# 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%3A2011-27122

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** October 26, 2011
- **Citation:** 76 FR 66370

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2011-0061; 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) for each candidate species.

Overall, this CNOR recognizes three new candidates, changes the LPN for seven candidates, and removes three 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 244.

This document also includes our findings on resubmitted petitions and describes our progress in revising the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) during the period October 1, 2010, through September 30, 2011.

We request additional status information that may be available for the 244 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-e-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 Office of Communications and Candidate Conservation, Arlington, VA (see address under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
), 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 under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions pertaining to a particular species to the address of the Endangered Species Coordinator in the appropriate Regional Office listed in
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

The Endangered Species Coordinator(s) in the appropriate Regional Office(s), or Chief, Office of Communications and Candidate Conservation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203 (telephone 703-358-2171). 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 Office of Communications and Candidate Conservation, Arlington, VA (see address under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
).

Candidate Notice of Review

Background

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.
) (ESA), requires that we identify species of wildlife and plants that are endangered or threatened, based on the best available scientific and commercial information. As defined in section 3 of the ESA, an endangered species is any species 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 ESA or additional species that may require the ESA'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 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222). 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 Office of Communications and Candidate Conservation (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above).

On September 21, 1983, we published guidance for assigning an LPN for each candidate species (48 FR 43098). Using this guidance, we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats, immediacy of threats, and taxonomic status; the lower the LPN, the higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing priority). Section 4(h)(3) of the ESA (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 timescale (once the threats are imminent) than for species with lower magnitude threats. Because we do not routinely quantify how likely or how soon extinction would be expected to occur absent listing, we must evaluate factors that contribute to the likelihood and time scale for extinction. We therefore consider information such as: The number of populations or extent of range of the species affected by the threat(s) or both; 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 based on when the threats will begin. If a threat is currently occurring or likely to occur in the very near future, we classify the threat as imminent. Determining the immediacy of threats helps ensure that species facing actual, identifiable threats are given priority for listing proposals over those for which threats are only potential or species that are intrinsically vulnerable to certain types of threats but are not known to be presently facing such threats.

Our priority ranking system has three categories for taxonomic status: Species that are the sole members of a genus; full species (in genera that have more than one species); and subspecies and distinct population segments of vertebrate species (DPS).

The result of the ranking system is that we assign each candidate a listing priority number of 1 to 12. For example, if the 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 or DPS would be assigned to LPN 3). In summary, the LPN ranking system provides a basis for making decisions about the relative priority for preparing a proposed rule to list a given species. No matter which LPN we assign to a species, each species included in this notice as a candidate is one for which we have sufficient information to prepare a proposed rule 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 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222), 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 ESA. Some of these findings and determinations have been completed and published in the
Federal Register
, while work on others is still under way (see
Preclusion and Expeditious Progress,
below, for details).

Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial information, with this CNOR we identify 3 new candidate species (see New Candidates, below), change the LPN for 7 candidates (see Listing Priority Changes in Candidates, below) and determine that a listing proposal is not warranted for 3 species and thus remove them from candidate status (see Candidate Removals, below). Combined with the other decisions published separately from this CNOR for individual species that previously were candidates, a total of 244 species (including 104 plant and 140 animal

species) are now candidates awaiting preparation of rules proposing their listing. These 244 species, along with the 48 species currently proposed for listing (includes 4 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 14 species identified in the previous CNOR as either proposed for listing or classified as candidates that are no longer in those categories. This includes nine species for which we published a final listing rule, one species for which we published an emergency listing rule, one species for which we published a withdrawal of a proposed rule, plus the three species that we have determined do not meet the definition of endangered or threatened and therefore do not warrant listing. We have removed these species from candidate status in this CNOR. Also included in Table 2 are three species for which we published an emergency listing rule due to similarity in appearance; these three species were not previously candidate species.

New Candidates

Below we present a brief summary of one new snail (magnificent ramshorn), one new insect (Poweshiek skipperling), and one new plant candidate (
Streptanthus bracteatus
), which are additions to this year's 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 18 other species—Pacific walrus, gopher tortoise (eastern population), striped newt, 7 species of Hawaiian yellow-faced bees (
Hylaeus anthracinus,

H. assimulans,

H. facilis,

H. hilaris,

H. kuakea,

H. longiceps,
and
H. mana
), Hermes copper butterfly, Mt. Charleston blue butterfly, Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly,
Boechera pusilla
(Fremont County rockcress),
Eriogonum soredium
(Frisco buckwheat),
Lepidium ostleri
(Ostler's peppergrass),
Pinus albicaulis
(whitebark pine),
Trifolium friscanum
(Frisco clover)—were identified as candidates earlier this year as a result of separate petition findings published in the
Federal Register.

Mammals

Pacific walrus (
Odobenus rosmarus divergens
)—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 February 10, 2011 (76 FR 7634).

Reptiles

Gopher tortoise, eastern population (
Gopherus polyphemus
)—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 July 27, 2011 (76 FR 45130).

Amphibians

Striped newt (
Notophthalmus perstriatus
)—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 7, 2011 (76 FR 32911).

Snails

Magnificent ramshorn (
Planorbella magnifica
)—The following summary is based on information in our files. No new information was provided in the petition received on April 20, 2010 (after we initiated our assessment of this species). The magnificent ramshorn is a freshwater snail in the family Planorbidae (Pilsbry 1903). It is the largest North American snail in this family. The magnificent ramshorn is endemic to the lower Cape Fear River basin, North Carolina. The species has been recorded from only four sites in the lower Cape Fear River Basin in New Hanover and Brunswick Counties, North Carolina, but is believed to be extirpated from all four of these sites. The only known surviving population is a captive population, comprised of approximately 100 adults, being maintained and propagated by a private biologist.

Available information indicates that suitable habitat for the species is restricted to relatively shallow, sheltered portions of still or sluggish, freshwater bodies with an abundance and diversity of submerged aquatic vegetation and a circumneutral pH (pH within the range of 6.8-7.5). The only known records for the species are post-1900 and are from manmade millponds constructed in the 1700s to provide a freshwater source for rice agriculture. However, these impoundments closely replicate beaver-pond habitat, and it is plausible that the species was once a faunal component of beaver ponds. The species may also have once inhabited backwater and other sluggish portions of the main channel of lower Cape Fear River.

Beaver-pond habitat was eliminated for several decades throughout much of the lower Cape Fear River as a result of the extirpation of the North American beaver due to trapping and hunting during the 19th and early 20th centuries. This, together with draining and destruction of beaver ponds for development, agriculture, and other purposes, is believed to have led to a significant decline in the snail's habitat. Also, dredging and deepening of the Cape Fear River channel, which began as early as 1822, and opening of the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway (through Snow's Cut) in 1930 for navigational purposes have caused saltwater intrusion, altered the diversity and abundance of aquatic vegetation, and changed flows and current patterns far up the river channel and its lower tributaries. Under these circumstances, the magnificent ramshorn could have survived only in areas of tributary streams not affected by salt water intrusion and other changes, such as the millponds protected from saltwater intrusion by their dams. The species is believed to have been eliminated from the millponds from which it has been recorded due to saltwater intrusion during severe storms (Hurricane Fran) and drought conditions, increased input of nutrients and other pollutants from development activities adversely affecting water quality/chemistry and leading to increased nuisance aquatic plant and algae growth, and efforts, harmful to the snail, by landowners to control nuisance plant and algae growth.

While efforts have been made to restore habitat for the magnificent ramshorn at one of the sites known to have previously supported the species, all of the sites known to have previously supported the snail continue to be affected or threatened by most of the same factors (i.e., saltwater intrusion and other water quality degradation, nuisance aquatic plant control, storms, sea level rise, etc.) believed to have resulted in extirpation of the species from the wild. Currently, only a single captive population of the species is known to exist. Although this captive population of the species has been maintained since 1993, a single catastrophic event, such as a severe storm, disease, or predator infestation, affecting this captive population could

result in extinction of the species. Accordingly, the magnitude of the threats to the species' survival is high. The threats are ongoing and therefore imminent. Thus, we have assigned an LPN of 2 to this species.

Insects

Hawaiian yellow-faced bees (
Hylaeus anthracinus,

H. assimulans,

H. facilis,

H. hilaris,

H. kuakea,

H. longiceps,
and
H. mana
)—We previously announced candidate status for these 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 6, 2011 (76 FR 55170).

Hermes copper butterfly (
Hermelycaena
[
Lycaena
]
hermes
)—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 April 14, 2011 (76 FR 20918).

Mt. Charleston blue butterfly (
Plebejus shasta

charlestonensis
)—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 8, 2011 (76 FR 12667).

Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly (
Atlantea tulita
)—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 May 31, 2011 (76 FR 31282).

Poweshiek skipperling (
Oarisma poweshiek
) —The following summary is based on information contained in our files. The Poweshiek skipperling is a small butterfly that currently inhabits high-quality tallgrass prairie in Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin and prairie fens in Michigan; it also occurs in the province of Manitoba, Canada. The species is presumed to be extirpated from Illinois and Indiana and from many sites within occupied States.

The Poweshiek skipperling is threatened by degradation of its native prairie habitat by overgrazing, invasive species, gravel mining, and herbicide applications; inbreeding, population isolation, and prescribed fire threaten some populations. Prairie succeeds to shrubland or forest without periodic fire, grazing, or mowing; thus, the species is also threatened at sites where such disturbances are not applied. The Service, State agencies, the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe, and private organizations (e.g., The Nature Conservancy) protect and manage some Poweshiek skipperling sites. Careful and considered management is always necessary to ensure its persistence, even at protected sites. The species may be secure at a few sites where public and private landowners manage native prairie in ways that conserve Poweshiek skipperling, but approximately one-quarter of the inhabited sites are privately owned with little or no protection. A few private sites are protected from conversion by easements, but these do not preclude adverse effects from overgrazing. The threats are such that the Poweshiek skipperling warrants listing; the threats are high in magnitude because habitat degradation and other stressors has resulted in sharp declines in the western portion of its range which contains more than 90 percent of the species site records. We assigned this species an LPN of 2 to reflect the ongoing, and therefore, imminent threats to the species' habitat and sharp population declines documented recently, especially in Iowa and Minnesota.

Flowering Plants

Boechera pusilla
(Fremont County rockcress) —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 9, 2011 (76 FR 33924).

Eriogonum soredium
(Frisco buckwheat)—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 February 23, 2011 (76 FR 10166).

Lepidium ostleri
(Ostler's peppergrass)—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 February 23, 2011 (76 FR 10166).

Pinus albicaulis
(whitebark pine)—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 July 19, 2011 (76 FR 42631).

Streptanthus bracteatus
(bracted twistflower)—The following summary is based on information obtained from our files, on-line herbarium databases, surveys and monitoring data, seed-collection data, and scientific publications. Bracted twistflower, an annual herbaceous plant of the Brassicaceae (mustard family), is endemic to a small portion of the Edwards Plateau of Texas. From 1989 to 2010, 32 populations have been documented in five counties; of these, 15 populations remain with intact habitat, 9 persist in degraded or partially destroyed habitats, and 8 are presumed extirpated. Only 9 of the intact populations occur in protected natural areas.

The continued survival of bracted twistflower is imminently threatened by habitat destruction from urban development, severe herbivory from very dense herds of white-tailed deer, and the increased density of woody plant cover. Additional ongoing threats include erosion and trampling from foot and mountain-bike trails, a pathogenic fungus of unknown origin, and insufficient protection by existing regulations. Furthermore, due to the small size and isolation of remaining populations and lack of gene flow between them, several populations are now inbred and may have insufficient genetic diversity for long-term survival. The consistent failure of pilot reintroduction efforts has so far prevented the augmentation and reintroduction of populations in protected, managed sites. Optimal vegetation management of bracted twistflower populations may be incompatible with the management of golden-cheeked warbler nesting habitat. The species is potentially threatened by as-yet unknown impacts of climate change. The Service has established a voluntary Memorandum of Agreement with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the City of Austin, Travis County, the Lower Colorado River Authority, and the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center to protect bracted twistflower and its habitats on tracts of Balcones Canyonlands Preserve. The threats to bracted twistflower are of moderate magnitude, and are ongoing and, therefore, imminent. We find that bracted twistflower is warranted for listing throughout all of its range and assigned it an LPN of 8.

Trifolium friscanum
(Frisco clover)— 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 February 23, 2011 (76 FR 10166).

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.

Birds

Kittlitz's murrelet (
Brachyramphus brevirostris
)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files and the petition we received on May 9, 2001. Kittlitz's murrelet is a small diving seabird that inhabits Alaskan coastal waters discontinuously, from Point Lay south to northern portions of southeast Alaska, west to the tip of the Aleutian Islands, and the eastern coastline of Russia. During the breeding season, most Kittlitz's murrelets are associated with tidewater glaciers, but breeding has also been documented throughout their range in areas where glaciers no longer exist. We concluded in the past that the loss of tidewater glaciers was a threat to the species and the magnitude of that threat was high because of the rate of change in the glaciers. There is no doubt that tidewater glaciers are receding most likely due to climate change. It is also clear that in one part of their range, Kittlitz's murrelets are associated with glacially influenced waters during the summer breeding period. What is unclear is the nature of the association and if these areas are more important to the Kittlitz's murrelet's population viability than other areas. Nests have been documented throughout their range; what is unknown is if nest survival is better near glaciers. Although we know that Kittlitz's murrelet habitat will continue to be modified as glaciers continue to recede, we currently do not have evidence that this modification will lead to conditions that will lead to a population-level decline.

In the past we had a high level of concern over the population decline and its magnitude. Although we still conclude that the population has declined, based on ongoing analyses, the magnitude of the decline is much less certain. Work is currently underway to evaluate past surveys and the status and trend of Kittlitz's murrelet across its range. We anticipate that our ability to evaluate trends and population size will be greatly improved when these projects are completed and published.

Based on new information, the focus of our concern has shifted to the low reproductive success of Kittlitz's murrelet. Our concern is based on three lines of reasoning: at the locations where we have the most complete information, Agattu and Kodiak Islands, nest success is very low (less than 10 percent); few juvenile birds have been documented; and there are indications that few females (approximately 10 percent) are breeding in spite of the fact (based on blood chemistry) that approximately 90 percent appear to be physiologically prepared to breed. Although the implications of these results are serious, we must temper our concern with the knowledge that the results are limited to small parts of the murrelet's range and for a long-lived bird, we have data for relatively few years. Consequently, we conclude that the magnitude of this threat is moderate.

For a K-selected species such as Kittlitz's murrelet, loss of the adults is particularly important, and we have identified several sources of adult mortality such as hydrocarbon contamination, entanglement in gillnets, and predation. Although none of these sources of mortality alone rises to the level of a threat, in total, the chronic, low-level loss of adults, in combination with evidence that a small proportion of the population is breeding, and the low reproductive success lead us to conclude that it will be difficult for this species to maintain a stable population level or rebound from a stochastic event that causes population loss. The magnitude of threat from these sources is low to moderate, depending on events that occur in a given year (number and location of oil spills/ship wrecks, number and location of gillnets).

For these reasons, this year, our focus shifted from the loss of glaciers to poor reproductive success. Poor nest success (as opposed to adult mortality) could be the underlying reason for the population decline, and if it is occurring rangewide, the population would be expected to continue to decline. Currently, our most detailed nest information comes from Agattu and Kodiak Islands. Whether these locations and the timeframe observed are representative of the rangewide situation is unknown; therefore, we have determined that threat magnitude is moderate, not high. Because the identified threats are currently occurring, they are imminent. Thus, we are changing the LPN from a 2 to an 8.

Sprague's pipit (
Anthus spragueii
)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files and in the petition we received on October 15, 2008. This species occurs in Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Canada, and Mexico. The Sprague's pipit is a small grassland bird characterized by its high flight display and otherwise very secretive behavior. Sprague's pipits are strongly tied to native prairie (land which has never been plowed) throughout their life cycle.

Threats to this species include: Habitat loss and conversion, habitat fragmentation on the breeding grounds, energy development, roads, and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Only 15 to 18 percent of the historical breeding habitat in the United States remains due to prairie habitat loss and fragmentation. The Breeding Bird Survey and Christmas Bird Count both show a 40-year decline of 73 to 79 percent (3.23 to 4.1 percent annually). We anticipate that prairie habitat will continue to be converted and fragmented. Most of the breeding range, including those areas where grassland habitat still remains, has been identified as a prime area for wind energy development, and an oil and gas boom is occurring in the central part of the breeding range in the United States and Canada. On the wintering range, conversion of grassland to agriculture and other uses appears to be accelerating. We recently announced candidate status for Sprague's pipit in a warranted-but-precluded 12-month petition finding published on September 15, 2010 (75 FR 56028). Because of an error in our original GIS analysis of the magnitude of the threats (as presented in our 12-month finding), we have now determined that the magnitude of threats is moderate as a smaller area of the range is affected by the threats, thereby reducing the effect of the threats to a lower level. Thus, we are changing the LPN of the Sprague's pipit from a 2 to an 8.

Reptiles

Eastern massasauga rattlesnake (
Sistrurus catenatus
)—Until 2011, the eastern massasauga was considered one of three recognized subspecies of massasauga. Recent information indicates that the eastern massasauga represents a distinct species, and we recognize it as such beginning in 2011. It is a small, thick-bodied rattlesnake that occupies shallow wetlands and adjacent upland habitat in portions of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ontario. Populations in Missouri, formerly included within the previously recognized subspecies of eastern

massasauga, are now considered to be the western massasauga,
Sistrurus tergeminus tergeminus.

Although the current range of
S. catenatus
resembles the species' historical range, the geographic distribution has been restricted by the loss of the species from much of the area within the boundaries of that range. Approximately 40 percent of the counties that were historically occupied by
S. catenatus
no longer support the species.
Sistrurus catenatus
is currently listed as endangered in every State and province in which it occurs, except for Michigan where it is designated as a species of special concern. Each State and Canadian province across the range of
S. catenatus
has lost more than 30 percent, and for the majority more than 50 percent, of their historical populations. Furthermore, less than 35 percent of the remaining populations are considered secure. Approximately 59 percent of the remaining
S. catenatus
populations occur wholly or in part on public land, and Statewide and site-specific Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAAs) are currently being developed for many of these areas in Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin. In 2004, a Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA) with the Lake County Forest Preserve District in Illinois was completed. In 2005, a CCA with the Forest Preserve District of Cook County in Illinois was completed. In 2006, a CCAA with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Natural Areas and Preserves was completed for Rome State Nature Preserve in Ashtabula County.

The magnitude of threats is moderate at this time. However, a recently completed extinction risk model, and information provided by species experts, indicates that other populations are likely to suffer additional losses in abundance and genetic diversity and some will likely be extirpated unless threats are removed in the near future. Declines have continued or may be accelerating in several States. Thus, we are monitoring the status of this species to determine if a change in listing priority is warranted. Threats of habitat modification, habitat succession, incompatible land management practices, illegal collection for the pet trade, and human persecution are ongoing and imminent threats to many remaining populations, particularly those inhabiting private lands. We do not believe emergency listing is warranted. We are changing the LPN from a 9 to an 8, reflecting the recent information indicating that this snake should be recognized as a species rather than a subspecies.

Amphibians

Relict leopard frog (
Lithobates onca
) (formerly in
Rana
)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. Natural relict leopard frog populations occur in two general areas in Nevada: near the Overton Arm area of Lake Mead and Black Canyon below Lake Mead. These two areas include a small fraction of the historical distribution of the species. Its historical range included springs, streams, and wetlands within the Virgin River drainage downstream from the vicinity of Hurricane, Utah; along the Muddy River, Nevada; and along the Colorado River from its confluence with the Virgin River downstream to Black Canyon below Lake Mead, Nevada and Arizona.

Factors contributing to the decline of the species include alteration, loss, and degradation of aquatic habitat due to water developments and impoundments, and scouring and erosion; changes in plant communities that result in dense growth and the prevalence of vegetation; introduced predators; climate change; and stochastic events. The presence of chytrid fungus in relict leopard frogs at Lower Blue Point Spring in 2010 warrants further evaluation of the threat of disease to the relict leopard frog. The size of natural and translocated populations is small, and therefore these populations are vulnerable to stochastic events, such as floods and wildfire. Climate change that results in reduced spring flow, habitat loss, and increased prevalence of wildfire would adversely affect relict leopard frog populations.

In 2005, the National Park Service, in cooperation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and other Federal, State, and local partners, developed a conservation agreement and strategy intended to improve the status of the species through prescribed management actions and protection. Conservation actions identified in the agreement and strategy include captive rearing of tadpoles for translocation and refugium populations, habitat and natural history studies, habitat enhancement, population and habitat monitoring, and translocation. New sites within the historical range of the species have been successfully established with captive-reared frogs. Conservation is proceeding under the agreement and strategy; however, additional time is needed to determine whether or not the agreement and strategy will be effective in eliminating or reducing the threats to the point that the relict leopard frog can be removed from candidate status. In consideration of these conservation efforts and the overall threat level to the species, we determined the magnitude of existing threats is moderate to low. However, because water development and other habitat effects, presence of introduced predators, presence of chytrid fungus, limited distribution, small population size, and climate change are ongoing or will occur in the near future, the threats are imminent. The discovery of chytrid fungus in relict leopard frogs in 2010 is a new and potentially serious threat. Therefore, we changed the LPN from an 11 to an 8 for this species.

Snails

Huachuca springsnail (
Pyrgulopsis thompsoni
)—The following is based on information contained in our files. No new information was provided in the petition received on May 11, 2004. The Huachuca springsnail inhabits approximately 19 springs in southeastern Arizona and two springs in Sonora, Mexico. The springsnail is typically found in shallow water habitats, often in rocky seeps at the spring source. Potential threats include habitat modification and destruction through catastrophic wildfire and unmanaged grazing. Overall, the threats are low in magnitude because threats are not occurring throughout the range of the species uniformly and not all populations would likely be affected simultaneously by the known threats. The available information indicates that threats are not currently ongoing in or adjacent to occupied habitats. Accordingly, threats are nonimminent. Therefore, we are reducing the LPN from an 8 to an 11 for this species.

Insects

Meltwater lednian stonefly (
Lednia tumana
)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files and in the petition we received on July 30, 2007. This species is an aquatic insect in the order Plecoptera (stoneflies). Stoneflies are primarily associated with clean, cool streams and rivers. Eggs and nymphs (juveniles) of the meltwater lednian stonefly are found in high-elevation, alpine, and subalpine streams, most typically in locations closely linked to glacial runoff. The species is generally restricted to streams with mean summer water temperature less than 10 °C (50 °F). Adults emerge from the nymph stage and mate in streamside vegetation. The only known meltwater lednian stonefly occurrences are within Glacier National Park (NP), Montana. Climate change, and the associated effects of glacier loss (with glaciers predicted to

be gone by 2030), reduced streamflows, and increased water temperatures, is expected to significantly reduce the occurrence of populations and extent of suitable habitat for the species in Glacier NP. In addition, the existing regulatory mechanisms do not address environmental changes due to global climate change. We recently announced candidate status for the meltwater lednian stonefly in a warranted-but-precluded 12-month petition finding published on April 5, 2011 (76 FR 18684). We originally assigned the species an LPN of 4 based on three criteria: (1) The high magnitude of threat, which is projected to substantially reduce the amount of suitable habitat relative to the species' current range; (2) the low imminence of the threat based on the lack of documented evidence that populations are being affected by climate change now; and (3) the taxonomic status of the species, which was the only described member of its genus (monotypic taxon). Recently, stonefly specimens discovered in Mount Rainier NP, North Cascades NP, and in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California have been formally described as two additional species in the
Lednia
genus—
L. borealis
and
L. sierra
—which indicates that the meltwater lednian stonefly is no longer in a monotypic genus. Based on this new taxonomic information, we are changing the LPN of this species from a 4 to a 5.

Arachnids

Warton's cave meshweaver (
Cicurina wartoni
)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. No new information was provided in the petition received on May 11, 2004. Warton's Cave meshweaver is an eyeless, cave-dwelling, unpigmented, 0.23-inch-long invertebrate known only from female specimens. This meshweaver is known to occur in only one cave (Pickle Pit) in Travis County, Texas. Primary threats to the species and its habitat are predation and competition from red-imported fire ants, surface and subsurface effects from polluted runoff from an adjacent subdivision, unauthorized entry into the area surrounding the cave, and trash dumping that may include toxic materials near the feature. The magnitude of threats is low to moderate based on observations made during an April 5, 2011, site visit. In addition, Pickle Pit occurs in a preserve established for mitigation for the endangered golden-cheeked warbler; hence the meshweaver receives some protection. Due to a reduction in the magnitude of threats, we changed the LPN for this species from a 2 to an 8.

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 these species and their habitats. After a review of the best available scientific and commercial data, we conclude that listing these species under the Endangered Species Act is not warranted because these species are not likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges. Therefore, we find that proposing a rule to list them is not warranted, and we no longer consider them to be candidate species for listing. We will continue to monitor the status of these species and to accept additional information and comments concerning this finding. We will reconsider our determination in the event that new information indicates that the threats to the species are of a considerably greater magnitude or imminence than identified through assessments of information contained in our files, as summarized here.

Snails

Gila springsnail (
Pyrgulopsis gilae
)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files and the petition we received on November 20, 1985. Also see our 12-month petition finding published in the
Federal Register
on October 4, 1988 (53 FR 38969). The Gila springsnail is an aquatic species previously known from 13 populations in New Mexico. Surveys conducted in 2008 and 2009 located 37 additional populations, bringing the known total to 50.

The long-term persistence of the Gila springsnail is contingent upon protection of the riparian corridor and maintenance of flow to ensure continuous, oxygenated, flowing water within the species' required thermal range. Based on new information, we now foresee no threats to the habitat of the Gila springsnail. Disturbance to the species from recreational activity is occurring rarely, with minimal effects to the species, and is not likely to become a threat in the foreseeable future due to the inaccessibility of the springsnail populations. Livestock grazing may have affected Gila springsnails in the past, but exclusion of livestock from the riparian habitat has removed this threat. Current springsnail populations are located in areas with minimal fire or flood risk. Groundwater use for geothermal development is unlikely to occur within Gila springsnail habitat. Additionally, the discovery of additional populations in 2008 and 2009 reveals the species is secure from stochastic, habitat-modifying events.

The distribution of the species and variance in the location of its habitat reduces the risk of the loss of the species from stochastic, habitat-modifying events. We have no indication that collection of the species is occurring, other than rarely by researchers confirming its discovery at new springs. Also, as the Gila springsnail occurs on Forest Service land with limited access, we do not anticipate any future collections for other purposes. There are no known diseases that affect Gila springsnails, and no native or nonnative predators occur at these springs. Additionally, we are not aware of any introduced species at the springs that would affect the springsnails.

The effects of future climate change may serve to exacerbate habitat loss from other factors. However, as we have determined that the Gila springsnail is not threatened with habitat loss, we cannot predict with any certainty that the effects of climate change will exacerbate any future habitat concerns sufficiently to consider climate change, on its own, a threat to the species. Therefore, we have determined that climate change is not currently a threat to the Gila springsnail now or in the foreseeable future. In conclusion, due to the lack of threats to the continued existence of the Gila springsnail under any of the five factors now or in the foreseeable future, we find that the Gila springsnail does not meet the definition of a threatened or endangered species and no longer warrants listing throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and we removed it from the candidate list.

New Mexico springsnail (
Pyrgulopsis thermalis
)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files and the petition received on November 20, 1985. Also see our 12-month petition finding published on October 4, 1988 (53 FR 38969). The New Mexico springsnail is an aquatic species that was previously known from only two separate populations associated with a series of spring-brook systems along the Gila River in the Gila National Forest in Grant County, New Mexico. Subsequent surveys in 2008 and 2009 discovered 12 additional populations, for a total of 14 separate populations.

The long-term persistence of the New Mexico springsnail is contingent upon protection of the riparian corridor and maintenance of flow to ensure

continuous, oxygenated, flowing water within the species' required thermal range. Based on new information, we now foresee no threats to the habitat of the New Mexico springsnail. Disturbance to the species from recreational activity is occurring rarely, with minimal impacts to the species, and is not likely to become a threat in the foreseeable future due to the inaccessibility of the springsnail populations. Livestock grazing may have affected New Mexico springsnails in the past, but exclusion of livestock from the riparian habitat has removed this threat. Current springsnail populations are located in areas with minimal fire or flood risk. Groundwater use for geothermal development is unlikely to occur within New Mexico springsnail habitat. Additionally, the discovery of additional populations in 2008 and 2009 reveals the species is secure from stochastic, habitat-modifying events.

The distribution of the species and variance in the location of its habitat reduces the risk of the loss of the species from stochastic, habitat-modifying events. We have no indication that collection of the species is occurring, other than rarely by researchers confirming its discovery at new springs. Also, as the New Mexico springsnail occurs on Forest Service land with limited access, we do not anticipate any future collections for other purposes. There are no known diseases that affect New Mexico springsnails, and no native or nonnative predators occur at these springs. Additionally, we are not aware of any introduced species at the springs that would affect the springsnails.

The effects of future climate change may serve to exacerbate habitat loss from other factors. However, as we have determined that the New Mexico springsnail is not threatened with habitat loss, we cannot predict with any certainty that the effects of climate change will exacerbate any future habitat concerns sufficiently to consider climate change, on its own, a threat to the species. Therefore, we have determined that climate change is not currently a threat to the New Mexico springsnail now or in the foreseeable future.

In conclusion, due to the lack of threats to the continued existence of the New Mexico springsnail under any of the five factors now or in the foreseeable future, we find that the New Mexico springsnail does not meet the definition of a threatened or endangered species and no longer warrants listing throughout all or a significant portion of its range. As a result, we have removed it from the candidate list.

Insects

Wekiu bug (
Nysius wekiuicola
)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. No new information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. The wekiu bug belongs to the true bug family, Lygaeidae, and occurs only on the summit of Mauna Kea on the island of Hawaii. The wekiu bug was believed to be limited in range to six pu'us (cinder cones) in the summit area and was threatened by loss of habitat on Mauna Kea due to development of observatory facilities, which was believed to be causing a severe decline in its numbers. Surveys and other studies carried out over the last 11 years suggest the wekiu bug has a broader distribution on Mauna Kea than previously known. Surveys now indicate that the wekiu bug is currently found on 16 pu'us. Two of these 16 pu'us occur in an area that has undergone development of astronomy observatory facilities. The previous trend toward loss of habitat due to observatory construction has been curtailed, and no new construction, including the currently planned Thirty-meter Telescope project, will occur on any pu'u occupied by the species. Management of the Mauna Kea summit area by the Office of Mauna Kea Management includes continued monitoring of the wekiu bug and its habitat, and scientific studies to assist in managing and protecting wekiu bug populations and habitat. The 2000 Mauna Kea Science Reserve Management Plan, the Mauna Kea Comprehensive Management Plan, the four subplans (natural resources management plan, cultural resources management plan, decommissioning plan, and public access plan), and a procedure for formal review of new projects on Mauna Kea all contribute to the protection and conservation of the wekiu bug.

Studies over the last 11 years also indicate the wekiu bug has a stable population, and demonstrate that this species exhibits extreme variability in terms of annual densities at any given site, such that the normal bounds of natural population variance for this species are much wider than previously understood. Based on our review of the best available information we no longer conclude that threats across the wekiu bug's expanded range put the species in danger of extinction. In summary, because the wekiu bug is likely stable in numbers, the wekiu bug is more widespread than previously believed, current threats are minimized and restricted within the larger range of the species, and future potential threats are monitored, we find the wekiu bug does not meet the definition of a threatened or endangered species and no longer warrants listing throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Thus, we have removed it from candidate status.

Petition Findings

The ESA 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 ESA requires the Service to make each year; and (3) it documents the Service's compliance with the statutory requirement to monitor the status of species for which listing is warranted-but-precluded 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 Wildlife and Plants. (We refer to this third option as a “warranted-but-precluded finding.”).

We define “candidate species” to mean those species for which the Service has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support issuance of a proposed rule to list, but for which issuance of the proposed rule is precluded (61 FR 64481; December 5, 1996). 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. On April 20, 2010, we received a petition to list the magnificent ramshorn (see summary above under New Candidates) after we had initiated our assessment of this species for candidate status. In addition, the following species that were already on our candidate list were also included in this petition: Black Warrior waterdog, sicklefin redhorse, rabbitsfoot, black mudalia, Coleman cave beetle, and
Solidago plumosa
(Yadkin River goldenrod). The petition did not provide any new information on these species. We published a separate substantial 90-day finding for all of the above species on September 27, 2011 (76 FR 59836). As part of this notice, we are making the warranted-but-precluded 12-month finding for these species. We have identified the candidate species for which we received petitions by the code “C*” in the category column on the left side of Table 1 below.

Second, the CNOR serves as a “resubmitted” petition finding. Section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the ESA requires that when we make a warranted-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 ESA at least once a year, until we publish a proposal to list the species or make a final not-warranted finding. We make these annual findings for petitioned candidate species through the CNOR.

Third, through undertaking the analysis required to complete the CNOR, the Service determines if any candidate species needs emergency listing. Section 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the ESA requires us to “implement a system to monitor effectively the status of all species” for which we have made a warranted-but-precluded 12-month finding, and to “make prompt use of the [emergency listing] authority [under section 4(b)(7)] to prevent a significant risk to the well being of any such species.” The CNOR plays a crucial role in the monitoring system that we have implemented for all candidate species by providing notice that we are actively seeking information regarding the status of those species. We review all new information on candidate species as it becomes available, prepare an annual species assessment form that reflects monitoring results and other new information, and identify any species for which emergency listing may be appropriate. If we determine that emergency listing is appropriate for any candidate we will make prompt use of the emergency listing authority under section 4(b)(7). For example, on August 10, 2011, we emergency listed the Miami blue butterfly (76 FR 49542). We have been reviewing and will continue to review, at least annually, the status of every candidate, whether or not we have received a petition to list it. Thus, the CNOR and accompanying species assessment forms constitute the Service's annual finding on the status of petitioned species under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the ESA.

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

In preparing this CNOR, we reviewed the current status of, and threats to, the 204 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. Included in this work is our review of 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, under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA, in the previous CNOR. We have incorporated new information we gathered since the prior finding and, as a result of this review, we are making continued 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, 2010, through September 30, 2011. We will continue to monitor the status of all candidate species, including petitioned species, as new information becomes available to determine if a change in status is warranted, including the need to emergency-list a species under section 4(b)(7) of the ESA.

In addition to identifying petitioned candidate species in Table 1 below, we also present brief summaries of why each of these candidates warrants listing. More complete information, including references, is found in the species assessment forms. You may obtain a copy of these forms from the Regional Office having the lead for the species, or from the Fish and Wildlife Service's Internet Web site:
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/SpeciesReport.do?listingType=C&mapstatus=1.
As described above, under section 4 of

the ESA, 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 species to the Lists of Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the ESA. 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 Wildlife and Plants.

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 ESA; critical habitat petition findings; proposed and final rules designating critical habitat; and litigation-related, administrative, and program-management functions (including preparing and allocating budgets, responding to Congressional and public inquiries, and conducting public outreach regarding listing and critical habitat). The work involved in preparing various listing documents can be extensive, and may include, but is not limited to: Gathering and assessing the best scientific and commercial data available and conducting analyses used as the basis for our decisions; writing and publishing documents; and obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating public comments and peer-review comments on proposed rules and incorporating relevant information into final rules. The number of listing actions that we can undertake in a given year also is influenced by the complexity of those listing actions; that is, more complex actions generally are more costly. The median cost for preparing and publishing a 90-day finding is $39,276; for a 12-month finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule with critical habitat, $345,000; and for a final listing rule with critical habitat, $305,000.

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 ESA (for example, recovery funds for removing species from the Lists), or for other Service programs, from being used for Listing Program actions (see House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st Session, July 1, 1997).

Since FY 2002, the Service's budget has included a critical habitat subcap to ensure that some funds are available for other work in the Listing Program (“The critical habitat designation subcap will ensure that some funding is available to address other listing activities” (House Report No. 107-103, 107th Congress, 1st Session, June 19, 2001)). In FY 2002 and each year until FY 2006, the Service has had to use virtually the entire critical habitat subcap to address court-mandated designations of critical habitat, and consequently none of the critical habitat subcap funds have been available for other listing activities. In some FYs since 2006, we have been able to use some of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing determinations for high-priority candidate species. In other FYs, while we were unable to use any of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing determinations, we did use some of this money to fund the critical habitat portion of some proposed listing determinations so that the proposed listing determination and proposed critical habitat designation could be combined into one rule, thereby being more efficient in our work. For FY 2011, we were again able to use some of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing determination.

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 2011, on April 15, 2011, Congress passed the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 112-10), which provided funding through September 30, 2011. The Service was provided $20,902,000 for the listing program. Of that, the Service used $9,472,000 for determinations of critical habitat for already listed species. Also $500,000 was appropriated for foreign species listings under the ESA. The Service thus had $10,930,000 available 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 ESA) 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 FY 2010, the Service received many new petitions and a single petition to list 404 species. The receipt of petitions for a large number of species is consuming the Service's listing funding that is not dedicated to meeting court-ordered commitments. Absent some ability to balance effort among listing duties under existing funding levels, the Service was only able to initiate a few new listing determinations for candidate species in FY 2011.

In 2009, the responsibility for listing foreign species under the ESA was transferred from the Division of Scientific Authority, International Affairs Program, to the Endangered Species Program. Therefore, starting in FY 2010, we used a portion of our funding to work on the actions described above for listing actions related to foreign species. In FY 2011, we allocated $500,000 for work on listing actions for foreign species, which reduced funding available for domestic listing actions. Although there are no foreign species issues included in our high-priority listing actions (these are accounted for separately in the Annual Notice of Review for foreign species published on May 3, 2011 (76 FR 25150)), many actions had 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 2011 Allocation Table (part of our record).

Because of the large number of high-priority species, we further ranked the candidate species with an LPN of 2 by using the following extinction-risk type criteria: International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank, Heritage rank (provided by NatureServe), Heritage threat rank (provided by NatureServe), and species currently with fewer than 50 individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. Those species with the highest IUCN rank (critically endangered), the highest Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage threat rank (substantial, imminent threats), and currently with fewer than 50 individuals, or fewer than 4 populations, originally comprised a group of approximately 40 candidate species (“Top 40”). These 40 candidate species have had the highest priority to receive funding to work on a proposed listing determination. As we work on proposed and final listing rules for those 40 candidates, we apply the ranking criteria to the next group of candidates with an LPN of 2 and 3 to determine the next set of highest priority candidate species. Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened species to endangered are lower priority, because as listed species, they are already afforded the protections of the ESA 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 precluded by higher priority listing actions including those with court-ordered and court-approved settlement agreements, listing actions with absolute statutory deadlines, and work on proposed listing determinations for candidate species with higher listing priorities.

As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made to add and remove qualified species to and from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. As with our “precluded” finding, the evaluation of whether progress in adding qualified species to the Lists has been expeditious is a function of the resources available for listing and the competing demands for those funds. (Although we do not discuss it in detail here, we are also making expeditious progress in removing species from the list under the Recovery program in light of the resource available for delisting, which is funded by a separate line item in the budget of the Endangered Species Program. During FY 2011, we have completed delisting rules for three species.) Given the limited resources available for listing, we find that we made expeditious progress in FY 2011 in the Listing Program. This progress included preparing and publishing the following determinations:

FY 2011 Completed Listing Actions

Publication date
Title
Actions
FR pages

10/6/2010
Endangered Status for the Altamaha Spinymussel and Designation of Critical Habitat
Proposed Listing Endangered
75 FR 61664-61690

10/7/2010
12-Month Finding on a Petition to list the Sacramento Splittail as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not warranted
75 FR 62070-62095

10/28/2010
Endangered Status and Designation of Critical Habitat for Spikedace and Loach Minnow
Proposed Listing Endangered (uplisting)
75 FR 66481-66552

11/2/2010
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Bay Springs Salamander as Endangered
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial
75 FR 67341-67343

11/2/2010
Determination of Endangered Status for the Georgia Pigtoe Mussel, Interrupted Rocksnail, and Rough Hornsnail and Designation of Critical Habitat
Final Listing Endangered
75 FR 67511-67550

11/2/2010
Listing the Rayed Bean and Snuffbox as Endangered
Proposed Listing Endangered
75 FR 67551-67583

11/4/2010
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Cirsium wrightii (Wright's Marsh Thistle) as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded
75 FR 67925-67944

12/14/2010
Endangered Status for Dunes Sagebrush Lizard
Proposed Listing Endangered
75 FR 77801-77817

12/14/2010
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the North American Wolverine as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Warranted but precluded
75 FR 78029-78061

12/14/2010
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Sonoran Population of the Desert Tortoise as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Warranted but precluded
75 FR 78093-78146

12/15/2010

12-Month Finding on a Petition to List
Astragalus microcymbus
and
Astragalus schmolliae
as Endangered or Threatened

Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Warranted but precluded
75 FR 78513-78556

12/28/2010
Listing Seven Brazilian Bird Species as Endangered Throughout Their Range
Final Listing Endangered
75 FR 81793-81815

1/4/2011

90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Red Knot subspecies
Calidris canutus roselaari
as Endangered

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial
76 FR 304-311

1/19/2011
Endangered Status for the Sheepnose and Spectaclecase Mussels
Proposed Listing Endangered
76 FR 3392-3420

2/10/2011
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Pacific Walrus as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Warranted but precluded
76 FR 7634-7679

2/17/2011
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Sand Verbena Moth as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
76 FR 9309-9318

2/22/2011
Determination of Threatened Status for the New Zealand-Australia Distinct Population Segment of the Southern Rockhopper Penguin
Final Listing Threatened
76 FR 9681-9692

2/22/2011

12-Month Finding on a Petition to List
Solanum conocarpum
(marron bacora) as Endangered

Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Warranted but precluded
76 FR 9722-9733

2/23/2011
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Thorne's Hairstreak Butterfly as Endangered
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not warranted
76 FR 9991-10003

2/23/2011

12-Month Finding on a Petition to List
Astragalus hamiltonii, Penstemon flowersii,

Eriogonum soredium, Lepidium ostleri,
and
Trifolium friscanum
as Endangered or Threatened

Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Warranted but precluded & Not Warranted
76 FR 10166-10203

2/24/2011
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Wild Plains Bison or Each of Four Distinct Population Segments as Threatened
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial
76 FR 10299-10310

2/24/2011
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Unsilvered Fritillary Butterfly as Threatened or Endangered
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial
76 FR 10310-10319

3/8/2011
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Mt. Charleston Blue Butterfly as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Warranted but precluded
76 FR 12667-12683

3/8/2011
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Texas Kangaroo Rat as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
76 FR 12683-12690

3/10/2011
Initiation of Status Review for Longfin Smelt
Notice of Status Review
76 FR 13121-13122

3/15/2011
Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List the Flat-tailed Horned Lizard as Threatened
Proposed rule withdrawal
76 FR 14210-14268

3/15/2011
Proposed Threatened Status for the Chiricahua Leopard Frog and Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat
Proposed Listing Threatened; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat
76 FR 14126-14207

3/22/2011
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Berry Cave Salamander as Endangered
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Warranted but precluded
76 FR 15919-15932

4/1/2011
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Spring Pygmy Sunfish as Endangered
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial
76 FR 18138-18143

4/5/2011
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Bearmouth Mountainsnail, Byrne Resort Mountainsnail, and Meltwater Lednian Stonefly as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not Warranted and Warranted but precluded
76 FR 18684-18701

4/5/2011
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Peary Caribou and Dolphin and Union population of the Barren-ground Caribou as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial
76 FR 18701-18706

4/12/2011
Proposed Endangered Status for the Three Forks Springsnail and San Bernardino Springsnail, and Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat
Proposed Listing Endangered; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat
76 FR 20464-20488

4/13/2011
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Spring Mountains Acastus Checkerspot Butterfly as Endangered
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial
76 FR 20613-20622

4/14/2011
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Prairie Chub as Threatened or Endangered
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial
76 FR 20911-20918

4/14/2011
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Hermes Copper Butterfly as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Warranted but precluded
76 FR 20918-20939

4/26/2011
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Arapahoe Snowfly as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial
76 FR 23256-23265

4/26/2011
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Smooth-Billed Ani as Threatened or Endangered
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Not substantial
76 FR 23265-23271

5/12/2011
Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule to List the Mountain Plover as Threatened
Proposed Rule, Withdrawal
76 FR 27756-27799

5/25/2011
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Spot-tailed Earless Lizard as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial
76 FR 30082-30087

5/26/2011
Listing the Salmon-Crested Cockatoo as Threatened Throughout its Range with Special Rule
Final Listing Threatened
76 FR 30758-30780

5/31/2011
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Puerto Rican Harlequin Butterfly as Endangered
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Warranted but precluded
76 FR 31282-31294

6/2/2011

90-Day Finding on a Petition to Reclassify the Straight-Horned Markhor (
Capra falconeri jerdoni
) of Torghar Hills as Threatened

Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial
76 FR 31903-31906

6/2/2011
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Golden-winged Warbler as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial
76 FR 31920-31926

6/7/2011
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Striped Newt as Threatened
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Warranted but precluded
76 FR 32911-32929

6/9/2011

12-Month Finding on a Petition to List
Abronia ammophila, Agrostis rossiae,

Astragalus proimanthus, Boechera
(
Arabis
)
pusilla,
and
Penstemon gibbensii
as Threatened or Endangered

Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not Warranted and Warranted but precluded
76 FR 33924-33965

6/21/2011
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Utah Population of the Gila Monster as an Endangered or a Threatened Distinct Population Segment
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Not substantial
76 FR 36049-36053

6/21/2011
Revised 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Reclassify the Utah Prairie Dog From Threatened to Endangered
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial
76 FR 36053-36068

6/28/2011

12-Month Finding on a Petition to List
Castanea pumila
var.
ozarkensis
as Threatened or Endangered

Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not warranted
76 FR 37706-37716

6/29/2011
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Eastern Small-Footed Bat and the Northern Long-Eared Bat as Threatened or Endangered
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial
76 FR 38095-38106

6/30/2011
12-Month 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 12-Month petition finding, Not warranted
76 FR 38504-38532

7/12/2011
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Bay Skipper as Threatened or Endangered
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial
76 FR 40868-40871

7/19/2011

12-Month Finding on a Petition to List
Pinus albicaulis
as Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat

Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Warranted but precluded
76 FR 42631-42654

7/19/2011
Petition To List Grand Canyon Cave Pseudoscorpion
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not warranted
76 FR 42654-42658

7/26/2011

12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Giant Palouse Earthworm (
Drilolerius americanus
) as Threatened or Endangered

Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not warranted
76 FR 44547-44564

7/26/2011
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Frigid Ambersnail as Endangered
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not warranted
76 FR 44566-44569

7/27/2011

Determination of Endangered Status for
Ipomopsis polyantha
(Pagosa Skyrocket) and Threatened Status for
Penstemon debilis
(Parachute Beardtongue) and
Phacelia submutica
(DeBeque Phacelia)

Final Listing Endangered, Threatened
76 FR 45054-45075

7/27/2011
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Gopher Tortoise as Threatened in the Eastern Portion of its Range
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Warranted but precluded
76 FR 45130-45162

8/2/2011

Proposed Endangered Status for the Chupadera Springsnail (
Pyrgulopsis chupaderae
) and Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat

Proposed Listing Endangered
76 FR 46218-46234

8/2/2011
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Straight Snowfly and Idaho Snowfly as Endangered
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Not substantial
76 FR 46238-46251

8/2/2011
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Redrock Stonefly as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not warranted
76 FR 46251-46266

8/2/2011
Listing 23 Species on Oahu as Endangered and Designating Critical Habitat for 124 Species
Proposed Listing Endangered
76 FR 46362-46594

8/4/2011
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Six Sand Dune Beetles as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Not substantial and substantial
76 FR 47123-47133

8/9/2011
Endangered Status for the Cumberland Darter, Rush Darter, Yellowcheek Darter, Chucky Madtom, and Laurel Dace
Final Listing Endangered
76 FR 48722-48741

8/9/2011
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Nueces River and Plateau Shiners as Threatened or Endangered
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not warranted
76 FR 48777-48788

8/9/2011
Four Foreign Parrot Species [crimson shining parrot, white cockatoo, Philippine cockatoo, yellow-crested cockatoo]
Proposed Listing Endangered and Threatened; Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not warranted
76 FR 49202-49236

8/10/2011
Proposed Listing of the Miami Blue Butterfly as Endangered, and Proposed Listing of the Cassius Blue, Ceraunus Blue, and Nickerbean Blue Butterflies as Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance to the Miami Blue Butterfly
Proposed Listing Endangered Similarity of Appearance
76 FR 49408-49412

8/10/2011
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Saltmarsh Topminnow as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial
76 FR 49412-49417

8/10/2011
Emergency Listing of the Miami Blue Butterfly as Endangered, and Emergency Listing of the Cassius Blue, Ceraunus Blue, and Nickerbean Blue Butterflies as Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance to the Miami Blue Butterfly
Emergency Listing Endangered and Similarity of Appearance
76 FR 49542-49567

8/11/2011
Listing Six Foreign Birds as Endangered Throughout Their Range
Final Listing Endangered
76 FR 50052-50080

8/17/2011
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Leona's Little Blue Butterfly as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial
76 FR 50971-50979

9/01/2011

90-Day Finding on a Petition to List All Chimpanzees (
Pan troglodytes
) as Endangered

Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial
76 FR 54423-54425

9/6/2011
12-Month Finding on Five Petitions to List Seven Species of Hawaiian Yellow-faced Bees as Endangered
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Warranted but precluded
76 FR 55170-55203

9/8/2011

12-Month Petition Finding and Proposed Listing of
Arctostaphylos franciscana
as Endangered

Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Warranted; Proposed Listing Endangered
76 FR 55623-55638

9/8/2011
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Snowy Plover and Reclassify the Wintering Population of Piping Plover
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Not substantial
76 FR 55638-55641

9/13/2011
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Franklin's Bumble Bee as Endangered
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial
76 FR 56381-56391

9/13/2011
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 42 Great Basin and Mojave Desert Springsnails as Threatened or Endangered with Critical Habitat
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial and Not substantial
76 FR 56608-56630

9/21/2011
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Van Rossem's Gull-billed Tern as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not warranted
76 FR 58650-58680

9/22/2011
Determination of Endangered Status for Casey's June Beetle and Designation of Critical Habitat
Final Listing Endangered
76 FR 58954-58998

9/27/2011

12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Tamaulipan Agapema,
Sphingicampa blanchardi
(no common name), and
Ursia furtiva
(no common name) as Endangered or Threatened

Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not warranted
76 FR 59623-59634

9/27/2011
Partial 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 404 Species in the Southeastern United States as Endangered or Threatened With Critical Habitat
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial
76 FR 59836-59862

9/29/2011
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the American Eel as Threatened
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial
76 FR 60431-60444

10/4/2011

12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Lake Sammamish Kokanee Population of
Oncorhynchus nerka
as an Endangered or Threatened Distinct Population Segment

Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not warranted
76 FR 61298-61307

10/4/2011

12-Month Finding on a Petition to List
Calopogon oklahomensis
as Threatened or Endangered

Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not warranted
76 FR 61307-61321

10/4/2011
12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Amargosa River Population of the Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard as an Endangered or Threatened Distinct Population Segment
Notice of 12-Month petition finding, Not warranted
76 FR 61321-61330

10/4/2011
Endangered Status for the Alabama Pearlshell, Round Ebonyshell, Southern Sandshell, Southern Kidneyshell, and Choctaw Bean, and Threatened Status for the Tapered Pigtoe, Narrow Pigtoe, and Fuzzy Pigtoe; with Critical Habitat
Proposed Listing Endangered
76 FR 61482-61529

10/4/2011
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 10 Subspecies of Great Basin Butterflies as Threatened or Endangered with Critical Habitat
Notice of 90-Day Petition Finding, Substantial and Not substantial
76 FR 61532-61554

Our expeditious progress also included work on listing actions that we funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 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 ESA. 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 and FY 2011 But Not Yet Completed

Species
Action

Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement

4 parrot species (military macaw, yellow-billed parrot, red-crowned parrot, scarlet macaw)
5

12-month petition finding.

4 parrot species (blue-headed macaw, great green macaw, grey-cheeked parakeet, hyacinth macaw)
5

12-month petition finding.

Longfin smelt
12-month petition finding.

Actions With Statutory Deadlines

5 Bird species from Colombia and Ecuador
Final listing determination.

Queen Charlotte goshawk
Final listing determination.

Ozark hellbender
4

Final listing determination.

Altamaha spinymussel
3

Final listing determination.

6 Birds from Peru & Bolivia
Final listing determination.

Loggerhead sea turtle (assist National Marine Fisheries Service)
5

Final listing determination.

2 mussels (rayed bean (LPN = 2), snuffbox No LPN)
5

Final listing determination.

CA golden trout
4

12-month petition finding.

Black-footed albatross
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/Proposed listing.

Dusky tree vole
12-month petition finding.

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

Platte River caddisfly (from 206 species petition)
5

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.

Mohave Ground Squirrel
1

12-month petition finding.

Ashy storm-petrel
5

12-month petition finding.

Honduran emerald
12-month petition finding.

Eagle Lake trout
1

90-day petition finding.

32 Pacific Northwest mollusks species (snails and slugs)
1

90-day petition finding.

Spring Mountains checkerspot butterfly
90-day petition finding.

11 of 404 Southeast species
90-day petition finding.

Aztec gilia
5

90-day petition finding.

White-tailed ptarmigan
5

90-day petition finding.

San Bernardino flying squirrel
5

90-day petition finding.

Bicknell's thrush
5

90-day petition finding.

Sonoran talussnail
5

90-day petition finding.

2 AZ Sky Island plants (
Graptopetalum bartrami
&
Pectis imberbis
)
5

90-day petition finding.

I'iwi
5

90-day petition finding.

Humboldt marten
90-day petition finding.

Desert massasauga
90-day petition finding.

Western glacier stonefly (
Zapada glacier
)

90-day petition finding.

Thermophilic ostracod (
Potamocypris hunteri
)

90-day petition finding.

Sierra Nevada red fox
5

90-day petition finding.

Boreal toad (eastern or southern Rocky Mtn population)
5

90-day petition finding.

Alexander Archipelago wolf
5

90-day petition finding.

High-Priority Listing Actions

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

Proposed listing.

Umtanum buckwheat (LPN = 2) and white bluffs bladderpod (LPN = 9)
4

Proposed listing.

Grotto sculpin (LPN = 2)
4

Proposed listing.

2 Arkansas mussels (Neosho mucket (LPN = 2) & Rabbitsfoot (LPN = 9))
4

Proposed listing.

Diamond darter (LPN = 2)
4

Proposed listing.

Gunnison sage-grouse (LPN = 2)
4

Proposed listing.

Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Beetle (LPN = 2)
5

Proposed listing.

Lesser prairie chicken (LPN = 2)
Proposed listing.

4 Texas salamanders (Austin blind salamander (LPN = 2), Salado salamander (LPN = 2), Georgetown salamander (LPN = 8), Jollyville Plateau (LPN = 8))
3

Proposed listing.

5 West Texas aquatics (Gonzales Spring Snail (LPN = 2), Diamond Y springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom Cave snail (LPN = 2), Diminutive amphipod (LPN = 2))
3

Proposed listing.

2 Texas plants (Texas golden gladecress (
Leavenworthia texana
) (LPN = 2), Neches River rose-mallow (
Hibiscus dasycalyx
) (LPN = 2))
3

Proposed listing.

4 AZ plants (Acuna cactus (
Echinomastus erectocentrus
var.
acunensis
) (LPN = 3), Fickeisen plains cactus (
Pediocactus peeblesianus fickeiseniae
) (LPN = 3), Lemmon fleabane (
Erigeron lemmonii
) (LPN = 8), Gierisch mallow (
Sphaeralcea gierischii
) (LPN = 2))
5

Proposed listing.

FL bonneted bat (LPN = 2)
3

Proposed listing.

3 Southern FL plants (Florida semaphore cactus (
Consolea corallicola
) (LPN = 2), shellmound applecactus (
Harrisia
(=
Cereus
)
aboriginum
(=
gracilis
)) (LPN = 2), Cape Sable thoroughwort (
Chromolaena frustrata
) (LPN = 2))
5

Proposed listing.

21 Big Island (HI) species
5
(includes 8 candidate species—6 plants & 2 animals; 4 with LPN = 2, 1 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN = 4, 2 with LPN = 8)

Proposed listing.

12 Puget Sound prairie species (9 subspecies of pocket gopher (
Thomomys mazama
ssp.) (LPN = 3), streaked horned lark (LPN = 3), Taylor's checkerspot (LPN = 3), Mardon skipper (LPN = 8))
3

Proposed listing.

2 TN River mussels (fluted kidneyshell (LPN = 2), slabside pearlymussel (LPN = 2))
5

Proposed listing.

Jemez Mountain salamander (LPN = 2)
5

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 and FY 2011 funds.

4
Funded with FY 2010 funds.

5
Funded with FY 2011 funds.

We also funded work on resubmitted petitions findings for 204 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 13910; March 23, 2010). We also did not include new information in our resubmitted petition findings for the 64 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 revised 12-month petition findings for the candidate species that we are removing from candidate status, which are 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 2011, we also funded work on resubmitted petition findings for uplisting two listed species, for which petitions were previously received.

Given the limited resources available for listing, we find that we are making expeditious progress to add qualified species to the lists of threatened and endangered species. First, as the tables above show, we are making expeditious progress by listing qualified species. In FY 2011, we resolved the status of 29 species that we determined, or had previously determined, qualified for listing; for 27 of those 29 species, the resolution was to add them to the lists of threatened and endangered species. We also proposed to list an additional 45 qualified species.

Second, we are making expeditious progress by working on adding qualified species to the lists. In FY 2011, we worked on developing final listing determinations for an additional 17 species, and proposed listing rules for another 85 species. Although we have not yet completed those actions, we are making expeditious progress towards doing so.

Third, we are making expeditious progress to add qualified species to the lists by identifying additional species that qualify for listing. In FY 2011, we completed 90-day petition findings for 480 species, and 12-month petition findings for 52 species. Of those 52 species, we determined that listing of 26 of the species was warranted but precluded. In FY 2011 we also worked on 90-day findings for an additional 50 species and 12-month findings for an additional 43 species.

Finally, the Service is making expeditious progress to add qualified species to the list by developing and beginning to implement a work plan that establishes a framework and schedule for resolving by September 30, 2016, the status of all of the species that the Service had determined to be qualified as of the 2010 Candidate Notice of Review. The Service submitted such a work plan to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in
In re Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation,
No. 10-377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D. DC May 10, 2011), and obtained the court's approval. The Service has already begun to implement that work plan, because we completed most of the work identified in the above tables in accordance with the schedule set out in that work plan.

We have endeavored to make our listing actions as efficient and timely as possible, given the requirements of the relevant law and regulations, and constraints relating to workload and personnel. We are continually considering ways to streamline processes or achieve economies of scale, such as by batching related actions together. Given our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the ESA, 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, under 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. Additional cold temperatures occurred in south Florida in December 2010. In the short term, severe and prolonged cold events resulted in mortality of at least several adult Florida bonneted bats. The long-term effects of prolonged and repeated cold events on the species are not known. Efforts are underway to confirm presence at all previously documented sites. Additionally, a study to determine the northern and southern extent of the species' range and estimate overall abundance was initiated in 2011.

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 take place at any of the occurrences of this bat on either private or conservation lands. Disturbance of maternity roosts is of particular concern due to the low fecundity and small population of this species. 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 and repeated 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 to 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 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)), Tonga, Fiji, and Vanuatu. While populations appear to be healthy in some locations, mainly in the Caroline Islands, they have declined substantially in other areas, including Independent and American Samoa, the Mariana Islands, Fiji, and possibly Tonga. Scientists recognize four subspecies:
E. s. rotensis,
endemic to the Mariana Islands (Guam and CNMI);
E. s. sulcata,
occurring in Chuuk and Pohnpei;
E. s. palauensis,
found in Palau; and
E. s. semicaudata,
occurring in American and Independent Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, and Vanuatu. This candidate assessment 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, since the threats affect the entire DPS, and would likely be permanent, the threats are high in magnitude. The Pacific sheath-tailed bat may also be 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 (CNMI)—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, since the threats affect the entire subspecies, and would likely be permanent, 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. NEC is considered a habitat specialist, in so far as it is 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, and 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. Surveys indicate that the long-term decline in NEC continues. For example, surveys for the species in 2009 documented the presence of NEC in only 7 of the 23 New Hampshire locations that were known to be occupied in 2002 and 2003. Similarly, surveys in Maine found the species no longer present in 9 of the 19 towns identified in an extensive survey that spanned the years 2000 to 2004. Similar surveys were conducted during the winter of 2010-2011 in Rhode Island, but the results are not yet available. Rangewide, 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 NEC 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 NECs from small patches. The range of the NEC 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 negative effect on the survival of the species. The threats 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 in our files and in the Service's initial warranted-but-precluded finding published in the
Federal Register

on April 8, 2004 (69 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,

[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%3A2011-27122. Public record. Not legal advice.