# 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%3A2013-27391

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** November 22, 2013
- **Citation:** 78 FR 70104

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0094; FF09E21000 FXES11190900000 134]
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 no new candidates, changes the LPN for three 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 146.

This document also includes our findings on resubmitted petitions and describes our progress in revising the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) during the period October 1, 2012, through September 30, 2013.

We request additional status information that may be available for the 146 candidate species identified in this CNOR.

DATES:

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

ADDRESSES:

This notice of review is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov
and
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/cnor.html
. Species assessment forms with information and references on a particular candidate species' range, status, habitat needs, and listing priority assignment are available for review at the appropriate Regional Office listed below in
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
or at the Branch of Communications and Candidate Conservation, 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 of review 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
. Species-specific information and materials we receive will be available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at the appropriate Regional Office listed below under Request for Information in
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
. General information we receive will be available at the Branch of Communications and Candidate Conservation, Arlington, VA (see address under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chief, Branch of Communications and Candidate Conservation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 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 of review.

Candidate Notice of Review

Background

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

We maintain this list of candidates for a variety of reasons: (1) To notify the public that these species are facing threats to their survival; (2) to provide advance knowledge of potential listings that could affect decisions of environmental planners and developers; (3) to provide information that may stimulate and guide conservation efforts that will remove or reduce threats to these species and possibly make listing unnecessary; to request input from interested parties to help us identify those candidate species that may not require protection under the ESA as well as additional species that may require the ESA's protections; and (4) to request necessary information for setting priorities for preparing listing proposals.

We strongly encourage collaborative conservation efforts for candidate species, and offer technical and financial assistance to facilitate such efforts. For additional information regarding such assistance, please contact the appropriate Regional Office listed under Request for Information or visit our Web site,
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/cca.html
.

Previous Notices of Review

We have been publishing candidate notices of review (CNOR) since 1975. The most recent CNOR (prior to this CNOR) was published on November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994). CNORs published since 1994 are available on our Web site,
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/cnor.html
. For copies of CNORs published prior to 1994, please contact the Branch of Communications and Candidate Conservation (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above).

On September 21, 1983, we published guidance for assigning an LPN for each candidate species (48 FR 43098). Using this guidance, we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats, immediacy of threats, and taxonomic status; the lower the LPN, the higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing priority). Section 4(h)(3) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(h)(3)) requires the Secretary to establish guidelines for such a 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: (1) The number of populations or extent of range of the species affected by the threat(s), or both; (2) the biological significance of the affected population(s), taking into consideration the life-history characteristics of the species and its current abundance and distribution; (3) whether the threats affect the species in only a portion of its range, and if so, the likelihood of persistence of the species in the unaffected portions; (4) the severity of the effects and the rapidity with which they have caused or are likely to cause mortality to individuals and accompanying declines in population levels; (5) whether the effects are likely to be permanent; and (6) the extent to which any ongoing conservation efforts reduce the severity of the threat.

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

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

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

For more information on the process and standards used in assigning LPNs, a copy of the 1983 guidance is available on our Web site at:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/48fr43098-43105.pdf
. 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 of review supersedes all previous animal, plant, and combined candidate notices of review for native species.

Summary of This CNOR

Since publication of the previous CNOR on November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994), we reviewed the available information on candidate species to ensure that a proposed listing is justified for each species, and reevaluated the relative LPN assigned to each species. We also evaluated the need to emergency-list any of these species, particularly species with higher priorities (i.e., species with LPNs of 1, 2, or 3). This review and reevaluation ensures that we focus conservation efforts on those species at greatest risk first. We also evaluated whether the fish, plains topminnow (
Fundulus sciadicus
), warranted candidate status; we are announcing our decision that this species does not meet the definition of a candidate species at this time (See Other Evaluations for Candidate Status).

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

Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial information, with this CNOR, we are identifying no new candidates, we change the LPN for three candidates (see Listing Priority Changes in Candidates, below), and determine that a listing proposal is not warranted for three 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 146 species (including 52 plant and 94 animal species) are now candidates awaiting

preparation of rules proposing their listing. These 146 species, along with the 45 species currently proposed for listing (including 1 species proposed for listing due to similarity in appearance), are included in Table 1.

Table 2 lists the changes from the previous CNOR, and includes 93 species identified in the previous CNOR as either proposed for listing or classified as candidates that are no longer in those categories. This includes 81 species for which we published a final listing rule, 8 candidate species for which we published a separate not-warranted finding and removed from candidate status, 1 species for which we published a withdrawal of a proposed listing rule, and the 3 species in this notice of review 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

We have not identified any new candidate species through this notice of review, but we note that the rattlesnake-master borer moth was identified as candidate on August 14, 2013 (78 FR 49422) as a result of a separate petition finding published in the
Federal Register
in which we described the reasons and data for elevating the species to candidate status.

Listing Priority Changes in Candidates

We reviewed the LPN for all candidate species and are changing the number for the following species discussed below.

Mammals

Southern Idaho ground squirrel (
Urocitellus endemicus
)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. No new information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. The southern Idaho ground squirrel is endemic to four counties in southwest Idaho; its total known range is approximately 292,000 hectares (722,000 acres).

Threats to southern Idaho ground squirrels include: Habitat degradation; direct killing from shooting, trapping, or poisoning; predation; and competition with other ground squirrel species. Habitat degradation appears to be the primary threat. Nonnative annuals such as
Bromus tectorum
(cheatgrass) and
Taeniatherum caput-medusae
(medusahead) now dominate much of this species' range and have altered the fire regime by increasing the frequency of wildfire. Furthermore, nonnative annuals provide inconsistent forage quality for southern Idaho ground squirrels compared to native vegetation. A programmatic Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) has been completed for this species and contains conservation measures that minimize ground-disturbing activities, allow for the investigation of methods to restore currently degraded habitat, provide for additional protection to southern Idaho ground squirrels from recreational shooting and other direct killing on enrolled lands, and allow for the translocation of squirrels to or from enrolled lands, if necessary. The acreage enrolled through the CCAA encompasses approximately 9 percent of the known range of the species. While the ongoing conservation efforts have helped to reduce the magnitude of threats, habitat degradation remains the primary threat to the species throughout most of its range. This threat is imminent due to the ongoing and increasing prevalence of nonnative vegetation.

The southern Idaho ground squirrel (formerly
Spermophilus brunneus endemicus
) was considered to be one of two subspecies (northern and southern) of the Idaho ground squirrel. However, based on differences in their geographic distribution, morphology, habitat, and genetic characteristics, the two subspecies are now considered distinct species. Therefore, we changed the LPN for the southern Idaho ground squirrel from a 9 to an 8 to reflect the change in taxonomy from subspecies to species.

Fishes

Cumberland arrow darter (
Etheostoma 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 approximately 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 species was observed at 60 of 101 historical streams and 72 of 123 historical sites.

The species' 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. Based on new morphological and genetic analyses and published species accounts and lists, the Cumberland arrow darter is now recognized as
E. sagitta,
a full species. The elevation to species rank increases the LPN from a 9 (subspecies) to an 8 (species).

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

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

Based on new morphological and genetic analyses and published species accounts and lists, the Kentucky arrow darter is now recognized as
E. spilotum
Gilbert, a full species. The elevation to species rank increases the LPN from a 3 (subspecies) to a 2 (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 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.

Flowering Plants

Hazardia orcuttii
(Orcutt's hazardia or Orcutt's goldenbush)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files, including a detailed species report.
Hazardia orcuttii,
a flowering evergreen shrub in the Asteraceae (sunflower) family, is associated with coastal sage scrub communities, and transitional areas between coastal sage scrub and chaparral. The species is found along the Pacific coastal area at elevations ranging from under 100 meters (m) (330 feet (ft)) to 200 m (660 ft), but generally under 100 m (328 ft). The known historical distribution spans 270 km (170 mi) from northern coastal San Diego County, California, United States, south to Colonet Mesa, Baja California, Mexico. In the United States, a single native population of
H. orcuttii
occurs on a southwestern mesa above Lux Canyon, in the city of Encinitas. In Mexico, 15 occurrences are known from 30 herbarium records, some of which indicate that the plant is locally common or abundant.
Hazardia orcuttii
is currently listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act and as endangered in Mexico.

We made
Hazardia orcuttii
a candidate in 2004. At that time, the primary threat affecting the species was urban development, which primarily affected a portion of the historical U.S. population between 1981 and 1997. Additional disruptions to the remaining native population occurred after that time, including loss of some of the remaining plants due to development, seed collection, and mowing. The extant portion of the single native population in the United States currently occupies approximately 0.63 hectare (ha) (1.5 acres (ac)) of the Manchester Habitat Conservation Area. Both the single native population and four experimental outplantings are found within managed conservation areas. In Mexico, urban development has also affected historical occurrences and still has the potential to affect
H. orcuttii
and its habitat. However, in 2010,
H. orcuttii
was listed as endangered under NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010, which provides protections to the species from development activities in Mexico.

We identified a number of other potential threats since 2004, such as climate change, predation, and impacts from small population size; however, further investigation of these stressors indicates they are not substantial threats. Climate change models predict increased temperatures and decreased precipitation for the southern California region; however, temperatures are predicted to be within the range used for seed germination, and precipitation forecasts are too uncertain for areas occupied by
H. orcuttii
to determine how this might affect the species. One study suggested that high predation rates for the seedbank had affected the reproductive output of
H. orcuttii;
however, the limited period covered by the study and the unusual weather conditions that occurred during that period likely made the findings with respect to seed production and predation rates unrepresentative. In our 2012 CNOR, we also identified small population size as a potential concern, due to the occurrence of a single population in the United States (77 FR 70041; November 21, 2012); however, we now have a better understanding of the range and geographic distribution of the 15 occurrences in Mexico, such that any loss of populations due to random catastrophic events and potential reduction in fitness due to low genetic variability is not a concern for this species.

The conservation provided for
Hazardia orcuttii
and its habitat in the United States has removed the threat of habitat loss known at the time we made this species a candidate. Furthermore, given the existing protections and the low level of stressors currently affecting the species, we conclude that
H. orcuttii
no longer meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under section 3 of the Endangered Species Act. We do not have any information to indicate that these stressors are likely to increase in the future; thus, the species is not likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we find that listing of
H. orcuttii
is not warranted, and we have removed it from candidate status.

Phacelia stellaris
(Brand's Phacelia)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files, including a detailed species report.
Phacelia stellaris,
an annual herb in the Boraginaceae (borage) family, is associated with sparsely vegetated habitats on loamy sand in coastal dunes, coastal strand, coastal scrub, or alluvial floodplains. Based on herbarium records, we conclude that the historical range of
P. stellaris
was from southern California (San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties) southward along the Pacific coast to near Socorro in northern Baja California, Mexico, at elevations ranging from 0 to 1100 ft (366 m). The current geographic range of
P. stellaris
encompasses 12 occurrences known or presumed to be extant (7 in the United States and 5 in Mexico). Nine occurrences in the United States (in Los Angeles and Orange Counties) and one in Mexico (in the City of Ensenada) have been extirpated by development.

We made
Phacelia stellaris
a candidate in 2004. At that time, one of the primary threats affecting the species was habitat degradation due to trampling from foot and vehicle traffic. Today, four of the seven U.S.

occurrences experience some level of habitat degradation from trampling. However, on August 1, 2013, the U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, Department of Homeland Security, and California Department of Parks and Recreation entered into a Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA). This CCA identifies actions that are or will be taken to further minimize effects to the plant and its habitat at the four remaining U.S. occurrences that still experience effects from trampling. Therefore, the amount of
P. stellaris
habitat degradation due to trampling has been reduced since the time the species became a candidate, or will soon be reduced, as all seven U.S. occurrences are either protected from trampling through fencing and other conservation measures, or will soon receive management for habitat effects due to trampling. We do not have information regarding the issue of trampling for occurrences in Mexico; however, based on information from botanists familiar with areas where the plant occurs, it is likely that four of the five occurrences experience some degree of trampling.

The other primary threat affecting U.S. occurrences of
Phacelia stellaris
at the time of listing was nonnative plant invasion. Nonnative plants are known to affect all seven U.S. occurrences of
P. stellaris
to some degree, but this threat is actively managed at four occurrences, including the three most abundant populations. With the signing of the CCA, management to control nonnative plants will continue at the four occurrences and will be initiated at one additional occurrence. Thus, five of the seven extant occurrences in the U.S. are or will be managed for the benefit of
P. stellaris
by removing invasive, nonnative plants. Successful removal of nonnative plants has already resulted in an increased presence of
P. stellaris
at the four currently managed sites. With the active management that is currently occurring at those four sites and the initiation of weed control at a fifth site, the threat to
P. stellaris
in the U.S. from invasive, nonnative plants has been addressed. We have no information as to the degree nonnative plants are encroaching on
P. stellaris
occurrences in Mexico. However, the management of
P. stellaris
in the U.S. will provide for the long-term conservation of the species.

We identified other potential threats since 2004 including flood-control activities and impacts related to small population size; however, further investigation indicates they are not substantial threats. We also analyzed the potential for sea-level rise to affect
P. stellaris,
as four of seven U.S. occurrences are close to tidally influenced areas. Although all coastal occurrences could potentially be affected by sea-level rise, the effects of sea-level rise on
P. stellaris
occurrences cannot be assessed with confidence beyond 2050, as modeling and variables affecting this species are increasingly uncertain after this date. Based on our review of available predictive models and habitat characteristics of
P. stellaris,
we do not anticipate that sea-level rise will affect the occurrences in the United States before 2050. All of the presumably extant occurrences in Mexico are thought to be located along the immediate coastline, although their exact locations relative to the tideline is unknown; therefore, we lack sufficient data to make reliable projections of the impact of sea-level rise on this species in Mexico.

The conservation provided for
Phacelia stellaris
and its habitat has significantly reduced the threat of nonnative plant invasion in the United States. Although it is possible that nonnative plant invasion threatens the occurrences in Mexico, we have no information suggesting that this is in fact the case, and we must make listing determinations based on the best data available, not speculation. Thus, we conclude that nonnative plants no longer pose a significant threat to the species. In addition, although trampling still happens at some occurrences, the effects have been reduced through implementation of conservation measures. The remaining impacts are localized and do not rise to the level of significantly affecting the species and its habitat. We anticipate ongoing protection and management provided by Federal, State, and local landowners at six of the seven U.S. occurrences through implementation of Habitat Conservation Plans, Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans, and the CCA, all of which will continue into the foreseeable future. In addition, we do not have any information to indicate that stressors will increase in the foreseeable future. Given the existing protections and the low level of stressors affecting the species now and in the foreseeable future, we conclude that
P. stellaris
no longer meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under section 3 of the Endangered Species Act. Therefore, we find that listing of
P. stellaris
is not warranted, and we have removed it from candidate status.

Solidago plumosa
(Yadkin River goldenrod)—No new information was provided in the petition we received on April 20, 2010. The global distribution of the plant
Solidago plumosa
consists of a single population that occurs in two discrete locations along a 3.2 mile (5.0 kilometer) stretch of the Yadkin River in North Carolina. It is associated with mafic rock outcrops along the river.

We made
Solidago plumosa
a candidate in 2005. At that time, the primary threat affecting the species was encroachment by invasive nonnative vegetation. Historical loss of habitat by construction and operation of hydroelectric projects likely reduced the extent of the species, which exacerbated the effect nonnative vegetation was having on the species. The historical loss of habitat occurred over 75 years ago when the Yadkin and Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydroelectric Projects were constructed. Although the flow regime of the Yadkin River was altered by these projects, the bedrock outcrop habitat is stable and flow regimes are now regulated and predictable and reduce high-velocity flood events that are capable of reaching areas of occupied habitat; thus, any foreseeable adverse impacts to the species have been addressed through the regular operation of the projects. Additionally, the species has adjusted to the available habitat and flow regimes and has been present in the same areas since the projects were constructed and the flow regimes stabilized. Reduction of high-velocity flood events, however, exacerbated the threat from invasive nonnative vegetation by allowing that vegetation to grow and compete with
Solidago plumosa.

Thus, the availability of suitable habitat and the fate of the single known population of this species are primarily determined by the manner in which nonnative vegetation is managed in the occupied locations. Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (APGI), the operator of one of the hydroelectric projects, owns these locations. At the time the species was made a candidate, APGI was not managing these locations in a manner consistent with the conservation of
Solidago plumosa
—in particular, it was not addressing the main threat from invasive nonnative vegetation. However, in 2013, APGI and the Service signed a Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA). This agreement addresses threats to the species in its entire range: It identifies specific measures to control invasive-exotic-vegetation encroachment, implements propagation and population expansion, and includes a regular monitoring and reporting protocol. Although the agreement was signed only this year, APGI has been implementing the conservation measures described in the agreement for several years; in particular, APGI has been managing the habitat for

Solidago

plumosa

as part of its Shoreline Management Plan, which addresses a variety of issues around its reservoirs. The CCA contains a special subset of actions, some of which are contained in the Shoreline Management Plan, but are specific to
Solidago plumosa
and its habitat. The Shoreline Management Plan also includes a regular monitoring and reporting protocol, and under the plan APGI annually controls invasive-nonnative-vegetation encroachment. Based on the results of APGI's control program over the last three years, we conclude that the program has been highly effective at reducing encroachment of invasive exotic vegetation into the habitat of
Solidago plumosa,
and has significantly reduced this threat.

APGI has also abated some potential threats from recreational use of the river corridor since anglers and boaters can no longer enter the immediate tailrace area because of changed water-discharge conditions and safety signage at the dam powerhouse.

The construction of the Yadkin and Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydroelectric Projects from 1917 to 1928 may have extirpated occurrences of
Solidago plumosa.
Any detrimental effects of the construction and subsequent reservoir inundation took place almost 100 years ago and are no longer directly affecting the species. Those projects may, however, have reduced the range and genetic variability of the species. Therefore, we considered the degree to which the size of the population is so small and geographically concentrated that it is vulnerable to stochastic events or potential reduction in fitness due to low genetic variability. We have no information to indicate that low genetic variability is an issue for this species, and, as discussed above, the primary stochastic event of concern, flooding, is now regulated consistent with the conservation of
Solidago plumosa.
Nonetheless, we note that the Service, the North Carolina Plant Conservation Program, the North Carolina Zoological Park, and APGI plan to augment the population of this species at additional mafic rock outcrops near the base of the dams that are part of the hydroelectric projects. We are not relying on any potential success of this effort in our threats analysis.

Threats to
Solidago plumosa
from the continued operation of these reservoirs and the encroachment of nonnative invasive species have been addressed. Though impacts from trampling are still possible at the sites of some occurrences, the effects have been reduced through implementation of conservation measures in a large part of the extant habitat; any remaining impacts are localized and temporary, and do not rise to the level of significantly affecting the taxon and its habitat. We expect the conservation measures to be implemented and effective into the foreseeable future. Given the existing protections and the low level of stressors affecting the species now and in the foreseeable future, we conclude that
Solidago plumosa
no longer meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under section 3 of the Endangered Species Act. Therefore, we find that listing of
Solidago plumosa
is no longer warranted, and we have removed it from candidate status.

Other Evaluations for Candidate Status

As summarized below, we have evaluated the threats to the plains topminnow (
Fundulus sciadicus
) and considered factors that, individually and in combination, currently or potentially could pose a risk to this species and its habitats. After a review of the best available scientific and commercial data, we conclude that listing this species under the Endangered Species Act is not warranted, because this species is not likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that proposing a rule to list it is not warranted, and we do not consider it to be a candidate species for listing. We will continue to monitor the status of this species and to accept additional information and comments concerning this finding.

Plains topminnow (
Fundulus sciadicus
)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. This endemic fish species of the Great Plains occurs in Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, Kansas, Missouri, Wyoming, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Oklahoma. The species most often inhabits clear water streams, isolated pools, backwater areas, sloughs, and overflow pools of larger streams. The species is still present in most of its historical range, and its current distribution includes eight of the nine States where it was historically recorded.

We conducted a status assessment of the plains topminnow to evaluate whether it warrants listing under the Act and should be made a candidate species. As part of this process, we analyzed several potential stressors that may affect the species. Surface and groundwater use for irrigation, habitat changes, predation, drought, and climate change are some of the factors potentially influencing the species in its current range. We also analyzed the effects of mosquitofish introduction, stocking of game fish, and drought. We determined the stressors facing this species are relatively minor, and do not rise to the level of threats to the species, given the number of different locations where the species occurs, and the fact that the species has shown it can recolonize areas successfully. In addition, groundwater and surface water use is regulated in some portions of its range, and development, predation, and diseases are not currently affecting the species. Population data from across the species' range show that the species is stable in most of its range. In addition, new surveys have identified new populations, and conservation efforts are increasing populations in suitable habitat. Therefore, we find that the plains topminnow does not meet the definition of an endangered species now, and we have no information to indicate that it will become so in the future. Thus, this species does not warrant candidate status at this time. A copy of the full candidate assessment form for the plains topminnow may be accessed at:
http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E07X
.

Petition Findings

The ESA provides two mechanisms for considering species for listing. One method allows the Secretary, on the Secretary's own initiative, to identify species for listing under the standards of section 4(a)(1). We implement this authority through the candidate program, discussed above. The second method for listing a species provides a mechanism for the public to petition us to add a species to the Lists. The CNOR serves several purposes as part of the petition process: (1) In some instances (in particular, for petitions to list species that the Service has already identified as candidates on its own initiative), it serves as the 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. 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 we must consider 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 130 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. 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, 2012, through September 30, 2013. Below we describe the actions that continue to preclude the immediate proposal and final promulgation of a regulation implementing each of the petitioned actions for which we have made a warranted-but-precluded finding, and we describe the expeditious progress we are making to add qualified species to, and remove species from, the Lists. We will continue to monitor the status of all candidate species, including petitioned species, as new information becomes available to determine if a change in status is warranted, including the need to emergency-list a species under section 4(b)(7) of the ESA.

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

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress

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

Preclusion

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

Available Resources

The resources available for listing actions are determined through the annual Congressional appropriations process. In FY 1998 and for each fiscal year since then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on funds that may be expended for the Listing Program. This spending cap was designed to prevent the listing function from depleting funds needed for other functions under the ESA (for example, recovery functions, such as removing species from the Lists), or for other Service programs (see House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st Session, July 1, 1997). The funds within the spending cap are available to support work involving the following listing actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 90-day and 12-month findings on petitions to add species to the Lists or to change the status of a species from threatened to endangered; annual “resubmitted” petition findings on prior 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 2013, 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 2013, 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 2013, on March 26, 2013, Congress passed a Full Year Continuing Appropriations Act (Pub. L. No. 113-6), which provided funding through the end of the FY 2013; this included a spending cap for the listing program. With the spending cap combined with a five percent reduction due to sequestration, the Service had a total of $20,997,000 for the listing program. In addition, no more than $1,498,000 could be used for listing actions for foreign species, and no more than $1,498,000 could be used to make 90-day or 12-month findings on petitions. The Service thus had $13,453,000 available to work on proposed and final listing determinations for domestic species. In addition, if the Service had funding available within the critical habitat, foreign species, or petition subcaps after those workloads had been completed, it could use those funds to work on listing actions other than critical habitat designations or foreign species.

Costs of Listing Actions.
The work involved in preparing various listing documents can be extensive, and may include, but is not limited to: Gathering and assessing the best scientific and commercial data available and conducting analyses used as the basis for our decisions; writing and publishing documents; and obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating public

comments and peer review comments on proposed rules and incorporating relevant information into final rules. The number of listing actions that we can undertake in a given year also is influenced by the complexity of those listing actions; that is, more complex actions generally are more costly. The median cost for preparing and publishing a 90-day finding is $39,276; for a 12-month finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule with critical habitat, $345,000; and for a final listing rule with critical habitat, $305,000.

Prioritizing Listing Actions.
The Service's Listing Program workload is broadly composed of four types of actions, which the Service prioritizes as follows: (1) Compliance with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements requiring that petition findings or listing or critical habitat determinations be completed by a specific date; (2) essential litigation-related, administrative, and listing program-management functions; (3) section 4 (of the Act) listing and critical habitat actions with absolute statutory deadlines; and (4) section 4 listing actions that do not have absolute statutory deadlines. In 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 450 12-month petition findings yet to be initiated and completed.

An additional way in which we prioritize work in the section 4 program is application of the listing priority guidelines (48 FR 43098; September 21, 1983). Under those guidelines, we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats (high or moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or nonimminent), and taxonomic status of the species (in order of priority: Monotypic genus (a species that is the sole member of a genus), species, or part of a species (subspecies or distinct population segment)). The lower the listing priority number, the higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing priority). A species with a higher LPN would generally be precluded from listing by species with lower LPNs, unless work on a proposed rule for the species with the higher LPN can be combined with work on a proposed rule for other high-priority species. In addition to prioritizing species with our 1983 guidance, because of the large number of high-priority species we have had in the recent past, we had further ranked the candidate species with an LPN of 2 by using the following extinction-risk type criteria: International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank, Heritage rank (provided by NatureServe), Heritage threat rank (provided by NatureServe), and species currently with fewer than 50 individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. Those species with the highest IUCN rank (critically endangered), the highest Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage threat rank (substantial, imminent threats), and currently with fewer than 50 individuals, or fewer than 4 populations, originally comprised a group of approximately 40 candidate species (“Top 40”). These 40 candidate species had the highest priority to receive funding to work on a proposed listing determination and we used this to formulate our work plan for FYs 2010 and 2011 that was included in the MDL Settlement Agreement (see below), as well as for work on proposed and final listing rules for the remaining candidate species with LPNs of 2 and 3.

Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened species to endangered species are lower priority, because as listed species, they are already afforded the protections of the Act and implementing regulations. However, for efficiency reasons, we may choose to work on a proposed rule to 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 of review 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 for those species proposed for listing within the statutory deadline (usually one year from the proposal). Paragraph 10 of that settlement agreement sets forth the Service's conclusion that “fulfilling the commitments set forth in this Agreement, along with other commitments required by court orders or court-approved settlement agreements already in existence at the signing of this Settlement Agreement (listed in Exhibit A), will require substantially all of the resources in the Listing Program.” As part of the same lawsuit, the court also approved a separate settlement agreement with the other plaintiff in the case; that settlement agreement requires the Service to complete additional actions in specific fiscal years—including 12-month petition findings for 11 species, 90-day petition findings for 477 species, and proposed listing determinations or not-warranted findings for 39 species.

These settlement agreements have led to a number of results that affect our preclusion analysis. First, the Service has been, and will continue to be, limited in the extent to which it can undertake additional actions within the Listing Program through FY 2017, beyond what is required by the MDL Settlement Agreements. Second,

because the settlement is court approved, two broad categories of actions now fall within the Service's highest priority (compliance with a court order): (1) The actions required to be completed in FY 2013 by the MDL Settlement Agreements; and (2) completion, before the end of FY 2016, of proposed listings or not-warranted findings for most of the candidate species identified in this CNOR (in particular, for those candidate species that were included in the 2010 CNOR). Therefore, each year, one of the Service's highest priorities is to make steady progress towards completing by the end of 2017 proposed and final listing determinations for the 2010 candidate species—based on 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 resources available for delisting, which is funded by a separate line item in the budget of the Endangered Species Program. During FY 2013, we completed delisting rules for two species.) As discussed below, given the limited resources available for listing, we find that we made expeditious progress in FY 2013 in the Listing Program.

We provide below tables cataloguing the work of the Service's Listing Program in FY 2013. This work includes all three of the steps necessary for adding species to the Lists: (1) Identifying species that warrant listing; (2) undertaking the evaluation of the best available scientific data about those species and the threats they face, and preparing proposed and final listing rules; and (3) adding species to the Lists by publishing proposed and final listing rules that include a summary of the data on which the rule is based and show the relationship of that data to the rule. After taking into consideration the limited resources available for listing, the competing demands for those funds, and the completed work catalogued in the tables below, we find that we made expeditious progress to add qualified species to the Lists in FY 2013.

First, we made expeditious progress in the third and final step: Listing qualified species. In FY 2013, we resolved the status of 93 species that we determined, or had previously determined, qualified for listing. Moreover, for 81 of those 93 species, the resolution was to add them to the Lists, most with concurrent designations of critical habitat. We also proposed to list an additional 67 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 2013, we worked on developing proposed listing rules for four 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 2013, we completed 90-day petition findings for 7 species and 12-month petition findings for 14 species. In FY 2013, we also worked on evaluating the best available scientific information towards preparing 90-day findings for one additional.

Our accomplishments this year should also be considered in the broader context of our commitment to reduce the candidate list. On May 10, 2011, the Service filed in the MDL Litigation a settlement agreement that put in place an ambitious schedule for completing proposed and final listing determinations at least through FY 2016; the court approved that settlement agreement on September 9, 2011. That agreement required, among other things, that the Service complete proposed listing determinations or not-warranted findings for all 251 species that were on the 2010 candidate list by the end of FY 2016, and final listing determinations any proposed listing rules within the statutory time frame. Paragraph 6 of the agreement provided indicators that the Service is making adequate progress towards meeting that requirement: Completing proposed listing rules or not-warranted findings for at least 130 of the species by the end of FY 2013, at least 160 species by the end of FY 2014, and at least 200 species by the end of FY 2015. The Service has completed proposed listing rules or not-warranted findings for 140 of the 2010 candidate species, as well as final listing rules for 69 of those proposed rules, and is therefore is making adequate progress towards meeting all of the requirements of the MDL settlement agreement. Both by entering into the settlement agreement and by making adequate progress towards making final listing determinations for the 251 species on the 2010 candidate, the Service is making expeditious progress to add qualified species to the lists.

The Service's progress in FY 2013 included completing and publishing the following determinations:

FY 2013 Completed Listing Actions

Publication date
Title
Actions
FR pages

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.

11/14/2012
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Heller Cave Springtail as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
77 FR 67784-67789.

11/28/2012
Status Review for a Petition to List the Ashy Storm-petrel as Endangered or Threatened
Notice Status Review
77 FR 70987-70988.

12/04/2012
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Phoenix dactylifera `Sphinx' (Sphinx Date Palm)
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial
77 FR 71757-71758.

12/04/2012
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Prairie Gray Fox, the Plains Spotted Skunk, and a Distinct Population Segment of the Mearn's Eastern Cottontail in East-central Illinois and Western Indiana as Endangered or Threatened Species
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not substantial Substantial
77 FR 71759-71771.

12/11/2012
Listing the Lesser Prairie-Chicken as a Threatened Species
Proposed Listing Threatened
77 FR 73827-73888.

12/11/2012
Listing Four Subspecies of Mazama Pocket Gopher and Designation of Critical Habitat
Proposed Listing Threatened
77 FR 73769-73825.

1/11/2013
Endangered Status for Gunnison Sage-grouse
Proposed Listing Endangered
78 FR 2486-2538.

1/25/2013
Endangered Status for the Zuni Bluehead Sucker
Proposed Listing Endangered
78 FR 5369-5385.

2/4/2013
Threatened Status for the Distinct Population Segment of the North American Wolverine Occurring in the Contiguous United States
Proposed Listing Threatened
78 FR 7863-7890.

3/19/2013
Status Review of the West Coast Distinct Population Segment of the Fisher as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of Status Review
78 FR 16828-16829.

3/28/2013
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Rosemont Talussnail as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted
78 FR 18936-18938.

4/9/2013
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Two Populations of Black-Backed Woodpecker as Endangered or Threatened
Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial
78 FR 21086-21097.

4/23/2013
Threatened Status for Eriogonum codium (Umtanum Desert Buckwheat) and Physaria douglasii subsp. tuplashensis (White Bluffs Bladderpod)
Final Listing Threatened
78 FR 23983-24005.

4/25/2013
Endangered Status for the Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog and the Northern Distinct Population Segment of the Mountain Yellow-legged Frog, and Threatened Status for the Yosemite Toad
Proposed Listing Endangered and Threatened
78 FR 24471-24514.

5/24/2013
Proposed Threatened Status for Leavenworthia exigua var. laciniata (Kentucky Glade Cress)
Proposed Listing Threatened
78 FR 31498-31511.

5/28/2013
Determination of Endangered Status for 38 Species on Molokai, Lanai, and Maui
Final Listing Endangered
78 FR 32013-32065.

6/20/2013
Listing Determination for the New Mexico Meadow Jumping Mouse
Proposed Listing Endangered
78 FR 37363-37369.

7/9/2013
Determination of Endangered Species Status for Six West Texas Aquatic Invertebrates
Final Listing Endangered
78 FR 41227-41258.

7/10/2013
Threatened Status for the Northern Mexican Gartersnake and Narrow-headed Gartersnake
Proposed Listing Threatened
78 FR 41499-41547.

7/26/2013
Endangered Species Status for Diamond Darter
Final Listing Endangered
78 FR 45074-45095.

8/2/2013
12-Month Finding and Candidate Removal for Potentilla basaltica; Proposed Threatened Species Status for Ivesia webberi
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted and Candidate Removal; Proposed listing, Threatened
78 FR 46889-46897.

8/2/2013
Endangered Status for Physaria globosa (Short's bladderpod), Helianthus verticillatus (whorled sunflower), and Leavenworthia crassa (fleshy-fruit gladecress)
Proposed listing Endangered
78 FR 47109-47134.

8/6/2013
Endangered Species Status for the Sharpnose Shiner and Smalleye Shiner
Proposed Listing Endangered
78 FR 47582-47590.

8/6/2013

Threatened Species Status for Graham's Beardtongue (
Penstemon grahamii
) and White River Beardtongue (
Penstemon scariosus
var.
albifluvis
)

Proposed Listing Threatened
78 FR 47590-47611.

8/13/2013

Determination of Endangered Status for
Sphaeralcea gierischii
(Gierisch Mallow) Throughout Its Range

Final Listing Endangered
78 FR 49149-49165.

8/14/2013

12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Rattlesnake-Master Borer Moth (
Papaipema eryngii
) as an Endangered or Threatened Species

Notice of 12-month petition finding Warranted but Precluded
78 FR 49422-49440.

8/15/2013
Endangered Status for the Florida Leafwing and Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak Butterflies
Proposed Listing Endangered
78 FR 49878-49901.

8/20/2013
Determination of Endangered Species Status for the Austin Blind Salamander and Threatened Species Status for the Jollyville Plateau Salamander Throughout Their Ranges
Final Listing Endangered Threatened
78 FR 51277-51326.

8/29/2013
Threatened Status for Oregon Spotted Frog
Proposed Listing Threatened
78 FR 53581-53623.

9/3/2013
Removing Five Subspecies of Mazama Pocket Gopher From the Candidate List for Endangered and Threatened Species
Notice of 12-month petition finding Not warranted; removal from candidate list
78 FR 54214-54218.

9/10/2013
Determination of Endangered Species Status for Jemez Mountains Salamander (Plethodon neomexicanus) Throughout Its Range
Final Listing Endangered
78 FR 55599-55627.

9/11/2013
Determination of Endangered Status for Texas Golden Gladecress and Threatened Status for Neches River Rose-mallow
Final Listing Endangered and Threatened
78 FR 56025-56069.

9/12/2013

Threatened Status for
Arabis georgiana
(Georgia rockcress)

Proposed Listing Threatened
78 FR 56192-56201.

9/17/2013
Endangered Status for the Neosho Mucket and Threatened Status for the Rabbitsfoot
Final Listing Endangered and Threatened
78 FR 57076-57097.

9/19/2013
Determination of Endangered Species Status for Mount Charleston Blue Butterfly
Final Listing Endangered
78 FR 57749-57775.

9/25/2013

Determination of Endangered Species Status for the Grotto Sculpin (
Cottus specus
) Throughout Its Range

Final Listing Endangered
78 FR 58938-58955.

9/26/2013
Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Contiguous U.S. Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx and Revised Distinct Population Segment Boundary
Proposed Revision of DPS Boundary (Proposed Listing in New Mexico)
78 FR 59430-59474.

9/26/2013
Endangered Species Status for the Fluted Kidneyshell and Slabside Pearlymussel
Final Listing Endangered
78 FR 59269-59287.

9/30/2013

Proposed Threatened Status for the Rufa Red Knot (
Calidris canutus rufa
)

Proposed Listing Threatened
78 FR.

10/1/2013

Endangered Species Status for
Echinomastus erectocentrus
var.
acunensis
(Acuña Cactus) and
Pediocactus peeblesianus
var.
fickeiseniae
(Fickeisen Plains Cactus) Throughout Their Ranges

Final Listing Endangered
78 FR 60607-60652.

10/2/2013
Threatened Species Status for Spring Pygmy Sunfish
Final Listing Threatened
78 FR 60766-60783.

10/2/2013
Endangered Species Status for the Florida Bonneted Bat
Final Listing Endangered
78 FR 61003-61043.

10/2/2013
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Eastern Small-Footed Bat and the Northern Long-Eared Bat as Endangered or Threatened Species; Listing the Northern Long-Eared Bat as an Endangered Species
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted Proposed listing, Endangered
78 FR 61045-61080.

10/2/2013
Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule To List Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Beetle and Designate Critical Habitat
Proposed Listing Withdrawal
78 FR 61081-61112.

10/3/2013
Determination of Endangered Status for the Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly and Threatened Status for the Streaked Horned Lark
Final Listing Endangered and Threatened
78 FR 61451-61503.

10/3/2013

Proposed Threatened Status for the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo (
Coccyzus americanus
)

Proposed Listing Threatened
78 FR 61621-61666.

10/3/2013

Proposed Endangered Status for
Brickellia mosieri
(Florida Brickell-bush) and
Linum carteri
var.
carteri
(Carter's Small-flowered Flax)

Proposed Listing Endangered
78 FR 61273-61293.

10/3/2013
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Kittlitz's Murrelet as an Endangered or Threatened Species
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted Removal from candidate list
78 FR 61763-61801.

10/22/2013
12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Ashy Storm-Petrel as an Endangered or Threatened Species
Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted
78 FR 62523-62529.

10/22/2013

Endangered Status for
Agave eggersiana
and
Gonocalyx concolor,
and Threatened Status for
Varronia rupicola

Proposed Listing Endangered and Threatened
78 FR 62560-62579.

10/24/2013
Threatened Status for Dakota Skipper and Endangered Status for Poweshiek Skipperling
Proposed Listing Endangered and Threatened
78 FR 63573-63625.

10/24/2013

Determination of Endangered Status for
Chromolaena frustrata
(Cape Sable Thoroughwort),
Consolea corallicola
(Florida Semaphore Cactus), and
Harrisia aboriginum
(Aboriginal Prickly-Apple)

Final Listing Endangered
78 FR 63795-63821.

10/28/2013
Threatened Status for the Bi-State Distinct Population Segment of Greater Sage-Grouse With Special Rule
Proposed Listing Threatened
78 FR 64357-64384.

10/29/2013
Determination of Endangered Species Status for 15 Species on Hawaii Island
Final Listing Endangered
78 FR 64637-64690.

10/29/2013
Endangered Status for Vandenberg Monkeyflower
Proposed Listing Endangered
78 FR 64839-64871.

Our expeditious progress also included work on listing actions that we funded in previous fiscal years and in FY 2013 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. The action in the lower section of the table is being conducted to meet statutory timelines, that is, timelines required under the Act.

Actions Funded in Previous FYs and FY 2013 but Not Yet Completed

Species
Action

Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement

2 Texas salamanders (salado and Georgetown)
Final listing.

4 Puget trough species (4 subspecies of pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama ssp.)
Final listing.

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

Lesser prairie chicken
Final listing.

Gunnison sage-grouse
Final listing.

Washington ground squirrel
Proposed listing.

Xantus's murrelet
Proposed listing.

Yellow-billed loon
Proposed listing.

Florida bristle fern
Proposed listing.

Actions With Statutory Deadlines

Alexander Archipelago wolf
90-day petition finding.

We also funded work on resubmitted petitions findings for 130 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 of review, although we completed a new analysis of the threats facing the species, we did not include new information, as the significance of the Columbia Basin DPS of the greater 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 five candidate species for which we are preparing proposed listing determinations. However, for both the Columbia Basin DPS of 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 2013, we also funded work on resubmitted petition findings for uplisting five listed species (three grizzly bear populations, Delta smelt, and
Sclerocactus brevispinus
(Pariette cactus)), for which we had previously received a petition and made a warranted-but-precluded finding.

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

Although we have not been able to resolve the listing status of many of the candidates, we continue to contribute to the conservation of these species through several programs in the Service. In particular, the Candidate Conservation Program, which is separately budgeted, focuses on providing technical expertise for developing conservation strategies and agreements to guide voluntary on-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 110 species covering 3.2 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 insectivorous bat is a member of the Emballonuridae family, an Old World bat family that has an extensive distribution, primarily in the tropics.
Emballonura semicaudata semicaudata
was once common and widespread in Polynesia and Micronesia. The species as a whole (
E. semicaudata
) occurred on several of the Caroline Islands (Palau, Chuuk, and Pohnpei), Samoa (Independent and American), the Mariana Islands (Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)), Tonga, Fiji, and Vanuatu. While populations appear to be healthy in some locations, mainly in the Caroline Islands, they have declined substantially in other areas, including Independent and American Samoa, the Mariana Islands, Fiji, and

possibly Tonga. Scientists recognize four subspecies:
E. s. rotensis,
endemic to the Mariana Islands (Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI));
E. s. sulcata,
occurring in Chuuk and Pohnpei;
E. s. palauensis,
found in Palau; and
E. s. semicaudata,
occurring in American and Independent Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, and Vanuatu. The candidate assessment form addresses the DPS of
E. s. semicaudata
that occurs in American Samoa.

Emballonura semicaudata semicaudata
historically occurred in American and Independent Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, and Vanuatu. It is extant in Fiji and Tonga, but may be extirpated from Vanuatu and Independent Samoa. There is some concern that it is also extirpated from American Samoa, the location of this DPS, where surveys are currently ongoing to ascertain its status. The factors that led to the decline of this subspecies and the DPS are poorly understood; however, current threats to this subspecies and the DPS include habitat loss, predation by introduced species, and its small population size and distribution, which make the taxon extremely vulnerable to extinction due to typhoons and similar natural catastrophes. Thus, the threats are high in magnitude. The subspecies may also be susceptible to disturbance in its 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 DPS.

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 insectivorous bat,
Emballonura semicaudata rotensis,
is a member of the Emballonuridae family, 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.
Emballonura s. rotensis
is historically known from the Mariana Islands and formerly occurred on Guam and in the CNMI on the islands of Rota, Aguiguan, Tinian (known from prehistoric records only), Saipan, and possibly Anatahan and Maug. Currently,
E. semicaudata 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
Emballonura s. rotensis
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 to be near the point where stochastic events, such as typhoons, are increasingly likely to affect its continued survival. The disappearance of the remaining population on Aguiguan would result in the extinction of the subspecies. 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 document published on June 30, 2004, when we announced our 90-day petition finding and initiation of a status review (69 FR 39395). We received the petition on August 30, 2000.

The New England cottontail (NEC) is a medium-to-large-sized cottontail rabbit that may reach 1,000 grams in weight, and is one of two species within the genus Sylvilagus occurring in New England. The NEC is considered a habitat specialist, as it is dependent upon early successional habitats typically described as thickets. The species is the only endemic cottontail in New England. Historically, the NEC occurred in seven States and ranged from southeastern New York (east of the Hudson River) north through the Champlain Valley, southern Vermont, the southern half of New Hampshire, and southern Maine, and south throughout Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. The 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
) (34,750 square miles (mi
2
)) to 12,180 km
2
(4,700 mi
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 did not detect the species in 9 of the 19 towns where the species was present, in an extensive survey that spanned the years 2000 to 2004. Similar surveys were conducted during the winter of 2010 to 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 is 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 use trends 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; and mortality from predation. The magnitude of the threats continues to be high because they occur rangewide and have an effect on the survival of the species across its range. The threats are imminent because they are ongoing. Thus, we retained a listing priority number of 2 for this species. Conservation measures that address the threats to the species are being developed.

Fisher, West Coast DPS (
Martes pennanti
)—We continue to find that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of publication of this notice of review. 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.

Gunnison's prairie dog (
Cynomys gunnisoni
)—We continue to find that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of publication of this notice of review. However, we are working on a revised 12-month finding and proposed listing determination that we expect to publish prior to making the next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the course of preparing the revised finding and proposed listing determination, we are continuing to monitor new information about this species' status so that we can make prompt use of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in the case of an emergency posing a significant risk to the species.

Southern Idaho ground squirrel (
Urocitellus endemicus
)—See above in “Listing Priority Changes in Candidates.” The above summary is based on information contained in our files.

Washington ground squirrel (
Urocitellus washingtoni
)—We continue to find that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of publication of this notice of review. 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.

Red tree vole, north Oregon coast DPS (
Arborimus longicaudus
)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files and in our initial warranted-but-precluded finding, published in the
Federal Register
on October 13, 2011 (76 FR 63720). Red tree voles are small, mouse-sized rodents that live in conifer forests and spend almost all of their time in the tree canopy. They are one of the few animals that can persist on a diet of conifer needles, which is their principal food. Red tree voles are endemic to the humid, coniferous forests of western Oregon (generally west of the crest of the Cascade Range) and northwestern California (north of the Klamath River). The north Oregon coast DPS of the red tree vole comprises that portion of the Oregon Coast Range from the Columbia River south to the Siuslaw River. Red tree voles demonstrate strong selection for nesting in older conifer forests, which are now relatively rare across the DPS; they avoid nesting in younger forests.

Although data are not available to rigorously assess population trends, information from retrospective surveys indicates red tree voles have declined in the DPS and no longer occur, or are now scarce, in areas where they were once relatively abundant. Older forests that provide habitat for red tree voles are limited and highly fragmented, while ongoing forest practices in much of the DPS maintain the remaining patches of older forest in a highly fragmented and isolated condition. Modeling indicates only 11 percent of the DPS currently contains tree vole habitat, largely restricted to the 22 percent of the DPS that is under Federal ownership.

Existing regulatory mechanisms on State and private lands are inadequate to prevent continued harvest of forest stands at a scale and extent that would be meaningful for conserving red tree voles. Biological characteristics of red tree voles, such as small home ranges, limited dispersal distances, and low reproductive potential, limit their ability to respond to and persist in areas of extensive habitat loss and alteration. These biological characteristics also make it difficult for the tree voles to recolonize isolated habitat patches. Due to its reduced distribution, the red tree vole is now vulnerable to random environmental disturbances that may remove or further isolate large blocks of already limited habitat, and to extirpation within the DPS from such factors as lack of genetic variability, inbreeding depression, and demographic stochasticity. Although the entire population is experiencing threats, the impact is less pronounced on Federal lands, where much of the red tree vole habitat remains. Hence, the magnitude of threats is moderate to low. The threats are imminent because they are currently occurring within the DPS. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 9 for this species.

Pacific walrus (
Odobenus rosmarus divergens
)—The following information is based on information in our files and our warranted-but-precluded 12-month petition finding published on February 10, 2011 (76 FR 7634). The Pacific walrus is an ice-dependent species found across the continental shelf waters of the northern Bering and Chukchi Seas. Unlike seals, which can remain in the water for extended periods, walrus must haul out onto ice or land periodically. Pacific walrus is a traditional and important source of food and products to native Alaskans, especially those living on Saint Lawrence Island, and to native Russians.

Annually, walrus migrate up to 1,500 km (932 mi) between winter breeding areas in the sub-Arctic (northern Bering Sea) and summer foraging areas in the Arctic. Historically, the females and calves remained on pack ice over the continental shelf of the Chukchi Sea throughout the summer, using it as a platform for resting after making shallow foraging dives for invertebrates on the sea floor. Sea ice also provides isolation from disturbance and terrestrial predators such as polar bears. Since 1979, the extent of summer Arctic sea ice has declined. The five lowest records of minimum sea ice extent occurred from 2007 to 2012. Based on the best scientific information available, we anticipate that sea ice will retreat northward off the Chukchi continental shelf for 1 to 5 months every year in the foreseeable future.

When the ice melts beyond the limits of the continental shelf (and the ability of the walrus to obtain food), thousands of walrus congregate at coastal haulouts. Although coastal haulouts have historically provided a place to rest, the aggregation of so many animals, in particular females and calves, at this time of year has increased in the last 5 years. Not only are the number of animals more concentrated at coastal haulouts than on widely dispersed sea ice, but also the probability of disturbance from humans and terrestrial animals is much higher. Disturbances at coastal haulouts can cause stampedes, leading to mortalities and injuries. In addition, there is also concern that the concentration of animals will cause local prey depletion, leading to longer foraging trips, increased energy costs, and potential effects on female condition and calf survival. We expect these effects to lead to a population decline.

We recognize that Pacific walrus face additional stressors from ocean warming, ocean acidification, disease, oil and gas exploration and development, increased shipping, commercial fishing, and subsistence harvest, but none rise to the level of a threat except subsistence harvest. We found that subsistence harvest will rise to the level of a threat if the population declines but harvest levels remain the same. Because the threat of sea ice loss is not having significant population-level effects currently, but is projected to, we determined that the magnitude of this threat is moderate, not high. Because both the loss of sea ice habitat and the ongoing practice of subsistence harvest are presently occurring, these threats are imminent. Thus, we assigned an LPN of 9 to this subspecies.

Birds

Spotless crake, American Samoa DPS (
Porzana tabuensis
)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. No new information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. The spotless crake is a small, dark, cryptic bird found in wetlands and rank scrublands or forests in the Philippines, Australia, Fiji, Tonga, Society Islands, Marquesas, Independent Samoa, and American Samoa (Ofu, Tau). The genus
Porzana
is widespread in the Pacific, where it is represented by numerous island-endemic and flightless species (many of which are extinct as a result of anthropogenic disturbances), as well as several more cosmopolitan species,

including
P. tabuensis.
No subspecies of
P. tabuensis
are recognized.

The American Samoa population is the only population of spotless crakes under U.S. jurisdiction. The available information indicates that distinct populations of the spotless crake, a species not noted for long-distance dispersal, are definable. The population of spotless crakes in American Samoa is discrete in relation to the remainder of the species as a whole, which is distributed in widely separated locations. Although the spotless crake (and other rails) have dispersed widely in the Pacific, flight in island rails has atrophied or been completely lost over evolutionary time, causing populations to become isolated (and vulnerable to terrestrial predators such as rats). The population of this species in American Samoa is therefore distinct based on geographic and distributional isolation from spotless crake populations on other islands in the oceanic Pacific, the Philippines, and Australia. The American Samoa population of the spotless crake links the Central and Eastern Pacific portions of the species' range. The loss of this population would result in an increase of roughly 500 miles (805 kilometers) in the distance between the central and eastern Polynesian portions of the spotless crake's range, and could result in the isolation of the Marquesas and Society Islands populations by further limiting the potential for even rare genetic exchange. Based on the discreteness and significance of the American Samoa population of the spotless crake, we consider this population to be a distinct vertebrate population segment.

Threats to this population have not changed over the past year. The population in American Samoa is threatened by small population size, limited distribution, predation by nonnative and native animals, continued development of wetland habitat, and natural catastrophes such as hurricanes. The co-occurrence of a known predator of ground-nesting birds, the Norway rat (
Rattus norvegicus
), and native predators, the Pacific boa (
Candoia bibroni
) and the Purple Swamphen (
Porphyrio porphyrio
), along with the extremely restricted observed distribution and low numbers, indicates that the magnitude of the threats to the American Samoa DPS of the spotless crake continues to be high because the threats significantly affect the species' likelihood of survival. The threats are ongoing and therefore imminent. Based on this assessment of existing information about the imminence and high magnitude of these threats, we have retained an LPN of 3 for this DPS.

Friendly ground-dove, American Samoa DPS (
Gallicolumba stairi
)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. No new information was provided in the petition we received on May 11, 2004. The genus
Gallicolumba
is distributed throughout the Pacific and Southeast Asia. The genus is represented in the oceanic Pacific by six species: Three are endemic to Micronesian islands or archipelagos, two are endemic to island groups in French Polynesia, and
G. stairi
is endemic to Samoa, Tonga, and Fiji. Some authors recognize two subspecies of the friendly ground-dove, one, slightly smaller, in the Samoan archipelago (
G. s. stairi
), and one in Tonga and Fiji (
G. s.

vitiensis
), but because morphological differences between the two are minimal, we are not recognizing separate subspecies at this time.

In American Samoa, the friendly ground-dove has been found on the islands of Ofu and Olosega (Manua Group). Threats to this subspecies have not changed over the past year. Predation by nonnative species and natural catastrophes such as hurricanes are the primary threats to the subspecies. Of these, predation by nonnative species is thought to be occurring now and likely has been occurring for several decades. This predation may be an important impediment to population growth. Predation by introduced species has played a significant role in reducing, limiting, and extirpating populations of island birds, especially ground-nesters like the friendly ground-dove, in the Pacific and other locations worldwide. Nonnative predators known or thought to occur in the range of the friendly ground-dove in American Samoa include feral cats (
Felis catus
), Polynesian rats (
Rattus exulans
), black rats (
R. rattus
), and Norway rats (
R. norvegicus
).

In January 2004 and February of 2005, hurricanes virtually destroyed the habitat of
G Gallicolumba stairi
in the area on Olosega Island where the species had been most frequently recorded. Although this species has evolved on islands subject to severe storms, this example illustrates the potential for natural disturbance to exacerbate the effect of anthropogenic disturbance on small populations. Consistent monitoring using a variety of methods over the last 5 years yielded few observations and no change in the relative abundance of this taxon in American Samoa. The total population size remains poorly known, but is unlikely to number more than a few hundred pairs. The distribution of the friendly ground-dove is limited to steep, forested slopes with an open understory and a substrate of fine scree or exposed earth; this habitat is not common in American Samoa. The threats are ongoing and therefore imminent, and the magnitude is moderate because relative abundance has remained unchanged for several years. Thus, we have retained an LPN of 9 for this DPS.

Yellow-billed loon (
Gavia adamsii
)—We continue to find that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of publication of this notice of review. 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.

Xantus's murrelet (
Synthliboramphus hypoleucus
)—We continue to find that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of publication of this notice of review. 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.

Red-crowned parrot (
Amazona viridigenalis
)—The following summary is based in part on information contained in the Notice of 12-month finding (FR 76 62016), but largely on communication with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), Gulf Coast Prairie Landscape Conservation Cooperative, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, The Nature Conservancy, Rio Grande Joint Venture, World Birding Center, and Rio Grande Birding Festival biologists.

Currently, there are no changes to the range and/or distribution of the red-crowned parrot. The red-crowned parrot is non-migratory, and occurs in fragmented isolated habitat in the Mexican states of Veracruz, San Luis Potosi, Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas, and northeast Queretaro and in Texas, in Mission, McAllen, Pharr, and Edinburg (Hidalgo County) and in Brownsville, Los Fresnos, San Benito, and Harlingen (Cameron County). Feral populations may also exist in southern California, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Florida and

escaped birds have been reported in central Texas. The species is nomadic during the winter (non-breeding) season when large flocks range widely to forage, moving tens of kilometers during a single flight in Mexico. As of 2004, half of the native population is believed to be found in the United States. The species within Texas is thought to move between urban areas in search for food and other available resources.

Two projects, one in Weslaco and one in Harlingen, Texas, were initiated in 2011 to provide nest boxes in palms for the red-crowned parrot. As of March 2013, these nest sites had not been used although red-crowned parrots had been actively traveling within the area throughout the prior spring, summer, and fall months. Annual monitoring of red-crowned parrot populations in the Lower Rio Grande Valley (LRGV), Texas, has not been undertaken except to record anecdotal observations of the bird and its' behavior, abundance, nesting, or threats. Monitoring efforts for the red-crowned parrot in Mexico are unknown.

The primary threats to red-crowned parrots within Mexico and Texas remain habitat destruction and modification from logging, deforestation, conversion of suitable habitat, and urbanization. The species is also collected for the pet trade; multiple laws and regulations have been passed to control illegal trade, but they are not adequately enforced. In addition, existing regulations do not adequately address the habitat threats to the species. Thus, the inadequacy of existing regulations and their enforcement continue to threaten the red-crowned parrot. However, at least two city ordinances have been put in place in South Texas prohibiting malicious acts (injury, mortality) to birds and their habitat. Disease and predation still do not threaten the species. Pesticide exposure is not known to affect the red-crowned parrot. Conservation efforts include a project that was initiated by the Service and the Rio Grande Joint Venture in the LRGV to understand and compare how birds are using revegetated tracts of land that were previously affected by flooding. The project is in its infancy, and research sites are only currently being identified. Threats to the red-crowned parrot are extensive and currently affecting populations and are expected to continue to occur in the future. Therefore, threats to the red-crowned parrot are high magnitude and imminent. As a result, we assigned an LPN of 2 for the red-crowned parrot.

Sprague's pipit (
Anthus spragueii
)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files and in the petition we received on October 15, 2008. The Sprague's pipit is a small grassland bird characterized by its high flight display and otherwise very secretive behavior. Sprague's pipits are strongly tied to native prairie (land that has never been plowed) throughout their life cycle. Its current breeding range includes portions of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Canada. The Sprague's pipit's wintering range includes south-central and southeast Arizona, southern New Mexico, Texas, southern Oklahoma, southern Arkansas, northwest Mississippi, southern Louisiana, and northern Mexico; the vast majority of the U.S. winter sightings have been in Texas. During migration, the species has been sighted outside of the areas linking its breeding and wintering sites, including Michigan, western Ontario, Ohio, Massachusetts, and Gulf and Atlantic States from Mississippi east and north to South Carolina. Sprague's pipits also have been sighted in California during fall migration.

Threats to this species include: Habitat loss and conversion, habitat fragmentation on the breeding grounds, energy development, roads, and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Due to prairie habitat loss and fragmentation, only 15 to 18 percent of the historical breeding habitat in the United States remains in patches of sufficient size for males to establish territories. The Breeding Bird Survey and Christmas Bird Count both show a 40-year decline of 73 to 79 percent (3.23 to 4.1 percent annually), although the population seems to have stabilized in recent years. We anticipate that prairie habitat will continue to be converted and fragmented. Most of the breeding range, including those areas where grassland habitat still remains, has been identified as a prime area for wind energy development, and an oil and gas boom is occurring in the central part of the breeding range in the United States and Canada. On the wintering range, conversion of grassland to agriculture and other uses appears to be accelerating. While habitat loss has occurred and will likely to continue to occur, as noted above, approximately 15 to18 percent of the breeding range remains in suitable habitat cover and in large enough patch sizes to support nesting, and population decline seems to have slowed in recent years. Thus, the threats are moderate in magnitude. The threats are imminent because the species is currently facing them in many locations. Therefore, we have assigned the Sprague's pipit an LPN of 8.

Greater sage-grouse (
Centrocercus urophasianus
)—The following summary is based on information in our files and in the petition we received on January 30, 2002. Currently, greater sage-grouse occur in 11 States (Washington

[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%3A2013-27391. Public record. Not legal advice.