Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Species
That Are Candidates or Proposed for Listing as Endangered or
Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Recycled Petitions; Annual
Description of Progress on Listing Actions
[Federal Register: June 13, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 114)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 40657-40679]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13jn02-36]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Species
That Are Candidates or Proposed for Listing as Endangered or
Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Recycled 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
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 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 fewer restrictions on activities by prompting candidate
conservation measures to alleviate threats to the species.
We request additional status information that may be available for
the identified candidate species and information on species that we
should include as candidates in future updates of this list. We will
consider this information in preparing listing documents and future
revisions to the notice of review. This information will help us in
monitoring changes in the status of candidate species and in conserving
candidate species.
We announce the availability of Candidate and Listing Priority
Assignment Forms (candidate forms) for each candidate species. These
documents describe the status and threats that we evaluated in order to
assign a listing priority number to each species. We also announce our
findings on recycled petitions and describe our progress in revising
the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants during the
period October 30, 2001 to May 30, 2002.
DATES: We will accept comments on the candidate notice of review at any
time.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments regarding a particular species to the
Regional Director of the Region identified in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
as having the lead responsibility for that species. You may submit
comments of a more general nature to the Chief, Division of
Conservation and Classification, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401
N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203 (703/358-2171). Written
comments and materials received in response to this notice will be
available for public inspection by appointment at the Division of
Conservation and Classification (for comments of a general nature only)
or at the appropriate Regional Office listed in SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
Information regarding the range, status, and habitat needs of and
listing priority assignment for a particular species is available for
review at the appropriate Regional Office listed below in SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION, at the Division of Conservation and Classification,
Arlington, Virginia (see address above), or on our internet
[[Page 40658]]
website (http://www.endangered.fws.gov).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Endangered Species Coordinator(s)
in the appropriate Regional Office(s) or Chris Nolin, Chief, Division
of Conservation and Classification (703/358-2171).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Candidate Notice of Review
Background
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) (Act), requires that we identify species of wildlife and plants
that are endangered or threatened, based on the best available
scientific and commercial information. Through the Federal rulemaking
process, we add these species 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 is one
for which we have on file sufficient information on biological
vulnerability and threats to support a proposal to list as endangered
or threatened but for which preparation and publication of a proposal
is precluded by higher-priority listing actions. We maintain this list
for a variety of reasons, including: to notify the public that these
species are facing threat to their survival; to provide advance
knowledge of potential listings that could affect decisions of
environmental planners and developers; to solicit input from interested
parties to identify those candidate species that may not require
protection under the Act or additional species that may require the
Act's protections; and to solicit information needed to prioritize the
order in which we will propose species for listing.
Table 1 of this notice includes 260 species that we regard as
candidates for addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants (Lists), as well as 39 species for which we have
published proposed rules to list as threatened or endangered species,
most of which we identified as candidates in the October 30, 2001,
Candidate Notice of Review (66 FR 54808). We encourage consideration of
these species in environmental planning, such as in environmental
impact analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(implemented at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and in local and statewide land
use planning. Table 2 of this notice contains eight species we
identified as candidates or as proposed species in the October 30,
2001, Candidate Notice of Review that we now no longer consider
candidates. This includes six species we listed as threatened or
endangered since October 30, 2001, and two species we removed as
candidates through this notice. The Regional Offices identified as
having lead responsibility for the particular species will continually
revise and update the information on candidate species. We intend to
publish an updated combined notice of review for animals and plants,
including our findings on recycled petitions and a description of our
progress on listing actions, annually in the Federal Register.
Previous Notices of Review
The Act directed the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to
prepare a report on endangered and threatened plant species, which was
published as House Document No. 94-51. We published a notice in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1975 (40 FR 27823), in which we announced
that we would review more than 3,000 native plant species named in the
Smithsonian's report and other species added by the 1975 notice for
possible addition to the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. A
new comprehensive notice of review for native plants, which took into
account the earlier Smithsonian report and other accumulated
information, superseded the 1975 notice on December 15, 1980 (45 FR
82479). On November 28, 1983 (48 FR 53640), a supplemental plant notice
of review noted changes in the status of various species. We published
complete updates of the plant notice on September 27, 1985 (50 FR
39526), February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184), September 30, 1993 (58 FR
51144), and, as part of combined animal and plant notices, on February
28, 1996 (61 FR 7596), September 19, 1997 (62 FR 49398), October 25,
1999 (64 FR 57534), and October 30, 2001 (66 FR 54808). On January 8,
2001 (66 FR 1295), we published our recycled petition finding for one
plant species that had an outstanding warranted but precluded finding.
Previous animal notices of review included a number of the animal
species in the accompanying Table 1. We published earlier comprehensive
reviews for vertebrate animals in the Federal Register on December 30,
1982 (47 FR 58454), and on September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37958). We
published an initial comprehensive review for invertebrate animals on
May 22, 1984 (49 FR 21664). We published a combined animal notice of
review on January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554), and with minor corrections on
August 10, 1989 (54 FR 32833). We again published comprehensive animal
notices on November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804), November 15, 1994 (59 FR
58982), and, as part of combined animal and plant notices, on February
28, 1996 (61 FR 7596), September 19, 1997 (62 FR 49398), October 25,
1999 (64 FR 57534), and October 30, 2001 (66 FR 54808). On January 8,
2001 (66 FR 1295), we published our recycled petition findings for 25
animal species that had outstanding warranted but precluded findings as
well as notice of 1 candidate removal. This revised notice supersedes
all previous animal, plant, and combined notices of review.
Current Notice of Review
We gather data on plants and animals native to the United States
that appear to merit consideration for addition to the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. This notice identifies
those species that we currently regard as candidates for addition to
the Lists. These species include, by definition, biological species;
subspecies of fish, wildlife, or plants; and distinct population
segments (DPSs) of vertebrate animals. In issuing this compilation, we
rely on information from status surveys conducted for candidate
assessment and on information from State Natural Heritage Programs,
other State and Federal agencies (such as the Forest Service and the
Bureau of Land Management), knowledgeable scientists, public and
private natural resource interests, and comments received in response
to previous notices of review.
Tables 1 and 2 are arranged alphabetically by common names under
the major group headings for animals first, then alphabetically by
names of genera, species, and relevant subspecies and varieties for
plants. Animals are grouped by class or order. Plants are subdivided
into three groups: flowering plants, conifers and cycads, and ferns and
their allies. Useful synonyms and subgeneric scientific names appear in
parentheses with the synonyms preceded by an equals sign. Several
species that have not yet been formally described in the scientific
literature are included; such species are identified by a generic or
specific name (in italics) followed by ``sp.'' or ``ssp.'' We
incorporate standardized common names in these notices as they become
available. We sorted plants by scientific name due to the
inconsistencies in common names, the inclusion of vernacular and
composite subspecific names, and the fact that many plants still lack a
standardized common name.
Table 1 lists all species that we regard as candidates for listing
and all species
[[Page 40659]]
proposed for listing under the Act. We emphasize that we are not
proposing these candidate species for listing by this notice, but we
anticipate developing and publishing proposed listing rules for these
species in the future. We encourage State agencies, other Federal
agencies, and other parties to give consideration to these species in
environmental planning.
Species in Table 1 of this notice are assigned to several status
categories, noted in the ``Category'' column at the left side of the
table. We explain the codes for the category status column of species
in Table 1 below:
PE--Species proposed for listing as endangered. Proposed species are
those species for which we have published a proposed rule to list as
endangered or threatened in the Federal Register (exclusive of species
for which we have withdrawn or finalized the proposed rule).
PT--Species proposed for listing as threatened.
C--Candidates: Species for which we have on file sufficient information
on biological vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list
them as endangered or threatened. Issuance of proposed rules for these
species is precluded at present by other higher priority listing
actions. This category includes species for which we made a ``warranted
but precluded'' 12-month finding on a petition to list. We made new
findings on all petitions for which we previously made ``warranted but
precluded'' findings. We identify the species for which we made a
continued ``warranted but precluded'' finding on a recycled petition by
the code ``C*'' in the category column (see Findings on Recycled
Petitions section for additional information).
The column labeled ``Priority'' indicates the listing priority
number (LPN) for each candidate species that we use to determine the
most appropriate use of our available resources, with low numbers
having the highest priority. We assign this number based on the
immediacy and magnitude of threats as well as on taxonomic status. We
published a complete description of our listing priority system in the
Federal Register on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098).
The third column identifies the Regional Office to which you should
direct comments or questions (see addresses at the end of the
Supplementary Information section). We provided the comments received
in response to the 1999 notice of review to the Region having lead
responsibility for each candidate species mentioned in the comment. We
will likewise consider all information provided in response to this
notice of review in deciding whether to propose species for listing and
when to undertake necessary listing actions. Comments received will
become part of the administrative record for the species, which is
maintained at the appropriate Regional Office.
Following the scientific name (fourth column) and the family
designation (fifth column) is the common name (sixth column). The
seventh column provides the known historical range for the species or
vertebrate population (for vertebrate populations, this is the
historical range for the entire species or subspecies and not just the
historical range for the distinct population segment), indicated by
postal code abbreviations for States and U.S. territories. Many species
no longer occur in all of the areas listed.
Species in Table 2 of this notice are species we included either as
proposed species or as candidates in the 2001 notice of review. Since
the 2001 CNOR, we added six of these species to the Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. We removed the other two species
from candidate status for the reasons as indicated by the codes. The
first column indicates the present status of the species, using the
following codes:
E--Species we listed as endangered.
T--Species we listed as threatened.
Rc--Species we removed from the candidate list because currently
available information does not support a proposed listing.
Rp--Species we removed from the candidate list because we have
withdrawn the proposed listing.
The second column indicates why we no longer regard the species as
a candidate or proposed species using the following codes:
A--Species that are more abundant or widespread than previously
believed and species that are not subject to the degree of threats
sufficient to warrant continuing candidate status, or issuing a
proposed or final listing. The reduction in threats could be due, in
part, or entirely, to actions taken under a conservation agreement.
F--Species whose range no longer includes a U.S. territory.
I--Species for which we have insufficient information on biological
vulnerability and threats to support issuance of a proposed rule to
list.
L--Species we added to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants.
M--Species we mistakenly included as candidates or proposed species in
the last notice of review.
N--Species that are not listable entities based on the Act's definition
of ``species'' and current taxonomic understanding.
X--Species we believe to be extinct.
The columns describing lead region, scientific name, family, common
name, and historic range include information as previously described
for Table 1.
Summary
Since publication of the 2001 notice of review, we reviewed the
available information on candidate species to ensure that a proposed
listing is justified for each species and to reevaluate the relative
listing priority assignment of each species. We also evaluated whether
we should emergency list any of these species, particularly species
with high priorities (i.e., species with LPNs of 1, 2, or 3). We
undertook this effort to ensure we focus conservation efforts on those
species at greatest risk. As of May 30, 2002, 7 plants and 27 animals
are proposed for endangered status; 5 animals are proposed for
threatened status (one is proposed due to similarity in appearance);
and 141 plant and 119 animal candidates are awaiting preparation of
proposed rules (see Table 1). Table 2 includes 8 species that we
previously classified as either proposed for listing or candidates that
we no longer classify in those categories.
Summary of New Candidates
Below we present brief summaries of new candidates. Complete
information, including references, can be found in the candidate forms.
You may obtain a copy of these forms from the Regional office that has
the lead for the species or from our internet website (http://
endangered.fws.gov).
Amphibians
Relict leopard frog (Rana onca)--The relict leopard frog is a
medium-sized brownish grey frog in the family Ranidae. Considered
extinct since the 1950s, the species was rediscovered in 1991. Its
current distribution is limited to 5 sites within 2 general areas in
Nevada, although historical records exist at more than 12 sites along
the Virgin and Colorado Rivers in Utah, Nevada, and Arizona. Since its
rediscovery, 2 of the 5 sites have been extirpated. Primary threats
include decreased water availability due to dam construction for power
management, conversion of wetland habitat to agriculture and
urbanization, introduction of predatory game fishes,
[[Page 40660]]
and habitat degradation through recreational use. Currently, State and
local regulations have been insufficient to protect the relict leopard
frog and its habitat. We have determined that, although the threats are
of high magnitude, they are nonimminent; therefore, we assigned a
listing priority number of 5 to this species.
Austin blind salamander (Eurycea waterlooensis)--The Austin blind
salamander is a small aquatic salamander approximately 6.4 centimeters
(cm) (2.5 inches (in)) in length. The species lacks external eyes, has
permanent external gills, a narrow head, and an extended snout. The
Austin blind salamander is known from three spring outlets in Travis
County, Texas. The species is believed to spend most of its life cycle
underground, living in the Edwards Aquifer. Primary threats include
degradation of water quality and quantity due to urbanization. Water
quality data reflect a long-term trend of water quality degradation
within Austin blind salamander habitat over the past 25 years.
Currently no State or Federal regulations provide protection for this
salamander. Due to imminent threats of a high magnitude, we assigned a
listing priority number of 2 to this species.
California tiger salamander, Sonoma County DPS (Ambystoma
californiense)--The California tiger salamander is a large, stocky,
terrestrial salamander with a broad, rounded snout and is restricted to
grasslands and lower foothill regions of California. The Sonoma County
population of the California tiger salamander is presumed to have
historically occurred in suitable habitat throughout the Santa Rosa
Plain in Sonoma County in the North Bay Area. The Sonoma County
population of the California tiger salamander has been extirpated from
much of its historic range and is limited in its remaining habitat. All
breeding sites, including those located in preserves, are currently
affected by urban impacts (mostly housing developments) within 1
kilometer of the breeding pool location. One breeding site is affected
by agricultural impacts such as discing, orchards, and vineyard
conversion. Vandalism, collecting, harassment, and killing are serious
threats to the species, given the fact that virtually every remaining
population is surrounded by or adjacent to residential development.
Predation is a significant problem for the Sonoma County California
tiger salamander population. Introduced bullfrogs and fish, such as
mosquito fish, that feed on the eggs and larvae inhabit many pools that
hold water all year. This effectively eliminates the Sonoma County
California tiger salamander from pools that otherwise would be valuable
breeding grounds. Domestic dogs and cats from urbanized areas may harm
migrating Sonoma County California tiger salamanders. Several other
factors may have an adverse impact on the Sonoma County California
tiger salamanders including increased traffic. Increased vehicular
traffic results in direct mortality, as well as indirect mortality by
pollution through car emissions which reduces the number of
invertebrates found in pools, a food source for California tiger
salamanders. Other contaminants, rodent control, and use of water from
breeding ponds for irrigation and flood control may also adversely
affect Sonoma County California tiger salamanders. Existing regulations
are inadequate to protect the Sonoma County California tiger
salamander. For example, protection offered by the Clean Water Act
extends only to the pool itself with a small upland buffer. This is
insufficient to protect most adult California tiger salamanders, which
spend the majority of their life cycle in upland habitats that extend
well beyond the upland boundary. Since Sonoma County California tiger
salamanders spend up to 80 percent of their life in small mammal
burrows in upland habitats surrounding breeding pools, the protection
of the pool itself, with concurrent loss of uplands surrounding the
pool, would still result in the loss of local Sonoma County California
tiger salamanders. The Sonoma County California tiger salamander is a
species of special concern under the California Endangered Species Act
(CEQA), which requires a full disclosure of the potential environmental
impacts of proposed projects. However, protection of listed species
through CEQA is dependent upon the discretion of the agency involved in
the project, and projects may be approved that cause significant
environmental damage, such as destruction of listed endangered species
and/or their habitat. Based on imminent threats of a high magnitude, we
assigned a listing priority number of 3 to this DPS.
Salado salamander (Eurycea chisholmensis)--The Salado salamander is
a small aquatic salamander approximately 5 cm (2 in) in length. The
species is known from two spring sites fed by the Edwards Aquifer near
Salado in Bell County, Texas. Primary threats include degradation of
water quality and quantity due to urbanization. Several spills of
gasoline and petroleum in the local area have likely resulted in
groundwater contamination that affects the species. Currently no State
or Federal regulation provides protection for this salamander. Due to
imminent threats of a high magnitude, we assigned a listing priority
number of 2 to this species.
Fish
Chucky madtom (Noturus sp.cf. Noturus elegans)--The chucky madtom
is currently restricted to two sites in Little Chucky Creek in Greene
County, Tennessee. Preliminary genetic analyses have indicated that the
chucky madtom is a unique species; scientists are currently completing
a formal description that will result in the taxon becoming a distinct
species. Historically, this species was previously collected from Dunn
Creek, a stream that is in a different watershed and physiographic
province than Little Chucky Creek, so it is likely that the historic
range of the chucky madtom encompassed a wider area in the Ridge and
Valley and Blue Ridge physiographic provinces in Tennessee than is
demonstrated by its current distribution. Since this species is only
known to occur in one stream, it is vulnerable to random catastrophic
events that may extirpate it. The chucky madtom is a bottom-dwelling
species and is susceptible to sedimentation and other pollutants that
degrade or eliminate habitat and food sources. The majority of the
Little Chucky Creek watershed is privately owned and managed for beef
cattle production, tobacco cultivation, and row crops, especially corn
and soybeans. Therefore, nonpoint source sediment and agrochemical
inputs into Little Chucky Creek from local agricultural and other
sources can adversely affect the chucky madtom by altering the physical
characteristics of its habitat. Such alterations would impede its
ability to feed, seek shelter from predators, and successfully
reproduce. The Dunn Creek watershed shares some of these same
agricultural pressures, and these will continue to threaten the species
if it still occurs there. Additional threats within the Dunn Creek
watershed also include residential development and associated new
infrastructure (e.g., roads, utilities, etc.) that contribute sediment
and other pollutants to the stream or alter riparian areas. Overall, we
believe that the potential demographic effects of inbreeding, limited
species distribution, and low number of individuals pose the most
significant threats to the chucky madtom. Although the chucky madtom
was listed as endangered by the State of Tennessee, this listing only
requires collectors of this species to have a State collection permit
and does not provide
[[Page 40661]]
adequate protection to this species. Because the threats to the chucky
madtom are of a high magnitude and imminent, we assigned this species a
listing priority number of 2.
Grotto sculpin (Cottus sp., sp. nov.)--The Grotto sculpin is a
small fish within the banded sculpin taxonomic complex that exhibits
cave-adapted features, including nearly nonfunctional eyes, reduced
skin pigmentation, and smaller optic nerves. The species inhabits pools
and riffles within cave systems in two karst (cave) areas in Perry
County, Missouri. Only a few thousand individuals are thought to exist.
The species is threatened by water quality contamination as a result of
point and nonpoint pollution sources. A large die-off of all Grotto
sculpins in one of the five known occupied cave systems known to have
the species was likely a result of pollution. The species is also
threatened by predatory fish that likely prey upon Grotto sculpin,
which are known from all locations occupied by the species. Currently
no State or Federal regulations provide protection for the Grotto
sculpin. Due to imminent threats of a high magnitude, we assigned a
listing priority number of 2 to this species.
Rush darter (Etheostoma phytophilum)--The rush darter, a medium-
sized darter (40 millimeters (mm) (2 in)), is currently known to have
one of the most restricted distributions of any vertebrate in Alabama.
Historically, rush darters have been found in three distinct
watersheds, but currently there are only two known populations. One
population is located in Wildcat Branch and Mill Creek in the Clear
Creek drainage in Winston County, and the second is located in an
unnamed spring run to Beaver Creek and in Penny Springs in the Turkey
Creek drainage in Jefferson County. The rush darter is vulnerable to
nonpoint source pollution, urbanization, and changes in stream
geomorphology due to its localized distribution in parts of two
unconnected stream drainages and its apparent low population sizes. The
rush darter's range is close to metropolitan Birmingham, Alabama, an
area in which all of the activities listed above are occurring, so
impacts from these activities on the rush darter and its habitat have
occurred and are very likely to continue to occur. The disjunct
distribution of the rush darter makes their populations vulnerable to
extirpation from catastrophic events, such as toxic spills or changes
in flow regimes. Currently no State or Federal regulations provide
protection for the rush darter. Based on nonimminent threats of a high
magnitude, we assigned a listing priority number of 5 to this species.
Sharpnose shiner (Notropis oxyrhynchus)--The sharpnose shiner is a
small, slender minnow, endemic to the Brazos River Basin in Texas.
Historically, the sharpnose shiner existed throughout the Brazos River
and several of its major tributaries within the watershed. Current
information indicates that the population within the Upper Brazos River
drainage (upstream of Possum Kingdom Reservoir) is apparently stable,
while the population within the Middle and Lower Brazos River Basins
may only exist in remnant areas of suitable habitat, or may be
completely extirpated, representing a reduction of approximately 64
percent of its historical range. The most significant threat to the
existence of the sharpnose shiner is the present and continued
modification of its habitat by reservoir construction, irrigation and
water diversion, sedimentation, industrial and municipal discharges,
and agricultural activities. The current limited distribution of the
sharpnose shiner within the Upper Brazos River Basin makes it
vulnerable to catastrophic events such as the introduction of
competitive species or prolonged drought. Other possible threats
include toxins released by blooms of golden algae, and sand and gravel
operations in the Lower Brazos River. The effects of these last two
possible threats may be insignificant, but further information is
necessary. State law does not provide protection for the sharpnose
shiner. Because these threats are nonimminent but of a high magnitude,
we assigned a listing priority number of 5 to this species.
Smalleye shiner (Notropis buccula)--The smalleye shiner is a small,
pallid minnow endemic to the Brazos River Basin in Texas. The
population of smalleye shiners within the Upper Brazos River drainage
(upstream of Possum Kingdom Reservoir) is apparently stable. However,
the shiner has not been collected since 1976 downstream from the
reservoir, and in all likelihood the species is completely extirpated
from this area representing a reduction of approximately 64 percent of
its historical range. The most significant threat to the existence of
the smalleye shiner is the present and continued modification of its
habitat by reservoir construction, irrigation and water diversion,
sedimentation, industrial and municipal discharges, and agricultural
activities. The current limited distribution of the smalleye shiner
within the Upper Brazos River Basin makes it vulnerable to catastrophic
events such as introduction of competitive species or prolonged
drought. State law does not provide protection for the smalleye shiner.
Because these threats are high but nonimminent, we assigned a listing
priority number of 5 to this species.
Clams
Altamaha spinymussel (Elliptio spinosa)--The Altamaha spinymussel
is a freshwater mussel endemic to the Altamaha River drainage of
southeastern Georgia. Individuals are medium to large in size,
greenish-yellow to deep brown in color, and have one to five prominent
spines on the shells. Historically known from four rivers, the Altamaha
spinymussel appears to remain in two of these in greatly reduced
numbers. The species is threatened throughout its range by
sedimentation and contamination of waterways. One population is
additionally threatened by the proposed expansion of a nuclear power
plant, which may result in habitat alteration from changes in stream
channel morphology, and in heat stress to individuals and populations,
algal blooms, and oxygen depletion as a result of thermal discharges
during low water conditions. We have determined that, although the
threats are of high magnitude, they are nonimminent; therefore, we
assigned a listing priority number of 5 to this species.
Snails
Elongate mud meadows pyrg (Pyrgulopsis notidicola)--The elongate
mud meadows pyrg is a small freshwater springsnail found only in a 300
meter (984 foot) stretch of a single thermal spring and associated
outflow in Humboldt County, Nevada. The primary threat to the species
is alteration and degradation of its habitat by recreational users that
come to the spring to bathe. Visitor use of this area has increased
substantially over the past decade due to increased awareness of the
site and the recent designation of it as a national conservation area.
Although the land is owned and managed by the Bureau of Land
Management, the remote nature of the site has made it difficult to
manage visitor use, implement conservation actions, and enforce
regulations. Due to imminent threats of a high magnitude, we assigned a
listing priority number of 2 to this species.
Insects
Dakota skipper (Hesperia dacotae)--The Dakota skipper is a small-to
mid-sized butterfly that inhabits high-quality tallgrass and mixed
grass prairie in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota,
[[Page 40662]]
and the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan in Canada. The species
appears to have been extirpated from Iowa and Illinois, as well as many
sites within States with extant locations. The species is threatened by
the large-scale conversion of native prairie to agricultural purposes,
as well as fire management, grazing, plant invasion, and fragmentation
of habitat leading to local extirpations. Although the species is
listed as threatened by the State of Minnesota, this designation lacks
the habitat protections needed for long-term conservation. The species
is listed as endangered by the province of Manitoba. However, the
protections in Manitoba are not sufficient to remove the threats to the
species. Due to efforts that have been made to preserve habitat through
conservation easements at some of the known locations, the threats to
the species are low to moderate and nonimminent. Therefore, we assigned
a listing priority number of 11 to the species.
Stephan's riffle beetle (Heterelmis stephani)--Stephan's riffle
beetle is found only in limited spring environments within the Santa
Rita Mountains, Pima County, Arizona. Based on relatively intensive
surveys of the surrounding area, the entire range of this species is
believed to be confined to Madera Canyon where it lives in shallow
streams, rapids, or other comparable water situations. The springs
where Stephan's riffle beetle is known to occur no longer exist in
their natural condition; all have been boxed, capped, or channeled into
pipes. The loss of habitat at the type locality (location where the
species was first described) has eliminated what was likely a
significant population of this species. In the absence of public
education, recreationists that use the springs may unwittingly degrade
habitat by introducing chemicals or allowing pets into the springs.
Additionally, endemic spring-dependent organisms whose populations
exhibit a high degree of geographic isolation, like Stephan's riffle
beetle, are extremely susceptible to random extinction resulting from
catastrophic natural disasters such as fires, floods, or changes in
spring water chemistry. Currently, no State or local government
programs exist that address the conservation of rare and imperiled
insects such as this beetle. Based on nonimminent threats of a high
magnitude, we assigned a listing priority number of 5 to this species.
Flowering Plants
Calochortus persistens (Siskiyou mariposa lily)--Calochortus
persistens is a narrow endemic that is restricted to two disjunct ridge
tops in the Klamath-Siskiyou Range, on the California-Oregon border. In
California, this species is currently found at nine separate sites on
approximately 10 hectares (ha) (24.7 acres (ac)) of Klamath National
Forest and privately owned lands that stretch for 6 kilometers (km)
(3.7 miles (mi)) along the Gunsight-Humbug Ridge. The Oregon population
was described in 1998 as five plants in an area of a few square feet,
but no plants have been seen at this site for the past 2 years. Major
threats include fire suppression resulting in shading; competition by
native and nonnative species; increased fuel loading; fragmentation by
roads, fire breaks, tree plantations, and radio-tower facilities;
maintenance and construction around radio towers and telephone relay
stations located on Gunsight Peak and Mahogany Point; and soil
disturbance and exotic weed and grass species introduction as a result
of heavy recreational use. Isatis tinctoria (dyer's woad), a plant
thought to prevent C. persistens seedling establishment, is now found
throughout the California population, affecting 90 percent of the known
lily habitat. Forest Service staff and the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands
Center cite competition with dyer's woad as a significant and chronic
threat to the survival of C. persistens. Unpublished data show that
there has been no successful reproduction of C. persistens in the last
5 years. The combination of restricted range, apparent loss of one of
two disjunct populations, poor competitive ability, short seed
dispersal distance, slow growth rates, extremely low or absent seed
production, and competition from exotic plants threaten the continued
existence of this species. Due to imminent threats of a high magnitude,
we assigned a listing priority number of 2 to this species.
Ivesia webberi (Webber ivesia)--Ivesia webberi is a low, spreading,
perennial herb that occurs very infrequently in Lassen, Plumas, and
Sierra Counties in California, and in Douglas and Washoe Counties,
Nevada. The 15 currently known occurrences are clustered in seven
general locations covering about 75 hectares (ha) (185 acres (ac)). The
species occurs in immediate proximity to rapidly growing urban areas in
the foothills of the Sierra Nevada and in the western Great Basin near
Reno, Nevada. Threats to I. webberi generally include urban
development, authorized and unauthorized roads, off-road vehicle
activities and other dispersed recreation, livestock grazing and
trampling, fire and fire suppression activities including fuels
reduction and prescribed fires, and displacement by noxious weeds.
Evidence of impacts from these types of uses has been documented at the
majority of I. webberi populations. The Bureau of Land Management
classifies I. webberi as a sensitive species; however, no specific
management guidelines to ensure the conservation of this species are
currently being implemented. Ivesia webberi is designated as threatened
by the Nevada Native Plant Society, and participants of the 2000 Nevada
Rare Plant Workshop recommended that the State of Nevada consider the
species for listing as critically endangered under Nevada Revised
Statutes (NRS) 527.270 et seq. If the species were to be listed under
the NRS, permits for the disturbance of habitat or taking of
individuals would have to be obtained from the Nevada Division of
Forestry. The adequacy of this law depends greatly on informed and
cooperative landowners and land managers or some form of deterrent
enforcement, which the current NRS do not articulate. This plant is on
the California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) 1B list (plants considered
rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere), which
meets the definitions under the Native Plant Protection Act and the
California Endangered Species Act and is eligible for State listing.
Plants on the CNPS 1B list must be fully considered during the
environmental documentation process under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). However, CEQA only requires disclosure of a
project's impacts on the species; it does not provide protective
management for I. webberi. Because these threats are high in magnitude
but nonimminent, we assigned a listing priority number of 5 to this
species.
Potentilla basaltica (Soldier Meadows cinquefoil or basalt
cinquefoil)--Potentilla basaltica is a low-growing, herbaceous
perennial known only from Soldier Meadow in Humboldt County, Nevada,
and Ash Valley in Lassen County, California. It is restricted to moist
meadows and seeps and their margins in alkaline, sandy soils between
1,320 and 1,555 meters (m) (4,330 and 5,100 feet (ft)) elevation. In
general, populations of P. basaltica are distant from urban centers;
however, these areas are popular for recreation and are often affected
by livestock grazing. While all of the occurrences of P. basaltica are
currently presumed extant, all are being severely affected by land uses
within and around Ash Valley in California and the Black Rock region in
Nevada. Various direct impacts to P.
[[Page 40663]]
basaltica populations and habitat have occurred in past years and
continue to affect the species, including channelizing spring outflow
for livestock and recreational uses; trampling by livestock;
degradation or elimination of habitat for agriculture, livestock
grazing, and recreational uses; development of hot springs and camping
areas; roads and off-highway vehicle activity; geothermal exploration;
and introduction of invasive, nonnative species. The Bureau of Land
Management classifies P. basaltica as a sensitive species; however, no
specific management guidelines to ensure the conservation of this
species are currently being implemented. This plant is on the CNPS 1B
list (plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California
and elsewhere), which indicates the plant meets the definitions under
the Native Plant Protection Act and the California Endangered Species
Act and is eligible for State listing. Plants on the CNPS 1B list must
be fully considered during the environmental documentation process
under CEQA. However, CEQA only requires disclosure of a project's
impacts on the species; it does not provide protective management for
P. basaltica. Potentilla basaltica is not currently listed by the State
of Nevada but is considered threatened by the Nevada Native Plant
Society. Because the threats to this species are high in magnitude but
nonimminent, we assigned it a listing priority number of 5.
Summary of Listing Priority Changes in Candidates
Birds
Western Sage Grouse, Columbia Basin Distinct Population Segment
(Centrocercus urophasianus phaios)--We changed the listing priority
number from a 9 to a 6 because the threats are now of a high magnitude
for the species based on the small and fragmented nature of the
population and by a 30 percent decline in abundance of this DPS between
2000 and 2001. While this species exhibits natural fluctuations in
population size, the overall population estimate of approximately 700
individuals is the lowest ever recorded. However, there is no apparent
direct cause-and-effect between the identified threats and the recent
decline. We also have determined that the threats previously considered
imminent are no longer imminent. Military training constitutes the
primary threat to the southern population, while habitat conversion
(primarily loss of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) acreage) is the
primary threat impacting the northern subpopulation. We have concluded
that threats related to military training are not imminent, based on
the implementation of the Army's conservation measures, and
considerably lower levels of actual training (from planned activities)
occurring in Yakima and Kittitas Counties. We have likewise concluded
that the threat to the northern population from habitat conversion is
also not imminent, because much of the CRP acreage that could have
expired was re-signed and increased in 1998 in Douglas County. Thus,
threats previously classified as imminent are actually non-imminent in
nature.
Fish
Arkansas darter (Etheostoma cragini)--We changed the listing
priority number from a 5 to an 11 because the species appears to be
stable throughout much of its range, and the threats to the species
from water depletion no longer appear to be of high magnitude.
Snails
Chupadera springsnail (Pyrgulopsis chupaderae)--We changed the
listing priority number from an 8 to a 2 because the threats are now
high for the species due to intentional burning in January 2002 of the
wetland vegetation at the only known location of the species.
Therefore, we are classifying the immediacy of the threats as imminent.
Flowering Plants
Florida semaphore cactus (Consolea (Opuntia) corallicola)--We
changed the listing priority number from a 5 to a 2 because the threats
to the species are more imminent than previously known. The species is
known from only two sites, one of which was recently discovered. The
original population was determined to only contain males, which
eliminates the possibility of sexual reproduction at the site and
reduces the genetic viability. In addition, the new population is
threatened by an introduced moth that has decimated populations of
other cactus species within the same genus.
Umtanum desert buckwheat (Eriogonum codium)--We changed the listing
priority number from a 5 to a 2 because we discovered new information
about the lack of reproduction in the species, which increases the
imminence of threat of decimation through wildfire and human
disturbance.
Candidate Removals
Insects
Fabulous green sphinx moth (Tinostoma smargditis)--Only 17
specimens of this moth have ever been found since it was first
discovered in 1895, through 1998, the last survey effort we funded.
During the 1998 survey, we hoped to learn the host plant for the moth.
However, the completed survey did not provide any additional
information on the host plant. Because of this, we have insufficient
information on the specific threats to this species. Thus we are
removing this species as a candidate, due to the lack of key specific
information for this species.
Flowering Plants
Pleomele fernaldii (Hala pepe)--Pleomele fernaldii is being removed
since it was mistakenly included as a candidate in the previous
candidate notice of review.
Petition for a Candidate Species
The Act provides two mechanisms for considering species for
listing. First, the Act requires us to identify and propose for listing
those species that require listing under the standards of section
4(a)(1). We implement this through the candidate program, discussed
above. Second, the Act provides a mechanism for the public to petition
us to add a species to the Lists. Under section 4(b)(3)(A), when we
receive such a petition, we must determine within 90 days, to the
maximum extent practicable, whether the petition presents substantial
information that listing is warranted (a ``90-day finding''). If we
make a positive 90-day finding, under section 4(b)(3)(B) we must make
one of three possible findings within 12 months of the receipt of the
petition (a ``12-month finding'').
The first possible 12-month finding is that listing is not
warranted, in which case we need take no further action on the
petition. Second, we may find that listing is warranted, in which case
we must promptly publish a proposed rule to list the species. Once we
publish a proposed rule for a species, section 4(b)(5) and (6) govern
further procedures, regardless of whether or not we issued the proposal
in response to a petition. Third, we may find that listing is
``warranted but precluded.'' Such a finding means that immediate
publication of a proposed rule to list the species is precluded by
higher priority listing proposals, and that we are making expeditious
progress to add and remove species from the Lists, as appropriate.
[[Page 40664]]
The standard for making a 12-month warranted but precluded finding
on a petition to list a species is identical to our standard for making
a species a candidate for listing. Therefore, we add all petitioned
species subject to such a finding to the candidate list. Similarly, we
can treat all candidates as having been subject to both a positive 90-
day finding and a warranted but precluded 12-month finding. This notice
constitutes publication of such findings pursuant to section 4(b)(3)
for each candidate species listed in Table 1 that is the subject of a
subsequent petition to list as threatened or endangered. Under our
Petition Management Guidance, made available on July 9, 1996 (61 FR
36075), we consider a petition to list a species already on the
candidate list to be a second petition and, therefore, redundant. We do
not interpret the petition provisions of the Act to require us to make
a duplicative finding. Therefore, we are not making additional 90-day
findings or initial 12-month findings on petitions to list species that
are already candidates.
Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act, when, in response to
a petition, we find that listing a species is warranted but precluded,
we must make a new 12-month finding each year until we publish a
proposed rule or make a determination that listing is not warranted.
These subsequent 12-month findings are referred to as recycled petition
findings. As discussed below, we will make recycled petition findings
for petitions on such species via our Candidate Notices of Review such
as this one.
On June 20, 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit held that the 1999 CNOR (64 FR 57534 (Oct. 25, 1999)) did not
constitute valid warranted but precluded 12-month petition findings for
the Gila chub and Chiracahua leopard frog. Center for Biological
Diversity v. Norton, 254 F.3d 833 (9th Cir. 2001). In particular, the
Court found that inclusion of these species as one line each on the
table of candidates in the 1999 CNOR, with no further explanation, did
not satisfy the section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii)'s requirement that the Service
publish ``a description and evaluation of reasons and data on which the
finding was based'' in the Federal Register. The Court found that this
one-line statement of candidate status also precluded meaningful
judicial review. Moreover, the Court found that candidate status did
not guarantee that annual reviews of warranted but precluded petitioned
species would take place pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i). Finally,
the Court suggested, but did not decide, that the 1999 CNOR met the
Act's requirements for positive 90-day petition findings.
Although we do not agree with the conclusions of the Ninth Circuit,
we have drafted subsequent CNORs (including this one) to address the
Court's concerns. We have included below a description of why the
listing of every petitioned candidate species is both warranted and
precluded at this time. Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(ii), any party
with standing may challenge the merits of one of our petition findings
incorporated in this CNOR. The analysis included herein, together with
the administrative record for the decision at issue, will provide an
adequate basis for a court to review the petition finding. Finally,
nothing in this document or any of our policies should be construed as
in any way modifying the Act's requirement that we make a new 12-month
petition finding for each petitioned candidate within 1 year of the
date of publication of this CNOR. If we fail to make any such finding
on a timely basis, whether through publication of a new CNOR or some
other form of notice, we may be subject to a deadline lawsuit pursuant
to section 11(g)(1)(C), as we would be with respect to any other
failure to comply with a section 4 deadline.
We reviewed the current status of and threats to the 35 species for
which we have found the petitioned action to be warranted but precluded
and have incorporated any new information we have gathered since the
previous finding. As a result of this review, we made continued
warranted but precluded findings on the petitions for all 35 species.
For the 30 of these species that are candidates, we maintain them as
candidates and identify them by the code ``C*'' in the category column
on the left side of Table 1. As discussed above, this finding means
that the immediate publication of proposed rules to list these species
was precluded by our work on the following higher priority listing
actions during the period from November 1, 2001, through May 30, 2002:
Court orders or settlement agreements to propose critical habitat and/
or complete critical habitat determinations for 3 southern California
plants, Kneeland Prairie pennycress, purple amole, Santa Cruz tarplant,
Oahu elepaio, Newcomb's snail, 76 Kauai and Nihau plants (reproposal),
5 California carbonate plants, Blackburn's sphinx moth, 32 Lanai plants
(reproposal), 2 Hawaiian invertebrates, 8 northwest Hawaiian Islands
plants, 61 Maui and Kahoolawe plants (reproposal), quino checkerspot
butterfly, 46 Molokai plants (reproposal), San Bernardino kangaroo rat,
56 Hawaiian Island plants, 15 vernal pool species (4 fairy shrimp and
11 plants), 103 Oahu plants, Rio Grande silvery minnow, gulf sturgeon;
proposed listings for pygmy rabbit, Carson's wandering skipper, Island
fox, 4 southwestern invertebrates (proposed listing with critical
habitat), and Tumbling Creek cavesnail; final listing determinations
for Buena Vista Lake shrew, showy stickseed, scaleshell mussel,
Vermilion darter, Mississippi gopher frog, golden sedge, and desert
yellowhead; emergency listings for pygmy rabbit, Carson's wandering
skipper, and Tumbling Creek cavesnail; 90-day petition finding for
Miami blue butterfly; and 12-month petition finding for Big Cypress fox
squirrel and Cape Sable seaside sparrow (for critical habitat).
In addition to identifying petitioned candidate species in Table 1,
we also present brief summaries of why these candidates warrant
listing. More complete information, including references, are found in
the candidate forms. You may obtain a copy of these forms from the
Regional office that has the lead for the species or from the Fish and
Wildlife Service's internet website: http://endangered.fws.gov/.
We find that the immediate issuance of a proposed rule and timely
promulgation of a final rule for each of these actions has, for the
preceding 7 months been, and will over the next year, be precluded by
higher priority listing actions. During the past 7 months, almost all
of our listing budget has been needed to take various listing actions
to comply with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements.
For a list of the listing actions taken over the 7 months, see the
discussion of ``Progress on Revising the Lists,'' below.
For the next year, the majority of our remaining listing budget for
FY 2002, and our anticipated listing budget for FY 2003 based on the
President's requested budget, will be needed to take listing actions to
comply with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements.
Currently, we will address or complete the following actions: Proposed
critical habitat designations for 6 Guam species, Keck's checkermallow,
yellow and Baker's larkspur, bull trout (Columbia and Klamath
populations), Ventura marsh milkvetch, 9 Texas (Bexar County)
invertebrates, southwestern willow flycatcher, cactus ferruginous pygmy
owl, Topeka shiner, and Preble's meadow jumping mouse; final critical
habitat designations for 81 Kauai and Nihau plants, 2 Hawaiian
invertebrates, Blackburn's sphinx moth, Newcomb's snail, 15 vernal pool
species (4 fairy shrimp and 11 plants), 55 Maui and
[[Page 40665]]
Kahoolawe plants, Rio Grande silvery minnow, 9 Texas (Bexar County)
invertebrates, Appalachian elktoe, gulf sturgeon, and Great Plains
breeding population of piping plover; 12-month petition findings for
Yosemite toad, mountain yellow-legged frog (entire population), and
California spotted owl; proposed listing rules for slickspot
peppergrass, and Gila chub (with critical habitat); final listing
determinations for San Diego ambrosia, mountain yellow-legged frog
(southern California population), coastal cutthroat trout, large-
flowered meadow foam and Cook's lomatium, and Chiricahua leopard frog.
Issuance of proposed listing rules for most of the candidates even
with the highest listing priority numbers (i.e., 1, 2, or 3) will
continue to be precluded next year due to completing actions required
by court orders and court-approved settlement agreements, as well as
the need to comply (or end noncompliance) with the unqualified
statutory deadlines for making 12-month petition findings and final
listing determinations on proposed rules. In addition to those final
determinations required by court orders and settlement agreements,
during the next year we will work on final determinations for the
following species: Carson's wandering skipper, pygmy rabbit, Scotts
Valley polygonum, four southwestern invertebrates, Tumbling Creek
cavesnail, and mountain plover. In addition to proposed rules required
by court orders and settlement agreements, we must work in the next
year on proposed rules for at least 2 high-priority species, the Salt
Creek tiger beetle and the southwestern Alaska population of the
northern sea otter. Moreover, given the recent decision in Center for
Biological Diversity v. Badgeley, 284 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2002), which
held that the Act require that 90-day petition findings be made no
later than 12 months after receipt of the petition, regardless of
whether it is practicable to do so, we may need to make 90-day findings
on most or all of the outstanding petitions prior to issuing proposed
rules for the 35 species subject to warranted but precluded findings.
If over the next year we can devote any resources to issuing proposed
rules for the highest priority candidates without jeopardizing our
ability to comply with court orders, court-approved settlement
agreements, or unqualified statutory deadlines, we will do so.
Finally, work on proposed rules for candidates with lower priority
(i.e., those that have listing priority numbers of 4-12) is also
precluded by the need to issue proposed rules for higher priority
species, particularly those facing high-magnitude, imminent threats
(i.e., listing priority numbers of 1, 2, or 3). Table 1 shows the
listing priority number for each candidate species.
Mammals
Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus)--As described in
our February 4, 2000, 12-month finding (65 FR 5476), black-tailed
prairie dog populations have been significantly reduced and are subject
to several persistent threats. We believe that various threats
(especially plague) continue to cause local extirpations that could
lead to the species becoming vulnerable in a significant portion of its
range. Additionally, the species may have difficulty coping with
challenges without the advantage of its historic abundance and wide
distribution. Accordingly, the vulnerability of the species to
population reductions may be related less to its absolute numbers than
to the number of colonies in which it exists, their size, their
geospatial relationship, existing barriers to immigration and
emigration, and the number and nature of the direct threats to the
species. The apparent magnitude of the disease threat may be mitigated
to some degree by new information that indicates that limited immune
response is possible in some individuals and by new information that a
population dynamic may have developed in low-density, isolated
populations that may contribute to the persistence of depressed
populations. Nevertheless, we conclude that the magnitude of this
threat to the black-tailed prairie dog remains moderate due to other
influences. Additionally, the threat of disease remains imminent. We
have reviewed the 12-month finding that projected likely future black-
tailed prairie dog population trends. We conclude that this projection
remains generally appropriate despite new information from which we
infer that the magnitude of the disease threat to the species may be
somewhat less than previously determined. While positive steps to
conserve and manage black-tailed prairie dogs have been made by some
States and Tribes, more conservation work will be needed by all States,
Tribes, and Federal agencies to sufficiently reduce threats to the
species. The overall magnitude and immediacy of threats to this species
remain unchanged since the 12-month finding was published with a
listing priority number of 8.
Sea otter, southwest Alaska DPS (Enhydra lutris kenyoni)--The
following summary is based on information contained in our files and
the petition received on October 26, 2000. The worldwide population of
sea otters in the early 1700s has been estimated at 150,000 to 300,000.
Extensive commercial hunting of sea otters in Alaska began following
the arrival of Russian explorers in 1741 and continued during the 18th
and 19th centuries. By the time sea otters were afforded protection
from commercial harvests by international treaty in 1911, the species
was nearly extinct throughout its range, and may have numbered only
1,000 to 2,000 individuals. Today three subspecies of sea otter have
been identified. The northern sea otter contains two subspecies:
Enhydra lutris kenyoni, which occurs from the Aleutian Islands to
Oregon, and Enhydra lutris lutris, which occurs in the Kuril Islands,
Kamchatka Peninsula, and Commander Islands in Russia. The third
subspecies, Enhydra lutris nereis, occurs in California and is known as
the southern sea otter. Until recently, southwest Alaska had been
considered a stronghold for sea otters. In the mid-1980s, biologists
believed that 80 percent of the world population of sea otters occurred
in southwest Alaska. Recent aerial surveys document drastic population
declines (up to 90%) have occurred throughout this area during the past
10-15 years. Today as few as 9,000 sea otters may remain in the
Aleutian Islands. Since April 2000, we have conducted additional aerial
surveys along the Alaska Peninsula and the Kodiak Archipelago. Results
of these surveys indicate that sea otter populations have declined
substantially in these areas as well. The current population estimate
for the Kodiak archipelago is roughly 4,000 less than in 1994; a
decline of almost 40 percent in only 7 years. In the 2001 CNOR, we
designated the northern sea otter in the Aleutian Islands as a
candidate. We are revising the candidate form to reflect the most
current scientific information regarding population boundaries and
status. The geographic extent of the candidate designation now includes
the Aleutian Islands, Alaska Peninsula coast, and Kodiak Archipelago.
Potential threats include both natural fluctuations and human
activities, which may have caused changes in the Bering Sea ecosystem.
Subsistence hunting occurs at very low levels and does not appear to be
a factor in the decline. While disease, starvation, and contaminants
have not been implicated at this time, additional evaluation of these
factors is warranted. The
[[Page 40666]]
hypothesis that predation by killer whales is causing the sea otter
decline should also be further studied. Due to the precipitous and
rapid nature of the ongoing population decline, we have assigned the
southwest Alaska DPS of Enhydra lutris kenyoni a listing priority
number of 3. Additionally, we have no indication that the decline has
reached an endpoint, and therefore immediate action is needed.
Sheath-tailed bat, American Samoa and Aguijan DPS (Emballonura
semicaudata)--The following summary is based on information contained
in our files, and the petition received on March 3, 1986. Historically
the sheath-tailed bat was known from the southern Mariana Islands,
Palau, and Western and American Samoa. Populations on the Mariana
Islands of Guam and Rota have been extirpated and the Mariana
population on Aguijan has been reduced to approximately 10 individuals.
A similar drastic decline has occurred in American Samoa where
populations of this bat were estimated at over 10,000 in 1976. In 1993,
only four bats were recorded. This species resides in caves and is very
susceptible to disturbance. The populations in American Samoa and the
Mariana Islands are at the extreme limits of the species' range. Roost
sites have been rendered unsuitable for bats by human intrusion into
caves and the use of some caves as garbage dumps. Typhoons have also
damaged some caves by blocking entrances or by flooding coastal caves.
The loss of roost sites has severely restricted population size,
especially in American Samoa, where few caves exist. In addition, small
populations and limited numbers of populations place this distinct
population segment at great risk of extinction from inbreeding, random
events, and storms. Based on immediate threats of a high magnitude, we
assigned the American Samoa and Aguijan DPS of the sheath-tailed bat a
listing priority number of 3.
Southern Idaho ground squirrel (Spermophilus brunneus endemicus)--
The following summary is based on information contained in our files
and the petition received on January 29, 2001. During the past 30
years, a dramatic population decline of the southern Idaho ground
squirrel has occurred. We now believe that the southern Idaho ground
squirrel occupies approximately 44 percent of its historical range.
Surveys indicate a precipitous decline in the squirrel population since
the mid-1980s. In the spring of 2001, scientists conducted surveys to
understand on a qualitative level the pattern of spatial distribution
and density of southern Idaho ground squirrel populations, and then to
make a population estimate for the species. The survey resulted in an
estimate of 2,177 to 4,354 southern Idaho ground squirrels. Scientists
attribute the decline to invasive nonnative plants associated with a
change in fire frequency, and lack of reclamation or restoration of
habitat by various land management agencies and private landowners.
There is also an increase in the risk of extinction due to a reduced
distribution. Based on our evaluation that these threats pose an
imminent risk of a high magnitude, this subspecies warrants a listing
priority number of 3.
Washington ground squirrel (Spermophilus washingtoni)--The
following summary is based on information contained in our files and
the petition received on March 2, 2000. Since the designation of the
species as a candidate on October 25, 1999, more information has become
available regarding the types of soils used by Washington ground
squirrels, the effects of agriculture on Washington ground squirrel
colonies, the status of the species throughout its range, and the
significance of the Oregon population to the species as a whole. The
soil types used by the squirrels are distributed sporadically within
the species' range, and have been seriously fragmented by human
development in the Columbia Basin, particularly conversion to
agricultural use. Where agriculture occurs, little evidence of ground
squirrel use has been documented, and reports indicate that ongoing
agricultural conversion permanently eliminates Washington ground
squirrel habitat. The most contiguous, least-disturbed expanse of
suitable Washington ground squirrel habitat, and likely the densest
distribution of colonies within the range of the species, occurs on the
Boeing site and Boardman Bombing Range in Oregon. Substantial threats
to the species occur throughout its range, including the remaining
populations in Oregon. Even on State-owned lands in Oregon, the loss of
known sites is likely. The loss of significant numbers of colonies in
Oregon would be detrimental to the continued existence of the
Washington ground squirrel. In Washington, recent declines have been
precipitous and for unknown reasons. In 2001, entire colonies of ground
squirrels have been lost on the Columbia National Wildlife Refuge and
Seeps Lake Management Area near Othello, Washington, despite the
protected status of the species in the area. Biologists observed
significant declines in body mass, and many adult squirrels experienced
a complete failure to reproduce in 2001, likely as a result of
starvation. Individuals that lacked sufficient body weight are not
likely to survive the 7- to 8-month hibernation period this species
experiences. All of these threats have been observed in the past 2
years, are likely to continue, and appreciably reduce the likelihood of
survival of many Washington ground squirrel colonies across the range
of the species. Based on our current evaluation of threats, we assigned
a listing priority number of 2 to this species.
Birds
Band-rumped storm-petrel, Hawaii DPS (Oceanodroma castro)--The
following summary is based on information contained in our files and
the petition received on May 8, 1989. Breeding season surveys on
Hawaii, Maui, and Kauai, as well as reports of fledglings picked up on
Hawaii and Kauai, confirm that small populations still exist on these
Hawaiian islands. Estimates of the total State-wide population could
exceed 100 pairs if viable breeding populations exist on Maui and
Hawaii. Although small populations do occur on Maui and Hawaii, we have
been unable to determine if they are viable; certainly they are not
large and they represent a fraction of prehistoric distribution.
Predation by introduced species is believed to have played a
significant role in reducing storm-petrel numbers and in exterminating
colonies in the Pacific and other locations worldwide. Additionally,
artificial lights have had a significant negative effect on fledgling
young and, to a lesser degree, adults. Artificial lighting of roadways,
resorts, ballparks, residences, and other development in lower
elevation areas attracts and confuses night-flying, storm-petrel
fledglings, resulting in ``fall-out'' and collisions with buildings and
other objects. Currently, the species is not known to be taken or used
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.
During 1992 surveys on Mauna Loa, Hawaii, several caches of Hawaiian
dark-rumped petrel carcasses associated with feral cat predation were
recorded in areas where band-rumped storm-petrel vocalizations were
recorded. Based on imminent threats of a high magnitude, we assigned
this Hawaii DPS of the band-rumped storm-petrel a listing priority
number of 3.
Gunnison sage grouse (Centrocercus minimus)--The following summary
is based on information contained in our files and the petition
received on January 25, 2000. The range of the Gunnison sage grouse has
been reduced to less than 25 percent of its historic
[[Page 40667]]
range. Size of the range and quality of its habitat have been reduced
by direct habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation from building
development, road and utility corridors, fences, energy development,
conversion of native habitat to hay or other crop fields, alteration or
destruction of wetland and riparian areas, inappropriate livestock
management, competition for winter range by big game, and creation of
large reservoirs. Other factors affecting the Gunnison sage grouse
include fire suppression, overgrazing by elk (Cervus elaphus) and deer
(Odocoileus hemionus), drought, disturbance or death by off-highway
vehicles, harassment from people and pets, noise that impairs
acoustical quality of leks (courtship areas), genetic depression,
pesticides, pollution, and competition for habitat from other species.
For greater detail as to why listing is warranted, see 65 FR 82310,
December 28, 2000. We consider all of these threats to be of high
magnitude but nonimminent; therefore, we assigned the Gunnison sage
grouse a listing priority of 5.
Lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus)--The following
summary is based on information contained in our files, including
information from the petition received on October 5, 1995. Biologists
estimate that the occupied range has declined at least 78 percent since
1963 and 92 percent since the 1800s. The most serious threats to the
lesser prairie-chicken are loss of habitat from conversion of native
rangelands to introduced forages and cultivation, and cumulative
habitat degradation caused by severe grazing, fire suppression,
herbicides, and structural developments. Many of these threats may
exacerbate the normal effects of periodic drought on lesser prairie-
chicken populations. In many cases, the remaining suitable habitat has
become fragmented by the spatial arrangement of properties affected by
these individual threats. We view current and continued habitat
fragmentation to be a serious ongoing threat that facilitates the
extinction process through several mechanisms: remaining habitat
patches may become smaller than necessary to meet the yearlong
requirements of individuals and populations; necessary habitat
heterogeneity may be lost to large areas of monoculture vegetation and/
or homogenous habitat structure; areas between habitat patches may
harbor high levels of predators or brood parasites; and the probability
of recolonization decreases as the distance between suitable habitat
patches expands. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to
protect lesser prairie-chicken habitat was cited as a potential threat
to the species in the Service's 12-month finding. Most occupied lesser
prairie-chicken habitat occurs on private land where States have little
authority to protect the species or its habitat, with the exception of
setting harvest regulations. While some Federal lands within occupied
range have voluntarily accommodated certain needs of the lesser
prairie-chicken, the species cannot be sufficiently conserved only on
Federal lands to prevent extinction. Although Federal lands comprise
only five percent of currently occupied habitat, these tracts are
located in areas essential to population recovery and dispersal. As a
result, the Service views habitat management considerations on Federal
lands within current and historic range with even greater importance.
Concern exists that recreational hunting and harassment are potential
threats to the species. While the Service does not believe that
overutilization through recreational hunting is a primary cause of
lesser prairie-chicken decline, we are concerned that small and
isolated populations may be vulnerable to local extirpations caused by
repeated harvest pressure, especially near fall leks. Similarly, the
effects of repeated recreational viewing at leks is unknown. The
Service solicits input from all parties who may be knowledgeable about
these factors, as well as two potential threats not cited in the 12-
month finding; organophosphorus insecticide poisoning and degree of
impacts from hybridization with greater prairie-chickens in northern
portions of occupied range. Based on all currently available
information, we find that ongoing threats to the lesser prairie-
chicken, as outlined in the 12-month finding, remain unchanged, and
lesser prairie-chickens continue to warrant Federal listing as
threatened. We have determined that the overall magnitude of threats to
the lesser prairie-chicken throughout its range is moderate, and that
the threats are ongoing, thus they are considered imminent.
Consequently, a listing priority of 8 remains appropriate for the
species. The magnitude of threats to lesser prairie-chickens rests
primarily on the quality of existing habitat. At present, all States
within occupied range of the lesser prairie-chicken are committing
significant resources via personnel, outreach, and habitat improvement
incentives to landowners to recover the species. The Service recognizes
that measurable increases in populations often come years after certain
habitat improvements occur. Barring additional unforeseen threats such
as prolonged drought or development, the species' status is expected to
improve in future years. Therefore, we select not to elevate the
listing priority of the lesser prairie-chicken based on magnitude of
threats at this time. However, the Service is concerned that remaining
populations may become increasingly fragmented, and therefore
vulnerable to local extinctions. This is particularly true for isolated
populations of lesser prairie-chickens in the Permian Basin/western
panhandle of Texas and areas south of highway 380 in southeastern New
Mexico. The impending loss of these populations is of major concern to
us, and efforts to address this possible loss are ongoing. However, the
Service believes that, given all currently available information, the
net benefits of ongoing conservation activities by the States, Federal
agencies, and private groups, combined with the recent increase in both
range and numbers in Kansas, exceed the latest negative trends of local
populations in the southern periphery of occupied range. Should the
current conservation momentum fail to stabilize and increase existing
populations throughout significant portions of the remaining range, we
must pursue elevating the listing priority of the species.
Yellow-billed cuckoo, western continental U.S. DPS (Coccyzus
americanus)--The following summary is based on information contained in
our files and the petition received on February 9, 1998. Also see our
12-month petition finding (66 FR 38611) published on July 25, 2001.
While the cuckoo is still relatively common east of the crest of the
Rocky Mountains, biologists estimate that more than 90 percent of the
bird's riparian (streamside) habitat in the West has been lost or
degraded. These modifications, and the resulting decline in the
distribution and abundance of yellow-billed cuckoos throughout the
western States, is believed to be due to conversion to agriculture;
grazing; habitat degradation by competition from nonnative plants, such
as tamarisk; river management, including altered flow and sediment
regime; and flood control practices, such as channelization and bank
protection. Based on nonimminent threats of a high magnitude, we
assigned a listing priority number of 6 to this DPS of yellow-billed
cuckoo.
Reptiles
Louisiana pine snake (Pituophis ruthveni)--The following summary is
based on information contained in our
[[Page 40668]]
files and the petition received on July 19, 2000. The Louisiana pine
snake historically occurred in portions of west-central Louisiana and
extreme east-central Texas. Louisiana pine snakes have not been
documented in over a decade in some of the best remaining habitat
within their historical range. Surveys and results of Louisiana pine
snake trapping and radio-telemetry suggest that extensive population
declines and local extirpations have occurred during the last 50 to 80
years. The quality of remaining Louisiana pine snake habitat has been
degraded due to logging, fire suppression, short-rotation silviculture,
and conversion of habitat to other uses such as grazing. Other factors
affecting Louisiana pine snakes include low fecundity (reproductive
output), which magnifies other threats and increases the likelihood of
local extinctions, and vehicular mortality, which may cause significant
impacts to the Louisiana pine snake's population numbers and community
structure. Due to nonimminent threats of a high magnitude, we assigned
a listing priority number of 5 to this species.
Cagle's map turtle (Graptemys caglei)--The following summary is
based on information contained in our files and the petition received
on April 26, 1991. Cagle's map turtle occurs in scattered sites in
seven counties in Texas on the Guadalupe, San Marcos, and Blanco
Rivers. Loss and degradation of riverine habitat from large and/or
small impoundments (dams or reservoirs) is the primary threat to
Cagle's map turtle. One detrimental effect of impoundment is the loss
of riffle and riffle/pool transition areas used by males for foraging.
Depending on its size, a dam itself may be a partial or complete
barrier to Cagle's map turtle movements and could fragment a
population. Construction of smaller impoundments and human activities
on the river has likely eliminated or reduced foraging and basking
habitats. Cagle's map turtle is also vulnerable to over collecting and
target shooting, and current regulations are inadequate to protect this
species. Due to nonimminent threats of a high magnitude, we assigned a
listing priority number of 5 to this species.
Amphibians
Columbia spotted frog, Great Basin DPS (Rana luteiventris)--The
following summary is based on information contained in our files and
the petition received on May 1, 1989. Recent work by researchers in
Idaho and Nevada has documented the loss of historically known sites,
reduced numbers of individuals within local populations, and declines
in the reproduction of those individuals. Since 1996, extensive surveys
throughout southern Idaho and eastern Oregon have led to increases in
the number of known Columbia spotted frog sites. However, most of these
sites support only small numbers of frogs. Extensive monitoring at 10
of the 46 occupied sites since 1997 indicates a decline in the number
of adult Columbia spotted frogs encountered. All known populations in
southern Idaho and in eastern Oregon appear to be functionally
isolated. Columbia spotted frog habitat degradation and fragmentation
is probably a combined result of past and current influences of heavy
livestock grazing, spring alterations, agricultural development,
urbanization, and mining activities. Based on imminent threats of high
magnitude, we assigned a listing priority number of 3 to this DPS of
the Columbia spotted frog.
Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa)--The following summary is based
on information contained in our files and the petition received on May
4, 1989. Based on surveys of historic sites, the Oregon spotted frog is
now absent from at least 76 percent of its former range. The species
may be absent from as much as 90 percent of its former range because
the collections of historic specimens did not adequately reflect its
actual geographic and elevational range. Threats to the species'
habitat include development, livestock grazing, introduction of
nonnative plant species, changes in hydrology due to construction of
dams and alterations to seasonal flooding, poor water quality, and
water contamination. Additional threats to the species are predation by
nonnative fish and introduced bullfrogs. Based on these threats, we
assigned the Oregon spotted frog a listing priority number of 2. Note,
the October 30, 2001, Candidate Notice of Review was incorrect in
listing this species as a distinct population segment with a listing
priority number of 3. The Oregon spotted frog is a full species, with
no DPS designation, and, therefore, has a listing priority number of 2.
California tiger salamander (entire population except Sonoma County
and where listed) (Ambystoma californiense)--The following summary is
based on information contained in our files and the petition received
on February 26, 1992. The California tiger salamander has been
eliminated from 54 percent of its historic breeding sites and has lost
an estimated 65 percent of its habitat. The distribution of the species
is now discontinuous and fragmented throughout its range. All of the
estimated seven genetic populations of this species have declined
significantly because of urban and agricultural development, and other
human-caused factors affecting breeding and upland habitat used for
estivation and migration. Existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate
to protect California tiger salamander habitat. Based on nonimminent
threats of a high magnitude, we assigned this species a listing
priority number of 5.
California tiger salamander, Sonoma County DPS (Ambystoma
californiense)--See above summary of new candidate species for
discussion on why this population warrants listing. The above summary
is based on information contained in our files and the petition
received on June 13, 2001.
Boreal toad, Southern Rocky Mountains DPS (Bufo boreas boreas)--The
following summary is based on information contained in our files and
the petition received on September 30, 1993. Boreal toads of the
Southern Rocky Mountain DPS were once common throughout much of the
high elevations in Colorado, in the Snowy and Sierra Madre Ranges of
southeast Wyoming, and at three breeding localities at the southern
periphery of their range in the San Juan Mountains of New Mexico. In
the late 1980s boreal toads were found to be absent from 83 percent of
breeding localities in Colorado and 94 percent of breeding localities
in Wyoming previously known to contain toads. In 1999, the number of
known breeding localities increased from 33 to 50, with 1 in Wyoming,
none in New Mexico, and the remaining sites in Colorado. This increase
in known breeding localities, however, was likely due to survey efforts
rather than expansion of the population. Land use in boreal toad
habitat includes recreation, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, and
watershed alteration activities. Though declines in toad numbers have
not been directly linked to habitat alteration, activities that
destroy, modify, or curtail habitat likely contribute to the continued
decline in toad numbers. The current and future use of water rights in
the Southern Rocky Mountains may impact boreal toads. Increased demands
on limited water resources can result in water level drops in
reservoirs that toads are using. Transferring rights from one user
group to another (e.g., agricultural to municipal) also could reduce
toad habitat, particularly if dewatering of reservoir sites resulted
from these transfers. Additional threats to the boreal toad include a
chytrid fungus, which likely caused the boreal toad to decline in the
1970s and continues to cause declines. Based on
[[Page 40669]]
these threats, we assigned this DPS of boreal toad a listing priority
number of 3.
Fishes
Gila chub (Gila intermedia)--The following summary is based on
information contained in our files and the petition received on June
10, 1998. The Gila chub has been extirpated or reduced in numbers and
distribution in the majority of its historical range. Over 70 percent
of the Gila chub's habitat has been degraded or destroyed, and much of
it is unrecoverable. Of the 15 remaining populations, most are small,
isolated, and threatened, and only one population is considered secure.
Wetland habitat degradation and loss is a major threat to the Gila
chub. Human activities such as groundwater pumping, surface water
diversions, impoundments, channelization, improper livestock grazing,
vegetation manipulation, agriculture, mining, road building, nonnative
species introductions, urbanization, and recreation all contribute to
riparian loss and degradation in southern Arizona, thereby threatening
this species. Based on imminent threats of a high magnitude, we
assigned this species a listing priority number of 2. Although work on
court-ordered section 4 actions have precluded us from issuing a
proposed rule to date, despite the fact that this species has a listing
priority number of 2, we recently entered into a settlement agreement
on October 2, 2001 (Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Norton,
Civ. No. 01-2063 (JR) (D.D.C.)) that will require us to deliver by July
31, 2002, a proposed listing rule with critical habitat to the Federal
Register for publication.
Arctic grayling, upper Missouri River DPS (Thymallus arcticus)--The
following summary is based on information contained in our files and
the petition received on October 2, 1992. Currently, the only self-
sustaining remnant of the indigenous fluvial Arctic grayling population
exists in the Big Hole River, estimated to represent 5 percent or less
of the historic range for this species in Montana and Wyoming.
Reestablishment efforts are under way in four streams within the
historic range. The Arctic grayling faces threats primarily from a
decrease in available habitat as a result of dewatering of streams for
irrigation and stock water, ongoing drought conditions, and habitat
degradation from dams and reservoirs. Landowners and other interests
are implementing actions to ensure adequate water conditions in the Big
Hole River. Additionally, predation on or competition with Arctic
grayling by nonnative trout are thought to be factors limiting grayling
populations. Due to imminent threats of a low to moderate magnitude, we
assigned this DPS of Arctic grayling a listing priority number of 9.
Snails
Chupadera springsnail (Pyrgulopsis chupaderae)--The following
summary is based on information contained in our files and the petition
received on November 20, 1985. This aquatic species is endemic to
Willow Spring on the Willow Spring Ranch (formerly Cienega Ranch) at
the south end of the Chupadera Mountains in Socorro County, New Mexico.
The Chupadera springsnail has been documented from two hillside
groundwater discharges that flow through grazed areas among rhyolitic
gravels containing sand, mud, and hydrophytic plants. Regional and
local groundwater depletion, springrun dewatering, and riparian habitat
degradation represent the principal threats. The survival and recovery
of the Chupadera springsnail is contingent upon protection of the
riparian corridor immediately adjacent to Willow Spring, and the
availability of perennial, oxygenated flowing water within the species'
thermal range. Existing regulatory mechanisms are not sufficient to
protect this species. New Mexico State law provides limited protection
to the Chupadera springsnail, but this law does not provide for habitat
protection. Because these threats are imminent and of a high magnitude,
we assigned this species a listing priority number of 2. See above
Summary of Listing Priority Changes in Candidates for an explanation on
why we are changing the priority of this candidate.
Gila springsnail (Pyrgulopsis gilae)--The following summary is
based on information contained in our files and the petition received
on November 20, 1985. The Gila springsnail is an aquatic species known
from 13 populations in New Mexico. The long-term persistence of the
Gila springsnail is contingent upon protection of the riparian corridor
immediately adjacent to springhead and springrun habitats, thereby
ensuring the maintenance of perennial, oxygenated flowing water within
the species' required thermal range. Sites on both private and Federal
lands are subject to uncontrolled recreational use and livestock
grazing, thus rendering the long-term survival of the Gila springsnail
questionable. Natural events such as drought, forest fire,
sedimentation, and flooding; wetland habitat degradation by
recreational bathing in thermal springs; and poor watershed management
practices such as overgrazing and inappropriate silviculture, represent
the primary threats to the Gila springsnail. Fire suppression and
retardant chemicals have potentially deleterious effects on this
species. Existing regulatory mechanisms are not sufficient to protect
the Gila springsnail. New Mexico State law provides limited protection
to the Gila springsnail, but this law does not provide for habitat
protection. Based on these nonimminent threats of a low magnitude, we
assigned a listing priority number of 11 to this species.
New Mexico springsnail (Pyrgulopsis thermalis)--The following
summary is based on information contained in our files and the petition
received on November 20, 1985. The New Mexico springsnail is an aquatic
species known from only two separate populations associated with a
series of spring-brook systems along the Gila River in the Gila
National Forest in Grant County, New Mexico. The long-term persistence
of the New Mexico springsnail is contingent upon protection of the
riparian corridor immediately adjacent to springhead and springrun
habitats, thereby ensuring the maintenance of perennial, oxygenated
flowing water within the species' required thermal range. While the New
Mexico springsnail populations may be stable, the sites inhabited by
the species are subject to uncontrolled recreational use and livestock
grazing. Wetland habitat degradation via recreational use and
overgrazing in or near the thermal springs and/or poor watershed
management practices represent the primary threats to the New Mexico
springsnail. Natural events such as drought, forest fire,
sedimentation, and flooding may further imperil populations.
Additionally, fire suppression and retardant chemicals have potentially
deleterious effects on this species. Existing regulatory mechanisms are
also not sufficient to protect the New Mexico springsnail. New Mexico
State law provides limited protection to the New Mexico springsnail,
but this law does not provide for habitat protection. Based on these
nonimminent threats of a low magnitude, we assigned this species a
listing priority number of 11.
Page springsnail (Pyrgulopsis morrisoni)--The following summary is
based on information contained in our files and the petition received
on April 12, 2002. The Page springsnail is a local endemic, and all
extant populations are known to exist only within a complex of springs
located within an approximately 1.5 kilometer (.93 miles) area along
the west side of Oak Creek around the community of Page Springs,
[[Page 40670]]
Yavapai County, Arizona. Many of the springs where the Page springsnail
occurs have been subjected to some level of modification to meet
domestic, agricultural, ranching, fish hatchery, and recreational
needs. Pumping of the regional aquifer in excess of natural recharge
could result in elimination of habitat occupied by the Page
springsnail. Potential habitat degradation is likely from trespass
cattle and the possible modification of spring heads to meet the needs
of a commercial water bottling company. Other factors that have
contributed to the decline of Page springsnail populations include the
use of toxic substances, water quality degradation, and introduction of
nonnative molluscs, such as Corbicula spp. Arizona Game and Fish
Department (AGFD) management plans for the Bubbling Ponds and Page
Springs fish hatcheries included commitments to replace lost habitat
and to monitor remaining populations of invertebrates such as the Page
springsnail. However, habitat restoration has been largely unsuccessful
and monitoring has not been implemented. Because these threats are
imminent and of a high magnitude, we assigned a listing priority number
of 2 to this species.
Insects
Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle (Cicindela limbata albissima)--
The following summary is based on information contained in our files,
including information from the petition received on April 21, 1994. The
Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle is known to occur only at Coral Pink
Sand Dunes, about 7 miles west of Kanab, Kane County, in south-central
Utah. It is restricted mostly to a small part of the approximately 13-
kilometer (8-mile) long dune field, situated at an elevation of about
1,820 m (6,000 ft). The subspecies' habitat is being adversely impacted
by ongoing recreational off-road vehicle (ORV) use. The ORV activity is
destroying and degrading the species' habitat, especially the
interdunal swales used by the larval population. Having the greatest
abundance of suitable prey species, the interdunal swales are the most
biologically productive areas in this ecosystem. The continued survival
of the species depends on the preservation of the species and its
habitat at its only breeding reproductive site and the probable need to
establish or reestablish additional reproductive subpopulations in
other suitable habitat sites. The species population is also vulnerable
to overcollecting by professional and hobby tiger beetle collectors,
although quantification of this threat is difficult without continuous
monitoring of the species population. The State of Utah and the Bureau
of Land Management have designated most of the species habitat as a
conservation area, where they have placed significant restrictions on
ORV use. Their actions have lowered the magnitude of threat to this
subspecies. Based on imminent threats of a low to moderate magnitude,
we assigned this subspecies a listing priority number of 9.
Flowering Plants
Christ's paintbrush (Castilleja christii)--The following summary is
based on information contained in our files and the petition received
on January 2, 2001. Castilleja christii is endemic to subalpine meadow
and sagebrush habitats in the upper elevations of the Albion Mountains,
Cassia County, Idaho. The single population of this species, which
covers only 81 ha (200 ac), is restricted to the summit of Mount
Harrison. The population appears to be stable, although the species is
threatened by a variety of activities including unauthorized ORV use
that results in erosion of the plant's habitat and mortality of
individual plants. Livestock grazing can adversely affect C. christii
by trampling and/or consuming plants, which results in reduced
reproductive success; grazing occurred in the area where C. christii
exists during 1999, but not in 2000. In addition, road maintenance
activities and trampling by hikers potentially affect this species.
Because the threats are of a low to moderate magnitude and nonimminent,
we assigned this species a listing priority number of 11.
San Fernando Valley spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi fernandina)--
The following summary is based on information contained in our files
and the petition received on December 14, 1999. Chorizanthe parryi var.
fernandina was thought to be extinct, but its rediscovery was disclosed
in the late spring of 1999. The plant currently is known from two
disjunct localities. The first locality is in the southeastern portion
of Ventura County, on a site approved for development, where it was
found and identified by consultants employed by the developer. The
second is located in southwestern Los Angeles County on a site with
approved development plans. As currently planned, it is likely that
construction of proposed development will extirpate the first
population in Ventura County. It is unclear how the development in Los
Angeles will affect that population. The majority of the historical
collections of this plant from the greater Los Angeles metropolitan
area were made from areas where urban, agricultural, and industrial
development have replaced native habitats. During the last few decades,
numerous field botanists have been unable to locate the species, even
where historically recorded, largely due to the alteration and loss of
suitable habitat. San Fernando Valley spineflower is also threatened by
invasive nonnative plants, including grasses, that potentially fragment
suitable habitat; displace it from available habitat; compete for
light, water, and nutrients; and reduce survival and establishment.
This plant is particularly vulnerable to extinction due to its two
isolated populations. Species with few populations and disjunct
distributions are vulnerable to naturally occurring, random events.
Because of imminent threats of a high magnitude, we assigned a listing
priority number of 3 to this plant.
Slick spot peppergrass (Lepidium papilliferum)--The following
summary is based on information contained in our files and the petition
received on April 9, 2001. Lepidium papilliferum is an annual or
biennial that occurs in sagebrush-steppe habitats at approximately 670
meters (m) (2,200 feet (ft)) to 1,615 m (5,300 ft) elevation in
southwestern Idaho. The total amount of currently occupied L.
papilliferum habitat is less than 31.8 ha (78.4 ac), and the amount of
high-quality occupied habitat for this species is less than 1.3 ha (3.3
ac). The documented extirpation rate for this taxon is the highest
known of any Idaho rare plant species. This species is threatened by a
variety of activities including urbanization, gravel mining, irrigated
agriculture, habitat degradation due to cattle and sheep grazing, fire
and fire rehabilitation activities, and continued invasion of habitat
by nonnative plant species. Because the majority of populations are
extremely small and existing habitat is fragmented by agricultural
conversion, fire, grazing, roads, and urbanization, local extirpation
is a threat to this species. Based on immediate threats of a high
magnitude, we assigned this species a listing priority number of 2.
Although work on court-ordered section 4 actions have precluded us from
issuing a proposed rule to date, despite the fact that this species has
a listing priority number of 2, we recently entered into a settlement
agreement on March 29, 2002 (Committee for Idaho's High Desert. v.
Badgley, Civ. No. 01-1641-AS (D.Or.)) that will require us to deliver
by July 15,
[[Page 40671]]
2002, a proposed listing rule to the Federal Register for publication.
White River beardtongue (Penstemon scariosus albifluvis)--The
following summary is based on information contained in our files and
the petition received on October 27, 1983. The White River beardtongue
is restricted to calcareous soils derived from oil shale barrens of the
Green River Formation in the Uinta Basin of northeastern Utah and
adjacent Colorado. Most of the occupied habitat of the White River
beardtongue is within developed and expanding oil and gas fields.
Several wells and access roads are within the species' occupied
habitat. The location of the species' habitat exposes it to destruction
from ORV use, and road, pipeline, and well-site construction in
connection with oil and gas development. With such a small population
and limited occupied habitat, any destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the habitat would have a highly negative impact on the
species. Additionally, the species is heavily grazed by wildlife and
livestock and is vulnerable to livestock trampling. Currently, no
Federal or State laws specifically protect the White River beardtongue.
Based on nonimminent threats of a high magnitude, we assigned this
subspecies a listing priority number of 6.
Tahoe yellow cress (Rorippa subumbellata)--The following summary is
based on information contained in our files and the petition received
on December 27, 2000. Tahoe yellow cress is a small, perennial herb
known only from the shores of Lake Tahoe in California and Nevada.
Based on presence/absence information, it has been determined that the
Tahoe yellow cress has been extirpated from 10 of 52 historic
locations. Tahoe yellow cress occurs in a dynamic environment affected
by both natural processes and human activities. Under natural
conditions, Tahoe yellow cress is apparently tolerant of the dynamic
nature of its habitat and is adapted for survival in a disturbance
regime. However, due to the combination of unnatural lake level
fluctuation due to dam operations and other human activities, habitat
conditions are no longer considered natural. Heavy recreational use of
the beaches may result in the direct loss of individual plants as well
as the degradation of habitat through compaction and mixing of sandy
substrates. Based on imminent threats of a high magnitude, we assigned
this species a listing priority number of 2.
Ferns and Allies
Botrychium lineare (slender moonwort)--The following summary is
based on information contained in our files and the petition received
on July 28, 1999. Also see our 12-month petition finding (66 FR 30368)
published on June 6, 2001. Botrychium lineare is a small perennial fern
that is currently known from a total of nine populations in Colorado,
Oregon, Montana, and Washington. In addition to these currently known
populations, historic populations were previously known from Idaho
(Boundary County), Montana (Lake County), California (Fresno County),
Colorado (Boulder County), and Canada (Quebec and New Brunswick).
However, they have not been seen for at least 20 years and may be
extirpated (Wagner and Wagner 1994). Since the 12-month petition
finding was published we received some additional information regarding
the status and distribution of B. lineare. Two new population sites of
B. lineare were tentatively identified in 2001, one site each in Idaho
and Nevada, with an additional historic site discovered from a
herbarium specimen collected in Utah in 1905. One researcher is
intending to obtain fresh specimens from the Idaho and Nevada sites
during 2002 for electrophoretic confirmation, in addition to visiting
an historic B. lineare site in California. The species seems to be a
habitat generalist and is often found in disturbed habitats along
roadsides. Therefore, conclusions regarding B. lineare's overall
distribution and specific habitat requirements, along with identifying
possible conservation needs, are problematic at this time. A specific
habitat description for the species is problematic because of its
current and historically disjunct distribution ranging from sea level
in Quebec to nearly 3,000 meters (9,840 ft) in Boulder County,
Colorado. Some botanists consider B. lineare to be a habitat generalist
and believe that it is a rare plant that is difficult to survey for and
observe in the wild and is often found along roadsides in disturbed
habitats. Identifiable threats to various populations of this species
include road maintenance and herbicide spraying (e.g., in Glacier
National Park and on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation), recreation,
timber harvest, trampling, and development. Botrychium lineare may also
be affected by grazing from livestock or wildlife, but specific effects
of grazing on the species are unknown. However, if grazing by livestock
or wildlife species occurs prior to the maturation and release of
spores, the capacity for sexual reproduction of affected plants may be
compromised. Botrychium lineare is considered a sensitive species in
Regions 2, 5, and 6 of the Forest Service, which include extant and
historical B. lineare sites found in Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and
California. Because this species is listed under these regional
sensitive species lists, the Forest Service has regulations that
address the need to protect this species. Forest Service Regions 1, 4,
and 5, which include extant and historical sites found in Montana and
Idaho, do not have B. lineare on their regional sensitive species lists
and it is, therefore, not given any special consideration. Although
Botrychium lineare is considered to be rare and imperiled by the State
natural heritage programs in Colorado, Montana, Oregon, and Washington,
the State heritage program rankings are not legal designations and do
not confer State regulatory protection to this species. Because we
concluded that the overall magnitude of threats to B. lineare
throughout its range is moderate and the overall immediacy of these
threats is nonimminent, we assigned this species a listing priority
number of 11. Although we are not proposing a listing priority change
or removal of candidate status at this time, any new information we
receive on the distribution and threat/conservation actions of B.
lineare may have a bearing on whether listing under the Endangered
Species Act is still warranted.
Petitions To Reclassify Species Already Listed
We have also previously made warranted but precluded findings on
five petitions that sought to reclassify threatened species to
endangered status. Because these species are already listed, they are
not technically candidates for listing and are not included in Table 1.
However, this notice also constitutes the recycled petition findings
for these species. We find that reclassification to endangered status
is currently warranted but precluded by work identified above (see
Petition of a Candidate Species) for the:
(1) North Cascades ecosystem grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis)
DPS (Region 6) (see 63 FR 30453, June 4, 1998, and the candidate form
for a discussion on why reclassification is warranted);
(2) Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear DPS (Region 6) (see 64 FR 26725, May
17, 1999, and the candidate form for a discussion on why
reclassification is warranted);
(3) Selkirk grizzly bear DPS (Region 6) (see 64 FR 26725, May 17,
1999, for a
[[Page 40672]]
discussion on why reclassification is warranted);
(4) Spikedace (Meda fulgida) (Region 2) (see 59 FR 35303 and the
candidate form for a discussion on why reclassification is warranted);
and
(5) Loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis) (Region 2) (see 59 FR 35303 and
the candidate form for a discussion on why reclassification is
warranted).
Progress in Revising the Lists
As described in section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act, in order for us
to make a warranted but precluded finding on a petitioned action, we
must be making expeditious progress to add qualified species to the
Lists and to remove from the Lists species for which the protections of
the Act are no longer necessary. This notice describes our progress in
revising the lists since our October 30, 2001, publication of the last
CNOR. We intend to publish these descriptions annually.
Our progress in listing and delisting qualified species since
October 30, 2001, is represented by the publication in the Federal
Register of final listing actions for 6 species, emergency listing
actions for 3 species, proposed listing actions for 10 species, and
proposed delisting actions for 3 species. In addition, we proposed
critical habitat for 184 listed species, reproposed critical habitat
for 215 species, and finalized critical habitat for 3 listed species.
Given our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the Act, these
achievements constitute expeditious progress.
Request for Information
We request you submit any further information on the species named
in this notice as soon as possible or whenever it becomes available. We
are particularly interested in any information:
(1) Indicating that we should add a species to the list of
candidate species;
(2) Indicating that we should remove a species from candidate
status;
(3) Recommending areas that we should designate as critical habitat
for a species, or indicating that designation of critical habitat would
not be prudent for a species;
(4) Documenting threats to any of the included species;
(5) Describing the immediacy or magnitude of threats facing
candidate species;
(6) Pointing out taxonomic or nomenclature changes for any of the
species;
(7) Suggesting appropriate common names; or
(8) Noting any mistakes, such as errors in the indicated historical
ranges.
Submit your comments regarding a particular species to the Regional
Director of the Region identified as having the lead responsibility for
that species. The regional addresses follow:
Region 1. California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Washington,
American Samoa, Guam, and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Eastside
Federal Complex, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 (503/
231-6158).
Region 2. Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.
Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 500 Gold
Avenue SW., Room 4012, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 (505/248-6920).
Region 3. Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio,
and Wisconsin.
Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bishop
Henry Whipple Federal Building, One Federal Drive, Fort Snelling,
Minnesota 55111-4056 (612/713-5334).
Region 4. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Puerto Rico,
and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875
Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30345 (404/679-4156).
Region 5. Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300
Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, Massachusetts 01035-9589 (413/253-8615).
Region 6. Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.
Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box
25486, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225-0486 (303/236-
7400).
Region 7. Alaska.
Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East
Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503-6199 (907/786-3505).
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public inspection. Individual
respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the
public record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. In
some circumstances, we can also withhold from the public record a
respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish for us to
withhold your name and/or address, you must state this request
prominently at the beginning of your comments. However, we will not
consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying
themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or
businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
Authority
This notice is published under the authority of the Endangered
Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: June 3, 2002.
Steve Williams,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Table 1.--Candidate Notice of Review (animals and plants)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status
-------------------------- Lead region Scientific name Family Common name Historic range
Category Priority
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PT........... 3 R1 Pteropus Pteropodidae.... Bat, Mariana Western Pacific
mariannus fruit (=Mariana Ocean, U.S.A.
mariannus. flying fox). (GU, MP).
C*........... 3 R1 Emballonura Emballonuridae.. Bat, sheath- U.S.A. (AS, GU,
semicaudata. tailed MP), Caroline
(American Islands.
Samoa, Aguijan
DPS).
PE........... 3 R1 Urocyon Canidae......... Fox, San Miguel U.S.A. (CA).
littoralis Island.
littoralis.
[[Page 40673]]
PE.......... 3 R1 Urocyon Canidae......... Fox, Santa U.S.A. (CA).
littoralis Catalina Island.
catalinae.
PE........... 3 R1 Urocyon Canidae......... Fox, Santa Cruz U.S.A. (CA).
littoralis Island.
santacruzae.
PE........... 3 R1 Urocyon Canidae......... Fox, Santa Rosa U.S.A. (CA).
littoralis Island.
santarosae.
C*........... 3 R7 Enhydra lutris Mustelidae...... Otter, Northern U.S.A. (AK).
kenyoni. Sea (southwest
Alaska DPS).
C............ 6 R1 Thomomys mazama Geomyidae....... Pocket gopher, U.S.A. (WA).
(all ssp.). Mazama.
C*........... 8 R6 Cynomys Sciuridae....... Prairie dog, U.S.A. (AZ, CO,
ludovicianus. black-tailed. KS, MT, NE, NM,
ND, OK, SD, TX,
WY), Canada,
Mexico.
PE........... N/A R1 Brachylagus Leporidae....... Rabbit, pygmy U.S.A. (CA, ID,
idahoensis. (Columbia Basin MT, NV, OR, UT,
DPS). WA, WY).
C............ 6 R1 Spermophilus Sciuridae....... Squirrel, U.S.A. (CA).
tereticaudus Coachella
chlorus. Valley round-
tailed ground.
C*........... 3 R1 Spermophilus Sciuridae....... Squirrel, U.S.A. (ID).
brunneus Southern Idaho
endemicus. ground.
C*........... 2 R1 Spermophilus Sciuridae....... Squirrel, U.S.A. (WA, OR).
washingtoni. Washington
ground.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C............ 6 R1 Porzana Rallidae........ Crake, spotless U.S.A. (AS),
tabuensis. (American Samoa Fiji,
DPS). Marquesas,
Polynesia,
Philippines,
Australia,
Society
Islands, Tonga,
Western Samoa.
C............ 5 R1 Oreomystis Fringillidae.... Creeper, Kauai.. U.S.A. (HI).
bairdi.
C*........... 6 R1 Coccyzus Cuculidae....... Cuckoo, western U.S.A. (AZ, CA,
americanus yellow-billed CO, ID, MT, NM,
occidentalis. (Western U.S. NV, OR, TX, UT,
DPS). WA, WY),
Canada, Mexico,
Central & South
America.
C............ 6 R1 Gallicolumba Columbidae...... Dove, friendly U.S.A. (AS),
stairi. ground Fiji, Tonga,
(American Samoa Western Samoa.
DPS).
C............ 6 R1 Ptilinopus Columbidae...... Dove, many- U.S.A. (AS).
perousii colored fruit.
perousii.
C*........... 5 R6 Centrocercus Phasianidae..... Grouse, Gunnison U.S.A. (AZ, CO,
minimus. sage. KS, OK, NM,
UT).
C*........... 6 R1 Centrocercus Phasianidae..... Grouse, western U.S.A. (OR, WA),
urophasianus (Columbia basin Canada (BC).
phaios. DPS).
C............ 6 R1 Eremophila Alaudidae....... Horned lark, U.S.A. (OR, WA),
alpestris streaked. Canada (BC).
strigata.
PT........... 2 R6 Charadrius Charadriidae.... Plover, mountain U.S.A.
montanus. (western),
Canada, Mexico.
C*........... 8 R2 Tympanuchus Phasianidae..... Prairie-chicken, U.S.A. (CO, KA,
pallidicinctus. lesser. NM, OK, TX).
C*........... 3 R1 Oceanodroma Hyrobatidae..... Storm-petrel, U.S.A. (HI).
castro. band-rumped
(Hawaii DPS).
C............ 5 R4 Dendroica Emberizidae..... Warbler, elfin U.S.A. (PR).
angelae. woods.
PE........... 2 R1 Zosterops Zosteropidae.... White-eye, Rota U.S.A. (MP).
rotensis. bridled.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reptiles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C............ 2 R2 Sceloporus Iguanidae....... Lizard, sand U.S.A. (TX, NM).
arenicolus. dune.
C............ 9 R3 Sistrurus Viperidae....... Massasauga U.S.A. (IA, IL,
catenatus (=rattlesnake), IN, MI, MO, MN,
catenatus. eastern. NY, OH, PA,
WI), Canada.
C............ 6 R4 Pituophis Colubridae...... Snake, black U.S.A. (AL, LA,
melanoleucus pine. MS).
lodingi.
C*........... 5 R4 Pituophis Colubridae...... Snake, Louisiana U.S.A. (LA, TX).
ruthveni. pine.
C*........... 5 R2 Graptemys caglei Emydidae........ Turtle, Cagle's U.S.A. (TX).
map.
C............ 3 R2 Kinosternon Kinosternidae... Turtle, Sonoyta U.S.A. (AZ),
sonoriense mud. Mexico.
longifemorale.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphibians
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PT........... 2 R2 Rana Ranidae......... Frog, Chiricahua U.S.A. (AZ, NM),
chiricahuensis. leopard. Mexico.
C*........... 3 R1 Rana Ranidae......... Frog, Columbia U.S.A. (ID, NV,
luteiventris. spotted (Great OR).
Basin DPS).
PE........... (1) R1 Rana muscosa.... Ranidae......... Frog, mountain U.S.A. (CA, NV)
yellow-legged including San
(southern Diego, Orange,
California DPS). Riverside, San
Bernardino, and
Los Angeles
Counties.
C*........... 2 R1 Rana pretiosa... Ranidae......... Frog, Oregon U.S.A. (CA, OR,
spotted. WA), Canada
(BC).
C............ 5 R1 Rana onca....... Ranidae......... Frog, relict U.S.A. (AZ, NV,
leopard. UT).
C............ 6 R4 Cryptobranchus Crytobranchidae. Hellbender, U.S.A. (AR, MO).
alleganiensis Ozark.
bishopi.
C............ 2 R2 Eurycea Plethodontidae.. Salamander, U.S.A. (TX).
waterlooensis. Austin blind.
C*........... 5 R1 Ambystoma Ambystomatidae.. Salamander, U.S.A. (CA).
californiense. California
tiger (Entire,
except Sonoma
County and
where listed as
endangered).
[[Page 40674]]
C*........... 3 R1 Ambystoma Ambystomatidae.. Salamander, U.S.A. (CA).
californiense. California
tiger (U.S.A.
CA--Sonoma
County DPS).
C............ 2 R2 Eurycea Plethodontidae.. Salamander, U.S.A. (TX).
naufragia. Georgetown.
C............ 2 R2 Eurycea Plethodontidae.. Salamander, U.S.A. (TX).
chisholmensis. Salado.
C*........... 3 R6 Bufo boreas Bufonidae....... Toad, boreal U.S.A. (CO, NM,
boreas. (Southern Rocky WY).
Mountains DPS).
C............ 5 R4 Necturus Proteidae....... Waterdog, black U.S.A. (AL).
alabamensis. warrior.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PE........... 3 R1 Gila bicolor Cyprinidae...... Chub, Cowhead U.S.A. (CA).
vaccaceps. Lake tui.
C*........... 2 R2 Gila intermedia. Cyprinidae...... Chub, Gila...... U.S.A. (AZ, NM),
Mexico.
C............ 11 R6 Etheostoma Percidae........ Darter, Arkansas U.S.A. (AR, CO,
cragini. KS, MO, OK).
C............ 6 R4 Etheostoma Percidae........ Darter, U.S.A. (KY, TN).
nigrum susanae. Cumberland
johnny.
C............ 5 R4 Percina aurora.. Percidae........ Darter, Pearl... U.S.A. (LA, MS).
C............ 5 R4 Etheostoma Percidae........ Darter, rush.... U.S.A. (AL).
phytophilum.
C............ 2 R4 Etheostoma Percidae........ Darter, U.S.A. (AR).
moorei. yellowcheek.
C*........... 9 R6 Thymallus Salmonidae...... Grayling, Arctic U.S.A. (MT, WY).
arcticus. (upper Missouri
River DPS).
C............ 2 R4 Noturus sp...... Ictaluridae..... Madtom, chucky.. U.S.A. (TN).
C............ 2 R3 Cottus sp....... Cottidae........ Sculpin, grotto. U.S.A. (MO).
C............ 5 R2 Notropis Cyprinidae...... Shiner, U.S.A. (TX).
oxyrhynchus. sharpnose.
C............ 5 R2 Notropis buccula Cyprinidae...... Shiner, smalleye U.S.A. (TX).
C............ 3 R2 Catostomus Catostomidae.... Sucker, Zuni U.S.A. (AZ, NM).
discobolus bluehead.
yarrowi.
PT........... 6 R1 Oncorhynchus Salmonidae...... Trout, coastal U.S.A. (AK, CA,
clarki clarki. cutthroat OR, WA), Canada
(Southwestern (BC).
WA/Columbia
River DPS).
PSAT......... N/A R1 Salvelinus malma Salmonidae...... Trout, Dolly U.S.A. (AK, OR,
Varden. WA), Canada,
East Asia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clams
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C............ 5 R4 Pleurobema Unionidae....... Clubshell, U.S.A. (AL, GA,
troschelianum. Alabama. TN).
C............ 5 R4 Pleurobema Unionidae....... Clubshell, U.S.A. (AL, GA,
chattanoogaense. painted. TN).
C............ 2 R2 Popenaias popei. Unionidae....... Hornshell, Texas U.S.A. (NM, TX),
Mexico
C............ 5 R4 Ptychobranchus Unionidae....... Kidneyshell, U.S.A. (AL, KY,
subtentum. fluted. TN, VA).
C............ 5 R4 Lampsilis Unionidae....... Mucket, Neosho.. U.S.A. (AR, KS,
rafinesqueana. MO, OK).
C............ 2 R4 Margaritifera Margaritiferidae Pearlshell, U.S.A. (AL).
marrianae. Alabama.
C............ 5 R4 Lexingtonia Unionidae....... Pearlymussel, U.S.A. (AL, KY,
dolabelloides. slabside. TN, VA).
C............ 5 R4 Pleurobema Unionidae....... Pigtoe, Georgia. U.S.A. (AL, GA,
hanleyanum. TN).
C............ 5 R4 Elliptio spinosa Unionidae....... Spinymussel, U.S.A. (GA).
Altamaha.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snails
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PE........... 1 R3 Antrobia culveri Hydrobiidae..... Cavesnail, U.S.A. (MO).
Tumbling Creek.
C............ 9 R6 Oreohelix Oreohelicidae... Mountainsnail, U.S.A. (UT).
peripherica Ogden Deseret.
wasatchensis.
C............ 2 R6 Stagnicola Lymnaeidae...... Pondsnail, U.S.A. (UT).
bonnevilensis. Bonneville.
C............ 2 R1 Pyrgulopsis Hydrobiidae..... Pyrg, elongate U.S.A. (NV).
notidicola. mud meadows.
C............ 5 R4 Leptoxis downei. Pleuroceridae... Rocksnail, U.S.A. (GA, AL).
Georgia.
C............ 2 R1 Ostodes Potaridae....... Sisi............ U.S.A. (AS).
strigatus.
C............ 2 R2 Tryonia Hydrobiidae..... Snail, Diamond Y U.S.A. (TX).
adamantina. Spring.
C............ 2 R1 Samoana fragilis Partulidae...... Snail, fragile U.S.A. (GU, MP).
tree.
C............ 2 R1 Partula Partulidae...... Snail, Guam tree U.S.A. (GU).
radiolata.
C............ 2 R1 Partula gibba... Partulidae...... Snail, Humped U.S.A. (GU, MP).
tree.
PE........... 2 R2 Tryonia kosteri. Hydrobiidae..... Snail, Koster's U.S.A. (NM).
tryonia.
C............ 2 R1 Partulina Achatinellidae.. Snail, Lanai U.S.A. (HI).
semicarinata. tree.
C............ 2 R1 Partulina Achatinellidae.. Snail, Lanai U.S.A. (HI).
variabilis. tree.
C............ 2 R1 Partula Partulidae...... Snail, U.S.A. (MP).
langfordi. Langford's tree.
PE........... 2 R2 Assiminea pecos. Assimineidae.... Snail, Pecos U.S.A. (NM, TX),
assiminea. Mexico.
C............ 2 R2 Cochliopa texana Hydrobiidae..... Snail, Phantom U.S.A. (TX).
Lake cave.
C............ 2 R1 Eua zebrina..... Partulidae...... Snail, Tutuila U.S.A. (AS).
tree.
C............ 2 R2 Tryonia cheatumi Hydrobiidae..... Springsnail U.S.A. (TX).
(=Tryonia),
Phantom.
C*........... 2 R2 Pyrgulopsis Hydrobiidae..... Springsnail, U.S.A. (NM).
chupaderae. Chupadera.
C*........... 11 R2 Pyrgulopsis Hydrobiidae..... Springsnail, U.S.A. (NM).
gilae. Gila.
C............ 2 R2 Tryonia Hydrobiidae..... Springsnail, U.S.A. (TX)
circumstriata Gonzales.
(=stocktonensis
).
C............ 5 R2 Pyrgulopsis Hydrobiidae..... Springsnail, U.S.A. (AZ),
thompsoni. Huachuca. Mexico.
C*........... 11 R2 Pyrgulopsis Hydrobiidae..... Springsnail, New New U.S.A. (NM).
thermalis. Mexico.
C*........... 2 R2 Pyrgulopsis Hydrobiidae..... Springsnail, U.S.A. (AZ).
morrisoni. Page.
[[Page 40675]]
PE........... 2 R2 Pyrgulopsis Hydrobiidae..... Springsnail, U.S.A. (NM).
roswellensis. Roswell.
C............ 2 R2 Pyrgulopsis Hydrobiidae..... Springsnail, U.S.A. (AZ).
trivialis. Three Forks.
C............ 5 R1 Newcombia Achatinellidae.. Tree snail, U.S.A. (HI)
cumingi. Newcomb's.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C............ 11 R6 Zaitzevia Elmidae......... Beetle, Warm U.S.A. (MT).
thermae. Springs
Zaitzevian
riffle.
C............ 2 R1 Nysius Lygaeidae....... Bug, Wekiu...... U.S.A. (HI).
wekiuicola.
C............ 3 R1 Hypolimnas Nymphalidae..... Butterfly, U.S.A. (GU, MP).
octucula Mariana eight-
mariannensis. spot.
C............ 2 R1 Vagrans egestina Nymphalidae..... Butterfly, U.S.A. (GU, MP).
Mariana
wandering.
PE........... N/A R2 Euphydryas Nymphalidae..... Butterfly, U.S.A. (NM).
anicia Sacramento
cloudcrofti. Mountains
checkerspot.
C............ 6 R1 Euphydryas Nymphalidae..... Butterfly, U.S.A. (OR, WA),
editha taylori. whulge Canada (BC).
checkerspot
(=Taylor's).
C............ 5 R4 Glyphopsyche Limnephilidae... Caddisfly, U.S.A. (TN).
sequatchie. Sequatchie.
C............ 5 R4 Pseudanophthalmu Carabidae....... Cave beetle, U.S.A. (KY).
s major. beaver.
C............ 5 R4 Pseudanophthalmu Carabidae....... Cave beetle, U.S.A. (KY).
s caecus. Clifton.
C............ 5 R4 Pseudanophthalmu Carabidae....... Cave beetle, U.S.A. (KY).
s pholeter. greater Adams.
C............ 5 R5 Pseudanophthalmu Carabidae....... Cave Beetle, U.S.A. (VA).
s holsingeri. Holsinger's.
C............ 5 R4 Pseudanophthalmu Carabidae....... Cave beetle, U.S.A. (KY).
s frigidus. icebox.
C............ 5 R4 Pseudanophthalmu Carabidae....... Cave beetle, U.S.A. (TN).
s inquisitor. inquirer.
C............ 5 R4 Pseudanophthalmu Carabidae....... Cave beetle, U.S.A. (KY).
s cataryctos. lesser Adams.
C............ 5 R4 Pseudanophthalmu Carabidae....... Cave beetle, U.S.A. (KY).
s troglodytes. Louisville.
C............ 5 R4 Pseudanophthalmu Carabidae....... Cave beetle, U.S.A. (KY).
s inexpectatus. surprising.
C............ 5 R4 Pseudanophthalmu Carabidae....... Cave beetle, U.S.A. (KY).
s parvus. Tatum.
C............ 9 R1 Megalagrion Coenagrionidae.. Damselfly, U.S.A. (HI).
nigrohamatum blackline
nigrolineatum. Hawaiian.
C............ 2 R1 Megalagrion Coenagrionidae.. Damselfly, U.S.A. (HI).
leptodemus. crimson
Hawaiian.
C............ 2 R1 Megalagrion Coenagrionidae.. Damselfly, U.S.A. (HI).
nesiotes. flying earwig
Hawaiian.
C............ 2 R1 Megalagrion Coenagrionidae.. Damselfly, U.S.A. (HI).
oceanicum. oceanic
Hawaiian.
C............ 8 R1 Megalagrion Coenagrionidae.. Damselfly, U.S.A. (HI).
xanthomelas. orangeblack
Hawaiian.
C............ 2 R1 Megalagrion Coenagrionidae.. Damselfly, U.S.A. (HI).
pacificum. Pacific
Hawaiian.
C............ 5 R1 Phaeogramma sp.. Tephritidae..... Gall fly, U.S.A. (HI).
Po'olanui.
PE........... 2 R1 Drosophila Drosophilidae... Pomace fly, U.S.A. (HI).
aglaia. [unnamed].
C............ 2 R1 Drosophila Drosophilidae... Pomace fly, U.S.A. (HI).
attigua. [unnamed].
C............ 2 R1 Drosophila Drosophilidae... Pomace fly, U.S.A. (HI).
digressa. [unnamed].
PE........... 2 R1 Drosophila Drosophilidae... Pomace fly, U.S.A. (HI).
heteroneura. [unnamed].
PE........... 2 R1 Drosophila Drosophilidae... Pomace fly, U.S.A. (HI).
montgomeryi. [unnamed].
PE........... 2 R1 Drosophila mulli Drosophilidae... Pomace fly, U.S.A. (HI).
[unnamed].
PE........... 2 R1 Drosophila Drosophilidae... Pomace fly, U.S.A. (HI).
musaphila. [unnamed].
PE........... 2 R1 Drosophila Drosophilidae... Pomace fly, U.S.A. (HI).
neoclavisetae. [unnamed].
PE........... 2 R1 Drosophila Drosophilidae... Pomace fly, U.S.A. (HI).
obatai. [unnamed].
PE........... 2 R1 Drosophila Drosophilidae... Pomace fly, U.S.A. (HI).
substenoptera. [unnamed].
PE........... 2 R1 Drosophila Drosophilidae... Pomace fly, U.S.A. (HI).
tarphytrichia. [unnamed].
PE........... 2 R1 Drosophila Drosophilidae... Pomace fly, U.S.A. (HI).
hemipeza. [unnamed].
PE........... 2 R1 Drosophila Drosophilidae... Pomace fly, U.S.A. (HI).
ochrobasis. [unnamed].
PE........... 2 R1 Drosophila Drosophilidae... Pomace fly, U.S.A. (HI).
differens. [unnamed].
C............ 5 R2 Heterelmis Elmidae......... Riffle beetle, U.S.A. (AZ).
stephani. Stephan's.
PE........... 3 R1 Pseudocopaeodes Hesperiidae..... Skipper, Carson U.S.A. (CA, NV).
eunus obscurus. wandering.
C............ 11 R3 Hesperia dacotae Hesperiidae..... Skipper, Dakota. U.S.A. (MN, IA,
SD, ND, IL),
Canada.
C............ 5 R1 Polites mardon.. Hesperiidae..... Skipper, Mardon. U.S.A. (CA, OR,
WA).
C*........... 9 R6 Cicindela Cicindelidae.... Tiger beetle, U.S.A. (UT).
limbata Coral Pink Sand
albissima. Dunes.
C............ 5 R4 Cicindela Cicindelidae.... Tiger beetle, U.S.A. (FL).
highlandensis. highlands.
C............ 3 R6 Cicindela Cicindelidae.... Tiger beetle, U.S.A. (NE).
nevadica Salt Creek.
lincolniana.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 40676]]
Arachnids
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C............ 2 R2 Cicurina wartoni Dictynidae...... Meshweaver, U.S.A. (TX).
Warton's cave.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crustaceans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PE........... N/A R2 Gammarus Gammaridae...... Amphipod, Noel's U.S.A. (NM).
desperatus.
C............ 11 R4 Fallicambarus Cambaridae...... Crayfish, Camp U.S.A. (MS).
gordoni. Shelby
burrowing.
C............ 2 R1 Metabetaeus Alpheidae....... Shrimp, U.S.A. (HI).
lohena. anchialine pool.
C............ 2 R1 Antecaridina Atyidae......... Shrimp, U.S.A. (HI),
lauensis. anchialine pool. Mozambique,
Saudi Arabia,
Japan.
C............ 2 R1 Calliasmata Alpheidae....... Shrimp, U.S.A. (HI),
pholidota. anchialine pool. Funafuti Atoll,
Saudi Arabia,
Sinai
Peninsula,
Tuvalu.
C............ 2 R1 Palaemonella Palaemonidae.... Shrimp, U.S.A. (HI).
burnsi. anchialine pool.
C............ 2 R1 Procaris Procarididae.... Shrimp, U.S.A. (HI).
hawaiana. anchialine pool.
C............ 2 R1 Vetericaris Procaridae...... Shrimp, U.S.A. (HI).
chaceorum. anchialine pool.
C............ 5 R4 Typhlatya monae. Atyidae......... Shrimp, U.S.A. (PR),
troglobitic Barbuda,
groundwater. Dominican
Republic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C............ 11 R1 Abronia alpina.. Nyctaginaceae... Sand-verbena, U.S.A. (CA).
Ramshaw Meadows.
C............ 11 R6 Alicelia Polemoniaceae... Alice-flower, U.S.A. (UT).
caespitosa. wonderland.
PE........... N/A R1 Ambrosia pumila. Asteraceae...... Ambrosia, San U.S.A. (CA),
Diego. Mexico.
C............ 11 R4 Arabis georgiana Brassicaceae.... Rockcress, U.S.A. (AL, GA).
Georgia.
C............ 11 R4 Argythamnia Euphorbiaceae... Silverbrush, U.S.A. (FL).
blodgettii. Blodgett's.
C............ 3 R1 Artemisia Asteraceae...... Wormwood, U.S.A. (OR, WA).
campestris var. northern.
wormskioldii.
C............ 2 R1 Astelia Liliaceae....... Pa`iniu......... U.S.A. (HI).
waialealae.
C............ 5 R4 Aster georgianus Asteraceae...... Aster, Georgia.. U.S.A. (AL, FL,
GA, NC, SC).
C............ 8 R6 Astragalus Fabaceae........ Milk-vetch, U.S.A. (UT).
equisolensis. horseshoe.
C............ 8 R6 Astragalus Fabaceae........ Milk-vetch, U.S.A. (CO).
tortipes. Sleeping Ute.
C............ 5 R1 Bidens Asteraceae...... Ko`oko`olau..... U.S.A. (HI).
amplectens.
C............ 6 R1 Bidens Asteraceae...... Ko`oko`olau..... U.S.A. (HI).
campylotheca
pentamera.
C............ 3 R1 Bidens Asteraceae...... Ko`oko`olau..... U.S.A. (HI).
campylotheca
waihoiensis.
C............ 8 R1 Bidens conjuncta Asteraceae...... Ko`oko`olau..... U.S.A. (HI).
C............ 6 R1 Bidens micrantha Asteraceae...... Ko`oko`olau..... U.S.A. (HI).
ctenophylla.
C............ 5 R4 Brickellia Asteraceae...... Brickell-bush, U.S.A. (FL).
mosieri. Florida.
C............ 5 R1 Calamagrostis Poaceae......... Reedgrass, U.S.A. (HI).
expansa. [unnamed].
C............ 5 R1 Calamagrostis Poaceae......... Reedgrass, U.S.A. (HI).
hillebrandii. [unnamed].
C............ 5 R4 Calliandra Mimosaceae...... No common name.. U.S.A. (PR).
locoensis.
C............ 2 R1 Calochortus Liliaceae....... Mariposa lily, U.S.A. (CA).
persistens. Siskiyou.
C............ 5 R4 Calyptranthes Myrtaceae....... No common name.. U.S.A. (PR).
estremerae.
C............ 5 R1 Canavalia Fabaceae........ `Awikiwiki...... U.S.A. (HI).
napaliensis.
C............ 2 R1 Canavalia Fabaceae........ `Awikiwiki...... U.S.A. (HI).
pubescens.
C............ 8 R6 Castilleja Scrophulariaceae Paintbrush, U.S.A. (UT).
aquariensis. Aquarius.
C*........... 11 R1 Castilleja Scrophulariaceae Paintbrush, U.S.A. (ID).
christii. Christ's.
C............ 6 R4 Chamaecrista Fabaceae........ Pea, Big Pine U.S.A. (FL).
lineata partridge.
keyensis.
C............ 6 R4 Chamaesyce Euphorbiaceae... Sandmat, U.S.A. (FL).
deltoidea pineland.
pinetorum.
C............ 6 R4 Chamaesyce Euphorbiaceae... Spurge, wedge... U.S.A. (FL).
deltoidea
serpyllum.
C............ 5 R1 Chamaesyce Euphorbiaceae... `Akoko.......... U.S.A. (HI).
eleanoriae.
C............ 6 R1 Chamaesyce remyi Euphorbiaceae... `Akoko.......... U.S.A. (HI).
var. remyi.
C............ 6 R1 Chamaesyce remyi Euphorbiaceae... `Akoko.......... U.S.A. (HI).
var. kauaiensis.
C............ 5 R1 Charpentiera Amaranthaceae... Papala.......... U.S.A. (HI).
densiflora.
C*........... 3 R1 Chorizanthe Polygonaceae.... Spineflower, San U.S.A. (CA).
parryi var. Fernando Valley.
fernandina.
C............ 5 R4 Chromolaena Asteraceae...... Thoroughwort, U.S.A. (FL).
frustrata. Cape Sable.
C............ 2 R4 Consolea Cactaceae....... Cactus, Florida U.S.A. (FL).
corallicola. semaphore.
C............ 2 R4 Cordia rupicola. Boraginaceae.... No common name.. U.S.A. (PR),
Anegada
C............ 2 R1 Cyanea Campanulaceae... Haha............ U.S.A. (HI).
asplenifolia.
C............ 5 R1 Cyanea calycina. Campanulaceae... Haha............ U.S.A. (HI).
C............ 2 R1 Cyanea Campanulaceae... Haha............ U.S.A. (HI).
eleeleensis.
C............ 2 R1 Cyanea kuhihewa. Campanulaceae... Haha............ U.S.A. (HI).
C............ 5 R1 Cyanea kunthiana Campanulaceae... Haha............ U.S.A. (HI).
C............ 5 R1 Cyanea Campanulaceae... Haha............ U.S.A. (HI).
lanceolata.
C............ 2 R1 Cyanea obtusa... Campanulaceae... Haha............ U.S.A. (HI).
C............ 5 R1 Cyanea Campanulaceae... Haha............ U.S.A. (HI).
tritomantha.
[[Page 40677]]
C............ 2 R1 Cyrtandra Gesneriaceae.... Ha`iwale........ U.S.A. (HI).
filipes.
C............ 5 R1 Cyrtandra Gesneriaceae.... Ha`iwale........ U.S.A. (HI).
kaulantha.
C............ 5 R1 Cyrtandra Gesneriaceae.... Ha`iwale........ U.S.A. (HI).
oenobarba.
C............ 2 R1 Cyrtandra Gesneriaceae.... Ha`iwale........ U.S.A. (HI).
oxybapha.
C............ 2 R1 Cyrtandra Gesneriaceae.... Ha`iwale........ U.S.A. (HI).
sessilis.
C............ 6 R4 Dalea Fabaceae........ Prairie-clover, U.S.A. (FL).
carthagenensis Florida.
floridana.
C............ 5 R4 Digitaria Poaceae......... Crabgrass, U.S.A. (FL).
pauciflora. Florida
pineland.
C............ 6 R1 Dubautia Asteraceae...... Na`ena`e........ U.S.A. (HI).
imbricata
imbricata.
C............ 3 R1 Dubautia Asteraceae...... Na`ena`e........ U.S.A. (HI).
plantaginea
magnifolia.
C............ 5 R1 Dubautia Asteraceae...... Na`ena`e........ U.S.A. (HI).
waialealae.
C............ 6 R2 Echinomastus Cactaceae....... Cactus, Acuna... U.S.A. (AZ),
erectocentrus Mexico.
var. acunensis.
C............ 11 R1 Erigeron Asteraceae...... Daisy, basalt... U.S.A. (WA).
basalticus.
C............ 5 R2 Erigeron Asteraceae...... Fleabane, Lemmon U.S.A. (AZ).
lemmonii.
C............ 2 R1 Eriogonum codium Polygonaceae.... Buckwheat, U.S.A. (WA).
Umtanum Desert.
C............ 5 R1 Eriogonum Polygonaceae.... Buckwheat, Red U.S.A. (CA).
kelloggii. Mountain.
C............ 5 R1 Festuca Poaceae......... No common name.. U.S.A. (HI).
hawaiiensis.
C............ 11 R2 Festuca ligulata Poaceae......... Fescue, U.S.A. (TX),
Guadalupe. Mexico.
C............ 5 R1 Gardenia remyi.. Rubiaceae....... Nanu............ U.S.A. (HI).
C............ 5 R1 Geranium Geraniaceae..... Nohoanu......... U.S.A. (HI).
hanaense.
C............ 8 R1 Geranium Geraniaceae..... Nohoanu......... U.S.A. (HI).
hillebrandii.
C............ 2 R1 Geranium Geraniaceae..... Nohoanu......... U.S.A. (HI).
kauaiense.
C............ 5 R4 Gonocalyx Ericaceae....... No common name.. U.S.A. (PR).
concolor.
C............ 5 R1 Hedyotis Rubiaceae....... Kampu`a......... U.S.A. (HI).
fluviatilis.
C............ 5 R4 Helianthus Asteraceae...... Sunflower, U.S.A. (AL, GA,
verticillatus. whorled. TN).
C............ 5 R2 Hibiscus Malvaceae....... Rose-mallow, U.S.A. (TX).
dasycalyx. Neches River.
C............ 6 R4 Indigofera Fabaceae........ Indigo, Florida. U.S.A. (FL).
mucronata
keyensis.
C............ 5 R1 Ivesia webberi.. Rosaceae........ Ivesia, Webber.. U.S.A. (CA, NV).
C............ 3 R1 Joinvillea Joinvilleaceae.. Ohe............. U.S.A. (HI).
ascendens
ascendens.
C............ 5 R1 Korthalsella Viscaceae....... Hulumoa......... U.S.A. (HI).
degeneri.
C............ 5 R1 Labordia helleri Loganiaceae..... Kamakahala...... U.S.A. (HI).
C............ 5 R1 Labordia pumila. Loganiaceae..... Kamakahala...... U.S.A. (HI).
C............ 5 R1 Lagenifera erici Asteraceae...... No common name.. U.S.A. (HI).
C............ 5 R1 Lagenifera Asteraceae...... No common name.. U.S.A. (HI).
helenae.
C............ 5 R4 Leavenworthia Brassicaceae.... Gladecress, U.S.A. (AL).
crassa. [unnamed].
C............ 2 R2 Leavenworthia Brassicaceae.... Gladecress, U.S.A. (TX).
texana. Texas golden.
C*........... 2 R1 Lepidium Brassicaceae.... Peppergrass, U.S.A. (ID).
papilliferum. Slick spot.
C............ 5 R4 Lesquerella Brassicaceae.... Bladderpod, U.S.A. (IN, KY,
globosa. Short's. TN).
C............ 5 R1 Lesquerella Brassicaceae.... Bladderpod, U.S.A. (WA).
tuplashensis. White Bluffs.
PE........... 3 R1 Limnanthes Limnanthaceae... Meadowfoam, U.S.A. (OR).
floccosa large-flowered
grandiflora. wooly.
C............ 2 R4 Linum arenicola. Linaceae........ Flax, sand...... U.S.A. (FL).
C............ 3 R4 Linum carteri Linaceae........ Flax, Carter's U.S.A. (FL).
carteri. small-flowered.
PE........... 2 R1 Lomatium cookii. Apiaceae........ Lomatium, Cook's U.S.A. (OR).
C............ 5 R1 Lysimachia Primulaceae..... Makanoe lehua... U.S.A. (HI).
daphnoides.
C............ 5 R1 Melicope Rutaceae........ Alani........... U.S.A. (HI).
christopherseni
i.
C............ 2 R1 Melicope Rutaceae........ Alani........... U.S.A. (HI).
degeneri.
C............ 2 R1 Melicope hiiakae Rutaceae........ Alani........... U.S.A. (HI).
C............ 2 R1 Melicope makahae Rutaceae........ Alani........... U.S.A. (HI).
C............ 2 R1 Melicope Rutaceae........ Alani........... U.S.A. (HI).
paniculata.
C............ 5 R1 Melicope Rutaceae........ Alani........... U.S.A. (HI).
puberula.
C............ 5 R1 Myrsine Myrsinaceae..... Kolea........... U.S.A. (HI).
fosbergii.
C............ 2 R1 Myrsine mezii... Myrsinaceae..... Kolea........... U.S.A. (HI).
C............ 5 R1 Myrsine Myrsinaceae..... Kolea........... U.S.A. (HI).
vaccinioides.
C............ 8 R5 Narthecium Liliaceae....... Asphodel, bog... U.S.A. (DE, NC,
americanum. NJ, NY, SC).
PE........... 1 R1 Nesogenes Verbenaceae..... No common name.. U.S.A. (MP).
rotensis.
C............ 5 R1 Nothocestrum Solanaceae...... `Aiea........... U.S.A. (HI).
latifolium.
C............ 2 R1 Ochrosia Apocynaceae..... Holei........... U.S.A. (HI).
haleakalae.
PE........... 2 R1 Osmoxylon Araliaceae...... No common name.. U.S.A. (MP).
mariannense.
C............ 5 R5 Panicum hirstii. Poaceae......... Panic grass, U.S.A. (DE, GA,
Hirst`. NC, NJ).
C............ 11 R2 Paronychia Caryophyllaceae. Whitlow-wort, U.S.A. (TX).
congesta. bushy.
C............ 6 R2 Pediocactus Cactaceae....... Cactus, U.S.A. (AZ).
peeblesianus Fickeisen
fickeiseniae. plains.
C............ 5 R6 Penstemon Scrophulariaceae Beardtongue, U.S.A. (CO).
debilis. Parachute.
C............ 5 R6 Penstemon Scrophulariaceae Beardtongue, U.S.A. (CO, UT).
grahamii. Graham.
C*........... 6 R6 Penstemon Scrophulariaceae Beardtongue, U.S.A. (CO, UT).
scariosus White River.
albifluvis.
[[Page 40678]]
C............ 2 R1 Peperomia Piperaceae...... `Ala `ala wai U.S.A. (HI).
subpetiolata. nui.
C............ 11 R6 Phacelia Hydrophyllaceae. Phacelia, U.S.A. (CO).
submutica. DeBeque.
C............ 2 R1 Phyllostegia Lamiaceae....... No common name.. U.S.A. (HI).
bracteata.
C............ 5 R1 Phyllostegia Lamiaceae....... No common name.. U.S.A. (HI).
floribunda.
C............ 2 R1 Phyllostegia Lamiaceae....... No common name.. U.S.A. (HI).
hispida.
C............ 5 R1 Pittosporum Pittosporaceae.. Ho`awa.......... U.S.A. (HI).
napaliense.
C............ 5 R4 Platanthera Orchidaceae..... Orchid, white U.S.A. (AL, GA,
integrilabia. fringeless. KY, MS, NC, SC,
TN, VA).
C............ 6 R1 Platydesma Rutaceae........ No common name.. U.S.A. (HI).
cornuta cornuta.
C............ 6 R1 Platydesma Rutaceae........ No common name.. U.S.A. (HI).
cornuta
decurrens.
C............ 2 R1 Platydesma remyi Rutaceae........ No common name.. U.S.A. (HI).
C............ 5 R1 Platydesma Rutaceae........ Pilo kea lau U.S.A. (HI).
rostrata. li`i.
C............ 5 R1 Pleomele Agavaceae....... Hala pepe....... U.S.A. (HI).
forbesii.
PE........... 2 R1 Polygonum Polygonaceae.... Polygonum, U.S.A. (CA).
hickmanii. Scotts Valley.
C............ 5 R1 Potentilla Rosaceae........ Cinquefoil, U.S.A. (NV).
basaltica. Soldier Meadows.
C............ 5 R1 Pritchardia Asteraceae...... Lo`ulu, U.S.A. (HI).
hardyi. (=Na`ena`e)..
C............ 6 R1 Pseudognaphalium Asteraceae...... `Ena`ena........ U.S.A. (HI).
(=Gnaphalium)
sandwicensium
var molokaiense.
C............ 2 R1 Psychotria Rubiaceae....... Kopiko.......... U.S.A. (HI).
grandiflora.
C............ 3 R1 Psychotria Rubiaceae....... Kopiko.......... U.S.A. (HI).
hexandra
oahuensis.
C............ 2 R1 Psychotria Rubiaceae....... Kopiko.......... U.S.A. (HI).
hobdyi.
C............ 5 R1 Pteralyxia Apocynaceae..... Kaulu........... U.S.A. (HI).
macrocarpa.
C............ 5 R1 Ranunculus Ranunculaceae... Makou........... U.S.A. (HI).
hawaiensis.
C............ 2 R1 Ranunculus Ranunculaceae... Makou........... U.S.A. (HI).
mauiensis.
C *.......... 2 R1 Rorippa Brassicaceae.... Cress, Tahoe U.S.A. (CA, NV).
subumbellata. yellow.
C............ 2 R1 Schiedea Caryophyllaceae. No common name.. U.S.A. (HI).
attenuata.
C............ 2 R1 Schiedea Caryophyllaceae. Ma`oli`oli...... U.S.A. (HI).
pubescens.
C............ 2 R1 Schiedea Caryophyllaceae. No common name.. U.S.A. (HI).
salicaria.
C............ 5 R1 Sedum Crassulaceae.... Stonecrop, Red U.S.A. (CA).
eastwoodiae. Mountain.
C............ 5 R1 Sicyos Cucurbitaceae... `Anunu.......... U.S.A. (HI).
macrophyllus.
C............ 9 R1 Sidalcea Malvaceae....... Checkerbloom, U.S.A. (CA).
hickmanii Parish's.
parishii.
C............ 5 R1 Solanum nelsonii Solanaceae...... Popolo.......... U.S.A. (HI).
C............ 2 R1 Stenogyne Lamiaceae....... No common name.. U.S.A. (HI).
cranwelliae.
C............ 2 R1 Stenogyne Lamiaceae....... No common name.. U.S.A. (HI).
kealiae.
PE........... 2 R1 Tabernaemontana Apocynaceae..... No common name.. U.S.A. (GU, MP).
rotensis.
C............ 2 R1 Zanthoxylum Rutaceae........ A`e............. U.S.A. (HI).
oahuense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ferns and Allies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C*........... 11 R1 Botrychium Ophioglossaceae. Moonwort, U.S.A. (CA, CO,
lineare. slender. ID, MT, OR,
WA), Canada
(BC, NB, QC).
C............ 6 R1 Cyclosorus Thelypteridaceae No common name.. U.S.A. (HI).
boydiae boydiae.
C............ 6 R1 Cyclosorus Thelypteridaceae No common name.. U.S.A. (HI).
boydiae
kipahuluensis.
C............ 2 R1 Doryopteris Dryopteridaceae. No common name.. U.S.A. (HI).
takeuchii.
C............ 2 R1 Dryopteris Dryopteridaceae. No common name.. U.S.A. (HI).
tenebrosa.
C............ 2 R1 Microlepia Dennstaedtiaceae No common name.. U.S.A. (HI).
mauiensis.
C............ 2 R1 Phlegmariurus Lycopodiaceae... Wawae`iole...... U.S.A. (HI).
stemmermanniae.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 No data.
Table 2.--Former Candidate and Former Proposed Animals and Plants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status
----------------------------- Lead region Scientific name Family Common name Historic range
Code Expl
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E............ L R1 Sorex ornatus Soricidae...... Shrew, Buena U.S.A. (CA).
relictus. Vista Lake
ornate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphibians
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E............ L R4 Rana capito Ranidae........ Frog, U.S.A. (AL, FL,
sevosa. Mississippi LA, MS).
gopher
(Wherever
found west of
Mobile and
Tombigbee
Rivers in AL,
MS, and LA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 40679]]
Fishes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E............ L R4 Etheostoma Percidae....... Darter, U.S.A. (AL).
chermocki. vermilion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rc........... I R1 Tinostoma Sphingidae..... Moth, fabulous U.S.A. (HI).
smaragditis. green sphinx.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E............ L R4 Carex lutea..... Cyperaceae..... Sedge, golden.. U.S.A. (NC).
E............ L R1 Hackelia venusta Boraginaceae... Stickseed, U.S.A. (WA).
showy.
Rc........... M R1 Pleomele Agavaceae...... Hala pepe...... U.S.A. (HI).
fernaldii.
T............ L R6 Yermo Asteraceae..... Yellowhead, U.S.A. (WY).
xanthocephalus. desert.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 02-14963 Filed 6-12-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P