an LPN of 3 to this subspecies.

Mazama pocket gopher (
Thomomys

mazama
ssp.
couchi, douglasii,

glacialis, louiei,

melanops, pugetensis,

tacomensis, tumuli,

yelmensis
)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. No new information was provided in the petition received December 11, 2002. Seven of the nine subspecies of pocket gopher are associated with glacial outwash prairies in western Washington (
T. m. melanops
is found on alpine meadows in Olympic National Park, and
T. m. oregonus
is found in extreme southwest Washington). Of these seven subspecies, five are likely still extant (
couchi, glacialis, pugetensis, tumuli,
and
yelmensis
). Few of these glacial outwash prairies remain in Washington today. Historically, such prairies were patchily distributed, but the area they occupied totaled approximately 170,000 acres (Stinson 2005). Now, residential and commercial development and in-growth of woody and/or nonnative vegetation have further reduced their numbers. In addition, development in or adjacent to these prairies has likely increased predation on Mazama pocket gophers by dogs and cats.

The magnitude of threat is high due to populations with patchy and isolated distributions in habitats highly desirable for development and subject to a wide variety of human activities that permanently alter the habitat. The threat of invasive plant species to the quality of a highly specific habitat requirement is high and constant. There are few known populations of each subspecies. A limited dispersal capability, and the loss and degradation of additional patches of appropriate habitat will further isolate populations and increase their vulnerability to extinction. Loss of any of the subspecies will reduce the genetic diversity and the likelihood of continued existence of the
T. mazama
subspecies complex in Washington.

The threats are imminent. Two of the subspecies (Cathlamet and Tacoma) are likely extinct. The status of
T. m. douglasii
is unknown, but its location in a matrix of towns means it's threatened by encroaching development. Two gravel pits are operating on part of the remaining Roy Prairie pocket gopher habitat, and another one occurs in the area of the Tenino pocket gopher. The largest populations of two other subspecies (Shelton and Olympia) are located on airports with planned development. Yelm pocket gophers are also threatened by proposed development. Due to its low genetic diversity, isolation, and potential for natural habitat alterations in the future,
T. m. melanops
(Olympic pocket gopher) is susceptible to stochastic events and small population effects such as genetic drift and founder effects. Thus, we assign an LPN of 3 to these subspecies.

Gunnison's prairie dog (
Cynomys gunnisoni
)—This species occurs in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. However, only the significant portion of the range in the montane portions of central and south central Colorado and north central New Mexico is included on our list of candidates. Within this portion of the range, plague has significantly reduced the number and size of populations, resulting in considerable effects to the species. Populations within montane habitat have distinct disadvantages in resisting the effects of plague due to a high abundance of fleas that spread plague, small populations that cannot recover in numbers from plague epizootics, and isolated populations that limit the ability to recolonize. Poisoning and shooting continue to be threats to the Gunnison's prairie dog within the montane portion of its range and contribute to the decline of the species when combined with the effects of disease. Agriculture, urbanization, roads, and oil and gas development each currently affect a small percentage of Gunnison's prairie dog habitat. Plague is significantly affecting the remaining

small, isolated populations. Plague epizootics can extirpate populations there within a short timeframe (3 to 10 years). We have assigned an LPN of 3 to this species due to imminent threats of a high magnitude in a significant portion of its range.

Southern Idaho ground squirrel (
Spermophilus brunneus

endemicus
)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. No new information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. The southern Idaho ground squirrel is endemic to four counties in southwest Idaho; its total known range is approximately 425,630 hectares (1,051,752 acres). Threats to southern Idaho ground squirrels include: Habitat degradation and fragmentation; direct killing from shooting, trapping, or poisoning; predation; competition with Columbian ground squirrels; and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Habitat degradation and fragmentation appear to be the primary threats to the species. Nonnative annuals now dominate much of this species' range, have changed the species composition of vegetation used as forage for the southern Idaho ground squirrel, and have altered the fire regime by accelerating the frequency of wildfire. Habitat deterioration, destruction, and fragmentation contribute to the current patchy distribution of southern Idaho ground squirrels. Based on recent genetic work, southern Idaho ground squirrels are subject to more genetic drift and inbreeding than expected.

Two Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAAs) have been completed for this species in recent years. Both CCAAs include conservation measures that provide additional protection to southern Idaho ground squirrels from recreational shooting and other direct killing on enrolled lands, and also allow the State of Idaho, the Service, and BLM to investigate ways of restoring currently degraded habitat. At this time, the acreage enrolled through these two CCAAs is 38,756 ha (95,767 ac), or 9 percent of the known range approximately. While the ongoing conservation efforts have helped to reduce the magnitude of threats to moderate, habitat degradation remains the primary threat to the species throughout most of its range. This threat is imminent due to the ongoing and increasing prevalence and dominance of nonnative vegetation, and the current patchy distribution of the species. Thus, we assign an LPN of 9 to this subspecies.

Washington ground squirrel (
Spermophilus washingtoni
)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files and in the petition we received on March 2, 2000. The Washington ground squirrel is endemic to the Deschutes-Columbia Plateau sagebrush-steppe and grassland communities in eastern Oregon and south-central Washington. Although widely abundant historically, recent surveys suggest that its current range has contracted toward the center of its historical range. Approximately two-thirds of the Washington ground squirrel's total historical range has been converted to agricultural and residential uses. The most contiguous, least-disturbed expanse of suitable habitat within the species' range occurs on a site owned by Boeing, Inc. and on the Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility near Boardman, Oregon. In Washington, the largest expanse of known suitable habitat occurs on State and Federal lands.

Agricultural, residential, and windpower development, among other forms of development, continue to eliminate Washington ground squirrel habitat in portions of its range. Throughout much of its range, Washington ground squirrels are threatened by the establishment and spread of invasive plant species, particularly cheatgrass, which alter available cover and food quantity and quality, and increase fire intervals. Additional threats include habitat fragmentation, recreational shooting, genetic isolation and drift, and predation. Potential threats include disease, drought, and possible competition with related species in disturbed habitat at the periphery of their range. In Oregon, some threats are being addressed as a result of the State listing of this species, and by implementation of the Threemile Canyon Farms Multi-Species Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA). In Washington, there are currently no formal agreements with private landowners or with State or Federal agencies to protect the Washington ground squirrel. Additionally, no State or Federal management plans have been developed that specifically address the needs of the species or its habitat. Since current and potential threats are widespread and, in some cases, severe, we conclude the magnitude of threats remains high. The Washington ground squirrel has both imminent and nonimminent threats. At a range-wide scale, we conclude the threats are nonimminent based largely on the following: The CCAA addressed the imminent loss of a large portion of habitat to agriculture, there are no other large-scale efforts to convert suitable habitat to agriculture, and windpower project i

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2010-27686. Public record. Not legal advice.