# 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%3A2012-28050

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** November 21, 2012
- **Citation:** 77 FR 69994

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2012-0050; MO-4500030113]
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 two new candidates, changes the LPN for nine 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 192.

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, 2011, through September 30, 2012.

We request additional status information that may be available for the 192 candidate species identified in this CNOR.

DATES:

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

ADDRESSES:

This notice is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov
and
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/cnor.html.
Species assessment forms with information and references on a particular candidate species' range, status, habitat needs, and listing priority assignment are available for review at the appropriate Regional Office listed below in
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
or at the 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/candidateSpecies.jsp
). 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 actions (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 October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370). 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 (16 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 threats are of high magnitude, with immediacy classified as imminent, the listable entity is assigned an LPN of 1, 2, or 3 based on its taxonomic status (i.e., a species that is the only member of its genus would be assigned to the LPN 1 category, a full species to LPN 2, and a subspecies or DPS would be assigned to LPN 3). In summary, the LPN ranking system provides a basis for making decisions about the relative priority for preparing a proposed rule to list a given species. No matter which LPN we assign to a species, each species included in this notice as a candidate is one for which we have sufficient information to prepare a proposed rule to list 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 October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), 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 2 new candidate species (see New Candidates, below), change the LPN for 9 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, a total of 192 species (including 69 plant and 123 animal species) are now candidates awaiting preparation of rules proposing

their listing. These 192 species, along with the 94 species currently proposed for listing (including 6 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 47 species identified in the previous CNOR as either proposed for listing or classified as candidates that are no longer in those categories. This includes 41 species for which we published a final listing rule, 1 species for which we published a withdrawal of a proposed rule, 2 candidate species for which we published separate not-warranted findings and removed from candidate status, plus the 3 species in this notice that we have determined do not meet the definition of an endangered or threatened species and therefore do not warrant listing. We have removed these species from candidate status in this CNOR.

New Candidates

Below we present a brief summary of one new mammal (Peñasco least chipmunk), and one new fish (Cumberland arrow darter), that 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/candidateSpecies.jsp.
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 two other species—San Francisco Bay-Delta longfin smelt DPS and Arapahoe snowfly—were identified as candidates earlier this year as a result of separate petition findings published in the
Federal Register
.

Mammals

Peñasco least chipmunk (
Tamias minimus atristriatus
)—The Peñasco least chipmunk is endemic to the White Mountains, Otero and Lincoln Counties, and the Sacramento Mountains, Otero County, New Mexico. The Peñasco least chipmunk historically had a broad distribution throughout the Sacramento Mountains within ponderosa pine forests. The last verification of persistence of the Sacramento Mountains population of Peñasco least chipmunk was in 1966, and the subspecies appears to be extirpated from the Sacramento Mountains. The only remaining known distribution of the least chipmunk is restricted to open, high elevation, talus slopes within a subalpine grassland, located in the Sierra Blanca area, White Mountains, Lincoln and Otero Counties, New Mexico.

The Peñasco least chipmunk faces threats from present or threatened destruction, modification, and curtailment of its habitat from the alteration or loss of mature ponderosa pine forests in one of the two historically-occupied areas. The documented decline in occupied localities, in conjunction with the small numbers of individuals captured, are linked to widespread habitat alteration. Moreover, the highly-fragmented nature of its current distribution is a significant contributor to the vulnerability of this subspecies and increases the likelihood of very small, isolated populations being extirpated. As a result of this fragmentation, even if suitable habitat exists (or is restored) in the Sacramento Mountains, the likelihood of recolonization of historical habitat or population expansion from the White Mountains is extremely remote. Considering the magnitude and imminence of these threats to the subspecies and its habitat, and the vulnerability of the White Mountains population, we conclude that the least chipmunk is in danger of extinction throughout all of its known range now or in the foreseeable future.

The remaining population of Peñasco least chipmunk in the White Mountains is particularly susceptible to extinction as a result of small, reduced population sizes and its isolation. Because of the reduced population size and lack of contiguous habitat adjacent to the extant White Mountains population, even a small impact on the White Mountains could have a very large impact on the status of the species as a whole. As a result of its restricted range, apparent small population size, and fragmented historical habitat, the one known remaining extant population in the White Mountains is inherently vulnerable to extinction due to effects of small, population sizes. These impacts are likely to be seen in the population at some point in the foreseeable future, but do not appear to be affecting this population currently. Therefore, we conclude the threats to this population are of high magnitude, but not imminent. Therefore, we assign an LPN of 6 to the subspecies.

Fish

Cumberland arrow darter (
Etheostoma sagitta sagitta
)—The following summary is based on information in our files. The Cumberland arrow darter is a brightly colored darter with a total length of 116 millimeters (4.6 inches). It is restricted to the upper Cumberland River basin in southeastern Kentucky and northeastern Tennessee. The Cumberland arrow darter typically inhabits small, headwater streams (first to third order) but is sometimes observed in larger streams or small rivers. Its preferred habitat consists of pools or transitional areas between riffles and pools (runs and glides) in moderate to high gradient streams with bedrock, boulder, and cobble substrates. Cumberland arrow darters feed on a variety of aquatic invertebrates, but adults feed predominantly on larval mayflies (order Ephemeroptera), specifically the families Heptageniidae and Baetidae. Rangewide surveys from 2010 to 2012 revealed that the Cumberland arrow darter has been extirpated from portions of its range. During these efforts, the subspecies was observed at 60 of 101 historical streams and 72 of 123 historical sites.

The subspecies' habitat and range have been degraded and limited by water pollution from surface coal mining and gas exploration activities; removal of riparian vegetation; stream channelization; increased siltation associated with poor mining, logging, and agricultural practices; and deforestation of watersheds. The magnitude of these threats is most severe in the eastern half of the range, where resource extraction activities are more common and public ownership is sparse. The threat magnitude is lower in the western half of the range where resource extraction activities are less severe and a larger proportion of the range is in public ownership. Since the species and its life cycle and habitat requirements are fairly evenly distributed across its range, overall, the magnitude of the threats is moderate. We also consider these threats to be imminent because the threats are ongoing and will continue for the foreseeable future. Consequently, we assigned an LPN of 9 to the Cumberland arrow darter.

Longfin smelt, San Francisco Bay-Delta DPS (
Spirinchus thaleichthys
)—We previously announced candidate status for this DPS, 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 2, 2012 (77 FR 19756).

Insects

Arapahoe snowfly (
Capnia arapahoe
)—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 10, 2012 (77 FR 27386).

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.

Reptiles

Sonoran desert tortoise (
Gopherus morafkai
)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. Sonoran desert tortoises are most closely associated with Sonoran and Mojave Desert scrub vegetation types, but may also be found in other habitat types within their distribution and elevation range. They occur most commonly on rocky, steep slopes and bajadas in paloverde-mixed cacti associations. Washes and valley bottoms may be used in dispersal and, in some areas, as all or part of home ranges. Most Sonoran desert tortoises in Arizona occur between 904 to 4,198 feet (275 to 1280 meters) in elevation. The Sonoran desert tortoise is distributed south and east of the Colorado River in Arizona in all counties except for Navajo, Apache, Coconino, and Greenlee Counties, south to the Rio Yaqui in southern Sonora, Mexico.

Threats known to affect Sonoran desert tortoises include nonnative plant species invasions and altered fire regimes; urban and agricultural development, and human population growth; barriers to dispersal and genetic exchange; off-highway vehicles; roads and highways; historical ironwood and mesquite tree harvest in Mexico; improper livestock grazing (predominantly in Mexico); undocumented human immigration and interdiction activities; illegal collection; predation from feral dogs; human depredation and vandalism; drought; and climate change. Threats to the Sonoran desert tortoise differ geographically in type and scope, and are highly synergistic in their effects. However, in their totality, these threats are high in magnitude because of the large amount of habitat that is likely to be affected and the irreversible nature of the effect of these threats in sensitive habitats that are slow to rebound. While some threats are ongoing, the more significant ones are not. Thus, overall, the threats are nonimminent. Recent phylogenetic research confirmed what has been suspected for decades within the scientific community that the Sonoran desert tortoise is a distinct species. Therefore, we changed the LPN from a 6 to a 5, reflecting that this entity is now a full species and no longer a DPS.

Sonoyta mud turtle (
Kinosternon sonoriense longifemorale
)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. No new information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. The Sonoyta mud turtle occurs in a spring and pond at Quitobaquito Springs on Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in Arizona, and in the Rio Sonoyta and Quitovac Spring of Sonora, Mexico. Loss and degradation of stream habitat from water diversion and groundwater pumping, along with its very limited distribution, are the primary threats to the Sonoyta mud turtle. The Sonoyta mud turtle may also be vulnerable to aerial spraying of pesticides on nearby agricultural fields. Sonoyta mud turtles are highly aquatic and depend on permanent water for survival. The area of southwest Arizona and northern Sonora where the Sonoyta mud turtle occurs is one of the driest regions in the Southwest. Due to continued drought and irrigated agriculture in the region, we expect surface water in the Rio Sonoyta to further dwindle in the foreseeable future but not as imminently as previously believed since National Park Service staff have implemented several actions to stabilize the water levels at Quitobaquito Springs. However, surface water use will have a significant impact on the survival of this subspecies. Based on a change in the timing of the threat from the reduction of surface water to nonimminent (i.e., expected to occur in foreseeable future), we are changing the LPN for Sonoyta mud turtle from a 3 to a 6.

Amphibians

Black Warrior waterdog (
Necturus alabamensis
)—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 Black Warrior waterdog is a salamander that inhabits streams above the Fall Line within the Black Warrior River Basin in Alabama. There is very little specific locality information available on the historical distribution of the Black Warrior waterdog because little attention was given to this species between its description in 1937 and the 1980s. During this time, there were a total of only 11 known historical records from 4 Alabama counties. Two of these sites have now been inundated by impoundments. Extensive survey work was conducted in the 1990s to look for additional populations. As a result of that work, the species was documented at 14 sites in 5 counties.

Water-quality degradation is the biggest threat to the continued existence of the Black Warrior waterdog. Most streams that have been surveyed for the waterdog showed evidence of pollution and many appeared biologically depauperate. Sources of point and nonpoint pollution in the Black Warrior River Basin have been numerous and widespread. Pollution is generated from inadequately treated effluent from industrial plants, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment plants, poultry operations, and cattle feedlots. Surface mining represents another threat to the biological integrity of waterdog habitat. Runoff from old, abandoned coal mines generates pollution through acidification, increased mineralization, and sediment loading. The North River, Locust Fork, and Mulberry Fork, all streams that this species inhabits, are on the Environmental Protection Agency's list of impaired waters. An additional threat to the Black Warrior waterdog is the creation of large impoundments that have flooded thousands of square hectares of its habitat. These impoundments are likely marginal or unsuitable habitat for the salamander. Suitable habitat for the Black Warrior waterdog is limited, and available data indicate extant populations are small and their viability is questionable. This situation is pervasive and problematic; water quality issues are persistent and regulatory mechanisms are not ameliorating these ongoing threats. The most current survey information indicates all populations except one may have decreased below detectable limits indicating the threats have increased in their severity and effects on the species. Based on this updated information, the threats are now of high magnitude overall. Water quality degradation in the Black Warrior Basin is ongoing, therefore, the threats are imminent. We have changed the LPN from an 8 to a 2 for this species.

Snails

Page springsnail (
Pyrgulopsis morrisoni
)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. The Page springsnail is known from a complex of springs located within an approximately 0.93-mi (1.5-km) stretch along the west side of Oak

Creek around the community of Page Springs, and within springs located along Spring Creek, tributary to Oak Creek, Yavapai County, Arizona.

The primary threat to the Page springsnail has been modification of habitat by domestic use, agriculture, ranching, fish hatchery operations, recreation, and groundwater withdrawal. Many of the springs where the species occurs have been subjected to some level of modification. However, the immediacy of the threat of groundwater withdrawal is uncertain, due to conflicting information regarding immediacy. Based on recent survey data, it appears that the Page springsnail is abundant within natural habitats and persists in modified habitats, albeit at reduced densities. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) management plans for the Bubbling Ponds and Page Springs fish hatcheries include commitments to replace lost habitat and to monitor remaining populations of invertebrates such as the Page springsnail. The candidate conservation agreement with assurances (CCAA) for the Page springsnail has resulted in the implementation of conservation measures such as restoration and creation of spring ecosystems, including springs on AGFD properties. The implementation of the CCAA has resulted in measurable benefits to the species and its habitats. Additionally, the National Park Service has expressed an interest in restoring natural springhead integrity to Shea Springs, a site historically occupied by Page springsnail.

Accordingly, we find that ongoing implementation of the CCAA continues to substantially reduce the magnitude and immediacy of threats to, and to appreciably improve the conservation status of, the species. Therefore, we are changing the LPN for the Page springsnail from an 8 to an 11.

Insects

Nevares Spring naucorid bug (
Ambrysus funebris
)—The Nevares Spring naucorid bug is an aquatic insect that has a distribution that is limited to the Travertine-Nevares Springs Complex within Death Valley National Park, Inyo County, California. Surveys indicate that it is a rare species within the aquatic invertebrate community. The Travertine and Nevares Springs areas have eight water collection facilities that provide water for commercial and domestic uses. Information pertaining to the historical distribution of the Nevares Spring naucorid bug prior to the development of the local water collection systems is not available. However, several of the aquatic habitats where the insect occurred have been eliminated or substantially reduced in size. It is likely that the species occupied a large area of habitat where suitable micro-habitat features were present. The widespread loss of aquatic habitat within the Travertine-Nevares Springs Complex since the water collection systems were installed suggests the species has experienced major reductions in abundance and distribution as springbrook environments were eliminated or reduced in extent. The adverse effects of water diversion activities are most pronounced during the summer months, when aquatic habitats and the species that occupy those habitats are most restricted, and therefore vulnerable to perturbation. In addition, as the human population in southwestern Nevada grows, the demand for ground water and the application for permits to pump more ground water from the underground aquifer that supplies water to desert springs, seeps, and streams in Death Valley National Park will grow. This would likely reduce the quantity of water supplies to desert seeps, springs, and streams and reduce the habitat available to the Nevares Spring naucorid bug.

Nonnative mosquitofish (
Gambusia affinis
) may prey on and compete with Nevares Spring naucorid bugs for food resources. Crayfish (
Procambarus
sp.) are in close proximity to the naucorid bug's range, and if ever introduced into the same habitat, could pose an immediate threat to the species. The presence of nonnative plants may also reduce water availability or alter microhabitat features. Climate change will likely affect the species because increasing temperatures will likely result in greater evaporation rates and increasingly arid conditions, which may result in decreased recharge rates into the groundwater system. In previous years, magnitude of threats was classified as high and immediacy of threats was classified as nonimminent for this species, resulting in an LPN of 5. However, the primary threats to this species are ongoing, and, thus, to ensure consistency in the application of our listing priority process, we have changed the immediacy of threats from nonimminent to imminent, resulting in an LPN of 2 (high magnitude and imminent threats) for the Nevares Spring naucorid bug.

Stephan's riffle beetle (
Heterelmis stephani
)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. No new information was provided in the petition received on May 11, 2004. The Stephan's riffle beetle is an endemic riffle beetle historically found in limited spring environments within the Santa Rita Mountains, Pima County, Arizona. In the most recent surveys conducted in 1993, the beetle was only documented in Sylvester Spring in Madera Canyon, within the Coronado National Forest. Suspected potential threats to that spring are largely from habitat modification, and potential changes in water quality and quantity due to catastrophic natural events and climate change. The threats are of low to moderate magnitude based on our current knowledge that the effects of these threats are unlikely to be permanent as they stem from occasional natural events that do not result in permanent water quality degradation. Additionally, there is a higher likelihood that the species will persist in areas that are unaffected by the threats; it is unlikely that all areas of the spring would be simultaneously be affected. Threats from habitat modification have already occurred and are no longer ongoing, and the threats from climate change are expected to occur over many years. Therefore, the threats are nonimminent. Thus, we are changing the LPN for the Stephan's riffle beetle from an 8 to an 11.

Flowering Plants

Astragalus anserinus
(Goose Creek milkvetch)—The following summary is based on information in our files and in the petition received on February 3, 2004. The majority (over 80 percent) of Goose Creek milkvetch sites in Idaho, Utah, and Nevada occur on Federal lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The rest of the sites occur as small populations on private and State lands in Utah and on private land in Idaho and Nevada. Goose Creek milkvetch occurs in a variety of habitats, but is typically associated with dry, tuffaceous soils (made up of rock consisting of smaller kinds of volcanic detritus) from the Salt Lake Formation. The species grows on steep or flat sites, with soil textures ranging from silty to sandy to somewhat gravelly. The species tolerates some level of disturbance, based on its occurrence on steep slopes where downhill movement of soil is common.

The primary threat to Goose Creek milkvetch is habitat degradation and modification resulting from an altered wildfire regime, fire suppression activities, and rehabilitation efforts to recover lands that have burned. Other factors that also appear to threaten Goose Creek milkvetch include livestock use; invasive, nonnative species; and the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to address these threats. Climate change effects to Goose

Creek drainage habitats are possible, but we are unable to predict the specific impacts of this change to Goose Creek milkvetch at this time.

We originally assigned the species an LPN of 5 based on high magnitude threats that were capable of destroying entire populations, but that were nonimminent, or not currently ongoing. However, our recent review reveals that the threats have increased and are now imminent, or currently occurring, largely a result of land management actions taken since fires initially altered the habitat. We now consider the threats associated with livestock grazing and invasive species to be imminent throughout a large portion of the species' range. The increased magnitude and immediacy of threats leaves the species and its small populations more vulnerable to stochastic events. Additionally, surveys have not identified new populations that would significantly increase the range or extent of the species. Therefore, we are changing the LPN for Goose Creek milkvetch from a 5 to a 2.

Calochortus persistens
(Siskiyou mariposa lily)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files and the petition we received on September 10, 2001. The Siskiyou mariposa lily is a narrow endemic that is restricted to three disjunct ridge tops in the Klamath-Siskiyou Range near the California-Oregon border. The southernmost occurrence of this species is composed of nine separate sites on approximately 17.6 hectares (ha) (43.4 acres (ac)) of Klamath National Forest and privately owned lands that stretch for 10 kilometers (km) (6 miles (mi)) along the Gunsight-Humbug Ridge, Siskiyou County, California. In 2007, a new occurrence was confirmed in the locality of Cottonwood Peak and Little Cottonwood Peak, Siskiyou County, where several populations are distributed over 164 ha (405 ac) on three individual mountain peaks in the Klamath National Forest and on private lands. The northernmost occurrence consists of not more than five Siskiyou mariposa lily plants that were discovered in 1998, on Bald Mountain, west of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon.

Major threats include competition and shading by native and nonnative species fostered by suppression of wildfire; increased fuel loading and subsequent risk of wildfire; fragmentation by roads, fire breaks, tree plantations, and radio-tower facilities; maintenance and construction around radio towers and telephone relay stations located on Gunsight Peak and Mahogany Point; and soil disturbance, direct damage, and exotic weed and grass species introduction as a result of heavy recreational use and construction of fire breaks. Dyer's woad (
Isatis tinctoria
), an invasive, nonnative plant that may prevent germination of Siskiyou mariposa lily seedlings, affects 75 percent of the known lily habitat on Gunsight-Humbug Ridge, the southernmost California occurrence. U.S. Forest Service staff and the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center cite competition with dyer's woad as a significant and chronic threat to the survival of Siskiyou mariposa lily.

The combination of restricted range, extremely low numbers (five plants) in one of three disjunct populations, poor competitive ability, short seed dispersal distance, slow growth rates, low seed production, apparently poor survival rates in some years, herbivory, habitat disturbance, and competition from exotic plants threaten the continued existence of this species. However, because efforts are underway to reduce the threat of dyer's woad where it is found and because there is no evidence of a decline in the populations of any of the three
C. persistens
occurrences since the time this species was added to the list of candidate species, we now classify the magnitude of existing threats as moderate rather than high. As the threats of competition from exotic plants are not anticipated to overwhelm a large portion of the species' range in the immediate future, the threats are nonimminent. Therefore, we have changed the LPN from a 5 to an 11 to this species.

Helianthus verticillatus
(whorled sunflower)—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 whorled sunflower is found in moist, prairie-like openings in woodlands and along adjacent creeks. Despite extensive surveys throughout its range, only four populations are known for this species. There is one population (consisting of two subpopulations) documented in Cherokee County, Alabama; one population in Floyd County, Georgia; and one population each in Madison and McNairy Counties, Tennessee.

This species appears to have restricted ecological requirements and is dependent upon the maintenance of prairie-like openings for its survival. Active management of habitat is needed to keep competition and shading under control. Much of its habitat has been degraded or destroyed for agricultural, silvicultural, and residential purposes. Populations near roadsides or powerlines are threatened by herbicide usage in association with right-of-way maintenance. The majority of the Georgia population is protected due to its location within a conservation easement; however, only 15 to 20 plants are estimated to occur at this site. The remaining three populations are not formally protected, but efforts have been taken to abate threats associated with highway right-of-way maintenance at one Alabama subpopulation. However, timber growth, following a 2001 timber harvest that benefitted the plants, now threatens the other Alabama subpopulation. Last year, this species was assigned an LPN of 8 based on imminent threats of moderate magnitude. However this year, we have evidence that one Alabama subpopulation is facing new threats from shading by trees, and additional information on the variable reproductive fitness of the species. Because small population size poses a threat to all known populations of
H. verticillatus,
threats associated with land uses affect all populations except for the one in Georgia, and the reproductive fitness of the Georgia population is apparently diminished, we currently consider threats to be of high magnitude, and have changed the LPN to 2 for this species.

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 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

Elongate mud meadows springsnail (
Pyrgulopsis notidicola
)—The following summary is based on information

contained in our files.
Pyrgulopsis notidicola,
a freshwater snail, is endemic to Soldier Meadow, which is located at the northern extreme of the western arm of the Black Rock Desert in the transition zone between the Basin and Range Physiographic Province and the Columbia Plateau Province, Humboldt County, Nevada. The species is currently known to occupy four separate stretches of thermal (between 45 and 32 ° Celsius, 113 and 90 ° Fahrenheit) aquatic habitat. The first stretch is the largest at approximately 600 m (1,968 ft) long and 2 m (6.7 ft) wide. The other stretches where
Pyrgulopsis notidicola
occurs are less than 6 m (19.7 ft) long and 0.5 m (1.6 ft) wide.
Pyrgulopsis notidicola
occurs only in shallow, flowing water on gravel substrate. The species does not occur in deep water (i.e., impoundments) where water velocity is low, gravel substrate is absent, and sediment levels are high.

The primary threat to
Pyrgulopsis notidicola
identified when the species was elevated to candidate status was associated with the pattern and amount of recreational use in Soldier Meadow, particularly bathing and camping in the immediate vicinity of the only spring known to contain the species at that time. However, management actions implemented by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have greatly reduced recreation impacts in Soldier Meadow and thus have appreciably reduced the threat of habitat destruction or modification for
Pyrgulopsis notidicola.
BLM constructed a designated central campground to preclude dispersed camping in sensitive habitats. Established walkways were also constructed to direct foot traffic away from sensitive habitats, including springs occupied by
Pyrgulopsis notidicola.
BLM implemented a campground host system during periods of peak recreation use, and the site steward interacts with recreationists, directing them to designated camping and bathing areas. Educational signs that provide information on the need to protect sensitive species like
Pyrgulopsis notidicola
and their habitats were also installed. In addition, BLM has increased on-site presence of staff, including law enforcement staff, within the area. Another conservation action implemented was construction of a 1,215-ha (3,000-ac) exclosure fence to exclude livestock, wild horses, and burros from the majority of the hot springs, including
Pyrgulopsis notidicola
habitat. Some of these conservation actions began before
Pyrgulopsis notidicola
became a candidate, but most have been implemented since that time.

Only one population was known at the time
Pyrgulopsis notidicola
was designated as a candidate in 2002. Since then, three additional populations have been discovered, indicating the species is more widely distributed and abundant than previously thought. As a result, the species is less vulnerable to stochastic events than previously thought.

Because conservation actions implemented in Soldier Meadow have greatly reduced threats to
Pyrgulopsis notidicola
and are likely to stay in place for the foreseeable future, and because the population status of the species is more secure than originally thought as a result of the discovery of three additional populations, we conclude that
Pyrgulopsis notidicola
no longer meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under section 3 of the ESA. There are no portions of its range where threats remain, therefore, it is not threatened or endangered in a significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing of
Pyrgulopsis notidicola
throughout all or a significant portion of its range is no longer warranted, and we have removed it from candidate status.

Flowering Plants

Castilleja christii
(Christ's paintbrush)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files and the petition we received on January 2, 2001.
Castilleja christii
occurs as a single population within an approximately 85-ha (220-ac) area of subalpine meadow and sagebrush habitats found near the summit of Mount Harrison, Cassia County, Idaho, between 2,621 and 2,804 meters (8,600 to 9,200 feet (ft)). This endemic species is considered a hemiparasite that grows in association with native host plants found in its subalpine-meadow and sagebrush habitats. The species is subject to annual population fluctuations likely resulting from a variety of factors, such as biological interactions, anthropogenic disturbances, and environmental effects. The most recent population estimate, conducted in 2005, used distance sampling to estimate the overall population size for
C. christii
of 1,267,580 plants, with lower and upper confidence limits of 819,126 and 1,716,033 plants, respectively. The overall
C. christii
population is currently stable throughout a large portion of its range.

Castilleja christii
was previously threatened by destruction, modification, and curtailment of its habitat by the effects from the nonnative smooth brome (
Bromus inermis
), recreation-based impacts, and inadequate regulatory mechanisms. It was also thought that hybridization with nearby
Castilleja
spp. may be affecting
C. christii.
The U.S. Forest Service has successfully implemented numerous conservation actions that have ameliorated most of the previously known threats and established long-term monitoring programs to document their effectiveness on conservation actions. There is a long-term commitment by the Forest Service, through a 2005 Candidate Conservation Agreement and 2012 Memorandum of Agreement with the Service, to continue to implement conservation actions for
C. christii.
Furthermore, recent research by Boise State University has demonstrated that hybridization is not a factor affecting
C. christii.
Finally, the species' estimated population is much larger—by as much as two orders of magnitude —than earlier estimates had indicated. Therefore, we find that this species is no longer warranted for listing throughout all or a portion of its range. The species no longer meets our definition of a threatened or endangered species, and we have removed it from candidate status.

Narthecium americanum
(bog asphodel)—Over the last 20 years frequent monitoring activities, studies, and increases in regulatory protections have improved our understanding and outlook for the status of
Narthecium americanum.
Based on our current review of the best available information, we have determined that the species is less imperiled than previously believed and therefore does not warrant listing as threatened or endangered.

The historical range of
Narthecium americanum
included three counties in the Pinelands Area of New Jersey and one county each in Delaware and South Carolina. The Delaware and South Carolina occurrences are documented by a single sample in each state collected in 1895 and 1922, respectively. The species' current range includes the same three New Jersey counties. The species' distribution consists of 18 occurrences covering approximately 80 ac. The relatively broad distribution of the species reduces the risk or loss of the species from stochastic, habitat-modifying events. While some historical locations have been lost on the periphery of the species' range due to habitat loss, other new locations have been found.

There are no manmade or natural threats affecting
Narthecium americanum
to the level that the species meets the definition of threatened or

endangered. Approximately 97 percent of
N. americanum
occurs on public land or on private conservation land. Therefore, the historical threats of wetland filling, draining, flooding, and conversion to commercial cranberry bogs that resulted in the decline of the species are no longer occurring. Other manmade threats that we once thought were severely affecting the species such as upland development, water withdrawal, disturbance from recreational activities such as off-road vehicles (ORV), and collection are either adequately regulated (development and water withdrawal) or at most having a
de minimus
impact (ORV and collection) on a small number of populations. The regulations controlling the manmade threats are expected to stay in place, and the
de minimus
level of impacts are expected to remain stable or further decrease. The natural threats of habitat succession, deer and waterfowl browsing, and beaver flooding are also not affecting
N. americanum
as we once believed. For example, new information suggests that the species is able to persist in closed canopy conditions and that greater than 20 percent of the distribution of
N. americanum
is found in cedar forest cover that has remained relatively stable for the past 61 years. In addition, wetter microhabitat conditions created by deer trails may allow
N. americanum
to expand and colonize into forested areas. Beaver flooding of the species' habitat does occur, but only five percent of all
N. americanum
occurrences are negatively influenced by beaver activities. These natural threats are not anticipated to increase. And lastly, climate change is not now impacting the species, and we are unable to accurately predict if or how
N. americanum
may be impacted by climate change in the future. It is possible that future climate conditions in the New Jersey Pinelands may cause changes in water table, precipitation, or evapotranspiration levels. However, these climate processes may increase or decrease or the potential effects may be off-setting. Therefore, based on the best available information, we cannot conclude that climate change is a threat to
N. americanum.

In summary,
Narthecium americanum
is secure within its current range. There are no manmade or natural threats affecting the species to such a degree that
N. americanum
warrants listing in all or a significant portion of its range. The species no longer meets our definition of a threatened or endangered species, and 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) for candidate species for which the Service has made a warranted-but-precluded petition finding, it serves as a “resubmitted” petition finding that the ESA requires the Service to make each year; and (3) it documents the Service's compliance with the statutory requirement to monitor the status of species for which listing is warranted-but-precluded 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, sections 4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) of the ESA govern further procedures regardless of whether we issued the proposal in response to a petition); or

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

We define “candidate species” to mean those species for which the Service has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support issuance of a proposed rule to list, but for which issuance of the proposed rule is precluded (61 FR 64481; December 5, 1996). The standard for making a species a candidate through our own initiative is identical to the standard for making a warranted-but-precluded 12-month petition finding on a petition to list, and we add all petitioned species for which we have made a 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 October 5, 2011, we received a petition to list the Peñasco least chipmunk (see summary above under New Candidates) after we had initiated our assessment of this species for candidate status. As part of this notice, we are making the substantial 90-day and warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings for this 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 system for monitoring and making annual findings on the status of petitioned species under sections 4(b)(3)(C)(i) and 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the ESA.

A number of court decisions have elaborated on the nature and specificity of information that 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 172 candidates for which we have received a petition to list and the 5 listed species and for which we have received a petition to reclassify from threatened to endangered, where we found the petitioned action 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, 2011, through September 30, 2012. Below we describe the actions that continue to preclude the immediate proposal and final promulgation of a regulation implementing each of the petitioned actions for which we have made a warranted-but-precluded finding, and we describe the expeditious progress we are making to add qualified species to, and remove species from, the Lists. We will continue to monitor the status of all candidate species, including petitioned species, as new information becomes available to determine if a change in status is warranted, including the need to emergency-list a species under section 4(b)(7) of the ESA.

In addition to identifying petitioned candidate species in Table 1 below, we also present brief summaries of why each of these candidates warrants listing. More complete information, including references, is found in the species assessment forms. You may obtain a copy of these forms from the Regional Office having the lead for the species, or from the Fish and Wildlife Service's Internet Web site:
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/candidateSpecies.jsp.
As described above, under section 4 of the ESA, we identify and propose species for listing based on the factors identified in section 4(a)(1), and section 4 also provides a mechanism for the public to petition us to add species to the Lists of Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the ESA.

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress

To make a finding that a particular action is warranted-but-precluded, the Service must make two findings: (1) That the immediate proposal and timely promulgation of a final regulation is precluded by pending listing proposals, and (2) that expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to either of the lists and to remove species from the lists. 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)(iii).

Preclusion

A listing proposal is precluded if the Service does not have sufficient resources available to complete the proposal, because there are competing demands for those resources, and the relative priority of those competing demands is higher. Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate whether it will be possible to undertake work on a listing proposal regulation or whether promulgation of such a proposal is precluded by higher priority listing actions—(1) the amount of resources available for completing the listing function, (2) the estimated cost of completing the proposed listing, and (3) the Service's workload and prioritization of the proposed listing in relation to other actions.

Available Resources

The resources available for listing actions are determined through the annual Congressional appropriations process. In FY 1998 and for each fiscal year since then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on funds that may be expended for the Listing Program. This spending cap was designed to prevent the listing function from depleting funds needed for other functions under the ESA (for example, recovery functions, such as removing species from the Lists), or for other Service programs (see House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st Session, July 1, 1997). The funds within the spending cap are available to support work involving the following listing actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 90-day and 12-month findings on petitions to add species to the Lists or to change the status of a species from threatened to endangered; annual “resubmitted” petition findings on prior 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).

We cannot spend more for the Listing Program than the amount of funds within the spending cap without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, since FY 2002, the Service's budget has included a critical habitat subcap to ensure that some funds are available for completing Listing Program actions other than critical habitat designations (“The critical habitat designation subcap will ensure that some funding is available to address other listing activities” (House Report No. 107-103, 107th Congress, 1st Session. June 19, 2001)). In FY 2002 and each year until FY 2006, the Service had to use virtually the entire critical habitat subcap to address court-mandated designations of critical habitat, and consequently none of the critical habitat subcap funds were available for other listing activities. In some FYs since 2006, we have been able to use some of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing determinations for high-priority candidate species. In other FYs, while we were unable to use any of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing determinations, we did use some of this money to fund the critical habitat portion of some proposed listing determinations so that the proposed listing determination and proposed critical habitat designation could be combined into one rule, thereby being more efficient in our work. In FY 2012, based on the Service's workload, we were able to use some of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing determinations.

For FY 2012 Congress also put in place two additional subcaps within the listing cap: One for listing actions for foreign species and one for petition findings. As with the critical habitat subcap, if the Service does not need to use all of the funds within the subcap, we are able to use the remaining funds for completing proposed or final listing determinations. In FY 2012, based on the Service's workload, we were able to use some of the funds within the foreign species subcap and the petitions subcap to fund proposed listing determinations.

We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first and also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis. Through the listing cap, the three subcaps, and the amount of funds needed to complete court-mandated actions within those subcaps, Congress and the courts have in effect determined the amount of money available for other listing activities nationwide. Therefore, the funds in the listing cap—other than those within the subcaps needed to comply with court orders or court-approved settlement agreements requiring critical habitat actions for already-listed species, listing actions for foreign species, and petition findings—set the framework within which we make our determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.

For FY 2012, on December 23, 2011, Congress passed a Consolidated Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 112-74) which provided funding through the end of the fiscal year. In particular, it included a spending cap of $20,902,000 for the Listing Program. Of that, no more than $7,472,000 was available for determinations of critical habitat for already listed species. In addition, no more than $1,500,000 could be used for listing actions for foreign species and no more than $1,500,000 could be used to make 90-day or 12-month findings on petitions. The Service thus had $10,430,000 available to work on proposed and final listing determinations for domestic species. In addition, if the Service had funding available within the critical habitat, foreign species, or petition subcaps after those workloads had been completed, it could use those funds to work on listing actions other than critical habitat designations or foreign species.

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

Prioritizing Listing Actions. The Service's Listing Program workload is broadly composed of four types of actions, which the Service prioritizes as follows: (1) Compliance with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements requiring that petition findings or listing or critical habitat determinations be completed by a specific date; (2) section 4 (of the Act) listing and critical habitat actions with absolute statutory deadlines; (3) essential litigation-related, administrative, and listing program-management functions; and (4) section 4 listing actions that do not have absolute statutory deadlines. In FY 2010, the Service received many new petitions and a single petition to list 404 species, significantly increasing the number of actions within the second category of our workload—actions that have absolute statutory deadlines. As a result of the petitions to list hundreds of species, we currently have over 460 12-month petition findings yet to be initiated and completed.

To prioritize within each of the four types of actions, we developed guidelines for assigning a listing priority number (LPN) for each candidate species (48 FR 43098; September 21, 1983). As discussed above, under these guidelines, we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats (high or moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or nonimminent), and taxonomic status of the species (in order of priority: monotypic genus (a species that is the sole member of a genus), species, or part of a species (subspecies or distinct population segment)). The lower the listing priority number, the higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing priority). A species with a higher LPN would generally be precluded from listing by species with lower LPNs, unless work on a proposed rule for the species with the higher LPN can be combined with work on a proposed rule for other high-priority species.

Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened species to endangered species are lower priority, because as listed species, they are already afforded the protections of the Act and implementing regulations. However, for efficiency reasons, we may choose to work on a proposed rule to reclassify a species to endangered if we can combine this with work that is subject to a court ordered or court-approved deadline.

Since before Congress first established the spending cap for the Listing Program in 1998, the Listing Program workload has required considerably more resources than the amount of funds Congress has allowed for the Listing Program. It is therefore important that we be as efficient as possible in our listing process. Therefore, as we implement our listing work plan and

work on proposed rules for the highest priority species in the next several years, we are preparing multi-species proposals when appropriate, and these may include species with lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same threats as one of the highest-priority species. In addition, we take into consideration the availability of staff resources when we determine which high-priority species will receive funding to minimize the amount of time and resources required to complete each listing action.

Listing Program Workload. Each FY we determine, based on the amount of funding Congress has made available within the Listing Program spending cap, specifically which actions we will have the resources to work on in that FY. We then prepare Allocation Tables that identify the actions that we are funding for that FY, and how much we estimate it will cost to complete each action; these Allocation Tables are part of our record for this notice and the listing program. Our Allocation Table for FY 2012, which incorporated the Service's approach to prioritizing its workload, was adopted as part of a settlement agreement in a case before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No.10-377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (“MDL Litigation”), Document 31-1 (D. D.C. May 10, 2011) (“MDL Settlement Agreement”)). The requirements of paragraphs 1 through 7 of that settlement agreement, combined with the work plan attached to the agreement as Exhibit B, reflected the Service's Allocation Tables for FY 2011 and FY 2012. In addition, paragraphs 2 through 7 of the agreement require the Service to take numerous other actions through FY 2017—in particular, complete either a proposed listing rule or a not-warranted finding for all 251 species designated as “candidates” in the 2010 candidate notice of review (“CNOR”) before the end of FY 2016, and complete final listing determinations within one year of proposing to list any of those species. Paragraph 10 of that settlement agreement sets forth the Service's conclusion that “fulfilling the commitments set forth in this Agreement, along with other commitments required by court orders or court-approved settlement agreements already in existence at the signing of this Settlement Agreement (listed in Exhibit A), will require substantially all of the resources in the Listing Program.” As part of the same lawsuit, the court also approved a separate settlement agreement with the other plaintiff in the case; that settlement agreement requires the Service to complete additional actions in specific fiscal years — including 12-month petition findings for 11 species, 90-day petition findings for 477 species, and proposed listing determinations or not-warranted findings for 39 species.

These settlement agreements have led to a number of results that affect our preclusion analysis. First, the Service has been, and will continue to be, limited in the extent to which it can undertake additional actions within the Listing Program through FY 2017 beyond what is required by the MDL Settlement Agreements. Second, because the settlement is court-approved, two broad categories of actions now fall within the Service's highest priority (compliance with a court order): (1) the Service's entire prioritized workload for FY 2012, as reflected in its Allocation Table, and (2) completion, before the end of FY 2016, of proposed listings or not-warranted findings for most of the candidate species identified in this CNOR (in particular, for those candidate species that were included in the 2010 CNOR). Therefore, each year, one of the Service's highest priorities is to make steady progress towards completing by the end of 2017 proposed and final lisiting determinations for the 2010 candidate species—based on its LPN prioritization system, preparing multi-species actions when appropriate, and taking into consideration the availability of staff resources.

Based on these prioritization factors, we continue to find that proposals to list the petitioned candidate species included in Table 1 are all precluded by higher-priority listing actions including those with court-ordered and court-approved settlement agreements and listing actions with absolute statutory deadlines.

Expeditious Progress

As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made to add and remove qualified species to and from the Lists. As with our “precluded” finding, the evaluation of whether progress in adding qualified species to the Lists has been expeditious is a function of the resources available for listing and the competing demands for those funds. (Although we do not discuss it in detail here, we are also making expeditious progress in removing species from the list under the Recovery program in light of the resource available for delisting, which is funded by a separate line item in the budget of the Endangered Species Program. During FY 2012, we completed delisting rules for two species.) As discussed below, given the limited resources available for listing, we find that we are making expeditious progress in FY 2012 in the Listing Program.

We provide below tables cataloguing the work of the Service's Listing Program in FY 2012. This work includes all three of the steps necessary for adding species to the Lists: (1) Identifying species that warrant listing, (2) undertaking the evaluation of the best available scientific information about those species and the threats they face, and preparing proposed and final listing rules, and (3) adding species to the Lists by publishing proposed and final listing rules that include a summary of the data on which the rule is based and show the relationship of that data to the rule. After taking into consideration the limited resources available for listing, the competing demands for those funds, and the completed work catalogued in the tables below, we find that we are making expeditious progress to add qualified species to the Lists in FY 2012.

First, we are making expeditious progress in the third and final step: listing qualified species. In FY 2012, we resolved the status of 44 species that we determined, or had previously determined, qualified for listing. Moreover, for 43 of those 44 species, the resolution was to add them to the Lists, most with concurrent designations of critical habitat. We also proposed to list an additional 85 qualified species, most with concurrent critical habitat proposals.

Second, we are making expeditious progress in the second step: working towards adding qualified species to the Lists. In FY 2012, we worked on developing proposed listing rules for 39 species (most of them with concurrent critical habitat proposals). Although we have not yet completed those actions, we are making expeditious progress towards doing so.

Third, we are making expeditious progress in the first step towards adding qualified species to the Lists: identifying additional species that qualify for listing. In FY 2012, we completed 90-day petition findings for 76 species and 12-month petition findings for 53 species. Of those 51 species, we determined that listing 9 of the species was warranted but precluded. In FY 2012, we also worked on evaluating the best available scientific information towards preparing 90-day findings for an additional 3 species and 12-month findings for 1 additional species.

In addition to the work the Service has completed towards adding qualified species to the Lists, as we described above, on May 10, 2011, the Service filed in the MDL Litigation a settlement agreement that incorporated the Service's work plan for FY 2012; the court approved that settlement agreement on September 9, 2011. Paragraph 10 of that settlement agreement provides, “The Parties agree that the timetables for resolving the status of candidate species outlined in this Agreement constitute expeditious progress in adding qualified species to the lists of threatened and endangered species.” The Service also filed a second settlement agreement that required even more work in FY 2012. The Service had already begun in FY 2011 to implement that work required by the work plan, and many of these initial actions in our work plan include work on proposed rules for candidate species with an LPN of 2 or 3. Therefore, both by entering into the first settlement agreement and by completing the listing actions required by both settlement agreements, the Service is making expeditious progress to add qualified species to the lists. As provided for in the settlement agreements and the work plan incorporated into the first agreement, the Service's progress in FY 2012 included completing and publishing the following determinations:

FY 2012 Completed Listing Actions
1

Publication date
Title
Actions
FR Pages

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

10/5/2011
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 29 Mollusk Species as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial and Not substantial
76 FR 61826-61853

10/5/2011
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl as Threatened or Endangered with Critical Habitat
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted
76 FR 61856-61894

10/5/2011
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Northern Leopard Frog in the Western United States as Threatened
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted
76 FR 61896-61931

10/6/2011
Endangered Status for the Ozark Hellbender Salamander
Final Listing Endangered
76 FR 61956-61978

10/6/2011
Red-Crowned Parrot
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded
76 FR 62016-62034

10/6/2011
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Texas Fatmucket, Golden Orb, Smooth Pimpleback, Texas Pimpleback, and Texas Fawnsfoot as Threatened or Endangered
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded
76 FR 62166-62212

10/6/2011
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Mohave Ground Squirrel as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted
76 FR 62214-62258

10/6/2011
Partial 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 404 Species in the Southeastern United States as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial
76 FR 62260-62280

10/7/2011
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Black-footed Albatross as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted
76 FR 62504-62565

10/11/2011

12-Month Finding on a Petition to List
Amoreuxia gonzalezii, Astragalus hypoxylus,
and
Erigeron piscaticus
as Endangered or Threatened

Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted
76 FR 62722-62740

10/11/2011
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Tehachapi Slender Salamander as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted
76 FR 62900-62926

10/11/2011
Endangered Status for the Altamaha Spinymussel and Designation of Critical Habitat
Final Listing Endangered
76 FR 62928-62960

10/11/2011
12-Month Finding for a Petition to List the California Golden Trout as Endangered
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted
76 FR 63094-63115

10/12/2011
12-Month Petition Finding, Proposed Listing of Coquí Llanero as Endangered, and Designation of Critical Habitat for Coquí Llanero
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted; Proposed Listing Endangered
76 FR 63420-63442

10/12/2011
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Northern Leatherside Chub as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted
76 FR 63444-63478

10/13/2011
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List a Distinct Population Segment of the Red Tree Vole as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded
76 FR 63720-63762

12/19/2011
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Western Glacier Stonefly as Endangered With Critical Habitat
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
76 FR 78601-78609

1/3/2012
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Sierra Nevada Red Fox as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
77 FR 45-52

1/12/2012
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Humboldt Marten as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
77 FR 1900-1908

1/24/2012
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the `I'iwi as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
77 FR 3423-3432

2/1/2012
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the San Bernardino Flying Squirrel as Endangered or Threatened With Critical Habitat
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
77 FR 4973-4980

2/14/2012
Determination of Endangered Status for the Rayed Bean and Snuffbox Mussels Throughout Their Ranges
Final Listing Endangered
77 FR 8632-8665

2/17/2012
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Thermophilic Ostracod as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial
77 FR 9618-9619

3/13/2012
Determination of Endangered Status for the Sheepnose and Spectaclecase Mussels Throughout Their Range
Final Listing Endangered
77 FR 14914-14949

4/2/2012
12-month Finding on a Petition to List the San Francisco Bay-Delta Population of the Longfin Smelt as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but precluded
77 FR 19756—19797

4/6/2012
Listing of the Miami Blue Butterfly as Endangered Throughout Its Range; Listing of the Cassius Blue, Ceraunus Blue, and Nickerbean Blue Butterflies as Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance to the Miami Blue Butterfly in Coastal South and Central Florida
Final Listing Endangered
77 FR 20948-20986

4/12/2012
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Either the Eastern Population or the Southern Rocky Mountain Population of the Boreal Toad as an Endangered or Threatened Distinct Population Segment
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
77 FR 21920-21936

4/17/2012
Determination of Endangered Status for Three Forks Springsnail and Threatened Status for San Bernardino Springsnail Throughout Their Ranges and Designation of Critical Habitat for Both Species
Final Listing Endangered and Threatened
77 FR 23060-23092

4/26/2012

90-Day Finding on a Petition to List
Aliciella formosa
(Aztec gilia) as Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial
77 FR 24908-24915

5/1/2012
12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Sonoran Desert Area Bald Eagle as Threatened or Endangered
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted
77 FR 25792-25828

5/10/2012
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Arapahoe Snowfly as Threatened or Endangered
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted but Precluded
77 FR 27386—27403

5/10/2012
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake as Threatened
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
77 FR 27403—27411

5/15/2012

Threatened Status for
Eriogonum codium
(Umtanum Desert Buckwheat) and
Physaria douglasii
subsp.
tuplashensis
(White Bluffs Bladderpod) and Designation of Critical Habitat

Proposed Listing Threatened
77 FR 28704-28740

6/5/2012
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Southern White-Tailed Ptarmigan and the Mt. Rainier White-Tailed Ptarmigan as Threatened with Critical Habitat
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
77 FR 33143-33155

6/11/2012
Listing 38 Species on Molokai, Lanai, and Maui as Endangered and Designating Critical Habitat on Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe for 135 Species
Proposed Listing Endangered
77 FR 34464-34775

6/19/2012
Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule to List Dunes Sagebrush Lizard
Proposed Listing Withdrawal
77 FR 36871-36899

6/21/2012
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Black-capped Petrel as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
77 FR 37367-37373

7/5/2012

90-Day Finding on a Petition to List
Maytenus cymosa
as Endangered or Threatened

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial
77 FR 39666-39670

7/5/2012
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List a Distinct Population Segment of the American Black Bear in Nevada as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial
77 FR 39670-39674

7/12/2012
Determination of Endangered Status for the Chupadera Springsnail and Designation of Critical Habitat
Final Listing Endangered
77 FR 41088-41106

7/18/2012
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Six Sand Dune Beetles as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted
77 FR 42238-42251

7/24/2012
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Sonoran talussnail as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
77 FR 43218-43222

7/26/2012
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Gila Mayfly as Endangered
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
77 FR 43799-43803

7/26/2012
Endangered Status for the Diamond Darter and Designation of Critical Habitat
Proposed Listing Endangered
77 FR 43905-43939

8/7/2012
90-Day Finding on Petitions to List the Two Spring Mountains Dark Blue Butterflies and Morand's Checkerspot Butterfly as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not-substantial and Substantial
77 FR 47003-47011

8/8/2012
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Graptopetalum bartramii (Bartram Stonecrop) and Pectis imberbis (Beardless Chinch Weed) as Endangered or Threatened and Designate Critical Habitat
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
77 FR 47352-47356

8/9/2012
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Desert Massasauga as Endangered or Threatened and to Designate Critical Habitat
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
77 FR 47583-47587

8/15/2012
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Bicknell's Thrush (Catharus bicknelli) as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
77 FR 48934-48947

8/16/2012
Endangered Status for Six West Texas Aquatic Invertebrate Species and Designation of Critical Habitat
Proposed Listing and Critical Habitat Endangered
77 FR 49601-49651

8/17/2012
Determination of Status for the Gierisch Mallow and Designation of Critical Habitat
Proposed Listing and Critical Habitat Endangered
77 FR 49893-49919

8/22/2012
Endangered Status for Four Central Texas Salamanders and Designation of Critical Habitat
Proposed Listing and Critical Habitat Endangered
77 FR 50767-50854

8/28/2012
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Bay Skipper as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted
77 FR 51958-51964

8/29/2012

90-Day Finding on a Petition to List
Mimulus gemmiparus
(Rocky Mountain monkeyflower) as Endangered or Threatened and to Designate Critical Habitat

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
77 FR 52293-52300

8/29/2012
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Prince of Wales Flying Squirrel as Threatened or Endangered
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial
77 FR 52301-52308

8/30/2012
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Platte River Caddisfly as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted
77 FR 52650-52673

9/4/2012
12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Four Subspecies of Great Basin Butterflies as Endangered or Threatened Species
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted
77 FR 54293-54329

9/4/2012
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Mardon Skipper as Threatened or Endangered
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted
77 FR 54331-54352

9/5/2012
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Eagle Lake Rainbow Trout as an Endangered or Threatened Species
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
77 FR 54548-54553

9/5/2012
Determination of Endangered Status for Arctostaphylos franciscana (Franciscan manzanita) Throughout Its Range
Final Listing Endangered
77 FR 54434-54450

9/11/2012
Determination of Status for Texas Golden Gladecress and Neches River Rose-mallow and Designation of Critical Habitat
Proposed Listing Endangered, Threatened
77 FR 55967-56026

9/12/2012
Proposed Endangered Status for the Jemez Mountains Salamander and Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat
Proposed Listing Endangered
77 FR 56481-56513

9/18/2012
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List 14 Aquatic Mollusks as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted
77 FR 57647-57862

9/18/2012
Endangered Status for 23 Species on Oahu and Designation of Critical Habitat for 124 Species
Final Listing Endangered
77 FR 57921-57948

9/27/2012
Proposed Listing of the Mount Charleston Blue Butterfly as Endangered and Proposed Listing of Five Blue Butterflies as Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance
Proposed Listing Endangered
77 FR 59517-59540

9/27/2012
Endangered Status for Grotto Sculpin and Designation of Critical Habitat
Proposed Listing Endangered
77 FR 59487-59515

9/27/2012
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Spring Mountains Acastus Checkerspot Butterfly as an Endangered or Threatened Species
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted
77 FR 59357-59371

10/2/2012
Proposed Threatened Status for Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Beetle and Designation of Critical Habitat
Proposed Listing Threatened
77 FR 60207-60235

10/2/2012
12-Month Petition Finding, Listing of the Spring Pygmy Sunfish as Threatened, and Designation of Critical Habitat
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted Proposed Listing Threatened
77 FR 60179-60206

10/3/2012
12-month Finding for the Lemmon Fleabane; Endangered Status for the Acuña Cactus and the Fickeisen Plains Cactus and Designation of Critical Habitat
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted Proposed Listing Endangered
77 FR 60509-60579

10/4/2012
Proposed Endangered Species Status for the Florida Bonneted Bat
Proposed Listing Endangered
77 FR 60749-60776

10/4/2012
Determination of Endangered Species Status for Coquí Llanero Throughout Its Range and Designation of Critical Habitat
Final Listing Endangered
77 FR 60777-60802

10/4/2012
Endangered Species Status for the Fluted Kidneyshell and Slabside Pearlymussel and Designation of Critical Habitat
Proposed Listing Endangered
77 FR 60803-60882

10/9/2012
12-Month Finding on Petitions to List the Mexican Gray Wolf as an Endangered Subspecies or Distinct Population Segment with Critical Habitat
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted
77 FR 61375-61377

10/10/2012
Determination of Endangered Species Status for the Alabama Pearlshell, Round Ebonyshell, Southern Kidneyshell, and Choctaw Bean, and Threatened Species Status for the Tapered Pigtoe, Narrow Pigtoe, Southern Sandshell, and Fuzzy Pigtoe, and Designation of Critical Habitat
Final Listing Endangered and Threatened
77 FR 61663-61719

10/11/2012
Endangered Species Status for Cape Sable Thoroughwort, Florida Semaphore Cactus, and Aboriginal Prickly-apple, and Designation of Critical Habitat for Cape Sable Thoroughwort
Proposed Listing Endangered
77 FR 61835-61894

10/11/2012
Listing Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly and Streaked Horned Lark and Designation of Critical Habitat
Proposed Listing Endangered and Threatened
77 FR 61937-62058

10/16/2012
Proposed Endangered Status for the Neosho Mucket, Threatened Status for the Rabbitsfoot, and Designation of Critical Habitat for Both Species
Proposed Listing Endangered and Threatened
77 FR 63439-63536

10/17/2012
Listing 15 Species on Hawaii Island as Endangered and Designating Critical Habitat for 3 Species
Proposed Listing Endangered
77 FR 63927-64018

1
While some of these actions were published in FY 13, they were all completed and submitted to the
Federal Register
in FY 12.

Our expeditious progress also included work on listing actions that we funded in previous fiscal years and in FY 2012 but have not yet been completed to date. For these species, we have completed the first step, and have been working on the second step, necessary for adding species to the Lists. These actions are listed below. Actions in the top section of the table are being conducted under a deadline set by a court through a court order or settlement agreement. Actions in the lower section of the table are being conducted to meet statutory timelines, that is, timelines required under the Act.

Actions Funded in Previous FYs and in FY 2012 but not yet Completed

Species
Action

Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement

Red knot (LPN = 3)
Proposed listing.

Gunnison sage-grouse (LPN = 2)
Proposed listing.

Lesser prairie chicken (LPN = 2)
Proposed listing.

Arizona gartersnakes (northern Mexican gartersnake (LPN = 3) & narrowheaded gartersnake)
Proposed listing.

Zuni bluehead sucker
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.

9 Puget trough species (9 subspecies of pocket gopher (
Thomomys mazama
ssp.) (LPN = 3)

Proposed listing.

Dakota skipper (LPN = 8) and Poweshiek skipperling (LPN = 2)
Proposed listing.

Vandenberg monkeyflower
Proposed listing.

3 Sierra amphibians (Yosemite toad, mountain yellow-legged frog—Sierra Nevada DPSs)
Proposed listing.

Actions With Statutory Deadlines

Ashy storm-petrel
12-month petition finding.

Alexander Archipelago wolf
90-day petition finding.

Sphinx date palm (Phoenix dactylifera cv. Sphinx)
90-day petition finding

Black-backed woodpecker
90-day petition finding.

We also funded work on resubmitted petitions findings for 172 candidate species (species petitioned prior to the last CNOR). In our resubmitted petition finding for the Columbia Basin population of the greater sage-grouse in this notice, although we completed a new analysis of the threats facing the species, we did not include new information, as the significance of the Columbia Basin DPS to the greater sage-grouse will require further review and we will update our finding when we resolve the status of the greater sage-grouse at a later date (see 75 FR 13910; March 23, 2010). We also did not include an updated assessment form as part of our resubmitted petition findings for the 29 candidate species for which we are preparing proposed listing determinations. However, for both the Columbia Basin DPS to the greater sage-grouse and for the other resubmitted petition findings, in the course of preparing proposed listing determinations, we continue to monitor new information about their status so that we can make prompt use of our authority under Section 4(b)(7) in the case of an emergency posing a significant risk to the well-being of any of these candidate species; see summaries below regarding publication of these determinations (these species will remain on the candidate list until a proposed listing rule is published). We also funded 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 petitioned species were already candidate species prior to our receipt of a petition to list them, we had already assessed their status using funds from our Candidate Conservation Program, so we continue to monitor the 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 2012, we also funded work on resubmitted petition findings for uplisting two listed species (Delta smelt and
Sclerocactus brevispinus
(Pariette cactus)), for which we had previously received a petition and made a warranted-but-precluded finding.

Another way that we have been expeditious in making progress to add qualified species to the Lists is that we have endeavored to make our listing actions as efficient and timely as possible, given the requirements of the relevant law and regulations, and constraints relating to workload and personnel. We are continually considering ways to streamline processes or achieve economies of scale, such as by batching related actions together. Given our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the ESA, these efforts also contribute towards finding that we are making expeditious progress to add qualified species to the Lists.

Although we have not been able to resolve the listing status of many of the candidates, 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 142 species covering 5.5 million ac of habitat. In some instances, the sustained implementation of strategically designed conservation efforts culminates in making listing unnecessary for species that are candidates for listing or for which listing has been proposed.

Findings for Petitioned Candidate Species

Below are updated summaries for petitioned candidates for which we published findings, under section 4(b)(3)(B). 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 that we are removing from candidate status, see summaries above under Candidate Removals).

Mammals

Pacific sheath-tailed bat, American Samoa DPS (
Emballonura semicaudata semicaudata
) — The following summary is based on information contained in our files. No new information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. This small 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:
Emballonura s. rotensis,
endemic to the Mariana Islands (Guam and the CNMI);
E. s. sulcata,
occurring in Chuuk and Pohnpei;
E. s. palauensis,
found in Palau; and
E. s. semicaudata,
occurring in American and Independent Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, and Vanuatu. The candidate assessment form addresses the distinct population segment (DPS) of
E. s. semicaudata
that occurs in American Samoa.

Emballonura s. semicaudata
historically occurred in American and Independent Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, and Vanuatu. It is extant in Fiji and Tonga, but may be extirpated from Vanuatu and Independent Samoa. There is some concern that it is also extirpated from American Samoa, the location of this DPS, where surveys are currently ongoing to ascertain its status. The factors that led to the decline of this subspecies and the DPS are poorly understood; however, current threats to this subspecies and the DPS include habitat loss, predation by introduced species, and its small population size and distribution, which make the taxon extremely vulnerable to extinction due to typhoons and similar natural catastrophes. Thus, the threats are high in magnitude. The Pacific sheath-tailed bat may also 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.
Emballonura s. rotensis
is historically known from the Mariana Islands and formerly occurred on Guam and in the CNMI on Rota, Aguiguan, Tinian (known from prehistoric records only), Saipan, and possibly Anatahan and Maug. Currently,
E. s. rotensis
appears to be extirpated from all but one island in the Mariana archipelago. The single remaining population of this subspecies occurs on Aguiguan, CNMI.

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

New England cottontail (
Sylvilagus transitionalis
) — The following summary is based on information contained in our files and information received in response to our notice published on June 30, 2004, when we announced our 90-day petition finding and initiation of a status review (69 FR 39395). We received the petition on August 30, 2000.

The New England cottontail (NEC) is a medium to large-sized cottontail rabbit that may reach 1,000 grams (g) in weight, and is one of two species within the genus
Sylvilagus
occurring in New England. The NEC is considered a habitat specialist, because 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 square kilometers (km
2
) to 12,180 km
2
. Surveys indicate that the long-term decline in NEC continues. For example, surveys for the species in 2009 documented the presence of NEC in 7 of the 23 New Hampshire locations that were known to be occupied in 2002 and 2003. Similarly, surveys in Maine found the species 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. 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 population size and survival of the species. Although conservation measures that address the threats to the species are being developed, they are not yet in place, and there is not yet any indication that they are having an effect on the magnitude of the species. The threats are imminent because they are ongoing. Thus, we retained an LPN of 2 for this species.

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. Extant populations of native fisher are isolated to the North Coast and Klamath-Siskiyou Mountains of northern California and southwestern Oregon, and the southern Sierra Nevada in California. Descendants of a fisher reintroduction effort also occur in the southern Cascades in Oregon. Two recent reintroduction efforts in Olympic National Park in Washington and in the northern Sierra Nevada in California have completed the movement and release of fishers to their respective study areas. Several years of monitoring are still needed to determine if these will become successfully-established populations.

Estimates of fisher numbers in native populations of the West Coast DPS vary widely. A rigorous monitoring program is lacking for the native northern California-southwestern Oregon and reintroduced southern Oregon Cascades populations, making estimates of fisher numbers for these two populations difficult. The fisher monitoring program in the southern Sierra Nevada population has provided preliminary estimates indicating no decline in the index of abundance within the monitored portion of the population. The two populations of native fisher in the northern California-southwestern Oregon and southern Sierra Nevada are separated by several times greater than the species' maximum dispersal distance. The extant fisher populations are either small (southern Sierra Nevada and southern Oregon Cascades) and isolated from one another or both.

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

New Mexico meadow jumping mouse (
Zapus hudsonius luteus
)—We continue to find that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of publication of this notice. However, we are working on a proposed listing rule that we expect to publish prior to making the next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the course of preparing the proposed listing rule, we are continuing to monitor new information about this species' status so that we can make prompt use of our authority under Section 4(b)(7) in the case of an emergency posing a significant risk to the species.

Mazama pocket gopher (
Thomomys mazama
ssp.
couchi, douglasii,

glacialis, louiei, melanops, pugetensis, tacomensis, tumuli, yelmensis
)—We continue to find that listing these subspecies is warranted but precluded as of the date of publication of this notice. However, we are working on a proposed listing rule that we expect to publish prior to making the next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the course of preparing the proposed listing rule, we are continuing to monitor new information about this species' status so that we can make prompt use of our authority under Section 4(b)(7) in the case of an emergency posing a significant risk to the species.

Canada lynx, within the State of New Mexico (
Lynx canadensis
)—In our finding of December 17, 2009 (74 FR 66937), we determined that adding the lynx in New Mexico to the listing of the lynx DPS was warranted, because the lynx is now present in the State as a result of the Colorado reintroduction effort, and we assigned an LPN of 12 to amending the listing of lynx to include New Mexico. We reconfirm that assigning an LPN of 12 is appropriate based on nonimminent threats of a low magnitude. The threats to the lynx in New Mexico from human-caused mortality are low in magnitude, because they do not occur at a level that creates a significant threat to the lynx DPS in the contiguous United States. We do not consider lynx in New Mexico, or its habitat in New Mexico, to be essential to the survival or recovery of the DPS; as a result, neither human-caused mortality nor habitat modification in New Mexico creates a significant threat to the lynx DPS in the contiguous United States. Potential impacts to the habitat in New Mexico have not been documented to threaten lynx, either in New Mexico or outside of it. The amount of suitable habitat for lynx in New Mexico is considered negligible relative to the amount of habitat within the listed range, and the majority of lynx habitats within the contiguous United States are already protected by the ESA. The threats are also nonimminent, because they occur infrequently. Because lynx in the lower 48 States are already listed as a DPS and conditions affecting the lynx in New Mexico are neither imminent nor of sufficient magnitude to pose a threat to the lynx DPS throughout the contiguous United States, the appropriate LPN for this level of magnitude and immediacy of threats for a DPS is 12.

Gunnison's prairie dog (
Cynomys gunnisoni
)—Gunnison's prairie dogs occur in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. In our February 5, 2008, 12-month finding (73 FR 6660), we determined that listing the Gunnison prairie dog was warranted but precluded, with an LPN of 2, due to threats in a significant portion of its range—the montane portion of the species' range within Colorado and New Mexico—where the effects from plague and other factors threaten those populations. This finding was challenged by WildEarth Guardians in

September of 2008. On September 30, 2010, the Court set aside our 2008 finding and remanded the matter back to us for further action. The Court found that we arbitrarily and capriciously “determined

[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%3A2012-28050. Public record. Not legal advice.