Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Plant
and Animal Species That Are Candidates or Proposed for Listing as
Endangered or Threatened, Annual Notice of Findings on Recycled
Petitions, and Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions
[Federal Register: October 30, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 210)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 54807-54832]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30oc01-35]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Plant
and Animal Species That Are Candidates or Proposed for Listing as
Endangered or Threatened, Annual Notice of Findings on Recycled
Petitions, and Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of review of species which are candidates or proposed
for listing, findings on recycled petitions, and progress on listing
actions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this notice of review, 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 listing priority assignment forms
for 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 January 8, 2001, to
October 17, 2001.
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 of review
will be available for public inspection by appointment 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 Web site (http://
www.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 or 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 252 species that we regard as
candidates for addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants (Lists), as well as 35 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 25, 1999,
Candidate Notice of Review (64 FR 57534). 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 74 species we identified
as candidates or as proposed species in the October 25, 1999, Candidate
Notice of Review that we now no longer consider candidates. This
includes 21 species that we removed from candidate status (including 8
species we are removing from candidate status through this notice) and
53 species we listed as threatened or endangered since October 25,
1999. 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, that will include 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
[[Page 54809]]
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), and October 25, 1999 (64 FR
57534). On January 8, 2001 (66 FR 1295), we published our recycled
petition finding for one plant species that had outstanding warranted
but precluded findings.
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), and October
25, 1999 (64 FR 57534). 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 (including, by definition, biological species; subspecies
of fish, wildlife, or plants; and distinct population segments (DPS) of
vertebrate animals) that we currently regard as candidates for addition
to the Lists. 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 names of genera,
species, and relevant subspecies and varieties under the major group
headings for animals first, then 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 (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 name.
Table 1 lists all species that we regard as candidates for listing
and all species proposed for listing under the Act. Candidate species
are those species for which we have on file sufficient information on
biological vulnerability and threats to support issuance of a proposed
rule to list, but issuance of the proposed rule is precluded by other
higher priority listing actions. 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. 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).
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.
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). We anticipate developing and publishing
proposed rules for candidate species in the future. We encourage
State and other Federal agencies as well as other parties to give
consideration to these species in environmental planning.
The column labeled ``Priority'' indicates the listing priority
number for each candidate species that we use to determine the most
appropriate use of our available resources. 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 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.
Following the common name (fourth column) is the scientific name
(fifth column) and the family designation (sixth column). The seventh
column provides the known historical range for the species or
vertebrate population, 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 1999 notice of review but have
since removed from such status for a variety of reasons. We added many
of the species identified as proposed in the last notice of review to
the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Table 2
also includes species that became candidates or were proposed for
listing since the 1999 notice of review and are no longer classified as
either candidates or proposed species (for example candidates or
proposed species that we listed or withdrew since the 1999 notice of
review). The first column indicates the present status of the species,
using the following codes:
[[Page 54810]]
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 issuance of a proposed
listing.
Rp--Species we removed from the candidate list because we have
withdrawn the proposed listing.
The second column provides a coded explanation of why we no longer
regard the species as a candidate or proposed species. Descriptions of
the codes are as follows:
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 continuance of candidate status, issuance of a
proposed listing, or a final listing. The reduction in threats could
be due, in part, or all, to actions taken under a conservation
agreement.
F--Species whose range is no longer 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 or 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 a listable entity (do not meet the Act's
definition of ``species'') based on 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 1999 notice of review, we reviewed the
available information on candidate species to ensure that issuance of a
proposed listing is justified for each species and to reevaluate the
relative listing priority assignment of each species. We undertook this
effort to ensure we focus conservation efforts on those species at
greatest risk. As of October 17, 2001, 9 plants and 19 animals are
proposed for endangered status; 2 plants and 5 animals are proposed for
threatened status; and 139 plant and 113 animal candidates are awaiting
preparation of proposed rules (see Table 1). Table 2 includes 74
species that we 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, 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 our Website (http://
endangered.fws.gov).
Mammals
Island fox (Urocyon littoralis catalinae, U. l. santacruzae, U. l.
littoralis, and U. l. santarosae)--The Santa Catalina Island fox, Santa
Cruz Island fox, San Miguel Island fox, and Santa Rosa Island fox
numbers have declined drastically in the last 4 years. Total island fox
numbers have fallen from approximately 6,000 individuals to less than
2,000 in the last 4 years. Island fox populations on San Miguel and
Santa Cruz islands declined by an estimated 80 to 90 percent, and,
based on studies conducted as recently as 1999, the island fox has a 50
percent chance of extinction over the next 5 to 10 years. Long-term
island fox population monitoring has not been undertaken on Santa Rosa
Island; however, anecdotal observations and limited trapping efforts
strongly suggest that a similar decline has occurred for this
population as well. The primary causes of the decline of these island
fox subspecies are the degradation of habitat by introduced herbivores,
the increased predation by golden eagles, the rapid transmission of
canine distemper through the Santa Catalina subspecies, and the lack of
regulation to address the threats. Based on imminent threats of a high
magnitude, we assigned these island fox subspecies a listing priority
number of 3.
Mazama pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama--all subspecies)--The Mazama
pocket gopher is strongly associated with glacial outwash prairies in
western Washington. The prairie of South Puget Sound is one of the
rarest habitats in the United States. We assessed the current
distribution of the Mazama pocket gopher and found that many of the
historic populations have disappeared or diminished substantially
enough in size that their presence was not obvious. Because the
remaining populations tend to be small and isolated and the pocket
gophers have a limited ability to disperse, further isolation could
cause their eventual extinction. Threats include urbanization, loss of
basic ecological processes such as fire, nonnative vegetation, domestic
cat predation, and lack of regulation to protect the habitat. Because
these threats are high but non-imminent, we assigned a listing priority
number of 6 to this subspecies.
Southern Idaho ground squirrel (Spermophilus brunneus endemicus)--
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 squirrel
population since the mid-1980s. A 1999 survey of 145 of the 180 known
historical population sites indicated that only 53 sites (37 percent)
were still occupied. Furthermore, 52 of the 53 occupied sites had what
biologists characterized as ``remarkably low levels of activity''.
Scientists attribute the decline to the following factors: 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; and 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.
Birds
Yellow-billed cuckoo, western continental U.S. DPS (Coccyzus
americanus)--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; 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
non-imminent threats of a high magnitude, we assigned a listing
priority number of 6 to this DPS of yellow-billed cuckoo.
Streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata)--The streaked
horned lark is considered rare. Currently, we estimate that fewer than
200 breeding pairs remain in Oregon. In Washington, it has been
extirpated from north Puget Sound and the San Juan Islands, and less
than 100 pairs remain in south Puget Sound and along the coast. The
greatest threat to the streaked horned lark is loss of habitat.
Biologists estimate that less than 1 percent of native grassland and
savanna remains. Conversion of grassland to other uses, such as
agriculture and homes, and the encroachment of nonnative plants have
been the primary factors contributing to the species' decline. Because
these threats are of a high magnitude but are non-imminent, we assigned
a listing priority number of 6 to this subspecies.
[[Page 54811]]
Western sage grouse, Washington DPS (Centrocercus urophasianus
phaios)--The Washington DPS (Columbia basin) of the western sage grouse
currently occupies approximately 10 percent of its historic
distribution in the state in two relatively small areas in central
Washington. The abundance of this DPS has declined between 66 percent
and 99 percent from historic levels (using low and high estimates).
Primary threats to this population include conversion or degradation of
native shrub-steppe habitats and small population size, which makes
this population more susceptible to inbreeding depression (reduced
reproductive vigor) and extirpation from stochastic events (inclement
weather, population demographics, altered predation patterns, etc.).
Because these threats are low to moderate in magnitude but imminent, we
assigned this DPS of western sage grouse a listing priority number of
9.
Reptiles
Sand dune lizard (Sceloporus arenicolus)--The sand dune lizard is
endemic to a small area in New Mexico and Texas. The primary threats to
this species are herbicides used to remove shinnery oak, various
activities that destroy and fragment shinnery oak habitat, and
overcollection. Currently no Federal or State regulations in New Mexico
or Texas protect against take of individuals or their habitat. Due to
imminent threats of a high magnitude, we assigned a listing priority
number of 2 to this species.
Amphibians
Georgetown salamander (Eurycea naufragia)--The Georgetown
salamander is an entirely aquatic salamander approximately 5.1
centimeters (cm) (2.0 inches (in)) long. It is known to occur in
springs along five tributaries of the San Gabriel River and one cave in
the city of Georgetown, Texas. Primary threats include degradation of
water quality and reduced available water quantity due to urbanization.
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.
Ozark hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis bishopi)--The Ozark
hellbender is a large, aquatic salamander native to streams of the
Ozark Plateau in Arkansas and Missouri. Records indicate that much of
the habitat for the species has been lost or fragmented due to habitat
alteration from gravel mining, construction of impoundments, timber
harvest and associated erosion, and contamination from pesticides and
historic lead and zinc mining. Currently, State regulations make it
illegal to take the Ozark Hellbender, but little or no regulation
protects the habitat. As a result, most known populations have
experienced significant declines and there is little documentation of
reproduction. We believe that the current combination of population
fragmentation and habitat degradation may prohibit this species from
recovering without the intervention of protection and conservation
measures afforded under the Act. Due to non-imminent threats of a high
magnitude, we assigned a listing priority number of 6 to this
subspecies.
Fish
Yellowcheek darter (Etheostoma moorei)--The yellowcheek darter is
an endemic species of the Little Red River in Arkansas. Construction of
Greers Ferry Lake destroyed most of the species' preferred habitat and
isolated the species in four tributaries. Factors affecting the
remaining populations include loss of suitable breeding habitat,
habitat degradation, population isolation, and severe population
declines. Recent studies have documented significant declines in the
numbers of this fish in the remaining populations. Due to imminent
threats of a high magnitude, we assigned a listing priority number of 2
to this species.
Zuni bluehead sucker (Catostomus discobolus yarrowi)--The Zuni
bluehead sucker is a 20.3-cm (8.0-in) freshwater fish found only in
Arizona and New Mexico. The primary threats to this subspecies are road
construction, logging, over-grazing, reservoir construction, irrigation
withdrawals, and stocking of exotic fishes. Once common in the Little
Colorado and Zuni River drainages, it is now thought to be reduced to
about 10 percent of historical range. Although considered endangered by
the State of New Mexico and a species of special concern by the State
of Arizona and the U.S. Forest Service, these designations lack habitat
protections needed for long-term conservation. Due to imminent threats
of a high magnitude, we assigned a listing priority number of 3 to this
subspecies.
Clams
Neosho mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana)--The Neosho mucket is a
freshwater mussel native to Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.
The species has declined throughout much of its historic range due to
habitat degradation attributed to impoundments, sedimentation, and
agricultural pollutants. Currently, it is believed that only one viable
population exists; a few remnant populations may remain. Although State
regulations limit harvest of this species, there is little protection
for habitat. Due to non-imminent threats of a high magnitude, we
assigned a listing priority number of 5 to this species.
Texas hornshell (Popenaias popei)--The Texas hornshell is a
freshwater mussel that is found in New Mexico, Texas, and Mexico. The
primary threats are habitat alterations such as impoundments and
diversions for agriculture and flood control, contamination of water
from the oil and gas industry, and increased sedimentation from
prolonged overgrazing and loss of native vegetation. Currently, no
Federal or State regulations protect the Texas hornshell from these
threats. Due to imminent threats of a high magnitude, we assigned a
listing priority number of 2 to this species.
Snails
Phantom Cave snail (Cochliopa texana) and Phantom springsnail
(Tryonia cheatumi)--Both of these aquatic snails occur in only three
spring systems and associated outflows in Texas. The primary threat to
both species is the loss of surface flows due to declining groundwater
levels from drought and pumping for agricultural production. Although
the land surrounding their habitat is owned and managed by The Nature
Conservancy, Bureau of Reclamation, and Balmorhea State Park, the water
needed to maintain their habitat has declined due to a reduction in the
spring flows, primarily as result of private groundwater pumping in
areas beyond that controlled by these landowners. Currently, there is
no protection for either of these aquatic cave snails by either State
or Federal law. Due to imminent threats of a high magnitude, we
assigned a listing priority number of 2 to these species.
Insects
Nine cave beetles (Pseudanophthalmus caecus, P. cataryctos, P.
frigidus, P. inexpectatus, P. inquistor, P. major, P. pholeter, P.
parvus, and P. troglodytes)--Seven of these nine cave beetles
(Pseudanophthalmus caecus, P. cataryctos, P. frigidus, P. major, P.
pholeter, P. parvus, and P. troglodytes) are currently known to occur
in one cave each in Kentucky. Psuedanophthalmus inexpectatus, is known
to occur in more than one cave
[[Page 54812]]
in Kentucky and P. inquistor only occurs in Tennessee. Historically, P.
inexpectatus occurred in three caves; however, it is now considered
extirpated from one of these caves and is declining in numbers in one
of the remaining two sites. The primary threats to these cave beetles
include toxic chemical spills, discharges of large amounts of polluted
water, closure or alterations of cave entrances, and disruption of cave
energy processes by industrial, residential, commercial, or highway
construction. There is currently little or no protection for these
species by either the State or Federal regulations. Due to non-imminent
threats of a high magnitude, we assigned a listing priority number of 5
to these species.
Whulge checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha taylori)--
Historically, the subspecies was known from more than 50 locations in
British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon. The current range is believed
to have declined significantly to less than 15 populations. Threats
include changes in vegetation structure and composition of native
grassland-dominated prairies due to agricultural conversion,
urbanization, and invasion by nonnative woody shrubs; the use of
pesticides to control Asian gypsy moths; and inadequacy of regulatory
protection against these threats. We have determined that, although the
threats are of high magnitude, they are non-imminent; therefore, we are
assigning a listing priority number of 6 to this subspecies.
Ferns and Allies
Botrychium lineare (slender moonwort)--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, there are four historic
population sites in California, Colorado, Idaho, and Montana and two in
Canada. These historic populations have not been seen for at least 20
years and may be extirpated. Identifiable threats to various
populations of this species include road maintenance, herbicide
spraying, recreation, timber harvest, trampling and grazing by wildlife
and livestock, exotic species, and development. Because we concluded
that the overall magnitude of threats to Botrychium lineare throughout
its range is moderate and the overall immediacy of these threats is
non-imminent, we assigned this species a listing priority number of 11.
Summary of Listing Priority Changes in Candidates
Mammals
Coachella Valley round-tailed ground squirrel (Spermophilus
tereticaudus chlorus)--In the 1999 CNOR, we mistakenly assigned the
Coachella Valley round-tailed squirrel a listing priority number of 5.
This was an incorrect number under the listing priority system for a
subspecies, like the Coachella Vally round-tailed ground squirrel. In
this notice, we have corrected the listing priority number to a 6.
Washington ground squirrel (Spermophilus washingtoni)--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 City of Ione
and Morrow County have proposed the construction of a highway through
the largest area of suitable and occupied habitat in the range of the
species. 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 seven to
eight month hibernation period this species experiences. All of these
threats have been observed in the past year, 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 this
evaluation, we changed the listing priority number from a 5 to a 2 due
to the imminent threats of a high magnitude.
Birds
Rota bridled white-eye (Zosterops rotensis)--Recent authorities on
the taxonomy of Micronesian white-eyes agree that the Rota population
is distinct from others in the Marianas and should be recognized as a
separate species. Therefore, we refer to this bird as the Rota bridled
white-eye (Z. rotensis). Recent genetic evidence from mitochondrial DNA
sequences showed that two distinct lineages occur within the Marianas,
one on Guam, Saipan, Tinian, and Aguijan, and the other on Rota.
Threats include introduced birds, rats, habitat destruction, alien
plants and habitat alteration, and typhoons. Although the relative
importance of the threats to the Rota bridled white-eye are not
completely understood, based on the large (89%) and rapid decline in
population size that has occurred since 1982 and appears to be
continuing, these threats must be imminent and of high magnitude. In
addition, since we now recognize the Rota bridled white-eye as a
separate species, we changed the listing priority from a 6 to a 2.
Based, in part, on this change in priority, on October 3, 2001 (66 FR
50383) we published a proposed rule to list this species as endangered.
Clams
Alabama pearlshell (Margaritifera marrianae)--We changed the
listing priority number from a 5 to a 2 since the threats are now
imminent for this species based on the apparent loss of one of the
three known extant populations in 1999 and drought stress to the
surviving populations in 2000.
Snails
Diamond Y springsnail (Tryonia adamantina) and Gonzales springsnail
(Tryonia circumstriata (= stocktonensis))--We changed the listing
priority number from a 5 to a 2 for both of these species due to new
imminent threats from the recent introduction of a nonnative snail
(Melanoides sp.) into the native snails'
[[Page 54813]]
habitat. The nonnative snail is likely competing with the native snails
for space and resources.
Tumbling Creek cavesnail (Antrobia culveri)--We changed the listing
priority number from a 7 to a 1 due to new data obtained in 2000 and
2001 that indicate the threat to this species is much greater than
originally estimated. The continued downward trend, including the
documentation of no snails in study plots on January 11, 2001, provides
a strong indication that whatever threats are causing the decline, they
are imminent and of a high magnitude. It is likely that this species,
the only known representative of its genus, will become extinct within
the foreseeable future without appropriate conservation measures.
Insects
Carson wandering skipper (Pseudocopaeodes eunus obscurus)--We are
changing the listing priority number from a 12 to a 3 because threats
we previously considered to be ameliorated now appear imminent. A
Cooperative Agreement was signed by the Service, Nevada Department of
Transportation, Federal Highways Administration, and Bureau of Land
Management in October 1999. This agreement was developed to outline the
actions necessary for the conservation and management of Carson
wandering skipper. A draft conservation plan for the Carson wandering
skipper was prepared in 2000 to address potential conservation measures
which could be implemented at occupied sites. However, implementation
of this agreement and a final conservation plan now appear unlikely in
the foreseeable future due to the unwillingness of the private and
public landowners to support conservation efforts. We are also
concerned about proposed water development plans near the Pyramid Lake
site and the spread of whitetop, a nonnative plant species, on private
property at the Honey Lake site, as this invasive species could
eliminate habitat for the Carson wandering skipper. Since Carson
wandering skipper became a candidate species, further evidence supports
the likely extirpation of the subspecies from the Carson Hot Springs
site. Therefore, based on the high magnitude of imminent threats, we
assigned this subspecies a listing priority number of 3. See additional
information on this species below under Petition of a Candidate Species
section.
Highlands tiger beetle (Cicindela highlandensis)--We changed the
listing priority number for the Highlands tiger beetle from a 2 to a 5
because the immediacy of the threats to its scrub habitats on the Lake
Wales Ridge in central Florida have decreased. In particular, the State
of Florida and conservation groups have acquired and are actively
acquiring occupied and unoccupied scrub habitats for the species such
that most quality habitats for the species have been acquired. There
has also been an increase in prescribed burning on the Lake Wales Ridge
that resulted in improved habitat conditions for the species.
Therefore, based on a high magnitude of non-imminent threats, we
assigned this species a listing priority number of 5.
Salt Creek tiger beetle (Cicindela nevadica lincolniana)--We
changed the listing priority number from a 6 to a 3 because the
immediacy of the threats to the isolated wetlands where the beetle
occurs continues to increase due to the planned widening of the
interstate highway, construction of a new interchange, and the
anticipated developments that will occur along the highway corridor. In
addition, the apparent reduction in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
jurisdiction over isolated wetlands may hamper the State's ability to
protect the wetland habitats essential to the beetle's survival since
the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality will not have a nexus
to implement review under the State section 401 water quality
certification program. Therefore, based on a high magnitude of now
imminent threats, we assigned this subspecies a listing priority number
of 3.
Arachnids
Warton Cave meshweaver (Cicurina wartoni)--We changed the listing
priority number from an 8 to a 2 due to continued, imminent threats of
a high magnitude from nearby development and fire ants. In two previous
CNORs, we assigned a listing priority number of 2 to this species, but
based on the development of a conservation agreement to protect this
cave, we changed the listing priority number to an 8 in the 1999 CNOR.
Since this conservation agreement is still under development and
recommended management actions (including fire ant control and complete
fencing) are not yet in place to adequately protect the only known
location of the species, we are now assigning a listing priority number
of 2 to this species.
Plants
Astragalus tortipes (Milk-vetch, Sleeping Ute)--We changed the
listing priority number for Astragalus tortipes from a 2 to an 8
because Spring 2000 surveys indicated an increase in the number of
individual plants from the original estimate of 2,000-3,000 individual
plants to 3,744 plants, and there has been an increase in range. In
addition, we believe the threats, although not entirely eliminated,
have been reduced; oil and gas development may occur in the future, but
only a few plant locations are on terrain that would be affected.
Consequently, A. tortipes should be retained on the candidate list, but
with a reduced listing priority, based on reduced threats to a plant
with a limited range.
Bidens conjuncta (Kookoolau)--We changed the listing priority
number for Bidens conjuncta from 5 to 8 because the number of
individuals has increased from 300 to 2,200 individuals. While the
original threats remain imminent and rats are also now known to be a
threat, the overall magnitude of the threat is somewhat reduced with
the large increase in numbers.
Cyanea calycina (HaHa)--Due to taxonomic changes, Cyanea calycina
is now considered a separate species; therefore, we are changing the
listing priority number to a 5 (previously we designated it a 6).
Cyanea lanceolata (formerly Cyanea lanceolata ssp. lanceolata, and
prior to that Rollandia lanceolata)--Originally treated as a subspecies
of C. lanceolata, this entity has been elevated to full species status.
As such, we are changing the listing priority number to a 5 (previously
we designated it a 6).
Cyclosorus boydiae var. boydiae (formerly Thelypteris boydiae)--
This plant species has been moved from the genus Thelypteris to the
genus Cyclosorus, and is also now considered a subspecies. As a result,
we changed the listing priority number to a 6 (previously we designated
it a 5).
Cyclosorus boydiae var. kipahuluensis (formerly Thelypteris
boydiae)--This plant species has been moved from the genus Thelypteris
to the genus Cyclosorus, and is also now considered a subspecies. As a
result, we changed the listing priority to 6 (previously it was
designated 5).
Erigeron basalticus (Basalt daisy)--Erigeron basalticus is of
extremely limited distribution, and is found only in a very narrow
habitat type. Although several smaller subpopulations of the species
have declined precipitously in the past decade, the major portion of
the population appears to have remained stable during this same period.
Currently, the cause of the decline is unknown, as is the risk to the
larger subpopulations. While we identified various potential threats to
the species, these threats do not appear to be imminent and are of a
moderate to low magnitude. Therefore, we are assigning
[[Page 54814]]
this plant species a listing priority of 11 (previously we assigned the
species a listing priority of 8).
Leavenworthia texana (Texas golden gladecress)--We changed the
listing priority number from a 5 to a 2 based on recent survey
information that shows the known sites are now restricted to two. A
third site is currently closed to visitors, and its status is unknown.
Of the two known sites, a significant reduction in the number of plants
has occurred, probably due to the extreme drought in the area.
Pleomele forbesii (Hala pepe)--Additional surveys have increased
the known number of individuals in the 16 populations from 80-180 to
500. Based on this new information, we now believe the threat is non-
imminent. Because of this, we are changing the listing priority number
from a 2 to a 5.
Schiedea pubescens (formerly Schiedea pubescens var. pubescens)--
Schiedea pubescens was originally treated as a subspecies. Recently,
however, it has been elevated to full species status. Therefore, we
changed the priority number from a 3 to a 2.
Solanum nelsonii (Popolo)--There has been a rapid decline of the
populations of Solanum nelsonii on the islands within the remote
Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge. The number of individuals
has decreased from 3,000 to 300 individuals. Therefore, we changed the
priority number from an 11 to a 5.
Candidate Removals
Snails
Wet Canyon talussnail (Sonorella macrophallus)--We removed this
species from candidate status since the greatest threat to the species,
impact from recreation, was eliminated through a 1999 Conservation
Agreement with the Coronado National Forest, Arizona. The National
Forest closed a trail that traversed the species' habitat and prohibits
campfires in the Wet Canyon picnic area during periods of fire closure.
National Forest staff are also implementing a monitoring program to
ensure the trail closure remains in place and to evaluate its
effectiveness.
Plants
Cyanea pseudofauriei (Haha)--Originally thought to be a newly
discovered species, known from one population totaling a few hundred
individuals, this population is now considered part of a more
widespread species (Cyanea fauriei) that is considered relatively
stable.
Melicope macropus (Alani)--This now extinct species was thought to
be rediscovered in 1990. However, this ``rediscovered'' population is
now known to be misidentified and is actually Melicope kauaiensis,
which is a more common species.
Opuntia whipplei var. multigeniculata (Blue diamond cholla)--Active
management of lands supporting the blue diamond cholla and its habitat
and the execution of the conservation agreement has led to our decision
to remove the species from the candidate list. This agreement includes
conservation actions that specifically address and diminish or
eliminate threats to the species. Therefore, we are removing this
species from the candidate list.
Phyllostegia helleri (no common name)--This population was
originally thought to be Phyllostegia helleri, but was actually a
misidentification of Phyllostegia electra. Phyllostegia helleri has not
been seen since 1916, and therefore, we believe it to be extinct.
Phyllostegia imminuta (no common name)--Historically known from
Maui and Lanai and thought to be extinct since 1920, this species was
thought to be rediscovered in 1 population totaling approximately 10
individuals in Waikamoi, Maui. However, further study revealed that the
plants were misidentified and are actually Phyllostegia macrophylla.
Therefore, we believe this species to be extinct.
Cyperus odoratus (formally Torulinium odoratum ssp. auriculatum)
(pu`uka`a (= kili`o`opu, kiolohia, mau`u pu`u, puko`a))--This
subspecies is no longer recognized, and the species has been
incorporated into the more widespread species Cyperus odoratus.
Lysimachia venosa (no common name)--The historic range of this
species was throughout the island of Kauai. While there are no historic
records of numbers of populations or individuals, qualitative accounts
indicate that the species was relatively widespread and abundant on
Kauai. The last known population of only a few individuals could not be
relocated in 1999. Therefore, we believe this species to be extinct.
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.
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
[[Page 54815]]
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, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 13736 (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 revised this CNOR 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 the 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 one 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 law suit pursuant
to section 11(g)(1)(C), as it 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 37 species
regarding which we have found petitioned action to be warranted but
precluded. As a result of this review, we made continued warranted but
precluded findings on the petitions for all 37 species. For the 32 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 a proposed rule to list these species is
precluded by the following higher priority listing actions: Court
ordered or settlement agreements to complete the critical habitat
determinations for San Bernardino kangaroo rat, Monterey and robust
spineflowers, Quino checkerspot butterfly, 57 Hawaii Island plants,
Otay tarplant, Oahu elepaio, Blackburn sphinx moth, Newcomb's snail, 2
Kauai invertebrates, 81 Kauai and Niihau plants, yellow and Baker's
larkspurs, 3 Southern California coastal plants, Keck's checkermallow,
purple amole, 69 Maui and Kahoolawe plants, Santa Cruz tarplant, 37
Lanai plants, 49 Molokai plants, 6 Northwestern Hawaiian Islands
plants, 101 Oahu plants, 4 fairy shrimp, Carolina heelsplitter and
Appalachian elktoe, and a final determination for the Sacramento
splittail. In addition, the following are higher priority statutory
deadlines: final listing for Mississippi gopher frog, golden sedge,
mountain plover, and desert yellowhead.
In addition to identifying these 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 Web site: 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 year been and will over the next year be precluded by higher
priority listing actions. During the preceding year, almost all of our
limited 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 last year, see the
discussion of ``Expeditious Progress,'' below.
Regarding the following year, although we do not yet have a final
budget, the majority of that budget will again likely be needed to take
listing actions to comply with court orders and court-approved
settlement agreements. Currently, we will need to work on or complete
the following actions: proposed critical habitat designations--4 fairy
shrimp (and 11 plants), 6 plants from Northwestern Hawaiian Islands,
reproposal for plants from Kauai and Niihau, reproposal for plants from
Maui and Kahoolawe, reproposal for plants from Lanai, reproposal for
plants from Molokai, 57 plants from Hawaii, 5 carbonate plants from
California, 103 Oahu plants, 6 Guam species (following prudency re-
determinations), Keck's checkermallow, yellow and Baker's larkspur,
Ventura Marsh milk-vetch, Rio Grande silvery minnow, 4 invertebrates
from New Mexico, 9 invertebrates from Bexar County, Texas, Gila chub,
Topeka shiner, gulf sturgeon, and Prebles meadow jumping mouse; final
critical habitat designations--quino checkerspot butterfly, Monterey
spineflower, robust spineflower, Oahu elepaio, San Bernardino kangaroo
rat, 3 southern California plants, Kneeland Prairie pennycress, purple
amole, Santa Cruz tarplant, Otay tarplant, 81 plants from Kauai and
Niihau, 2 Kauai invertebrates, Blackburn's sphinx moth, Newcomb's
snail, 4 fairy shrimp (and 11 plants), 69 plants from Maui and
Kahoolawe, 37 plants from Lanai, 5 carbonate plants from California, 49
plants from Molokai, 6 plants from northwest Hawaiian Islands, 57
plants from Hawaii, Keck's checkermallow, yellow and Bakers larskspurs,
and 101 plants from Oahu, Rio Grande silvery minnow, 9 invertebrates
from Bexar County, Texas; Carolina heelsplitter, gulf sturgeon,
Appalachian elktoe, and Great Plains breeding population of piping
plover; 90-day petition findings--Miami blue butterfly; 12-month
petition findings--Big Cypress fox squirrel, and Columbia spotted frog;
proposed listing rules--island fox; final listing determinations--flat-
tailed horned lizard, showy stickseed, San Diego ambrosia, southern
California DPS of mountain yellow-legged frog, coastal cutthroat trout,
Chiricahua leopard frog, vermilion darter, Mississippi gopher frog, and
golden sedge; emergency listings--pygmy rabbit, Carson's wandering
skipper, and Tumbling Creek cavesnail.
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 the need to take actions to
comply with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements, as
well as the need to comply (or end non-compliance) with the unqualified
statutory deadlines for making 12-month petition findings and final
listing determinations on proposed rules. Currently, in addition to
those final determinations required by court orders and settlement
agreements, we will also need to work in the next year on final
determinations for at least 23 species:
[[Page 54816]]
Cowhead Lake tui chub, meadowfoam, lomatium, 3 Mariana Islands plants,
12 pomace flies, Mariana fruit bat, Dolly Varden trout, desert
yellowhead, and mountain plover. Again, in addition to those 12-month
findings required by court orders and settlement agreements, we must
make initial 12-month findings for at least 7 species: Yosemite toad,
California spotted owl, mountain yellow-legged frog (entire
population), Henderson's horkelia, Mt. Ashland lupine, and 2 Puerto
Rican plants. 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, with respect to those candidates with lower priority
(i.e., those that have listing priority numbers of 4-12), work on
proposed rules for those species is also precluded by the need to issue
proposed rules for those species that are higher priorities,
particularly those facing high magnitude, imminent threats (i.e.,
listing priority numbers of 1, 2, or 3). Table 1 lists 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 many persistent threats. We believe that various threats (especially
plague and pest control efforts via chemical agents) 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. While positive first 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.
Island fox (Urocyon littoralis)--See above summary of new species
for discussion on why this species warrants listing. The above summary
is based on information contained in our files, including information
from the petition received on June 6, 2000. Although work on court-
ordered section 4 actions have precluded us from issuing a proposed
rule to date, despite the fact this species has a listing priority 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 November 30, 2001, a
proposed rule to the Federal Register for publication.
Sea otter, Aleutian Islands DPS (Enhydra lutris kenyoni)--The
following summary is based on information contained in our files,
including information from 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% 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. 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 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 Aleutian Islands DPS
of Enhydra lutris kenyoni a listing a priority of 3 under our listing
priority system. 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, including information from 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, stochastic 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)--
See above summary of listing priority changes for discussion on why
this species warrants listing. The above summary is based on
information contained in our files, including information from the
petition received on January 29, 2001.
Washington ground squirrel (Spermophilus washingtoni)--See above
summary of new species for discussion on why this species warrants
listing. The above summary is based on information contained in our
files,
[[Page 54817]]
including information from the petition received on March 2, 2000.
Birds
Band-rumped storm-petrel, Hawaii DPS (Oceanodroma castro)--The
following summary is based on information contained in our files,
including information from 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
pre-historic 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 surveys on Mauna Loa, Hawaii, in 1992, 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, including information
from 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 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, genetic depression, pesticides, pollution,
and competition for habitat from other species. For greater detail as
to why listing is warranted, see 65 FR 82310. We consider all of these
threats to be of high magnitude but non-imminent; 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% since 1963
and 92% 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 throughout its current range occurs on private
land, where States continue to have little authority to protect the
species or its habitat, with the exception of setting harvest
regulations. Although some federal lands within occupied range have
voluntarily accommodated some needs of the lesser prairie-chicken, we
believe that the prairie-chicken cannot be sufficiently conserved only
on Federal lands to prevent extinction. Concern exists that
recreational hunting and harassment are also potential threats to the
species. While we do not believe that overutilization through
recreational hunting is a primary cause of lesser prairie-chicken
decline, we are concerned that small and fragmented populations may be
vulnerable to local extirpations caused by repeated harvest pressure,
especially near leks. Therefore, we suggest conservative harvest limits
and careful oversight of harvest pressure on small and fragmented
populations. Similarly, the effect of recreational viewing at leks is
unknown, although likely to be minimal if disturbance is avoided by
observers remaining in vehicles or blinds until birds disperse
naturally from the lek, and observations are limited to robust leks in
close proximity to other active leks. 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 are 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 rest
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. We recognize that
measurable increases in populations often come years after certain
habitat improvements occur. We believe that barring prolonged drought,
the species' status is improving overall and should continue to improve
in future years. Therefore, we cannot at this time justify elevating
the listing priority of the lesser prairie-chicken based on magnitude
of threats. Finally, we maintain that remaining populations are
becoming 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
[[Page 54818]]
these populations is of major concern to us and efforts to address this
are ongoing. However, we believe 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. However, should the current conservation momentum fail
to stabilize and increase existing populations throughout significant
portions of the remaining range, we will consider elevating the listing
priority of the species.
Yellow-billed cuckoo, western continental U.S. DPS (Coccyzus
americanus)--See above summary of new candidate species for discussion
on why this DPS of the yellow-billed cuckoo warrants listing. The above
summary is based on information contained in our files, including
information from the petition received on February 9, 1998. Also see
our 12-month finding (66 FR 38611) published on July 25, 2001.
Reptiles
Louisiana pine snake (Pituophis ruthveni)--The following summary is
based on information contained in our files, including information from
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 vehicle mortality, which may cause significant
impacts to the Louisiana pine snake's population numbers and community
structure. Due to non-imminent 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, including information from
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 have 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 non-imminent 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,
including information from 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 spotted frog sites.
Although efforts to survey for spotted frogs have increased the
available information regarding known species locations, 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 spotted frogs encountered. All known populations in southern
Idaho and in eastern Oregon appear to be functionally isolated. 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, West Coast DPS (Rana pretiosa)--The following
summary is based on information contained in our files, including
information from the petition received on May 4, 1989. Based on surveys
of historic sites, this DPS of the Oregon spotted frog is now absent
from at least 76 percent of its former range. The west coast DPS 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 this DPS of Oregon spotted frog a listing priority number of
3.
California tiger salamander (entire population except where listed)
(Ambystoma californiense)--The following summary is based on
information contained in our files, including information from 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 in breeding and upland habitat used for
estivation and migration. Existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate
to protect California tiger salamander habitat. Based on non-imminent
threats of a high magnitude, we assigned this species a listing
priority number of 5.
Boreal toad, Southern Rocky Mountains DPS (Bufo boreas boreas)--The
following summary is based on information contained in our files,
including information from 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 to
50, with 1 in Wyoming, none in New Mexico, and the remaining sites in
Colorado. This
[[Page 54819]]
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 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, including information from 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 rule 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,
including information from the petition received on October 2, 1992.
Presently, 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 underway in four
streams within the historic range. The 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
Koster's tryonia snail (Tryonia kosteri)--The following summary is
based on information contained in our files, including information from
the petition received on November 20, 1985. Koster's tryonia snail is
an aquatic species known only from North Spring (private land) and four
spring/seepage areas on Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge in Chaves
County, New Mexico. This snail was found at several other springs in
the Roswell area, but these habitats are no longer suitable due to
groundwater pumping. Koster's tryonia snail is imperilled by local and
regional ground water depletion, habitat destruction, direct
manipulation of lotic habitat (moving water), surface and ground water
pollution such as sewage, pesticides, and oil and gas industry
operations. The geographically restricted distribution of Koster's
tryonia snail makes the species vulnerable to human-caused or natural
events that could destroy a significant portion of the species'
remaining populations and habitat. Because of these threats, 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
February 6, 2002, a proposed rule to the Federal Register for
publication.
Pecos assiminea snail (Assiminea pecos)--The following summary is
based on information contained in our files, including information from
the petition received on November 20, 1985. The Pecos assiminea snail
is a semiaquatic mollusc known from two spring/seepage areas on Bitter
Lake National Wildlife Refuge in Chaves County, New Mexico; Diamond Y
Springs complex in Pecos County, Texas; and East Sandia Spring in
Reeves County, Texas. This snail was found at other springs in the
Roswell, New Mexico, area, but these habitats are no longer suitable
due to groundwater pumping. The Pecos assiminea snail is imperilled by
habitat destruction, local and regional ground water depletion, direct
manipulation of lotic habitat, and surface and ground water pollution,
such as sewage, pesticides, and oil and gas industry operations. Steps
are needed to protect and maintain the vegetative cover in which the
snail lives. Based on imminent threats of a high magnitude, we assigned
this species a listing priority 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 February 6,
2002, a proposed rule to the Federal Register for publication.
Chupadera springsnail (Pyrgulopsis chupaderae)--The following
summary is based on information contained in our files, including
information from 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,
[[Page 54820]]
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 but
of a low to moderate magnitude, we assigned this species a listing
priority number of 8.
Gila springsnail (Pyrgulopsis gilae)--The following summary is
based on information contained in our files, including information from
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 (Mehlhop 1993), 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 non-imminent 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, including
information from 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
non-imminent threats of a low magnitude, we assigned this species a
listing priority number of 11.
Roswell springsnail (Pyrgulopsis roswellensis)--The following
summary is based on information contained in our files, including
information from the petition received on November 20, 1985. The
Roswell springsnail is an aquatic species only known from North Spring
(private land) and three spring/seepage areas on Bitter Lake National
Wildlife Refuge in Chaves County, New Mexico. This snail was found at
several other springs in the Roswell area, but these habitats have
become unsuitable due to groundwater pumping. The Roswell springsnail
is imperilled by local and regional ground water depletion, habitat
destruction, direct manipulation of lotic habitat (moving water),
surface and ground water pollution (such as sewage), pesticides, and
oil and gas industry operations. Existing regulatory mechanisms are not
sufficient to protect the Roswell springsnail. New Mexico State law
provides limited protection to the Roswell springsnail, but this law
does not provide for habitat protection. Due to 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 February 6, 2002, a proposed rule to the
Federal Register for publication.
Insects
Carson wandering skipper (Pseudocopaeodes eunus obscurus)--The
following summary is based on information contained in our files,
including information from the petition received on November 14, 2000.
We believe that this skipper has been extirpated from the Carson Hot
Springs site. As a result, this subspecies currently occurs at three
locations in two areas: Pyramid and Honey Lakes. Threats at the Pyramid
Lake site include grazing and potential future water development. At
the two Honey Lake sites, the invasion of nonnative plant species such
as whitetop (Lepidium latifolium), which outcompetes native nectar
plants, threatens the skipper. Grazing in this area may also pose a
threat to the skipper's habitat. Additional potential future threats
include exportation of water from Honey Lake to other locations. Due to
imminent threats of a high magnitude, we assigned this subspecies a
listing priority number of 3. 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 3, 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 November 23, 2001, a
decision on whether to emergency list to the Federal Register for
publication.
Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle (Cicindela limbata albinssima)--
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 (CPSD) tiger beetle is known to occur only at
CPSD, 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 meters (6,000 feet). 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 inter-dunal swales used by the larval population. Having the
greatest abundance of suitable prey species, the inter-dunal swales are
the most biologically productive areas in the CPSD 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
[[Page 54821]]
or reestablish additional reproductive subpopulations in other suitable
habitat sites within CPSD. 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. 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, including information from
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 hectares (ha) (200
acres (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 frequent unauthorized off-road
vehicle 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 impact this
species. Because the threats are of a low to moderate magnitude and
non-imminent, 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,
including information from 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, including
information from 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.
White River beardtongue (Penstemon scariosus albifluvis)--The
following summary is based on information contained in our files,
including information from 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 off-road vehicle 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 non-imminent 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, including information from
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.
Petition To Reclassify Species Already Listed
We have also previously made warranted but precluded findings on
five petitions that sought to reclassify to endangered status species
already listed as threatened. 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
[[Page 54822]]
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 64 FR 30453 for a discussion on why
reclassification is warranted);
(2) Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear DPS (Region 6) (see 64 FR 26725 for a
discussion on why reclassification is warranted);
(3) Selkirk grizzly bear DPS (Region 6) (see 64 FR 26725 for a
discussion on why reclassification is warranted);
(4) Spikedace (Meda fulgida) (Region 2) (see 59 FR 35303 for a
discussion on why reclassification is warranted); and
(5) Loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis) (Region 2) (see 59 FR 35303 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 during the last two fiscal years since our October
25, 1999 publication of the last CNOR. We intend to publish these
descriptions annually.
Our progress in listing and delisting qualified species during
fiscal years 1999 and 2000 is represented by the publication in the
Federal Register of final listing actions for 52 species, proposed
listing actions for 33 species, final delisting actions for 2 species,
and proposed delisting actions for 3 species. In addition, we proposed
critical habitat for 174 listed species, and finalized critical habitat
for 21 listed species. Given the Service's limited budget for
implementing section 4, 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 N.E. 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.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Authority
This notice of review is published under the authority of the
Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: October 17, 2001.
Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[[Page 54823]]
Table 1. Candidate Notice of Review (Animal and Plant)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status
------------------------ Lead Common name Scientific name Family Historic range
Category Priority Region
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PT.......... 3 R1 Bat, Mariana Pteropus Pteropodidae..... Western Pacific
fruit. mariannus Ocean U.S.A.
mariannus. (GU, MP).
C*.......... 3 R1 Bat, sheath- Emballonura Emballonuridae... U.S.A. (AS, GU,
tailed (American semicaudata. MP), Caroline
Samoa, Aguijan Islands .
DPS).
C*.......... 3 R1 Fox, island Urocyon Canidae.......... U.S.A.
(Santa Catalina, littoralis (California).
Santa Cruz, San catalinae, U. l.
Miguel, Santa santacruzae, U.
Rosa Islands). l. littoralis,
and U. l.
santarosae.
C*.......... 3 R7 Otter, northern Enhydra lutris Mustelidae....... U.S.A. southwest
sea (Aleutian kenyoni. AK).
Islands DPS).
C........... 6 R1 Pocket Gopher, Thomomys mazama.. Geomyidae........ U.S.A.
Mazama. (Washington).
C*.......... 8 R6 Prairie dog, Cynomys Sciuridae........ U.S.A. (AZ, CO,
black-tailed. ludovicianus. KS, MT, NE, NM,
ND, OK, SD, TX,
WY), Canada,
Mexico.
PE.......... 3 R1 Shrew, Buena Sorex ornatus Soricidae........ U.S.A. (CA).
Vista Lake. relictus.
C........... 6 R1 Squirrel, Spermophilus Soricidae........ U.S.A. (CA).
Coachella Valley tereticaudus
round-tailed. chlorus.
C*.......... 3 R1 Squirrel, Spermophilus Sciuridae........ U.S.A. (ID).
Southern Idaho brunneus
ground. endemicus.
C*.......... 2 R1 Squirrel, Spermophilus Sciuridae........ U.S.A. (WA, OR).
Washington washingtoni.
ground.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C........... 6 R1 Crake, spotless.. Porzana tabuensis Rallidae......... U.S.A. (AS),
Figi, Marquesas,
Polynesia,
Philippines,
Australia,
Society Islands,
Tonga, Western
Samoa.
C........... 5 R1 Creeper, Kauai... Oreomystis bairdi Fringillidae..... U.S.A. (HI).
C*.......... 6 R1 Cuckoo, yellow- Coccyzus Cucilidae........ U.S.A. (AZ, CA,
billed (Western americanus. CO, ID, MT, NM,
cont. U.S. DPS). NV, OR, TX, UT,
WA, WY)
C........... 6 R1 Dove, friendly Gallicolumba Columbidae....... U.S.A. (AS),
ground. stairi. Fiji, Tonga,
Western Samoa.
C........... 6 R1 Dove, many- Ptilinopus Columbidae....... U.S.A. (AS).
colored fruit. perousii
perousii.
C*.......... 5 R6 Grouse, Gunnison Centrocercus Phasianidae...... U.S.A. (AZ, CO,
sage. minimus. KS, OK, NM, UT).
C*.......... 9 R1 Grouse, western Centrocercus Phasianidae...... U.S.A. (WA).
sage (Washington urophasianus
DPS = Columbia phaios.
basin).
C........... 6 R1 Horned lark, Eremophila Alaudidae........ U.S.A. (WA, OR),
streaked. alpestris Canada (BC).
strigata.
PT.......... 2 R6 Plover, mountain. Charadrius Charadriidae..... U.S.A. (western),
montanus. Canada, Mexico.
C*.......... 8 R2 Prairie-chicken, Tympanuchus Phasianidae...... U.S.A. (CO, KA,
lesser. pallidicinctus. NM, OK, TX).
C*.......... 3 R1 Storm-petrel, Oceanodroma Hydrobatidae..... U.S.A. (HI).
band-rumped castro.
(Hawaii DPS).
C........... 5 R4 Warbler, elfin Dendroica angelae Emberizidae...... U.S.A. (PR).
woods.
PE.......... 2 R1 White-eye, Rota Zosterops Zosteropidae..... U.S.A. (MP).
bridled. rotensis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reptiles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C........... 2 R2 Lizard, sand dune Sceloporus Iguanidae........ U.S.A. (TX, NM).
lizard. arenicolus.
C........... 9 R3 Snake, eastern Sistrurus Viperidae U.S.A.
Massasauga. catenatus (IA, IL, IN, MI,
catenatus.. MO, MN, NY, OH,
PA, WI), Canada
(Ont.)..
C........... 6 R4 Snake, black pine Pituophis........ Colubridae U.S.A. (AL, LA,
melanoleucus MS).
ssplodingi..
[[Page 54824]]
C*.......... 5 R4 Snake, Louisiana Pituophis Colubridae....... U.S.A. (LA, TX).
pine. ruthveni.
C*.......... 5 R2 Turtle, Cagle's Graptemys caglei. Emydidae......... U.S.A. (TX).
map.
C........... 3 R2 Turtle, Sonoyta Kinosternon Kinosternidae.... U.S.A. (AZ),
mud. sonoriense Mexico.
longifemorale.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphibians
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PT.......... 2 R2 Frog, Chiricahua Rana Ranidae.......... U.S.A. (AZ, NM),
leopard. chiricahuensis. Mexico.
C*.......... 3 R1 Frog, Columbia Rana luteiventris Ranidae.......... U.S.A. (ID, NV,
spotted (Great OR).
Basin DPS).
PE.......... 2 R4 Frog, Mississippi Rana capito Ranidae.......... U.S.A. (AL, LA,
gopher (wherever sevosa. MS).
found west of
Mobile and
Tombigbee Rivers
in AL, MS, and
LA.
PE.......... N/A R1 Frog, mountain Rana muscosa..... Ranidae.......... U.S.A. (CA, NV)
yellow-legged including San
(southern Diego, Orange,
California DPS). Riverside, San
Bernardino, and
Los Angeles
Counties.
C*.......... 3 R1 Frog, Oregon Rana pretiosa.... Ranidae.......... U.S.A (CA, OR,
spotted (West WA), Canada
Coast DPS). (BC).
C........... 6 R4 Hellbender, Ozark Cryptobranchus Crytobranchidae.. U.S.A. (AR, MO).
alleganiensis
bishopi.
C*.......... 5 R1 Salamander tiger Ambystoma Ambystomatidae... U.S.A. (CA).
California californiense.
(entire except
where listed).
C........... 2 R2 Salamander, Eurycea naufragia Plethodontidae... U.S.A. (TX).
Georgetown.
C*.......... 3 R6 Toad, boreau Bufo boreas Bufonidae........ U.S.A. (CO, NM,
(Southern Rocky boreas. WY).
Mountains DPS).
C........... 5 R4 Waterdog, black Necturus Proteidae........ U.S.A. (AL).
warrior. alabamensis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PE.......... 3 R1 Chub, Cowhead Gila bicolor Cyprinidae....... U.S.A. (CA).
Lake tui. vaccaceps.
C*.......... 2 R2 Chub, Gila....... Gila intermedia.. Cyprinidae....... U.S.A. (AZ, NM),
Mexico.
C........... 5 R6 Darter, Arkansas. Etheostoma Percidae......... U.S.A. (AR, CO,
cragini. KS, MO, OK).
C........... 6 R4 Darter, Etheostoma nigrum Percidae......... U.S.A. (KY, TN).
Cumberland susanae.
johnny.
PE.......... N/A R4 Darter. Vermilion Etheostoma Percidae......... U.S.A. (AL).
chermocki.
C........... 2 R4 Darter, Etheostoma moorei Percidae......... U.S.A. (AK).
yellowcheek.
C........... 5 R4 Darter. Pearl.... Percina aurora... Percidae......... U.S.A. (LA, MS)
C*.......... 9 R6 Grayling, Arctic Thymallus Salmonidae....... U.S.A. (MT, WY)
(upper Missouri arcticus.
River DPS).
C........... 3 R2 Sucker, Zuni Catostomus Catostomidae..... U.S.A. (AZ, NM)
bluehead. discobolus
yarrowi.
PT.......... 6 R1 Trout, coastal Oncorhynchus Salmonidae....... U.S.A. (AK, CA,
cutthroat clarki clarki. OR, WA), Canada.
(southwestern WA/
Columbia River
DPS).
PT.......... N/A R1 Trout, Dolly Salvelinus malma. Salmonidae....... U.S.A. (AK, OR,
Varden. WA), Canada,
East Asia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clams
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C........... 5 R4 Clubshell, Pleurobema Unionidae........ U.S.A. (AL, GA,
Alabama. troshelianum. TN).
C........... 5 R4 Clubshell, Pleurobema Unionidae........ U.S.A. (AL, GA,
painted. chattanoogaense. TN).
C........... 2 R2 Hornshell, Texas. Popenaias popei.. Unionidae........ U.S.A. (NM, TX),
Mexico.
C........... 5 R4 Kidneyshell, Ptychobranchus Unionidae........ U.S.A. (AL, KY,
fluted. subtentum. TN, VA.
C........... 5 R4 Mucket, Neosho... Lampsilis Unionidae........ U.S.A. (AR, KS,
rafinesqueana. MO, OK).
C........... 2 R4 Pearlshell, Margaritifera Margaritiferidae. U.S.A. (AL).
Alabama. marrianae.
C........... 5 R4 Pearlymussel, Lexingtonia Unionidae........ U.S.A. (AL, KY,
slabside. dolabelloides. TN, VA).
[[Page 54825]]
C........... 5 R4 Pigtoe, Georgia.. Pleurobema Unionidae........ U.S.A. (AL, GA,
hanleyanum. TN).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snails
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C........... 1 R3 Cavesnail, Antrobia culveri. Hydrobiidae...... U.S.A. (MO).
Tumbling Creek.
C........... 9 R6 Mountainsnail, Oreohelix, Oreohelicidae.... U.S.A. (UT).
Ogden Deseret. perpherica
wasatchensis.
C........... 2 R6 Pondsnail, Stagnicola Lymnaeidae....... U.S.A. (UT).
Bonneville. bonnevillensis.
C........... 5 R4 Rocksnail, Leptoxis downei.. Pleuroceridae.... U.S.A. (GA, AL).
Georgia.
C........... 2 R1 Sisi............. Ostodes strigatus Potaridae........ U.S.A. (AS).
C........... 2 R2 Snail, Diamond Y Tryonia Hydrobiidae...... U.S.A. (TX).
Spring. adamantina.
C........... 2 R1 Snail, fragile Samoana fragilis. Partulidae....... U.S.A. (GU, MP).
tree.
C........... 2 R1 Snail, Guam tree. Partula radiolata Partulidae....... U.S.A. (GU).
C........... 2 R1 Snail, Humped Partula gibba.... Partulidae....... U.S.A. (GU, MP).
tree.
C*.......... 2 R2 Snail, Koster's Tryonia kosteri.. Hydrobiidae...... U.S.A. (NM).
tryonia.
C........... 2 R1 Snail, Lanai tree Partulina Achatinellidae... U.S.A. (HI).
semicarinata.
C........... 2 R1 Snail, Lanai tree Partulina Achatinellidae... U.S.A. (HI).
variabilis.
C........... 2 R1 Snail, Langford's Partula langfordi Partulidae....... U.S.A. (MP).
tree.
C*.......... 2 R2 Snail, Pecos..... Assiminea pecos.. Assimineidae..... U.S.A. (NM, TX),
Mexico.
C........... 2 R2 Snail, Phantom Cochliopa texana. Hydrobiidae...... U.S.A. (TX).
cave.
C........... 2 R1 Snail, Tutuila Eua zebrina...... Partulidae....... U.S.A. (AS).
tree.
C*.......... 8 R2 Springsnail, Pyrgulopsis Hydrobiidae...... U.S.A. (NM).
Chupadera. chupaderae.
C*.......... 11 R2 Springsnail, Gila Pyrgulopsis gilae Hydrobiidae...... U.S.A. (NM).
C........... 2 R2 Springsnail, Tryonia Hydrobiidae...... U.S.A. (TX).
Gonzales. circumtriata
(=stocktonensis).
C........... 5 R2 Springsnail, Pyrgulopsis Hydrobiidae...... U.S.A. (AZ),
Huachuca. thompsoni. Mexico.
C*.......... 11 R2 Springsnail, New Pyrgulopsis Hydrobiidae...... U.S.A. (NM).
Mexico. thermalis.
C........... 2 R2 Springsnail, Page Pyrgulopsis Hydrobiidae...... U.S.A. (AZ).
morrisoni.
C........... 2 R2 Springsnail, Tryonia cheatumi. Hydrobiidae...... U.S.A. (TX).
Phantom.
C*.......... 2 R2 Springsnail, Pyrgulopsis Hydrobiidae...... U.S.A. (NM).
Roswell. roswellensis.
C........... 2 R2 Springsnail, Pyrgulopsis Hydrobiidae...... U.S.A. (AZ).
Three Forks. trivialis.
C........... 5 R1 Tree snail, Newcombia cumingi Achatinellidae... U.S.A. (HI).
Newcomb's.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C........... 5 R5 Beetle, Pseudanophthalmus Carabidae........ U.S.A. (VA).
Holsinger's cave. holsingeri.
C........... 11 R6 Beetle, warm Zaitzevia thermae Elmidae.......... U.S.A. (MT).
springs
zaitzevian
riffle.
C........... 2 R1 Bug, Wekiu....... Nysius wekiuicola Lygaeidae........ U.S.A. (HI).
C........... 3 R1 Butterfly, Hypolimnas Nymphalidae...... U.S.A. (GU, MP).
Mariana eight- octucula
spot. mariannensis.
C........... 2 R1 Butterfly, Vagrans egestina. Nymphalidae...... U.S.A. (GU, MP).
Mariana
wandering.
PE.......... N/A R2 Butterfly, Euphydryas anicia Nymphalidae...... U.S.A. (NM).
Sacramento cloudcrofti.
Mountains
checkerspot.
C........... 6 R1 Butterfly, Whulge Euphydryas editha Nymphalidae...... U.S.A. (OR, WA)
checkerspot. taylor. Canada (BC).
C........... 5 R4 Caddisfly, Glyphopsyche Limnephilidae.... U.S.A. (TN).
Sequatchie. sequatchie.
C........... 5 R4 Cave beetle, Pseudanophthalmus Carabidae........ U.S.A. (KY).
beaver. major.
C........... 5 R4 Cave beetle, Pseudanophthalmus Carabidae........ U.S.A. (KY).
Clifton. caecus.
C........... 5 R4 Cave beetle, Pseudanophthalmus Carabidae........ U.S.A. (KY).
icebox. frigidus.
C........... 5 R4 Cave beetle Pseudanophthalmus Carabidae........ U.S.A. (KY).
greater Adams. pholeter.
C........... 5 R4 Cave beetle, Pseudanophthalmus Carabidae........ U.S.A. (TN).
inquirer. inquistor.
C........... 5 R4 Cave beetle, Pseudanophthalmus Carabidae........ U.S.A. (KY).
lesser Adams. cataryctos.
C........... 5 R4 Cave beetle, Pseudanophthalmus Carabidae........ U.S.A. (KY).
Louisville. troglodytes.
[[Page 54826]]
C........... 5 R4 Cave beetle, Pseudanophthalmus Carabidae........ U.S.A. (KY).
surprising. inexpectatus.
C........... 5 R4 Cave beetle, Pseudanophthalmus Carabidae........ U.S.A. (KY).
Tatum. parvus.
C........... 9 R1 Damselfly, Megalagrion Coenagrionidae... U.S.A. (HI).
blackline nigrohamatum
Hawaiian. nigrolineatum.
C........... 2 R1 Damselfly, Megalagrion Coenagrionidae... U.S.A. (HI).
crimson Hawaiian. leptodemus.
C........... 2 R1 Damselfly, flying Megalagrion Coenagrionidae... U.S.A. (HI).
earwig Hawaiian. nesiotes.
C........... 2 R1 Damselfly, Megalagrion Coenagrionidae... U.S.A. (HI).
oceanic Hawaiian. oceanicum.
C........... 8 R1 Damselfly, Megalagrion Coenagrionidae... U.S.A. (HI).
orangeblack xanthomelas.
Hawaiian.
C........... 2 R1 Damselfly, Megalagrion Coenagrionidae... U.S.A. (HI).
Pacific Hawaiian. pacificum.
C........... 5 R1 Gall fly, Phaeogramma sp... Tephritidae...... U.S.A. (HI).
Po'olanui.
C........... 1 R1 Moth, fabulous Tinostoma Sphingidae....... U.S.A. (HI).
green sphinx. smaragditis.
PE.......... 2 R1 Pomace fly, Drosophila aglaia Drosophilidae.... U.S.A. (HI).
[unnamed].
C........... 2 R1 Pomace fly, Drosophila Drosophilidae.... U.S.A. (HI).
[unnamed]. attigua.
C........... 2 R1 Pomace fly, Drosophila Drosophilidae.... U.S.A. (HI).
[unnamed]. Digressa.
PE.......... 2 R1 Pomace fly, Drosophila Drosophilidae.... U.S.A. (HI).
[unnamed]. heteroneura.
PE.......... 2 R1 Pomace fly, Drosophila Drosophilidae.... U.S.A. (HI).
[unnamed]. montgomeryi.
PE.......... 2 R1 Pomace fly, Drosophila mulli. Drosophilidae.... U.S.A. (HI).
[unnamed].
PE.......... 2 R1 Pomace fly, Drosophila Drosophilidae.... U.S.A. (HI).
[unnamed]. musaphila.
PE.......... 2 R1 Pomace fly, Drosophila Drosophilidae.... U.S.A. (HI).
[unnamed]. neoclavisetae.
PE.......... 2 R1 Pomace fly, Drosophila obatai Drosophilidae.... U.S.A. (HI).
[unnamed].
PE.......... 2 R1 Pomace fly, Drosophila Drosophilidae.... U.S.A. (HI).
[unnamed]. substenoptera.
PE.......... 2 R1 Pomace fly, Drosophila Drosophilidae.... U.S.A. (HI).
[unnamed]. tarphytrichia.
PE.......... 2 R1 Pomace fly, Drosophila Drosophilidae.... U.S.A. (HI).
[unnamed]. hemipeza.
PE.......... 2 R1 Pomace fly, Drosophila Drosophilidae.... U.S.A. (HI).
[unnamed]. ochrobasis.
PE.......... 2 R1 Pomace fly, Drosophila Drosophilidae.... U.S.A. (HI).
[unnamed]. differens.
C*.......... 3 R1 Skipper, Carson Pseudocopaeodes Hesperiidae...... U.S.A. (CA, NV).
wandering. eunus obscurus.
C........... 5 R1 Skipper, Mardon.. Polites mardon... Hesperiidae...... U.S.A. (CA, OR,
WA).
C*.......... 9 R6 Tiger beetle, Cindelidae Cicindela........ U.S.A. (UT).
Coral Pink sand limbata
dunes. albinssima.
C........... 5 R4 Tiger beetle, Cicindela Cicindelidae..... U.S.A. (FL).
highlands. highlandensis.
C........... 3 R6 Tiger beetle, Cicindela Cicindelidae..... U.S.A. (NE).
Salt Creek. nevadica
lincolniana.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arachnids
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C........... 2 R2 Meshweaver, Cicurina wartonia Dictynidae....... U.S.A. (TX).
Warton cave.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crustaceans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C........... 11 R4 Crayfish, Camp Fallicambarus Cambaridae....... U.S.A. (MS).
Shelby burrowing. gordoni.
C........... 2 R1 Shrimp, Metabetaeus Alpheidae........ U.S.A. (HI).
anchialine pool. lohena.
C........... 2 R1 Shrimp, Antecaridina Atyidae.......... U.S.A. (HI),
anchialine pool. lauensis. Mozambique,
Saudi Arabia,
Japan.
C........... 2 R1 Shrimp, Calliasmata Alpheidae........ U.S.A. (HI),
anchialine pool. pholidota. Funafuti Atol,
Saudi Arabia,
Sinai
Penninsula,
Tuvalu.
C........... 2 R1 Shrimp, Palaemonella Palaemonidae..... U.S.A. (HI).
anchialine pool. burnsi.
C........... 2 R1 Shrimp, Procaris hawaiana Procarididae..... U.S.A. (HI).
anchialine pool.
C........... 2 R1 Shrimp, Vetericaris Procaridae....... U.S.A. (HI).
anchialine pool. chaceorum.
[[Page 54827]]
C........... 5 R4 Shrimp, Typhlatya monae.. Atyidae.......... U.S.A. (PR),
troglobitic Barbuda,
groundwater. Dominican
Republic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C........... 11 R1 Sand-verbena, Abronia alpina... Nyctaginaceae.... U.S.A. (CA).
Ramshaw Meadows.
PE.......... N/A R1 Ambrosia, San Ambrosia pumila.. Asteraceae....... U.S.A. (CA),
Diego. Mexico.
C........... 11 R4 Rockcress, Arabis georgiana. Brassicaceae..... U.S.A. (AL, GA).
Georgia.
C........... 11 R4 Silverbrush, Argythamnia Euphorbiaceae.... U.S.A. (FL).
Blodgett's. blodgettii.
C........... 3 R1 Wormwood, Artemisia Asteraceae....... U.S.A. (OR, WA).
Northern. campestris
wormskioldii.
C........... 2 R1 Painiu........... Astelia Liliaceae........ U.S.A. (HI).
waialealae.
C........... 5 R4 Aster, Georgia... Aster georgianus. Asteraceae....... U.S.A. (AL, FL,
GA, NC, SC).
C........... 8 R6 Milk-vetch, Astragalus Fabaceae......... U.S.A. (UT).
horseshoe. equisolensis.
C........... 8 R6 Milk-vetch, Astragalus Fabaceae......... U.S.A. (CO).
Sleeping Ute. tortipes.
C........... 5 R1 Ko`oko`olau...... Bidens amplectens Asteraceae....... U.S.A. (HI).
C........... 6 R1 Ko`oko`olau...... Bidens Asteraceae....... U.S.A. (HI).
campylotheca
pentamera.
C........... 3 R1 Ko`oko`olau...... Bidens Asteraceae....... U.S.A. (HI).
campylotheca
waihoiensis.
C........... 8 R1 Ko`oko`olau...... Bidens conjuncta. Asteraceae....... U.S.A. (HI).
C........... 6 R1 Ko`oko`olau...... Bidens micrantha Asteraceae....... U.S.A. (HI).
ctenophylla.
C........... 5 R4 Brickell-bush, Brickellia Asteraceae....... U.S.A. (FL).
Florida. mosieri.
C........... 5 R1 Reedgrass, Calamagrostis Poaceae.......... U.S.A. (HI).
[unnamed]. expansa.
C........... 5 R1 Reedgrass, Calamagrostis Poaceae.......... U.S.A. (HI).
[unnamed]. hillebrandii.
C........... 5 R4 No common name... Calliandra Mimosaceae....... U.S.A. (PR).
locoensis.
C........... 5 R4 No common name... Calyptranthes Myrtaceae........ U.S.A. (PR).
estremerae.
C........... 5 R1 Awikiwiki........ Canavalia Fabaceae......... U.S.A. (HI).
napaliensis.
C........... 2 R1 Awikiwiki........ Canavalia Fabaceae......... U.S.A. (HI).
pubescens.
PE.......... 5 R4 Sedge, golden.... Carex lutea...... Cyperaceae....... U.S.A. (NC).
C........... 8 R6 Paintbrush, Castilleja Scrophulariaceae. U.S.A. (UT).
Aquarius. aquariensis.
C*.......... 11 R1 Paintbrush, Castilleja Scrophulariaceae. U.S.A. (ID).
Christ's. christii.
C........... 6 R4 Pea, Big Pine Chamaecrista Fabaceae......... U.S.A. (FL).
partridge. lineata keyensis.
C........... 6 R4 Sandmat, pineland Chamaesyce Euphorbiaceae.... U.S.A. (FL).
deltoidea
pinetorum.
C........... 6 R4 Spurge, wedge.... Chamaesyce Euphorbiaceae.... U.S.A. (FL).
deltoidea
serpyllum.
C........... 5 R1 Akoko............ Chamaesyce Euphorbiaceae.... U.S.A. (HI).
eleanoriae.
C........... 6 R1 Akoko............ Chamaesyce remyi Euphorbiaceae.... U.S.A. (HI).
kauaiensis.
C........... 6 R1 Akoko............ Chamaesyce remyi Euphorbiaceae.... U.S.A. (HI).
remyi.
C........... 5 R1 Papala........... Charpentiera Amaranthaceae.... U.S.A. (HI).
densiflora.
C*.......... 3 R1 Spineflower, San Chorizanthe Polygonaceae..... U.S.A. (CA).
Fernando Valley. parryi
fernandina.
C........... 5 R4 Thoroughwort, Chromolaena Asteraceae....... U.S.A. (FL).
Cape Sable. frustata.
C........... 2 R4 No common name... Cordia rupicola.. Boraginaceae..... U.S.A. (PR),
Anegada.
C........... 2 R1 Haha............. Cyanea Campanulaceae.... U.S.A. (HI).
asplenifolia.
C........... 5 R1 Haha............. Cyanea calycina.. Campanulaceae.... U.S.A. (HI).
C........... 2 R1 Haha............. Cyanea Campanulaceae.... U.S.A. (HI).
eleeleensis.
C........... 2 R1 Haha............. Cyanea kuhihewa.. Campanulaceae.... U.S.A. (HI).
C........... 5 R1 Haha............. Cyanea kunthiana. Campanulaceae.... U.S.A. (HI).
C........... 5 R1 Haha............. Cyanea lanceolata Campanulaceae.... U.S.A. (HI).
C........... 2 R1 Haha............. Cyanea obtusa.... Campanulaceae.... U.S.A. (HI).
C........... 5 R1 Haha............. Cyanea Campanulaceae.... U.S.A. (HI).
tritomantha.
C........... 2 R1 Haiwale.......... Cyrtandra filipes Gesneriaceae..... U.S.A. (HI).
[[Page 54828]]
C........... 5 R1 Haiiwale......... Cyrtandra Gesneriaceae..... U.S.A. (HI).
kaulantha.
C........... 5 R1 Haiiwale......... Cyrtandra Gesneriaceae..... U.S.A. (HI).
oenobarba.
C........... 2 R1 Haiiwale......... Cyrtandra Gesneriaceae..... U.S.A. (HI).
oxybapha.
C........... 2 R1 Haiiwale......... Cyrtandra Gesneriaceae..... U.S.A. (HI).
sessilis.
C........... 6 R4 Prairie-clover, Dalea Fabaceae......... U.S.A. (FL).
Florida. carthagenensis
floridana.
C........... 5 R4 Crabgrass, Digitaria Poaceae.......... U.S.A. (FL).
Florida pineland. pauciflora.
C........... 6 R1 Na`ena`e......... Dubautia Asteraceae....... U.S.A. (HI).
imbricata
imbricata.
C........... 3 R1 Na`ena`e......... Dubautia Asteraceae....... U.S.A. (HI).
plantaginea
magnifolia.
C........... 5 R1 Na`ena`e......... Dubautia Asteraceae....... U.S.A. (HI).
waialealae.
C........... 6 R2 Cacuts, acuna.... Echinomastus Cactaceae........ U.S.A. (AZ),
erectocentrus Mexico.
acunensis.
C........... 11 R1 Daisy, basalt.... Erigeron Asteraceae....... U.S.A. (WA).
basalticus.
C........... 5 R2 Fleabane, Lemmon. Erigeron lemmonii Asteraceae....... U.S.A. (AZ).
C........... 5 R1 Desert-buckwheat, Eriogonum codium. Polygonaceae..... U.S.A. (WA).
Umtanum.
C........... 5 R1 Buckwheat, Red Eriogonum Polygonaceae..... U.S.A. (CA).
Mountain. kelloggii.
C........... 5 R1 No common name... Festuca Poaceae.......... U.S.A. (HI).
hawaiiensis.
C........... 11 R2 Fescue, Guadalupe Festuca ligulata. Poaceae.......... U.S.A. (TX),
Mexico.
C........... 5 R1 Nanu............. Gardenia remyi... Rubiaceae........ U.S.A. (HI).
C........... 5 R1 Nohoanu.......... Geranium hanaense Geraniaceae...... U.S.A. (HI).
C........... 8 R1 Nohoanu.......... Geranium Geraniaceae...... U.S.A. (HI).
hillebrandii.
C........... 2 R1 Nohoanu.......... Geranium Geraniaceae...... U.S.A. (HI).
kauaiense.
C........... 11 R6 Alice-flower, Gilia caespitosa. Polemoniaceae.... U.S.A. (UT).
wonderland.
C........... 5 R4 No common name... Gonocalyx Ericaceae........ U.S.A. (PR).
concolor.
PE.......... N/A R1 Stickseed, showy. Hackelia venusta. Boraginaceae..... U.S.A. (WA).
C........... 5 R1 Kampuaaa......... Hedyotis Rubiaceae........ U.S.A. (HI).
fluviatilis.
C........... 5 R4 Sunflower, Helianthus Asteraceae....... U.S.A. (AL, GA,
whorled. verticillatus. TN).
C........... 5 R2 Rose-mallow, Hibiscus Malvaceae........ U.S.A. (TX).
Neches River. dasycalyx.
C........... 6 R4 Indigo, Florida.. Indigofera Fabaceae......... U.S.A. (FL).
mucronata
keyensis.
C........... 3 R1 he............... Joinvillea Joinvilleaceae... U.S.A. (HI).
ascendens ssp.
ascendens.
C........... 5 R1 Hulumoa.......... Korthalsella Viscaceae........ U.S.A. (HI).
degeneri.
C........... 5 R1 Kamakahala....... Labordia helleri. Loganiaceae...... U.S.A. (HI).
C........... 5 R1 Kamakahala....... Labordia pumila.. Loganiaceae...... U.S.A. (HI).
C........... 5 R1 No common name... Lagenifera erici. Asteraceae....... U.S.A. (HI).
C........... 5 R1 No common name... Lagenifera Asteraceae....... U.S.A. (HI).
helenae.
C........... 5 R4 Gladecress, Leavenworthia Brassicaceae..... U.S.A. (AL).
[unnamed]. crassa.
C........... 2 R2 Gladecress, Texas Leavenworthia Brassicaceae..... U.S.A (TX).
golden. texana.
C*.......... 2 R1 Peppergrass, Lepidium Brassicaceae..... U.S.A. (ID).
Slick spot. papilliferum.
C........... 5 R4 Bladderpod, Lesquerella Brassicaceae..... U.S.A. (IN, KY,
Short's. globosa. TN).
C........... 5 R1 Bladderpod, White Lesquerella Brassicaceae..... U.S.A. (WA).
Bluffs. tuplashensis.
PE.......... 3 R1 Meadowfoam, large- Limnanthes Limnanthaceae.... U.S.A. (OR).
flowered wooly. floccosa
grandiflora.
C........... 2 R4 Flax, sand....... Linum arenicola.. Linaceae......... U.S.A. (FL).
C........... 3 R4 Flax, Carter's Linum carteri Linaceae......... U.S.A. (FL).
small-flowered. carteri.
PE.......... 2 R1 Lomatium Cook's.. Lomatium cookii.. Apiaceae......... U.S.A. (OR).
C........... 5 R1 Makanoe lehua.... Lysimachia Primulaceae...... U.S.A. (HI).
daphnoides.
C........... 5 R1 Alani............ Melicope Rutaceae......... U.S.A. (HI).
christophersenii.
C........... 2 R1 Alani............ Melicope degeneri Rutaceae......... U.S.A. (HI).
C........... 2 R1 Alani............ Melicope hiiakae. Rutaceae......... U.S.A. (HI).
C........... 2 R1 Alani............ Melicope makahae. Rutaceae......... U.S.A. (HI).
C........... 2 R1 Alani............ Melicope Rutaceae......... U.S.A. (HI).
paniculata.
C........... 5 R1 Alani............ Melicope puberula Rutaceae......... U.S.A. (HI).
C........... 5 R1 Kolea............ Myrsine fosbergii Myrsinaceae...... U.S.A. (HI).
C........... 2 R1 Kolea............ Myrsine mezii.... Myrsinaceae...... U.S.A. (HI).
C........... 5 R1 Kolea............ Myrsine Myrsinaceae...... U.S.A. (HI).
vaccinioides.
C........... 8 R5 Asphodel, bog.... Narthecium Liliaceae........ U.S.A. (DE, NJ,
americanum. NC, NY, SC).
PE.......... 1 R1 No common name... Nesogenes Verbenaceae...... U.S.A. (MP).
rotensis.
[[Page 54829]]
C........... 5 R1 `Aiea............ Nothocestrum Solanaceae....... U.S.A. (HI).
latifolium.
C........... 2 R1 Holei............ Ochrosia Apocynaceae...... U.S.A. (HI).
haleakalae.
C........... 5 R4 Cactus, Florida Opuntia Cactaceae........ U.S.A. (FL).
semaphore. corallicola.
PE.......... 2 R1 No common name... Osmoxylon Araliaceae....... U.S.A. (MP).
mariannense.
C........... 5 R5 Panic grass, Panicum hirstii.. Poaceae.......... U.S.A. (DE, GA,
Hirsts'. NC, NJ).
C........... 11 R2 Whitlow-wort, Paronychia Caryophyllaceae.. U.S.A. (TX).
bushy. congesta.
C........... 6 R2 Cactus, Fickeisen Pediocactus Cactaceae........ U.S.A. (AZ).
plains. peeblesianus
fickeiseniae.
C........... 5 R6 Beardtongue, Penstemon debilis Scrophulariaceae. U.S.A. (CO).
Parachute.
C........... 5 R6 Beardtongue, Penstemon Scrophulariaceae. U.S.A. (CO, UT).
Graham. grahamii.
C*.......... 6 R6 Beardtongue, Penstemon Scrophulariaceae. U.S.A. (CO, UT).
White River. scariosus
albifluvis.
C........... 2 R1 `Ala 'ala wai nui Peperomia Piperaceae....... U.S.A. (HI).
subpetiolata.
C........... 11 R6 Phacelia, DeBeque Phacelia Hydrophyllaceae.. U.S.A. (CO).
submutica.
C........... 2 R1 No common name... Phyllostegia Lamiaceae........ U.S.A. (HI).
bracteata.
C........... 5 R1 No common name... Phyllostegia Lamiaceae........ U.S.A. (HI)
floribunda.
C........... 2 R1 No common name... Phyllostegia Lamiaceae........ U.S.A. (HI).
hispida.
C........... 5 R1 Ho'awa........... Pittosporum Pittosporaceae... U.S.A. (HI).
napaliense.
C........... 5 R4 Orchid, white Platanthera Orchidaceae...... U.S.A. (AL, GA,
fringeless. integrilabia. KY, MS, NC, SC,
TN, VA).
C........... 6 R1 No common name... Platydesma Rutaceae......... U.S.A. (HI).
cornuta ssp.
cornuta.
C........... 6 R1 No common name... Platydesma Rutaceae......... U.S.A. (HI).
cornuta ssp.
decurrens.
C........... 2 R1 No common name... Platydesma remyi. Rutaceae......... U.S.A. (HI).
C........... 5 R1 Pilo kea lau li'i Platydesma Rutaceae......... U.S.A. (HI).
rostrata.
C........... 5 R1 Hala pepe........ Pleomele Agavaceae........ U.S.A. (HI).
fernaldii.
C........... 5 R1 Hala pepe........ Pleomele forbesii Agavaceae........ U.S.A. (HI).
PE.......... 2 R1 Polygonum, Scotts Polygonum Polygonaceae..... U.S.A. (CA).
Valley. hickmanii.
C........... 5 R1 Lo'ulu,(=Na'ena'e Pritchardia Asteraceae....... U.S.A. (HI).
). hardyi.
C........... 6 R1 `Ena'ena......... Pseudognaphalium Asteraceae....... U.S.A. (HI).
(Formerly
Gnaphalium)
sandwicensium
molokaiense.
C........... 2 R1 Kopiko........... Psychotria Rubiaceae........ U.S.A. (HI).
grandiflora.
C........... 3 R1 Kopiko........... Psychotria Rubiaceae........ U.S.A. (HI).
hexandra
oahuensis.
C........... 2 R1 Kopiko........... Psychotria hobdyi Rubiaceae........ U.S.A. (HI).
C........... 5 R1 Kaulu............ Pteralyxia Apocynaceae...... U.S.A. (HI).
macrocarpa.
C........... 5 R1 Makou............ Ranunculus Ranunculaceae.... U.S.A. (HI).
hawaiensis.
C........... 2 R1 Makou............ Ranunculus Ranunculaceae.... U.S.A. (HI).
mauiensis.
C *......... 2 R1 Cress, Tahoe Rorippa Brassicaceae..... U.S.A. (CA, NV).
yellow. subumbellata.
C........... 2 R1 No common name... Schiedea Caryophyllaceae.. U.S.A. (HI).
attenuata.
C........... 2 R1 Ma'oli'oli....... Schiedea Caryophyllaceae.. U.S.A. (HI).
pubescens.
C........... 2 R1 No common name... Schiedea Caryophyllaceae.. U.S.A. (HI).
salicaria.
C........... 5 R1 Stonecrop, Red Sedum eastwoodiae Crassulaceae..... U.S.A. (CA).
Mountain.
C........... 5 R1 `Anunu........... Sicyos Cucurbitaceae.... U.S.A. (HI).
macrophyllus.
C........... 9 R1 Checkerbloom, Sidalcea Malvaceae........ U.S.A. (CA).
Parish's. hickmanii ssp.
parishii.
C........... 5 R1 Popolo........... Solanum nelsonii. Solanaceae....... U.S.A. (HI).
C........... 2 R1 No common name... Stenogyne Lamiaceae........ U.S.A. (HI).
cranwelliae.
C........... 2 R1 No common name... Stenogyne kealiae Lamiaceae........ U.S.A. (HI).
PE.......... 2 R1 No common name... Tabernaemontana Apocynaceae...... U.S.A. (GU, MP).
rotensis.
[[Page 54830]]
PT.......... 1 R6 Yellowhead, Yermo Asteraceae....... U.S.A. (WY).
desert. xanthocephalus.
C........... 2 R1 A'e.............. Zanthoxylum Rutaceae......... U.S.A. (HI).
oahuense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ferns and Allies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C........... 11 R1 Moonwort, slender Botrychium Ophioglossaceae.. U.S.A. (CA, CO,
lineare. ID, MT, OR, WA),
Canada.
C........... 6 R1 No common name... Cyclosorus Thelypteridaceae. U.S.A. (HI).
boydiae boydiae.
C........... 6 R1 No common name... Cyclosorus Thelypteridaceae. U.S.A. (HI).
boydiae
kipahuluensis.
C........... 2 R1 No common name... Doryopteris Dryopteridaceae.. U.S.A. (HI).
takeuchii.
C........... 2 R1 No common name... Dryopteris Dryopteridaceae.. U.S.A. (HI).
tenebrosa.
C........... 2 R1 No common name... Microlepia Dennstaedtiaceae. U.S.A. (HI).
mauiensis.
C........... 2 R1 Wawae'iole....... Phlegmariurus Lycopodiaceae.... U.S.A. (HI).
stemmermanniae.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Former Candidate and Former Proposed Animals and Plants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status
-----------------------------------------
Lead Common name Scientific name Family Historic range
Code Expl. region
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rc A R6 Fox, swift (U.S. Vulpes velox.... Canidae......... U.S.A. (CO, IA,
population). KS, MN, MT, ND,
NE, NM, OK, SD,
TX, WY),
Canada.
T L R6 Lynx, Canada.... Lynx canadensis. Felidae......... U.S.A. (AK, CO,
ID, ME, MI, MN,
MT, ND, NH, NY,
OR, PA, UT, VT,
WA, WI, WY),
Canada,
circumboreal.
E L R1 Rabbit, riparian Sylvilagus Leporidae....... U.S.A. (CA).
brush. bachmani
riparius.
E L R1 Sheep, bighorn.. Ovis canadensis Bovidae......... U.S.A. (Western
californiana. conterminous
states), Canada
(southwestern).
T L R1 Squirrel, Spermophilus Sciuridae....... U.S.A. (ID).
northern Idaho brunneus
ground. brunneus.
E L R1 Woodrat, Neotoma fuscipes Muridae......... U.S.A. (CA).
riparian. riparia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E L R7 Albatross, short- Phoebastria Diomedeidae..... North Pacific
tailed. albatrus. Ocean and
Bering Sea,
Canada, China,
Japan, Mexico,
Russia, Taiwan,
U.S.A. (AK, CA,
HI, OR, WA).
E L R1 Elepaio, Oahu... Chasiempis Musicapidae..... U.S.A. (HI).
sandwichensis
ibidus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphibians
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E L R1 Salamander, Ambystoma Ambystomatidae.. U.S.A. (CA).
California californiense.
tiger (Santa
Barbara
population).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rc A R6 Chub, sicklefin. Macrhybopsis Cyprinidae...... U.S.A. (AR, IA,
meeki. IL, KS, KY, LA,
MO, MS, MT, NE,
ND, SD, TN).
Rc A R6 Chub, sturgeon.. Macrhybopsis Cyprinidae...... U.S.A. (AR, IA,
gelida. IL, KY, KS, LA,
MO, MS, MT, NE,
ND, SD, TN,
WY).
T L R2 Minnow, Devils Dionda diaboli.. Cyprinidae...... U.S.A. (TX),
River. Mexico.
[[Page 54831]]
Rp A R2 Pupfish, Pecos.. Cyprinodon Cyprinodontidae. U.S.A. (NM, TX).
pecosensis.
E L R5 Salmon, Atlantic Salmo salar..... Salmonidae...... U.S.A., Canada,
(Gulf of Maine Greenland,
population). western Europe.
E L R4 Sturgeon, Scaphirhynchus Acipenseridae... U.S.A. (AL, MS).
Alabama. suttkusi.
T L R1 Sucker, Santa Catostomus Catostoidae..... U.S.A. (CA).
Ana. santaanae.
T L R1 Trout, bull..... Salvelinus Salmonidae...... U.S.A. (Pacific
confluentus. NW), Canada (NW
Territories).
Rc A R1 Trout, McCloud R Oncorhynchus Salmonidae...... U.S.A. (CA).
redband. mykiss ssp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clams
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E L R3 Mussel, Leptodea Unionidae....... U.S.A. (AL, AR,
scaleshell. leptodon. IL, IN, IA, KY,
MN, MO, OH, OK,
SD, TN, WI).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snails
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E L R4 Campeloma, Campeloma Viviparidae..... U.S.A. (AL).
slender. decampi.
E L R4 Snail, armored.. Pyrgulopsis Hydrobiidae..... U.S.A. (AL).
pachyta.
T L R1 Snail, Newcomb's Erinna newcombi. Lymnaeidae...... U.S.A. (HI).
Rc A R2 Talussnail, Wet Sonorella Helminthoglyptid U.S.A. (AZ).
Canyon. macrophallus. a.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E L R1 Butterfly, Icaricia Lycaenidae...... U.S.A. (OR).
Fender's blue. icarioides
fenderi.
E L R2 Ground beetle, Rhadine Carabidae....... U.S.A. (TX).
[unnamed]. infernalis.
E L R2 Ground beetle, Rhadine exilis.. Carabidae....... U.S.A. (TX).
[unnamed].
E L R2 Mold beetle, Batrisodes Pselaphidae..... U.S.A. (TX).
Helotes. venyivi.
E L R1 Moth, Manduca Sphingidae...... U.S.A. (HI).
Blackburn's blackburni.
sphinx.
E L R1 Tiger beetle, Cicindela ohlone Cicindelidae.... U.S.A. (CA).
Ohlone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arachnids
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E L R2 Harvestman, Texella Phalangodidae... U.S.A. (TX).
Robber Baron cokendolpheri.
Cave.
E L R2 Spider, Neoleptoneta Leptonetidae.... U.S.A. (TX).
Government microps.
Canyon cave.
E L R1 Spider, Kauai Adelocosa anops. Lycosidae....... U.S.A. (HI).
cave wolf or
pe'e pe'e maka
'ole.
E L R2 Spider, Madla's Cicurina madla.. Dictynidae...... U.S.A. (TX).
cave.
E L R2 Spider, Robber Cicurina baronia Dictynidae...... U.S.A. (TX).
Baron cave.
E L R2 Spider, Vesper Cicurina vespera Dictynidae...... U.S.A. (TX).
cave.
E L R2 Spider, Cicurina venii.. Dictynidae...... U.S.A. (TX).
[unnamed].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crustaceans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E L R1 Amphipod, Kauai Spelaeorchestia Talitridae...... U.S.A. (HI).
cave. koloana.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rc A R2 Onion, Allium Liliaceae....... U.S.A. (AZ, NM).
Goodding's. gooddingii.
Rc A R6 Rock-cress, Arabis pusilla.. Brassicaceae.... U.S.A. (WY).
small.
E L R6 Milk-vetch, Astragalus Fabaceae........ U.S.A. (UT).
Shivwitz. ampullarioides.
T L R6 Milk-vetch, Astragalus Fabaceae........ U.S.A. (UT).
Deseret. desereticus.
E L R6 Milk-vetch, Astragalus Fabaceae........ U.S.A. (AZ, UT).
Holmgren. holmgreniorum.
E L R1 Milk-vetch, Astragalus Fabaceae........ U.S.A. (CA).
Ventura Marsh. pycnostachyus
lanosissimus.
Rc A R1 Lily, umpqua Calochortus Liliaceae....... U.S.A. (OR).
mariposa. umpquaensis.
[[Page 54832]]
Rc A R2 Bugbane, Arizona Cimicifuga Ranunculaceae... U.S.A. (AZ).
arizonica.
E L R1 Thistle, La Cirsium £Aster U.S.A. (CA).
Graciosa. loncholepis. aceae.
Rc N R1 Haha............ Cyanea Campanulaceae... U.S.A. (HI).
pseudofauriei.
Rc A R1 pu'uka'a........ Cyperus odoratus Cyperaceae...... U.S.A. (HI).
E L R1 Larkspur, Delphinium Ranunculaceae... U.S.A. (CA).
Baker's. bakeri.
E L R1 Larkspur, yellow Delphinium Ranunculaceae... U.S.A. (CA).
luteum.
E L R1 Daisy, Erigeron Asteraceae...... U.S.A. (OR).
Willamette. decumbens
decumbens.
E L R1 Yerba santa, Eriodictyon Hydrophyllaceae. U.S.A. (CA).
Lompoc. capitatum.
Rc A R1 Buckwheat, Eriogonum Polygonaceae.... U.S.A. (NV).
Sulphur Springs. argophyllum.
E L R1 Fritillary, Fritillaria Liliaceae....... U.S.A. (OR).
Gentner's. gentneri.
T L R6 Butterfly plant, Gaura Onagraceae...... U.S.A. (CO, NE,
Colorado. neomexicana WY).
coloradensis.
T L R2 Sunflower, Pecos Helianthus Asteraceae...... U.S.A. (NM, TX).
paradoxus.
E L R1 Tarplant, Hemizonia Asteraceae...... U.S.A. (CA).
Gaviota. increscens
villosa.
T L R1 Tarplant, Santa Holocarpha Asteraceae...... U.S.A. (CA).
Cruz. macradenia.
Rc A R1 Lathyrus, two- Lathyrus Fabaceae........ U.S.A. (CA).
flowered. biflorus.
E L R2 Bladderpod, Lesquerella Brassicaceae.... U.S.A. (TX).
Zapata. thamnophila.
E L R1 Lupine, Nipomo Lupinus Fabaceae........ U.S.A. (CA).
Mesa. nipomensis.
T L R1 Lupine, Lupinus Fabaceae........ U.S.A. (OR, WA).
Kincaid's. sulphureus
kincaidii.
Rc X R1 ................ Lysimachia Primulaceae..... U.S.A. (HI).
venosa.
Rc X R1 Alani........... Melicope Rutaceae........ U.S.A. (HI).
macropus.
Rc A R1 Cholla, Blue Opuntia whipplei Cactaceae....... U.S.A. (NV).
Diamond. multigeniculata.
E L R1 Phlox, Yreka.... Phlox hirsuta... Polemoniaceae... U.S.A. (CA).
Rc X R1 ................ Phyllostegia Lamiaceae....... U.S.A. (HI).
helleri.
Rc X R1 ................ Phyllostegia Lamiaceae....... U.S.A. (HI).
imminuta.
E L R1 Popcornflower, Plagiobothrys Boraginaceae.... U.S.A. (OR).
rough. hirtus.
E L R1 Checker-mallow, Sidalcea keckii. Malvaceae....... U.S.A. (CA).
Keck's.
E L R1 Checkermallow, Sidalcea oregana Malvaceae....... U.S.A. (WA).
Wenatchee calva.
Mountains.
Rc I R1 Catchfly, Red Silene Caryophyllaceae. U.S.A. (CA).
Mountain. campanulata
campanulata.
T L R1 Catchfly, Silene Caryophyllaceae. U.S.A. (ID, MT,
Spalding's. spaldingii. OR, WA).
E L R1 Penny-cress, Thlaspi Brassicaceae.... U.S.A. (CA).
Kneeland californicum.
Prairie.
Rc A R2 Tickle-tongue, Zanthoxylum Rutaceae........ U.S.A. (TX).
Shinner's. parvum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 01-26982 Filed 10-29-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P