# 79 FR 72450: 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

> Federal · Regulations · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2014-28536

## Section

- **Citation:** 79 FR 72450
- **Heading:** 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
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Regulations
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** Federal Register / Vol. 79 / 79 FR 72450

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2014-0032; FF09E21000 FXES11190900000 145] 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, to assign a listing priority number (LPN) to each species, and to determine whether a 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 23 new candidates, changes the LPN for one candidate, and removes one species from candidate status
(LPN) to each species, and to determine whether a 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 23 new candidates, changes the LPN for one candidate, and removes one species from candidate status. Combined with other decisions for individual species that were published separately from this CNOR in the past year, the current number of species that are candidates for listing is 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, 2013, through September 30, 2014.
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 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, Falls Church, VA (see address under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ), or on our Web site ( http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/candidateSpecies.jsp ). Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions of a general nature on this notice to the Falls Church, VA, address listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
ON or at the Branch of Communications and Candidate Conservation, Falls Church, VA (see address under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ), or on our Web site ( http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/candidateSpecies.jsp ). Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions of a general nature on this notice to the Falls Church, 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, Falls Church, 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 Headquarters, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (telephone 703-358-2171). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may call the Federal Information Relay Service 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.
Candidate Notice of Review
Background
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq
or 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.
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
ctions. 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; (4) 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 (5) to request necessary information for setting priorities for preparing listing proposals. We strongly encourage collaborative 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 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104). 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)
8 FR 70104). 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
ave 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
rring or likely to occur in the very near future, we classify the threat as imminent. Determining the immediacy of threats helps ensure that species facing actual, identifiable threats are given priority for listing proposals over those for which threats are only potential or species that are intrinsically vulnerable to certain types of threats but are not known to be presently facing such threats.
Our priority ranking system has three categories for taxonomic status: Species that are the sole members of a genus; full species (in genera that have more than one species); and subspecies and distinct population segments of vertebrate species (DPS).
The result of the ranking system is that we assign each candidate a listing priority number of 1 to 12. For example, if the threats are of high magnitude, with immediacy classified as imminent, the listable entity is assigned an LPN of 1, 2, or 3 based on its taxonomic status ( i.e., a species that is the only member of its genus would be assigned to the LPN 1 category, a full species to LPN 2, and a subspecies or DPS would be assigned to LPN 3). In summary, the LPN ranking system provides a basis for making decisions about the relative priority for preparing a proposed rule to list a given species. No matter which LPN we assign to a species, each species included in this notice as a candidate is one for which we have sufficient information to prepare a proposed rule 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
ation 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. Information on the LPN assigned to a particular species is summarized in this CNOR and 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.
This revised notice supersedes all previous animal, plant, and combined candidate notices of review for native species and supersedes previous 12-month warranted-but-precluded petition findings for those candidate species that were petitioned for listing.
Summary of This CNOR
Since publication of the previous CNOR on November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), 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.
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)
e 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 23 new candidates, we change the LPN for one candidate, and determine that a listing proposal is not warranted for one species and thus remove it from candidate status (see Candidate Removals, below). Combined with the other decisions published separately from this CNOR, a total of 146 species (67 plant and 79 animal species) are now candidates awaiting preparation of rules proposing their listing. These 146 species, along with the 36 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 49 species identified in the previous CNOR as either proposed for listing or classified as candidates that are no longer in those categories. This includes 33 species for which we published a final listing rule, 11 candidate species for which we published a separate not-warranted finding and removed from candidate status, 3 species for which we published a withdrawal of a proposed rule, 1 species for which we published a separate notice of removal from candidate status, and the 1 species in this notice that we have determined does not meet the definition of an endangered or threatened species and therefore does not warrant listing. We have removed this species from candidate status in this CNOR.
New Candidates
We have identified 23 new candidate species through this notice discussed below
which we published a separate notice of removal from candidate status, and the 1 species in this notice that we have determined does not meet the definition of an endangered or threatened species and therefore does not warrant listing. We have removed this species from candidate status in this CNOR.
New Candidates
We have identified 23 new candidate species through this notice discussed below.
Birds
Ma'oma'o ( Gymnomyza samoensis )—The ma'oma'o is a large, dusky olive-green honeyeater that is known for making a variety of loud distinctive calls. The genus Gymnomyza consists of three honeyeaters restricted to a few islands in the southwestern Pacific. The ma'oma'o is endemic to Upolu and Savaii, Independent Samoa (Samoa), and Tutuila Island, American Samoa. The ma'oma'o is now believed to be extirpated from Tutuila Island, American Samoa. It is currently only found in small populations on the islands of Savaii and Upolu in Samoa. The ma'oma'o is primarily restricted to mature, well-developed, moist, mossy forests at upper elevations. Monitoring over the last decade has provided evidence of a decline in the relative abundance of the species. In 2007, the total population was estimated to be approximately 500 individuals.
Little mature forest remains in Samoa, and the loss of forested habitat due to logging, agricultural clearing, and catastrophic storms is the primary threat to the ma'oma'o. Two storms in the 1990s, Cyclones Ofa (1990) and Val (1991), destroyed much of the forested habitat in Samoa, reducing forest canopy cover by 73 percent. In 2012, Cyclone Evan caused additional severe forest damage. Loss of mature forest is likely to affect the ma'oma'o by reducing breeding and foraging habitat, increasing forest fragmentation, and increasing the abundance and diversity of invasive species. Other threats to the species include habitat degradation, predation by nonnative species, and small population size
canopy cover by 73 percent. In 2012, Cyclone Evan caused additional severe forest damage. Loss of mature forest is likely to affect the ma'oma'o by reducing breeding and foraging habitat, increasing forest fragmentation, and increasing the abundance and diversity of invasive species. Other threats to the species include habitat degradation, predation by nonnative species, and small population size. Habitat quality has degraded with the loss of closed forest space and the spread of nonnative invasive weeds. Nest predation by rats ( Rattus spp.) and feral cats ( Felis catus ) is an important threat to many island birds, including the ma'oma'o, and may impede population growth. Small populations are more susceptible to inbreeding depression (reduced reproductive vigor) and extirpation from stochastic events ( e.g., inclement weather, population demographics, and altered predation patterns). Based on our evaluation that these ongoing threats pose an imminent risk of a high magnitude, we assign a LPN of 2 for this species.
Flowering Plants
Eighteen Hawaiian flowering plants ( Cyanea kauaulaensis, Cyperus neokunthianus, Cyrtandra hematos, Exocarpos menziesii, Kadua haupuensis, Labordia lorenciana, Lepidium orbiculare, Phyllostegia brevidens, Phyllostegia helleri, Phyllostegia stachyoides, Portulaca villosa, Pritchardia bakeri, Sanicula sandwicensis, Santalum involutum, Schiedea diffusa ssp. diffusa, Sicyos lanceoloideus, Stenogyne kaalae ssp
Hawaiian flowering plants ( Cyanea kauaulaensis, Cyperus neokunthianus, Cyrtandra hematos, Exocarpos menziesii, Kadua haupuensis, Labordia lorenciana, Lepidium orbiculare, Phyllostegia brevidens, Phyllostegia helleri, Phyllostegia stachyoides, Portulaca villosa, Pritchardia bakeri, Sanicula sandwicensis, Santalum involutum, Schiedea diffusa ssp. diffusa, Sicyos lanceoloideus, Stenogyne kaalae ssp. sherffii, Wikstromoemia skottsbergiana )—Each of these 18 species is endemic to one or more islands in the State of Hawaii (( Cyanea kauaulaensis (Maui), Cyperus neokunthianus (Maui), Cyrtandra hematos (Molokai), Exocarpos menziesii (Hawaii Island; extirpated from Lanai), Kadua haupuensis (Kauai), Labordia lorenciana (Kauai), Lepidium orbiculare (Kauai), Phyllostegia brevidens (Maui; extirpated from Hawaii Island), Phyllostegia helleri (Kauai), Phyllostegia stachyoides (Maui, Molokai, and Hawaii Island), Portulaca villosa (Maui and Nihoa), Pritchardia bakeri (Oahu), Sanicula sandwicensis (Maui and Hawaii Island), Santalum involutum (Kauai), Schiedea diffusa ssp. diffusa (Maui), Sicyos lanceoloideus (Kauai and Oahu), Stenogyne kaalae ssp. sherffii (Oahu), and Wikstromoemia skottsbergiana (Kauai)), and each is negatively affected by nonnative animals and plants.
Introduced, nonnative animals damage and destroy plants and seeds, modify habitat, create habitat more conducive to nonnative plant introductions, and spread nonnative plant seeds. Nonnative plants displace and outcompete native species. Introduced, nonnative plants and animals are serious and ongoing threats to these species rangewide, and these threats are increased by the continued inadequacy of existing protective regulations
age and destroy plants and seeds, modify habitat, create habitat more conducive to nonnative plant introductions, and spread nonnative plant seeds. Nonnative plants displace and outcompete native species. Introduced, nonnative plants and animals are serious and ongoing threats to these species rangewide, and these threats are increased by the continued inadequacy of existing protective regulations. In addition, small population size (each species has fewer than 100 individuals) is a serious and ongoing threat to each of these species because (1) they may experience reduced reproductive vigor due to ineffective pollination or inbreeding depression; (2) they may experience reduced levels of genetic variability, leading to diminished capacity to adapt and respond to environmental changes, thereby lessening the probability of long-term persistence; and (3) a single catastrophic event may result in extirpation of remaining populations and extinction of the species. Climate change may pose a threat to the ecosystems that support these species, thus exacerbating the effects of the aforementioned threats. There are varying degrees of conservation efforts ongoing for these species; however, at a minimum, all of these species are listed on the Hawaii Plant Extinction Prevention Program (PEPP) species list. Species on the PEPP list are prioritized for monitoring, surveys, collection and storing of seeds, propagation, and outplanting. The threats to each of these species are imminent and of high magnitude, leading to a relatively high likelihood of extinction. Therefore, we assign a LPN of 2 for the above plants that are full species and an LPN of 3 for those that are subspecies or varieties.
Ferns and Allies
Four Hawaiian ferns ( Asplenium diellaciniatum, Deparia kaalaana, Dryopteris glabra var. pusilla, Hypolepis hawaiiensis var
eats to each of these species are imminent and of high magnitude, leading to a relatively high likelihood of extinction. Therefore, we assign a LPN of 2 for the above plants that are full species and an LPN of 3 for those that are subspecies or varieties.
Ferns and Allies
Four Hawaiian ferns ( Asplenium diellaciniatum, Deparia kaalaana, Dryopteris glabra var. pusilla, Hypolepis hawaiiensis var. mauiensis )—Each of these four species is endemic to one or more islands in the State of Hawaii ( Asplenium diellaciniatum (Kauai), Deparia kaalaana (Maui; extirpated from Kauai and Hawaii Island), Dryopteris glabra var. pusilla (Kauai), Hypolepis hawaiiensis var. mauiensis (Maui)); and each is negatively affected by nonnative animals and plants. Introduced, nonnative animals damage and destroy plants and seeds, modify habitat, create habitat more conducive to nonnative plant introductions, and spread nonnative plant seeds. Nonnative plants displace and outcompete native species. Introduced nonnative plants and animals are serious and ongoing threats to these species rangewide, and these threats are increased by the continued inadequacy of existing protective regulations. In addition, small population size (each species has fewer than 100 individuals) is a serious and ongoing threat to each of these species because (1) they may experience reduced reproductive vigor due to ineffective pollination or inbreeding depression; (2) they may Asplenium diellaciniatum and Deparia kaalaana and an LPN of 3 for Dryopteris glabra var. pusilla and Hypolepis hawaiiensis var. mauiensis.
Listing Priority Changes in Candidates
We reviewed the LPN for all candidate species and are changing the number for the following species discussed below.
Birds
Sprague's pipit ( Anthus spragueii )—The Sprague's pipit is a small grassland bird characterized by its high breeding flight display and otherwise very secretive behavior
abra var. pusilla and Hypolepis hawaiiensis var. mauiensis.
Listing Priority Changes in Candidates
We reviewed the LPN for all candidate species and are changing the number for the following species discussed below.
Birds
Sprague's pipit ( Anthus spragueii )—The Sprague's pipit is a small grassland bird characterized by its high breeding flight display and otherwise very secretive behavior. Sprague's pipits are strongly associated with native prairie (land that has never been plowed), especially on the breeding grounds. Its current breeding range includes portions of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Canada. The 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 in areas outside of the direct flight path between 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.
The primary stressor to the species is habitat conversion on the breeding grounds. The Breeding Bird Survey shows a long-term decline from 1966 through 2012. From 2002 through 2012, however, the long-term population decline has leveled off and currently, there is no discernable trend. The Christmas Bird Count data also indicates that the population decline has stopped and the population trend has no direction, either increasing or decreasing between 2003 and 2012.
In the Service's 12-month finding published on September 15, 2010, we identified oil and gas development and associated infrastructure as having a strong negative influence on the species based upon the available information at that time
nt data also indicates that the population decline has stopped and the population trend has no direction, either increasing or decreasing between 2003 and 2012.
In the Service's 12-month finding published on September 15, 2010, we identified oil and gas development and associated infrastructure as having a strong negative influence on the species based upon the available information at that time. New information suggests that Sprague's pipit avoidance response of these features is highly variable across the range and thus the species' response to oil and gas development and roads does not indicate that these are a threat.
Landscape modelling to predict Sprague's pipit habitat use on the breeding range indicates the population is concentrated in north-central Montana, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, Canada. Analysis of the likelihood of prairie conversion in the area where most pipits occur suggests that the risk of widespread conversion is low, with the most likely risk scenario of future conversion to cropland predicting a relatively low proportion (10-15 percent) of the breeding population affected.
On the wintering range, conversion of prairie to cropland appears to be accelerating. The species is widely distributed and mobile during winter, but grassland conversion is ongoing and apparently widespread. At this time, we believe that the species' trends can be explained by the habitat changes that have occurred on the breeding range; however, we will be more closely assessing the changes to the wintering range and whether those changes threaten the Sprague's pipit.
The threats to the Sprague's pipit described above are moderate to low in magnitude. Because of the relatively large population remaining and the stable-to-uncertain ( i.e. not showing a clear decline) trends shown by surveys on both the breeding and wintering grounds, the potential decline is nonimminent. In addition, the threat from conversion of habitat on the breeding grounds is now nonimment
The threats to the Sprague's pipit described above are moderate to low in magnitude. Because of the relatively large population remaining and the stable-to-uncertain ( i.e. not showing a clear decline) trends shown by surveys on both the breeding and wintering grounds, the potential decline is nonimminent. In addition, the threat from conversion of habitat on the breeding grounds is now nonimment. Therefore, we are revising the LPN from 8 to an 11.
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 the 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 an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, we no longer consider it to be a candidate species for listing. We will continue to monitor the status of this species and to accept additional information and comments concerning this finding. We will reconsider our determination in the event that new information indicates that the threats to the species are of a considerably greater magnitude or imminence than identified through assessments of information contained in our files, as summarized here.
Flowering Plants
Astragalus cusickii var. packardiae (Packard's milkvetch)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. Packard's milkvetch is narrowly endemic to a specific group of light-colored sedimentary outcrops in southwestern Idaho. The total range of the species covers approximately 26 square kilometers (km 2 ) (10 square miles (mi 2 )) in Payette County
here.
Flowering Plants
Astragalus cusickii var. packardiae (Packard's milkvetch)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. Packard's milkvetch is narrowly endemic to a specific group of light-colored sedimentary outcrops in southwestern Idaho. The total range of the species covers approximately 26 square kilometers (km 2 ) (10 square miles (mi 2 )) in Payette County. Suboccurrences of Packard's milkvetch, which are typically represented by individual occupied outcrops, are found at elevations ranging from 793 to 915 meters (m) (2,600 to 3,000 feet (ft)). Occupied outcrops tend to be found on steep, south- to west-facing slopes, and are relatively sparsely vegetated.
Packard's milkvetch became a candidate species in 2010, based on the identified primary threat of habitat degradation due to off highway vehicles (OHVs). In response, on December 13, 2013, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) made a decision that permanently closed 5,620 acres within and near Packard's milkvetch habitat to OHV use, covering 68 percent of the species' occurrences. Monitoring data collected since the closure was implemented in 2011 indicates that the OHV closure has been effective at eliminating the primary threat to the species throughout a large majority of the species' range.
Other natural and anthropogenic activities identified at the time it was designated a candidate included an altered wildfire regime due to invasive nonnative plant species and livestock use. There was little data at the time to suggest whether these potential threats were significant, but out of an abundance of caution, the Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (IFWO) considered
In 2010, the population of Packard's milkvetch was estimated at approximately 5,000 plants located within 26 suboccurrences with abundance ranges from 3 to approximately 500 plants per suboccurrence
livestock use. There was little data at the time to suggest whether these potential threats were significant, but out of an abundance of caution, the Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (IFWO) considered
In 2010, the population of Packard's milkvetch was estimated at approximately 5,000 plants located within 26 suboccurrences with abundance ranges from 3 to approximately 500 plants per suboccurrence. Surveys in 2012 documented several additional occupied outcrops collectively totaling approximately 2,000 individuals, which revised the range-wide population estimate to 6,500 plants occurring within 28 suboccurrences. The 5-year monitoring dataset (2008-2013) has suggested a stable population overall.
Therefore, based on (1) the reduction of the species' primary threat ( i.e., OHV use), (2) the increase in number of known suboccurrences and resulting increase in the overall population, and (3) the species' overall stable population status over a 5-year monitoring period, we find that listing of Packard's milkvetch as threatened or endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range is no longer warranted; the species no longer meets the definition of a candidate species, and we are removing it from candidate status.
In addition to the factors that led us to conclude that Packard's milkvetch no longer warrants candidate status, the BLM and IFWO signed a 20-year Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA) on December 20, 2013, which further supports the BLM's OHV closure decision and commits to continued enforcement and monitoring of the OHV closure. The CCA also outlines the BLM's plans for long-term monitoring and future proactive conservation measures to address new potential threats that may arise.
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
ng and future proactive conservation measures to address new potential threats that may arise.
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 initial 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, and to ascertain if they need emergency listing.
First, the CNOR serves as an initial 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;
ion 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
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 treat the petition as one that is resubmitted on the date of the 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. These annual findings supercede any findings from previous CNORs and the initial 12-month warranted-but-precluded finding, although all previous findings are part of the administrative record for the new finding, and we may rely upon them or incorporate them by reference in the new finding as appropriate.
Third, through undertaking the analysis required to complete the CNOR, the Service determines if any candidate species needs emergency listing
revious CNORs and the initial 12-month warranted-but-precluded finding, although all previous findings are part of the administrative record for the new finding, and we may rely upon them or incorporate them by reference in the new finding as appropriate.
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
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 that 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)
ity 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 112 candidates for which we have received a petition to list and the 5 listed species 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, except for the Selkirk ecosystem population and the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem population of Grizzly bear (see Petitions To Reclassify Species Already Listed ), 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
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, 2013, through September 30, 2014. 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
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
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
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
(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
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 2014, 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 2014, on January 17, 2014, Congress passed a Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113-76), which provided funding through September 30, 2014. In particular, it included an overall spending cap of $20,515,000 for the listing program
actions for foreign species, and petition findings—set the framework within which we make our determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.
For FY 2014, on January 17, 2014, Congress passed a Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113-76), which provided funding through September 30, 2014. In particular, it included an overall spending cap of $20,515,000 for the listing program. Of that, no more than $1,504,000 could be used for listing actions for foreign species, and no more than $1,501,000 could be used to make 90-day or 12-month findings on petitions. The Service thus had $ 12,905,000 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
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 the last few years, 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))
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
roximately 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
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. 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
y of staff resources when we determine which high-priority species will receive funding to minimize the amount of time and resources required to complete each listing action.
Listing Program Workload. Each FY we determine, based on the amount of funding Congress has made available within the Listing Program spending cap, specifically which actions we will have the resources to work on in that FY. We then prepare Allocation Tables that identify the actions that we are funding for that FY, and how much we estimate it will cost to complete each action; these Allocation Tables are part of our record for this notice and the listing program. Our Allocation Table for FY 2012, which incorporated the Service's approach to prioritizing its workload, was adopted as part of a settlement agreement in a case before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 10-377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (“MDL Litigation”), Document 31-1 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011) (“MDL Settlement Agreement”)). The requirements of paragraphs 1 through 7 of that settlement agreement, combined with the work plan attached to the agreement as Exhibit B, reflected the Service's Allocation Tables for FY 2011 and FY 2012. In addition, paragraphs 2 through 7 of the agreement require the Service to take numerous other actions through FY 2017—in particular, complete either a proposed listing rule or a not-warranted finding for all 251 species designated as “candidates” in the 2010 candidate notice of review (“CNOR”) before the end of FY 2016, and complete final listing determinations for those species proposed for listing within the statutory deadline (usually one year from the proposal)
e 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 2014 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)
s now fall within the Service's highest priority (compliance with a court order): (1) The actions required to be completed in FY 2014 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 the Service's 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 2014, we completed a delisting rule for one species.) As discussed below, given the limited resources available for listing, we find that we made expeditious progress in FY 2014 in the Listing Program
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 2014, we completed a delisting rule for one species.) As discussed below, given the limited resources available for listing, we find that we made expeditious progress in FY 2014 in the Listing Program.
We provide below tables cataloguing the work of the Service's Listing Program in FY 2014. 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 2014.
First, we made expeditious progress in the third and final step: Listing qualified species. In FY 2014, we resolved the status of 35 species that we determined, or had previously determined, qualified for listing. Moreover, for 32 species, the resolution was to add them to the Lists, most with concurrent designations of critical habitat, and for 3 species we published a withdrawal of the proposed rule. We also proposed to list an additional 24 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 2014, we worked on developing proposed listing rules for 34 species (most of them with concurrent critical habitat proposals)
hed a withdrawal of the proposed rule. We also proposed to list an additional 24 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 2014, we worked on developing proposed listing rules for 34 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 2014, we completed two 90-day petition findings for two species.
Our accomplishments this year should also be considered in the broader context of our commitment to reduce the number of candidate species for which we have not made final determinations whether or not to 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 for all 251 species that were included as candidates in the 2010 CNOR, the Service submit to the Federal Register proposed listing rules or not-warranted findings by the end of FY 2016, and for any proposed listing rules, the Service complete final listing determinations 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
lete final listing determinations 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 166 of the 2010 candidate species, as well as final listing rules for 118 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 2014 included completing and publishing the following determinations:
FY 2014 Completed Listing Actions Publication date Title Actions FR Pages 11/14/2013 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Gunnison's Prairie Dog as an Endangered or Threatened Species Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted 78 FR 68660-68685. 11/26/2013 Initiation of Status Review of Arctic Grayling in the Upper Missouri River System Notice of Status Review 78 FR 70525-70527. 12/19/2013 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Coleman's Coralroot as an Endangered or Threatened Species Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted 78 FR 76795-76807. 12/20/2013 Threatened Status for Eriogonum codium (Umtanum Desert Buckwheat) and Physaria douglasii subsp. tuplashensis (White Bluffs Bladderpod) and Designation of Critical Habitat Final Rule—Revision 78 FR 76995-77005. 2/24/2014 Determination of Threatened Species Status for the Georgetown Salamander and Salado Salamander Throughout Their Ranges Final Listing Threatened 79 FR 10235-10293
-76807. 12/20/2013 Threatened Status for Eriogonum codium (Umtanum Desert Buckwheat) and Physaria douglasii subsp. tuplashensis (White Bluffs Bladderpod) and Designation of Critical Habitat Final Rule—Revision 78 FR 76995-77005. 2/24/2014 Determination of Threatened Species Status for the Georgetown Salamander and Salado Salamander Throughout Their Ranges Final Listing Threatened 79 FR 10235-10293. 3/31/2014 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Alexander Archipelago Wolf as Threatened or Endangered Notice of 90-day petition finding, Substantial 79 FR 17993-17995. 4/9/2014 Threatened Species Status for the Olympia Pocket Gopher, Roy Prairie Pocket Gopher, Tenino Pocket Gopher, and Yelm Pocket Gopher, with Special Rule Final Listing Threatened, with Special Rule 79 FR 19759-19796. 4/10/2014 Determination of Threatened Status for the Lesser Prairie-Chicken Final Listing Threatened 79 FR 19973-20071. 4/29/2014 Endangered Species Status for Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog and Northern Distinct Population Segment of the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog, and Threatened Species Status for Yosemite Toad Final Listing Threatened and Endangered 79 FR 24255-24310. 5/6/2014 Determination of Threatened Status for Leavenworthia exigua var. laciniata (Kentucky Glade Cress) Final Listing Threatened 79 FR 25683-25688. 6/3/2014 Threatened Species Status for Ivesia webberi Final Listing Threatened 79 FR 31878-31883. 6/10/2014 Determination of Endangered Status for the New Mexico Meadow Jumping Mouse Throughout Its Range Final Listing Endangered 79 FR 33119-33137. 7/8/2014 Threatened Status for the Northern Mexican Gartersnake and Narrow-Headed Gartersnake Final Listing Threatened 79 FR 38677-38746. 7/24/2014 Endangered Species Status for the Zuni Bluehead Sucker Final Listing Endangered 79 FR 43131-43161. 8/1/2014 Endangered Status for Physaria globosa (Short's bladderpod), Helianthus verticillatus (whorled sunflower), and Leavenworthia crassa (fleshy-fruit gladecress) Final Listing Endangered 79 FR 44712-44718
ersnake and Narrow-Headed Gartersnake Final Listing Threatened 79 FR 38677-38746. 7/24/2014 Endangered Species Status for the Zuni Bluehead Sucker Final Listing Endangered 79 FR 43131-43161. 8/1/2014 Endangered Status for Physaria globosa (Short's bladderpod), Helianthus verticillatus (whorled sunflower), and Leavenworthia crassa (fleshy-fruit gladecress) Final Listing Endangered 79 FR 44712-44718. 8/4/2014 Determination of Endangered Status for the Sharpnose Shiner and Smalleye Shiner Final Listing Endangered 79 FR 45273-45286. 8/6/2014 Withdrawal of the Proposed Rules To List Graham's Beardtongue ( Penstemon grahamii ) and White River Beardtongue ( Penstemon scariosus var. albifluvis ) and Designate Critical Habitat Proposed Listing Withdrawal 79 FR 46041-46087. 8/12/2014 Endangered Status for the Florida Leafwing and Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak Butterflies Final Listing Endangered 79 FR 47222-47244. 8/13/2014 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Warton's Cave Meshweaver as Endangered or Threatened Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted Candidate removal 79 FR 47413-47415. 8/13/2014 Threatened Status for the Distinct Population Segment of the North American Wolverine Occurring in the Contiguous United States; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the North American Wolverine in Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico Proposed Listing Withdrawal 79 FR 47521-47545. 8/19/2014 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Island Marble Butterfly as an Endangered Species Notice of 90-day petition finding, Substantial 79 FR 49045-49047. 8/20/2014 Revised 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Upper Missouri River Distinct Population Segment of Arctic Grayling as an Endangered or Threatened Species Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted Candidate removal 79 FR 49383-49422. 8/26/2014 12-Month Finding on the Petition To List Least Chub as an Endangered or Threatened Species Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted Candidate removal 79 FR 51041-51066
ition To List the Upper Missouri River Distinct Population Segment of Arctic Grayling as an Endangered or Threatened Species Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted Candidate removal 79 FR 49383-49422. 8/26/2014 12-Month Finding on the Petition To List Least Chub as an Endangered or Threatened Species Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted Candidate removal 79 FR 51041-51066. 8/26/2014 Endangered Status for Vandenberg Monkeyflower Final Listing Endangered 79 FR 50844-50854. 8/29/2014 Threatened Status for Oregon Spotted Frog Final Listing Threatened 79 FR 51657-51710. 9/4/2014 Endangered Species Status for Brickellia mosieri (Florida Brickell-bush) and Linum carteri var. carteri (Carter's Small-flowered Flax) Final Listing Endangered 79 FR 52567-52575. 9/9/2014 Endangered Species Status for Agave eggersiana and Gonocalyx concolor, and Threatened Species Status for Varronia rupicola Final Listing Endangered and Threatened 79 FR 53315-53344. 9/12/2014 Threatened Status for Arabis georgiana (Georgia rockcress) Final Listing Threatened 79 FR 54627-54635. 9/12/2014 Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx and Revised Distinct Population Segment Boundary Final Critical Habitat Final Listing—adding New Mexico to DPS boundary 79 FR 54781-54846. 9/18/2014 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Eriogonum kelloggii (Red Mountain buckwheat) and Sedum eastwoodiae (Red Mountain stonecrop) as Endangered or Threatened Species Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted Candidate removal 79 FR 56029-56040. 9/18/2014 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Symphyotrichum georgianum (Georgia aster) as Endangered or Threatened Species Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted Candidate removal 79 FR 56041-56047. 9/23/2014 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Tucson Shovel-Nosed Snake Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted Candidate removal 79 FR 56730-56738
79 FR 56029-56040. 9/18/2014 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Symphyotrichum georgianum (Georgia aster) as Endangered or Threatened Species Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted Candidate removal 79 FR 56041-56047. 9/23/2014 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Tucson Shovel-Nosed Snake Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted Candidate removal 79 FR 56730-56738. 9/24/2014 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii and Eriogonum diatomaceum Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted Candidate removal 79 FR 57032-57041. 10/1/2014 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout as an Endangered or Threatened Species Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted Candidate removal 79 FR 59140-59150. 10/1/2014 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Yellow-Billed Loon ( Gavia adamsii ) as an Endangered or Threatened Species Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not warranted Candidate removal 79 FR 59195-59204. 10/1/2014 Proposed Endangered Status for 21 Species and Proposed Threatened Status for 2 Species in Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Proposed Listing Endangered and Threatened 79 FR 59363-59413. 10/3/2014 Threatened Species Status for the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo Final Listing Threatened 79 FR 59991-60038. 10/7/2014 Threatened Species Status for Black Pinesnake Proposed Listing Threatened 79 FR 60406-60419. 10/7/2014 Threatened Species Status for West Coast Distinct Population Segment of Fisher Proposed Listing Threatened 79 FR 60419-60443. 10/9/2014 Endangered Species Status for Trichomanes punctatum ssp. floridanum (Florida Bristle Fern) Proposed Listing Endangered 79 FR 61135-61161. Our expeditious progress also included work on listing actions that we funded in previous fiscal years and in FY 2014 but did not complete in FY 2014
us for West Coast Distinct Population Segment of Fisher Proposed Listing Threatened 79 FR 60419-60443. 10/9/2014 Endangered Species Status for Trichomanes punctatum ssp. floridanum (Florida Bristle Fern) Proposed Listing Endangered 79 FR 61135-61161. Our expeditious progress also included work on listing actions that we funded in previous fiscal years and in FY 2014 but did not complete in FY 2014. 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. All the actions in the table are being conducted under a deadline set by a court through a court order or settlement agreement.
Actions Funded in Previous FYs and FY 2014 But Not Completed in FY 2014 Species Action Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement Gunnison sage-grouse Final listing. Dakota skipper and Poweshiek skipperling Final listing. Red knot (rufa subspecies) Final listing. Northern long-eared bat Final listing. Greater sage-grouse—Bi-State DPS Final listing. Washington ground squirrel Proposed listing. Xantus's murrelet Proposed listing. Columbia spotted frog—Great Basin DPS Proposed listing. Sequatchie caddisfly Proposed listing. Four Florida Keys plants (sand flax, Big Pine partridge pea, Blodgett's silverbush, and wedge spurge) Proposed listing. Four Florida plants (Florida pineland crabgrass, Florida prairie clover, pineland sandmat, and Everglades bully) Proposed listing. White fringeless orchid Proposed listing. Black warrior waterdog Proposed listing. Black mudalia Proposed listing. Elfin-woods warbler Proposed listing. Kentucky arrow darter and Cumberland arrow darter Proposed listing. Six Cave beetles (Nobletts, Baker Station, Fowler's, Indian Grave Point, inquirer, and Coleman) Proposed listing. Sicyos macrophyllus Proposed listing. Highlands tiger beetle Proposed listing. Sicklefin redhorse Proposed listing. Headwater chub Proposed listing. Roundtail chub DPS Proposed listing. Page springsnail Proposed listing
entucky arrow darter and Cumberland arrow darter Proposed listing. Six Cave beetles (Nobletts, Baker Station, Fowler's, Indian Grave Point, inquirer, and Coleman) Proposed listing. Sicyos macrophyllus Proposed listing. Highlands tiger beetle Proposed listing. Sicklefin redhorse Proposed listing. Headwater chub Proposed listing. Roundtail chub DPS Proposed listing. Page springsnail Proposed listing. Sonoran desert tortoise Proposed listing. Texas hornshell Proposed listing. New England cottontail Proposed listing. Eastern massasauga Proposed listing. We also funded work on resubmitted petitions findings for 112 candidate species (species petitioned prior to the last CNOR). In our resubmitted petition finding for the Columbia Basin population of the greater sage-grouse in this notice, although we completed a new analysis of the threats facing the species, we did not include new information, as the significance of the Columbia Basin DPS 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 34 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)
tions, 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 a revised 12-month petition finding for the petitioned candidate species that we are removing from candidate status, which is being published as part of this CNOR (see Candidate Removals). Because the majority of these 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
During FY 2014, 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
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 3.6 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). In accordance with section 4(b)(3)(C)(i), we treat any petitions for which we made warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings within the past year as having been resubmitted on the date of the warranted-but-precluded finding
endent 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. The subspecies may also be susceptible to disturbance in its roosting caves. The threats are imminent and of high magnitude, since they are ongoing and severe enough to pose a relatively high likelihood of extinction. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 3 for this DPS of a subspecies.
Peñasco least chipmunk ( Tamias minimus atristria )—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. Peñasco least chipmunk is endemic to the White Mountains, Otero and Lincoln Counties, and the Sacramento Mountains, Otero County, New Mexico. The Peñasco least chipmunk historically had a broad distribution throughout the Sacramento Mountains within ponderosa pine forests
es.
Peñasco least chipmunk ( Tamias minimus atristria )—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. Peñasco least chipmunk is endemic to the White Mountains, Otero and Lincoln Counties, and the Sacramento Mountains, Otero County, New Mexico. The Peñasco least chipmunk historically had a broad distribution throughout the Sacramento Mountains within ponderosa pine forests. The last verification of persistence of the Sacramento Mountains population of Peñasco least chipmunk was in 1966, and the subspecies appears to be extirpated from the Sacramento Mountains. The only remaining known distribution of the least chipmunk is restricted to open, high-elevation talus slopes within a subalpine grassland, located in the Sierra Blanca area of the White Mountains in Lincoln and Otero Counties, New Mexico.
The Peñasco least chipmunk faces threats from present or threatened destruction, modification, and curtailment of its habitat from the alteration or loss of mature ponderosa pine forests in one of the two historically occupied areas. The documented decline in occupied localities, in conjunction with the small numbers of individuals captured, are linked to widespread habitat alteration. Moreover, the highly fragmented nature of its distribution is a significant contributor to the vulnerability of this subspecies and increases the likelihood of very small, isolated populations being extirpated. As a result of this fragmentation, even if suitable habitat exists (or is restored) in the Sacramento Mountains, the likelihood of natural recolonization of historical habitat or population expansion from the White Mountains is extremely remote. Considering the high magnitude and immediacy of these threats to the subspecies and its habitat, and the
The one known remaining extant population of Peñasco least chipmunk in the White Mountains is particularly susceptible to extinction as a result of small, reduced population sizes and its isolation
ion of historical habitat or population expansion from the White Mountains is extremely remote. Considering the high magnitude and immediacy of these threats to the subspecies and its habitat, and the
The one known remaining extant population of Peñasco least chipmunk in the White Mountains is particularly susceptible to extinction as a result of small, reduced population sizes and its isolation. Because of the reduced population size and lack of contiguous habitat adjacent to the extant White Mountains population, even a small impact on the White Mountains could have a very large impact on the status of the species as a whole. As a result of its restricted range, apparent small population size, and fragmented historical habitat, the White Mountains population is inherently vulnerable to extinction due to effects of small, population sizes ( e.g. loss of genetic diversity). These impacts are likely to be seen in the population at some point in the foreseeable future, but do not appear to be affecting this population currently as it appears to be stable at this time. Therefore, we conclude that the threats to this population are of high magnitude, but not imminent. Therefore, we assign an LPN of 6 to the subspecies.
New England cottontail ( Sylvilagus transitionalis )—We continue to find that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of publication of this notice. However, we are working on a proposed listing determination 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.
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
g 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 )—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 (ha) (722,000 acres (ac)). The population declined significantly between 1985 and 2001, and approximately 37 percent of the historical known sites were occupied in 1999 by a relatively small number of individuals. More recently, southern Idaho ground squirrels have increased in abundance, and monitoring suggests that the population may now be stable.
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. Nonnative annuals may 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
d 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 to a moderate level, 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. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 8 for this species.
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. 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 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.
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
ed 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 are largely absent 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 remnant patches of older forest in a highly fragmented and isolated condition. Modeling indicates that 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
isms 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 these threats is moderate to low. The threats are imminent because habitat loss and reduced distribution are currently occurring within the DPS. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 9 for this DPS.
Pacific walrus ( Odobenus rosmarus divergens )—The following information
Annually, walrus migrate up to 1,500 kilometers (km) (932 miles (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
ontinental 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
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 both the loss of sea ice habitat and the ongoing practice of subsistence harvest are presently occurring, these threats are imminent. However, these threats are not having significant population-level effects currently, but are projected to, we determined that the magnitude of the threats is moderate, not high. 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
oa 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 mi (805 km) 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
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 threats to the American Samoa DPS of the spotless crake continue to be both imminent and high in magnitude because the ongoing threats have a high likelihood of affecting the ability of the species to survive in a relatively short time frame. 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)
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 species have not changed over the past year. Predation by nonnative species and natural catastrophes such as hurricanes are the primary threats to the DPS. Of these, predation by nonnative species is 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. 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.
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
t 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.
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. However, we are working on a 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 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 on information contained in the notice of 12-month finding (76 FR 62016) as well as communication with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, The Nature Conservancy, Rio Grande Joint Venture, World Birding Center, Rio Grande Valley Birding Festival, and the Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas. As of April, 2014, there are no changes to the range 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 Tamaulipas, Veracruz, San Luis Potosi, Nuevo Leon, and northeast Queretaro. The species also occurs within the southern tip of Texas, in the cities of Mission, McAllen, Pharr, and Edinburg (Hidalgo County), and in Brownsville, Los Fresnos, San Benito, and Harlingen (Cameron County). Feral populations also exist in southern California, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Florida and escaped birds have been reported in central Texas. As of 2004, half of the native population is believed to be found in the United States
southern tip of Texas, in the cities of Mission, McAllen, Pharr, and Edinburg (Hidalgo County), and in Brownsville, Los Fresnos, San Benito, and Harlingen (Cameron County). Feral populations also exist in southern California, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Florida and escaped birds have been reported in central Texas. As of 2004, half of the native population is believed to be found in the United States. 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. In Texas, red-crowned parrots are thought to move between urban areas in search of food and other available resources. There has not been systematic annual monitoring of red-crowned parrot populations in Texas's Lower Rio Grande Valley (LRGV), so no population trend information is available; instead, numbers of parrots are most often reported from more informal surveys including Christmas Bird Counts and E-bird; surveys with wide variation in observers' skill levels. Counts of nesting pairs have not been documented since McKinney's 1995 survey. In Mexico, the level of monitoring of red-crowned parrots within the last two decades is not well known; however, community groups did include the species in bird surveys in the Ejido El Sabinito, in Sierras of Tamaulipas, in 2012 and 2013, where they reported approximately 2,500 and 1,889 individuals, respectively. Anecdotal reports from Mexico suggest that the species may be increasing in numbers in urban areas of Tamaulipas and Neuvo Leon.
The primary threats within Mexico and Texas remain habitat destruction and modification from logging, deforestation, and conversion of suitable habitat for agricultural and urban development purposes. In addition, existing regulations do not adequately address the habitat or capture and trade threats to the species. Thus, the inadequacy of existing regulations and their enforcement continue to threaten the red-crowned parrot
exico and Texas remain habitat destruction and modification from logging, deforestation, and conversion of suitable habitat for agricultural and urban development purposes. In addition, existing regulations do not adequately address the habitat or capture and trade threats to the species. Thus, the inadequacy of existing regulations and their enforcement continue to threaten the red-crowned parrot. Disease and predation are not documented to threaten the species. Pesticide exposure is not known to affect the red-crowned parrot. Conservation efforts include the artificial nest structure projects, as well as habitat creation projects such as one 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 initial steps and no results are yet available. Threats to the species are imminent because habitat destruction and inadequate regulatory mechanisms are ongoing. In addition, the threats are high in magnitude, because they affect the species extensively at a population level; therefore, we have determined that a LPN of 2 remains appropriate for the species.
Sprague's pipit ( Anthus spragueii )—See above in “Listing Priority Changes in Candidates.”
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, Oregon, California, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, South Dakota, and North Dakota) and 2 Canadian provinces (Alberta and Saskatchewan), occupying approximately 56 percent of their historical range. Greater sage-grouse depend on a variety of shrub-steppe habitats throughout their life cycle, and are obligate users of several species of sagebrush.
The primary threat to greater sage-grouse is ongoing fragmentation and loss of shrub-steppe habitats through a variety of mechanisms
and 2 Canadian provinces (Alberta and Saskatchewan), occupying approximately 56 percent of their historical range. Greater sage-grouse depend on a variety of shrub-steppe habitats throughout their life cycle, and are obligate users of several species of sagebrush.
The primary threat to greater sage-grouse is ongoing fragmentation and loss of shrub-steppe habitats through a variety of mechanisms. Most importantly, increasing fire cycles and invasive plants (and the interaction between them) in more westerly parts of the range, along with energy development and related infrastructure in more easterly areas, are negatively affecting the species. In addition, direct loss of habitat and fragmentation is occurring due to agriculture, urbanization, and infrastructure such as roads and power lines built in support of several activities. We also have determined that currently existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect the species from these ongoing threats. However, many of these hab

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

## Nearby sections

- [79 FR 70 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2013-31300.md)
- [79 FR 298 Administrative Simplification: Certification of Compliance for Health Plans](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2013-31318.md)
- [79 FR 375 Revised Postage and Fee Refund Criteria](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2013-31443.md)
- [79 FR 379 National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Secondary Lead Smelting](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2013-31266.md)
- [79 FR 778 Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2014-00010.md)
- [79 FR 1122 Fall 2013 Semiannual Agenda of Regulations](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2013-29629.md)
- [79 FR 1216 Fall 2013 Regulatory Agenda](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2013-29640.md)
- [79 FR 1242 Semiannual Regulatory Agenda](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2013-29701.md)
- [79 FR 1298 Regulatory Flexibility Agenda](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2013-29708.md)
- [79 FR 1336 Special Conditions: Airbus, Model A350-900 Series Airplane; Flight Envelope Protection: High Speed Limiting](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2014-00100.md)
- [79 FR 1339 Special Conditions: Airbus, Model A350-900 Series Airplane; Lateral Trim Function Through Differential Flap Setting](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2014-00105.md)
- [79 FR 1347 Request for Comment on Application of Commission Regulations to Swaps Between Non-U.S. Swap Dealers and Non-U.S. Counterparties Involving Personnel or Agents of the Non-U.S. Swap Dealers Located in the United States](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2014-00080.md)
- [79 FR 1607 Proposed Modification of Class E Airspace; Hulett, WY](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2014-00154.md)
- [79 FR 1612 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2014-00160.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2014-28536. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.