Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Findings on Petitions To List 10 Species as Endangered or Threatened Species, 69425-69442 [2016-24142]

Download as PDF 69425 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to tribes. The Suwannee moccasinshell is not known to occur within any tribal lands or waters. Common name References Cited Regulation Promulgation A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Panama City Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows: ■ Authors The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the Panama City Ecological Services Field Office. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 1544; 4201–4245; unless otherwise noted. 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding an entry for ‘‘Moccasinshell, Suwannee’’ to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical order under CLAMS to read as set forth below: ■ § 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife. * Scientific name * PART 17—ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS Where listed * * Status * * * (h) * * * * * Listing citations and applicable rules * * * CLAMS * Moccasinshell, Suwannee. * * * Medionidus walkeri ...... Wherever found ........... * * * Dated: September 26, 2016. Stephen Guertin, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [4500090022] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Findings on Petitions To List 10 Species as Endangered or Threatened Species Fish and Wildlife Service, We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 12month findings on petitions to list 10 species as endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After a review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that listing the Huachuca-Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog, the Arkansas darter, black mudalia, Highlands tiger beetle, Dichanthelium (=panicum) hirstii (Hirst Brothers’ panic grass), two Kentucky cave beetles (Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave beetle), relict leopard frog, sicklefin redhorse sucker, and Stephan’s riffle beetle is not warranted at this time. SUMMARY: DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR * * 81 FR [Insert Federal Register page where the document begins]; October 6, 2016. * Notice of 12-month petition findings. BILLING CODE 4333–15–P Interior. * ACTION: [FR Doc. 2016–24138 Filed 10–5–16; 8:45 am] AGENCY: * T * However, we ask the public to submit to us at any time any new information that becomes available concerning the stressors to any of the 10 species listed above or their habitats. The findings announced in this document were made on October 6, 2016. DATES: Detailed descriptions of the basis for each of these findings are available on the Internet at https:// www.regulations.gov at the following docket numbers: ADDRESSES: sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Species Docket No. Arizona treefrog (Huachuca-Canelo population) ......................................................................... Arkansas darter ........................................................................................................................... Black mudalia .............................................................................................................................. Highlands tiger beetle .................................................................................................................. Dichanthelium (=panicum) hirstii (Hirst Brothers’ panic grass) ................................................... Kentucky cave beetles (Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave beetle) ................................... Relict leopard frog ....................................................................................................................... Sicklefin redhorse sucker ............................................................................................................ Stephan’s riffle beetle .................................................................................................................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 * Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 FWS–R2–ES–2016–0111. FWS–R6–ES–2016–0113. FWS–R4–ES–2016–0112. FWS–R4–ES–2016–0114. FWS–R5–ES–2016–0105. FWS–R4–ES–2016–0115. FWS–R8–ES–2016–0116. FWS–R4–ES–2016–0117. FWS–R2 ES–2016–0118. E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 69426 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations Supporting information used to prepare these findings is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, by contacting the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning these findings to the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Species Contact information Arizona treefrog (Huachuca-Canelo population) Nathan Allan, Acting Listing Coordinator, Southwest Regional Office, Ecological Services, 512–490–0057. Jason Luginbill, Field Supervisor, Kansas Ecological Services Field Office, 785–539–3474. Bill Pearson, Field Supervisor, Alabama Ecological Services Field Office, 251–441–5181. Roxanna Hinzman, Field Supervisor, South Florida Ecological Services Field Office, 772–562– 3909. Krishna Gifford, Listing Coordinator, Northeast Regional Office, Ecological Services, 413–253– 8619. Submit any new information concerning the species’ taxonomy, population status, or threats to: New Jersey Ecological Services Field Office, 4 E. Jimmie Leeds Road, Suite 4, Galloway, NJ 08205. Lee Andrews, Field Supervisor, Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office, 502–695–0468. Arkansas darter .................................................. Black mudalia ..................................................... Highlands tiger beetle ......................................... Dichanthelium (=panicum) hirstii (Hirst Brothers’ panic grass). Kentucky cave beetles (Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave beetle). Relict leopard frog .............................................. Sicklefin redhorse sucker ................................... Stephan’s riffle beetle ......................................... Michael Senn, Field Supervisor, Southern Nevada Ecological Services Field Office, 702–515– 5244. Jason Mays, Asheville (North Carolina) Ecological Services Field Office, 828–258–3939. Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 602–242–0210. sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: subsequent finding to be made within 12 months. We must publish these 12month findings in the Federal Register. Background Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) requires that, within 12 months after receiving any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing an animal or plant species may be warranted, we make a finding (‘‘12month finding’’). In this finding, we determine whether listing the Huachuca-Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog, the Arkansas darter, black mudalia, Highlands tiger beetle, Dichanthelium (=panicum) hirstii (Hirst Brothers’ panic grass), two Kentucky cave beetles (Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave beetle), relict leopard frog, sicklefin redhorse sucker, and Stephan’s riffle beetle is: (1) Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) warranted, but the immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether species are endangered or threatened species, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (‘‘warranted but precluded’’). Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such finding, that is, requiring a Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing regulations in part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. The Act defines ‘‘endangered species’’ as any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)), and ‘‘threatened species’’ as any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be an endangered or a threatened species because of any of the following five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We summarize below the information on which we based our evaluation of the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether the VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Huachuca-Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog, the Arkansas darter, black mudalia, Highlands tiger beetle, Dichanthelium (=panicum) hirstii, two Kentucky cave beetles (Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave beetle), relict leopard frog, sicklefin redhorse sucker, and Stephan’s riffle beetle meet the definition of an endangered or threatened species. More detailed information about these species is presented in the species-specific assessment forms found on https:// www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (see ADDRESSES, above). In considering what stressors under the Act’s five factors might constitute threats, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat. In that case, we determine if that stressor rises to the level of a threat, meaning that it may drive or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species such that the species warrants listing as an endangered or threatened species as those terms are defined by the Act. This does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the species is likely affected could suffice. The mere identification of stressors that could affect a species negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations listing is appropriate; we require evidence that these stressors are operative threats to the species and its habitat, either singly or in combination, to the point that the species meets the definition of an endangered or a threatened species under the Act. In making our 12-month findings, we considered and evaluated the best available scientific and commercial information regarding the past, present, and future stressors and threats. We reviewed the petition, information available in our files, and other available published and unpublished information. This evaluation may include information from recognized experts; Federal, State, and tribal governments; academic institutions; foreign governments; private entities, and other members of the public. Arizona Treefrog, Huachuca-Canelo Population (Hyla wrightorum) Previous Federal Actions In our annual candidate notice of review (CNOR) published on December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034), we recognized the Huachuca-Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog as a candidate for listing as a distinct population segment (DPS). Subsequently, we published similar findings in our CNORs on December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75176), November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222), October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994), November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), December 5, 2014 (79 FR 72450), and December 24, 2015 (80 FR 80584). In 2007, the Huachuca-Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog was assigned a listing priority number (LPN) of 3, reflecting the taxonomic identity of the listable entity as a subspecies/ population with threats that we considered to be imminent and high in magnitude. The LPN numbers range from 1 to 11, with 1 being the highest priority. sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Background The Arizona treefrog (Hyla wrightorum) is a small (4.6 centimeters (cm) (1.8 inches (in)) green frog with a dark eyestripe that extends past the shoulder onto the side of the body, and sometimes to the groin area. It occurs in Madrean oak woodland and savannah, pine-oak woodland, mixed conifer forest, and Plains grasslands at elevations of approximately 1,525 to 2,590 meters (m) (5,000 to 8,500 feet (ft)), and requires ponds for successful reproduction. The Arizona treefrog is known to occur within Arizona, New Mexico, and VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 Mexico. In Arizona and New Mexico, the Arizona treefrog occurs along the Mogollon Rim (central Arizona and western New Mexico), in the Huachuca Mountains and Canelo Hills area (a disjunct mountain range on the Arizona/Sonora, Mexico border), and farther south in Mexico (in the Sierra Madre Occidental and sky island mountain ranges). We refer to these three areas as the Mogollon Rim, Huachuca-Canelo, and Mexico populations. Within the Huachuca-Canelo population, historical information has documented Arizona treefrogs from three general localities at Rancho Los Fresnos, Sonora, Mexico, and from 13 to 15 verified localities in the Huachuca Mountains and Canelo Hills, Arizona. The Huachuca-Canelo population of Arizona treefrog has continued to persist in Arizona sky island mountain range and Plains grassland habitats, and the treefrog has recently been found in new locations within grasslands and ´ cienegas (a swamp or marsh, especially one formed and fed by springs) in Arizona. These new locations in varied habitats indicate that the Arizona treefrogs may be less selective in choosing breeding habitat than previously thought. In addition, the species likely occurs in other wet canyons with suitable breeding habitat in the Huachuca Mountains, and ´ perhaps in cienegas in the vicinity of Rancho Los Fresnos. The Huachuca-Canelo DPS of the Arizona treefrog was originally defined based on the historical locations. However, recently the Service has received information on Arizona treefrog locations nearby, but outside of, the DPS area. This new information, along with many new location detections in the Huachuca Mountains and Canelo Hills, indicates that the Arizona treefrog is not only more numerous, but is much more widespread than we knew when the Service made this Arizona treefrog a candidate species as a DPS. There are now approximately more than 30 known localities in Arizona in the Huachuca Mountains and Canelo Hills, and the Arizona treefrog also occurs in areas outside of the DPS boundary, but within the vicinity of the Huachuca Mountains and Canelo Hills. Summary of Status Review Based on new information and review of previously referenced studies, we find that the Huachuca-Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog does not meet the requirements of the Service’s Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 69427 Population Segments (DPS Policy) published in the Federal Register on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). The DPS Policy sets forth three elements for the Service to consider in determining whether a vertebrate population is a DPS that warrants listing: Whether the population is discrete and whether the population is significant. If the population is determined to be both discrete and significant, then the DPS Policy requires the Service to evaluate the conservation status of the population to determine whether the population falls within the Act’s definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or of a ‘‘threatened species.’’ On the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, and in accordance with our DPS Policy, we conclude that the Huachuca-Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog is discrete but it is not significant (i.e., it is not biologically or ecologically important) to the taxon as a whole. Regarding discreteness, we have reviewed the best available scientific and commercial information and the evidence relative to potential differences in physical, behavioral, morphological, and genetic attributes. We conclude that the Huachuca-Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog is discrete based on its geographical separation from the other two populations on the Mogollon Rim and in Mexico. Regarding significance, we considered the four classes of information listed in the DPS Policy as possible considerations in making a determination, as well as all other information that might be relevant to making this determination for the Huachuca-Canelo population. The Huachuca-Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog does not appear to exhibit any direct or indirect habitat adaptation or behavioral advantage that would indicate that their persistence in the Huachuca Mountains and Canelo Hills area is biologically or ecologically important to the taxon as a whole. Moreover, we considered the other three considerations that the DPS Policy sets out for evaluating significance, and none of them provides evidence that the Huachuca-Canelo population is significant to the Arizona treefrog as a whole: (1) Loss of the Huachuca-Canelo population would not result in a significant gap in the range; (2) the Huachuca-Canelo population does not represent the only surviving natural occurrence of the Arizona treefrog; and (3) the Huachuca-Canelo population’s genetic characteristics do not differ markedly from those of other Arizona treefrog populations. E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 69428 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations Finding changed the LPN from 5 to 11 (67 FR 40657; June 13, 2002). On May 11, 2004, the Service received a petition dated May 4, 2004, from the Center for Biological Diversity and others to list 225 species, including the Arkansas darter. The Service published a 12-month finding in the Federal Register on May 11, 2005, with a reaffirmed determination that listing was warranted but precluded and that the taxon had an LPN of 11 (70 FR 24870). We have continued to evaluate the status of the candidate taxon through our annual CNOR and maintained the LPN of 11 for this species (see September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53756), December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034), December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75176), November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222), October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994), November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), December 5, 2014 (79 FR 72450), and December 24, 2015 (80 FR 80584)). Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial information pertaining to the Act’s five threat factors, we conclude that the Huachuca-Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog does not meet the significance criterion of the DPS Policy, as detailed above and, therefore, is not a valid DPS under our DPS Policy. As a result, we find that the HuachucaCanelo population of the Arizona treefrog is not a listable entity under section 3(16) of the Act. Therefore, we find that listing the Huachuca-Canelo population of Arizona treefrog as an endangered or a threatened species is not warranted throughout all or a significant portion of its range at this time, and consequently, we are removing it from candidate status. As a result of the Service’s 2011 multidistrict litigation settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians, the Service is required to submit a proposed listing rule or a not-warranted 12-month finding to the Federal Register by September 30, 2016 (In re: Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 10–377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)), for all 251 species that were included as candidate species in the Service’s November 10, 2010, CNOR. This document satisfies the requirements of that settlement agreement for the Huachuca-Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the species-specific assessment form for the Huachuca-Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above). Arkansas Darter (Etheostoma cragini) sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Previous Federal Actions The Arkansas darter was first identified as a candidate for listing under the Act in 1989 (54 FR 554; January 6, 1989), as a Category 2 candidate species. Category 2 candidate species were identified as those taxa for which the Service possessed information indicating proposing to list the taxa was possibly appropriate, but for which conclusive data on biological vulnerability and threats sufficient to support a proposed listing rule was lacking. On February 28, 1996, the CNOR (61 FR 7596) discontinued recognition of Categories 1–3. Because listing the Arkansas darter was warranted but precluded, we assigned the species an LPN of 5. In 2002, we VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 Background The Arkansas darter (Etheostoma cragini) is a small fish in the perch family native to the Arkansas River basin. The species occurs most often in sand- or pebble-bottomed pools of small, spring-fed streams and marshes, with cool water, and broad-leaved aquatic vegetation. Arkansas darters prefer flowing, spring-fed streams and pools in contact with groundwater sources. However, the species is very tolerant to periods of very poor water quality, including high water temperatures, low dissolved oxygen, high turbidity, and hypereutrophication. The Arkansas darter’s range includes eastern Colorado, southwest and central Kansas, northwest and northeast Oklahoma, southwest Missouri, and northwest Arkansas. Recent surveys have expanded our knowledge of occupied Arkansas darter populations. We currently consider to be extant a total of 80 populations within 15 metapopulations rangewide. This is more than we knew of for previous assessments of this species. Summary of Status Review In completing our status review for the Arkansas darter, we reviewed the best available scientific and commercial information and compiled this information in the Species Status Assessment Report (SSA Report) for the Arkansas darter. In previous candidate assessments and findings for this species, the identified threats we considered were water depletion, water quality degradation, urbanization and PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 development, confined-animal feeding operations, dams and reservoirs, salt cedar invasion, disease, and predation. Although localized negative effects have been observed, all of these stressors (other than water depletion) occur at a limited scale and scope, and the overall impact at the population and species level is minimal. Water depletion is the stressor with the largest potential impact to the Arkansas darter’s viability, affecting approximately 25 percent of the geographic range, resulting mainly from groundwater withdrawals for agriculture. Seasonal low flows and intermittency of streams are common within the Great Plains portion of its range, and it appears the species is adapted to this phenomenon. However, the continued existence of the species in these areas is dependent on localized areas of refugia. Typically refugia exist where groundwater flows come to the surface and create permanent pools or small wetland areas along the stream course. When seasonal precipitation occurs and the streams become flowing systems, typically in the spring, the stream then provides habitat for spawning, rearing, and dispersal of young and adult individuals throughout the watershed. Climate change projections forecast minimal change in average annual precipitation in the Arkansas River basin and do not forecast reduced or diminished streamflow as a result of future changes in precipitation patterns. Therefore, we do not expect to see climate-changedriven decreased trends in precipitation and related stream flows. Water depletion results in decreased resiliency of populations affected in the portions of the range in southwestern Kansas, northwestern Oklahoma, and parts of Colorado, approximately 25 percent of the range. However, the species has endured over 40 years of groundwater withdrawals in these areas, indicating continued resiliency of these populations. The large number of populations (80) spread across the multi-State range provides the Arkansas darter species with a high level of redundancy should a catastrophic event occur somewhere within its occupied range. Multiple populations and metapopulations currently occupying the unique ecological settings of the three unique physiogeographic areas, the same physiogeographic areas that this species was known to occupy historically, allow the species to maintain adaptive potential and the underlying genetic makeup to adapt to changing environmental conditions. Over the next 30 years, under our expected scenario, we are likely to see E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES a continuation of similar levels of impact from the stressors affecting this species as we have in the past. We believe a continued rate of groundwater usage and continued rates of impact from other stressors over the next 30 years would not likely result in significant effects to the occupied range of the Arkansas darter. Although we expect little change on a rangewide basis, we could see some range contraction in the western Cimarron and upper Rattlesnake Creek basin in Kansas and Oklahoma due to water depletion, as well as small portions of the Colorado range. Additionally, we could see range contraction in the eastern portion of the range (Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma) due to development effects. However, we do not expect to see a reduction in redundancy of the species overall (e.g., no the loss of entire populations). Finding Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial information pertaining to the Act’s five threat factors, we find that the stressors acting on the species and its habitat, either singly or in combination, are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate that the Arkansas darter is currently in danger of extinction (an endangered species), or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (a threatened species). In conclusion, we find that this species no longer warrants listing throughout its range. We evaluated the current range of the Arkansas darter to determine if there is any apparent geographic concentration of potential threats for the species. Groundwater withdrawals are currently impacting portions of the upper, central, and lower Arkansas River basins in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Colorado, an area representing approximately 25 percent of geographic range of the Arkansas darter. Additional stressors outside of this area are generally low level, localized impacts not affecting entire populations. The 25 percent of the range affected by groundwater withdrawal does not meet the biologically based definition of ‘‘significant’’ (i.e., the loss of that portion clearly would not be expected to increase the vulnerability to extinction of the entire species). If that 25 percent of the range were lost, the species would still have approximately 75 percent of its geographic range in areas that are not expected to be subject to the negative effects of water depletion. Therefore, we determined that there are no significant portions of the species’ range where the Arkansas darter meets the definition of VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 an endangered or a threatened species and that the best available scientific and commercial information indicates this species is no longer in danger of extinction (endangered) or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened) throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Arkansas darter populations appear to be resilient to threats identified in previous status assessments; these threats are now believed to have fewer impacts on the Arkansas darter than previously understood; the species is expected to maintain a high level of redundancy and representation into the future; we know of more currentlyoccupied populations then we have in previous assessments; and while groundwater withdrawals affecting water depletion are expected to continue in approximately 25 percent of the range, we do not expect to see a reduction in redundancy of the species overall (e.g., no loss of Arkansas darter populations). Therefore, we find that listing the Arkansas darter as an endangered or threatened species is not warranted at this time, and consequently we are removing it from candidate status. As a result of the Service’s 2011 multidistrict litigation settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians, the Service is required to submit a proposed listing rule or a not-warranted 12-month finding to the Federal Register by September 30, 2016 (In re: Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 10–377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)), for all 251 species that were included as candidate species in the Service’s November 10, 2010, CNOR. This document satisfies the requirements of that settlement agreement for the Arkansas darter, and constitutes the Service’s 12-month finding on the May 4, 2004, petition to list the Arkansas darter as an endangered or threatened species. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Arkansas darter’s species-specific assessment form, SSA Report, and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above). Black Mudalia (Elimia melanoides) Previous Federal Actions The Service first identified black mudalia as a candidate for listing in the September 12, 2006, CNOR and assigned an LPN of 2 based on imminent, high-magnitude threats (71 FR 53756). In the December 6, 2007, CNOR, we concluded that the threats PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 69429 were at the time moderate in magnitude and changed the LPN to 8 (72 FR 69034). We retained the LPN of 8 in all subsequent CNORs (see December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75176), November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222), October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994), November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), December 5, 2014 (79 FR 72450), and December 24, 2015 (80 FR 80584)). On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity requesting that the Service list 404 species, including black mudalia, as endangered or threatened. No new information regarding black mudalia was presented in the petition, and on September 27, 2011, we published a 90day finding (76 FR 59836). Background The species formerly described as the black mudalia is a small species of aquatic snail growing to 13 millimeters (mm) (0.5 inches (in)) in length and belongs to the aquatic snail family of Pleuroceridae. The species formerly described as the black mudalia was found clinging to clean gravel, cobble, boulders, and/or logs in flowing water on shoals and riffles within five streams in the Locust Fork drainage in Jefferson and Blount Counties, Alabama. Summary of Status Review The following summary is based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial information. No new information was provided in the petition we received on April 20, 2010. The species was described from ‘‘rivers in North Alabama’’ by T.A. Conrad as Anculosotus melanoides, but he failed to provide a specific type of locality. For the second half of the 20th century, the black mudalia was considered to be extinct. However, in 2003, Dr. Russell Minton published a paper on the apparent rediscovery of the species, with a re-description of what he believed was Conrad’s black mudalia. He designated an individual from the upper Black Warrior Basin as the neotype—a biological specimen that is selected as the type specimen when the holotype (a single specimen chosen for designation of a new species), lectotype (a specimen chosen from syntypes to designate types of species), or any syntypes (any one specimen of a series used to designate a species when the holotype has not been selected) have been lost or destroyed—and restricted the type locality to one site on the Little Warrior River in Blount County, Alabama; however, the neotype is currently unavailable for study. E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 69430 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations Recently, the Service’s Alabama Ecological Services Field Office learned that a specimen at the Museum of Comparative Zoology in Boston, Massachusetts, identified by T.A. Conrad as A. melanoides is not the same species that was described by Minton et al. (2003). Therefore, we cannot with any certainty determine the status of either the entity that Conrad (1834) first described as A. melanoides, or the entity that Minton et al. (2003) redescribed as E. melanoides. Additional taxonomic review, led by the Smithsonian Institution, is underway as of early 2016. The results of this review will require additional efforts to define Elimia spp. boundaries, status, and distribution within the Black Warrior River Basin. sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Finding The Act only allows listing of ‘‘species’’ as defined under Section 3(16)—that is, recognized species, subspecies, or distinct population segments of vertebrates. Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial information, and in light of the best available scientific information regarding taxonomic uncertainty described above, we conclude that the black mudalia is not currently a recognized ‘‘species.’’ We are therefore removing the black mudalia from candidate status pending further study. As a result of the Service’s 2011 multidistrict litigation settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians, the Service is required to submit a proposed listing rule or a not-warranted 12-month finding to the Federal Register by September 30, 2016 (In re: Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 10–377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)), for all 251 species that were included as candidate species in the Service’s November 10, 2010, CNOR. This document satisfies the requirements of that settlement agreement for the black mudalia, and constitutes the Service’s 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to list the black mudalia as an endangered or threatened species. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the black mudalia’s species-specific assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above). Highlands Tiger Beetle (Cicindela highlandensis) Previous Federal Actions The Highlands tiger beetle was first recognized as a candidate species on VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804), when we assigned the species an LPN of 2. In the October 30, 2001, CNOR (66 FR 54808), we changed the LPN for the Highlands tiger beetle from 2 to 5, because the immediacy of threats to the species’ scrub habitat had decreased with the acquisition of scrub habitat by the State of Florida and conservation groups. On May 11, 2004, the Service received a petition dated May 4, 2004, from the Center for Biological Diversity and others to list 225 species as endangered or threatened, including the Highlands tiger beetle. The species was maintained as a candidate with an LPN of 5 through the 2015 CNOR (see June 13, 2002 (67 FR 40657); May 4, 2004 (69 FR 24876); May 11, 2005 (70 FR 24870); September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53756), December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034), December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75176), November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222), October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994), November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), December 5, 2014 (79 FR 72450), and December 24, 2015 (80 FR 80584)). Background The Highlands tiger beetle is elongate with an oval shape and bulging eyes, and is one of the smallest (7.0–9.5 mm) (0.28–0.37 in) tiger beetles in the United States. As is typical of other tiger beetles, adult Highlands tiger beetles are active diurnal predators that use their keen vision to detect movement of small arthropods and run quickly to capture prey with their well-developed mandibles (jaws). Tiger beetle larvae have an elongate white grub-like body and a dark or metallic head with large mandibles. Larvae are sedentary sit-andwait predators occurring in permanent burrows flush with the ground surface. When feeding, larvae position themselves at the burrow mouth and quickly strike at and seize small arthropods that pass within a few centimeters of the burrow mouth. Larvae prey on small arthropods, similar to adults. The Highlands tiger beetle occurs primarily in open sandy patches of Florida scrub habitat on the Lake Wales Ridge in Highlands and Polk Counties. The Lake Wales Ridge is one of the largest and oldest Florida scrub ecosystems. The harsh environment on the Lake Wales Ridge is characterized by hot weather, nutrient-poor sandy soils, and (historically) frequent wildfires. The Highlands tiger beetle is often associated with evergreen scrub oaks, as well as high pineland with deciduous turkey oak (Quercus laevis) and longleaf pine (Pinus palustris). PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 High-quality habitat for the species is primarily scrub or sandhill having natural or management-created interior patches with a high percent of open sand (greater than 50 percent) that is continuous or connected to adjacent open patches by lightly disturbed trails or paths. The known extant range of the Highlands tiger beetle exists in the core of the suitable (scrub) habitat in the central and south-central portion of the Lake Wales Ridge, approximately 90 km (56 mi) in length and about 10 km (6 mi) in width). Summary of Status Review The following summary is based on information contained in our files. The Highlands tiger beetle is narrowly distributed and restricted to areas of bare sand within scrub and sandhill on ancient sand dunes of the Lake Wales Ridge in Polk and Highlands Counties, Florida. Adult tiger beetles have been found in 56 of the total 71 sites surveyed at the core of the Lake Wales Ridge. In 2004–2005 surveys, a total of 1,574 adults were found at four sites. A total of 643 adults at 31 sites were found in 1996, 928 adults at 31 sites in 1995, and 742 adults at 21 sites in 1993. A visual reference count of 2,231 adults was found from 46 sites in 2014. This increase in index counts over time can be attributed to new survey sites and finding a large number of beetles at these sites. Estimates from the visual reference (index) counts are used to provide an estimate of the populations. Results from a limited removal study suggest that the actual population size at some survey sites can be as much as two to three times as high as the visual reference. In addition, surveys for Highland tiger beetles were not exhaustive, and there are additional potential suitable habitats. An estimate of beetle numbers likely present in these additional potential habitats added to the modified index count produces an estimated minimum total abundance of 10,438 adults in at least 16 populations. Based on these expanded surveys and the findings of additional large beetle populations at these sites, it is determined that the Highland tiger beetle is more abundant than previously documented, and its habitat is of much better quality than previously documented. Of the 15 sites with the largest populations, 7 sites show an increase in number of individuals. The number of occupied sites identified as high or good quality also increased from 13 in 2005, to 21 in 2014, and of the currently known sites nearly half of them (21 of 46) are of high or good quality. E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations We evaluated all known potential impacts to the Highlands tiger beetle, including the Act’s five threat factors. While these impacts were previously believed to pose imminent or significant threats to the species, and some may have caused losses to individuals or habitat, the updated information we received regarding species’ occurrence and population size has improved our understanding on how the stressors affect the status of species. In our current candidate assessment, we evaluated the best available scientific and commercial information, and concluded that the species is resilient to these stressors and that current impacts to the species are not as strong as previously believed. Approximately 43.4 percent of the existing potential suitable habitat for the species is protected conservation lands. While fragmentation of the Lake Wales Ridge scrub and sandhill habitats exists, 63 percent of the Highlands tiger beetle populations occur on these protected conservation lands, including three of the largest known populations. These lands are managed for the scrub habitat and species, including the Highlands tiger beetle, through government and private partnership prescribed burn programs, invasive species control, best management practices, and enforcement and protection of the resources. Fragmentation of the habitat was identified as a stressor compromising the dispersal capabilities of Highlands tiger beetle populations. However, the new information on the number and distribution of occupied sites and population size indicates that the threat to the dispersal capabilities of the species is not as high as previously reported. New sites have been identified in four populations across the north to south range of the species, and the Lake Wales Ridge as a whole has areas of open lands, remnant scrub and sandhill, and patchworks of scrub roadside habitat that can act as corridors or ‘‘stepping stones’’ for Highlands tiger beetle movement and flight, making active migration to new sites or the exchange of individuals between sites feasible for this species. In addition, storm winds, water flow, rafting transport, and animals are possible means of stochastic dispersal of individual beetles. As a result of the new information and analysis, we no longer consider the threats originally identified in our previous 12-month finding for the Highlands tiger beetle to be current or foreseeable threats for the following reasons: (1) The species is larger in individual numbers and occurs in more VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 sites across its range than previously documented; (2) the populations occur primarily on protected conservation lands; (3) more than half of the potential suitable habitat for the species consists of protected lands under conservation management, with new conservation lands and conservation banks acquired in 2014; (4) the species occurs in 16 populations across 225,920 acres (91,426 hectares) or 353 square miles (920 square kilometers), and existing unsurveyed suitable habitat occurs in the species’ range; (5) new survey information has identified an increased number of sites graded as ‘‘high’’ and ‘‘good’’ quality habitat for the Highlands tiger beetle; (6) the analysis reveals annual prescribed burning schedules are being implemented across the range of the Highlands tiger beetle on government and private conservation lands; and (7) the stressors identified in the 2015 candidate assessment, including collections, occur at the individual level but are not rising to the level of population or species impacts. Overall, current information from additional surveys indicates an increase in occupied sites with a large increase in the number of beetles. Most threats are being addressed through the presence of large populations of the species occurring on protected lands and through the management actions that occur on these lands. Any actual impact from threats occurs at the individual, not population or species, level, and no impact, individually or cumulatively, rises to the level that it contributes to making the species meet the definition of ‘‘threatened species’’ or ‘‘endangered species.’’ Finding Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial information pertaining to the Act’s five threat factors, we find that the current stressors acting on the species and its habitat are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to make the Highlands tiger beetle warrant listing throughout the species’ range at this time. Because the distribution of the species is relatively stable across its range and stressors are similar throughout the species’ range, we found no concentration of stressors that suggests that the Highlands tiger beetle may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in any portion of its range. With the documentation of 16 newly identified occupied sites, the identification of improved habitat quality, and the existing estimated adult beetle count of over 10,000 individuals in 56 sites, we find that Highlands tiger beetle is no longer in danger of PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 69431 extinction (endangered) or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened) throughout all of its range or any portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the Highlands tiger beetle as an endangered or a threatened species is not warranted throughout all or a significant portion of its range at this time, and consequently we are removing this species from candidate status. As a result of the Service’s 2011 multidistrict litigation settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians, the Service is required to submit a proposed listing rule or a not-warranted 12-month finding to the Federal Register by September 30, 2016 (In re: Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 10–377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)), for all 251 species that were included as candidate species in the Service’s November 10, 2010, CNOR. This document satisfies the requirements of that settlement agreement for the Highlands tiger beetle, and constitutes the Service’s 12-month finding on the May 11, 2004, petition to list the Highlands tiger beetle as an endangered or threatened species. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Highland tiger beetle’s species-specific assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above). Dichanthelium (=panicum) hirstii (Hirst Brothers’ Panic Grass) Previous Federal Actions In 1975, Panicum hirstii (i.e., Dichanthelium hirstii’s former scientific name; see Summary of Status Review, below) was 1 of more than 3,000 vascular plants included in a Smithsonian Institution report entitled ‘‘Report on Endangered and Threatened Plants of the United States’’ (Report) that the Service subsequently treated as a petition under the Act (40 FR 27824; July 1, 1975). The Federal Register notice indicated that P. hirstii and the other plants were under consideration for listing, and the notes of endangered or threatened after each species’ name solely represented the views of the authors of the Report. The Report indicated that P. hirstii occurred in Georgia and placed it in the endangered category. The Service did not publish another species notice of review until 1980. In 1980, Panicum hirstii was considered a Category 2 candidate species (45 FR 82480; December 15, 1980). Category 2 candidate species were identified as those taxa for which E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES 69432 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations the Service possessed information indicating proposing to list the taxa was possibly appropriate, but for which conclusive data on biological vulnerability and threats sufficient to support a proposed listing rule was lacking. Panicum hirstii remained a Category 2 candidate species in the subsequent plant notices of review in 1983, 1985, 1990, and 1993 (48 FR 53640, November 28, 1983; 50 FR 39526, September 27, 1985; 55 FR 6184, February 21, 1990; 58 FR 51144, September 30, 1993). The Service did not publish any other notices of review for plants during this time period. The Service revised candidate categories in 1996, and Panicum hirstii was not included as a candidate species under the updated categorization (61 FR 7596; February 28, 1996). The revised categories further defined a candidate species as a species for which we have on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support preparation of a listing proposal, but for which development of a listing regulation is precluded by other higher-priority listing activities. In 1999, the Service included Panicum hirstii as a new candidate species, using the updated definition, through its own internal assessment process (i.e., not via a petition), and assigned it an LPN of 5, meaning it was a species with a high magnitude of nonimminent threats (64 FR 57534, October 25, 1999). Panicum hirstii was included in the subsequent annual CNORs with an LPN of 5 in 2001, 2002, and 2004 (66 FR 54808, October 30, 2001; 67 FR 40657, June 13, 2002; 69 FR 24876, May 4, 2004). The Service did not publish a CNOR in 2003. On May 11, 2004, we received a petition dated May 4, 2004, from the Center for Biological Diversity and other groups and individuals requesting that the Service list Panicum hirstii and 225 other candidate species as endangered species or threatened species under the Act. In 2005, the Service again made a warranted-but-precluded finding for the plant, with an LPN of 5, but noted a change in its scientific name to Dichanthelium hirstii (70 FR 24870, May 11, 2005). In 2006 through 2014, D. hirstii remained a candidate with an LPN of 5 (see September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53756), December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034), December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75176), November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222), October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994), November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), and December 5, 2014 (79 FR 72450)). In 2015, D. hirstii was included as a candidate in the CNOR, but the LPN VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 was elevated from 5 to 2, indicating a species with a high magnitude of imminent threats (80 FR 80584, December 24, 2015). Background Dichanthelium hirstii, as referenced in some literature, is a perennial, wetland-obligate grass that is currently estimated to occur in eight locations distributed across four States: New Jersey (Barkwoods Pond, Labounsky Pond, and Berlin Avenue Bogs North in Atlantic County, and Hampton Furnace Pond in Burlington County); Delaware (Assawoman Pond in Sussex County); North Carolina (Starretts Meadow and Lyman Road in Onslow County); and Georgia (Leslie Pond in Sumter County). A ninth location, in Calhoun County, Georgia, is considered historical. Summary of Status Review The plant that the Service has been referring to as either P. hirstii or D. hirstii has always had a complex taxonomic history, and has undergone several changes to its scientific name as understanding about its distribution and morphology has evolved. The Flora of North America (FNA) is one source of information available to the Service and is considered the taxonomic authority for plants in North America because it is a comprehensive, systematic taxonomic account of the plants of North America. While several authors have published regional flora and descriptions that recognize Panicum hirstii/Dichanthelium hirstii as a separate entity, few have published taxonomic treatments. The last taxonomic treatment was the 2003 FNA, which is a complete taxonomic treatment of the Dichanthelium genus and the species therein, that explicitly relegates P. hirstii/D. hirstii to a synonym of D. dichotomum ssp. roanokense (Ashe). This indicates that the plant the Service had considered a candidate species is not a valid taxon and is a component of a larger, more widespread species that appears to grow on the coastal plain from Delaware to southeastern Texas and in the West Indies. Although the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS; https://www.itis.gov/) reports that Dichanthelium hirstii is an accepted species and the Service often relies on ITIS as a reliable database source of taxonomic information, in this instance ITIS is incorrect. Given this closer review of the taxonomic history of P. hirstii/D. hirstii, the Service recognizes that we overlooked the significance of the synonymy information, and in retrospect should not have included P. hirstii or D. hirstii as a candidate PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 species. While the 2015 published and draft documents of McAvoy et al. and Weakley, respectively, and the ITIS database information are more recent than the 2003 FNA’s published treatment, those documents and database do not individually or collectively represent a more comprehensive systematic analysis of the plant’s taxonomic status because they are not full taxonomic treatments of Panicum and Dichanthelium. Therefore, the Service considers the FNA’s 2003 treatment of Panicum and Dichanthelium as representing the best available scientific and commercial information regarding the plant’s taxonomic status. The FNA’s treatment indicates that neither P. hirstii nor D. hirstii is considered a species, subspecies, or variety. Therefore, the best available scientific and commercial information indicates that P. hirstii/D. hirstii does not meet the Act’s definition of a species. Finding Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that Dichanthelium hirstii does not meet the Act’s definition of ‘‘species’’ and is, therefore, not a listable entity under the Act. Dichanthelium hirstii was subsumed into D. dichotomum ssp. roanokense (Ashe), which ‘‘grows on the coastal plain from Delaware to southeastern Texas and in the West Indies.’’ As a result, we are removing Dichanthelium hirstii from the candidate list. As a result of the Service’s 2011 multidistrict litigation settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians, the Service is required to submit a proposed listing rule or a not-warranted 12-month finding to the Federal Register by September 30, 2016 (In re: Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 10–377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)), for all 251 species that were included as candidate species in the Service’s November 10, 2010, CNOR. This document satisfies the requirements of that settlement agreement for the Hirst Brothers’ panic grass, and constitutes the Service’s 12-month finding on the May 4, 2004, petition to list the Hirst Brothers’ panic grass as an endangered or threatened species. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding, including a complete review of the taxonomic history, can be found in the Hirst Brothers’ panic grass’s speciesspecific assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above). E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations Two Kentucky Cave Beetles (Louisville Cave Beetle (Pseudanophthalmus troglodytes) and Tatum Cave Beetle (Pseudanophthalmus parvus) sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Previous Federal Actions The Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave beetle were added to the Federal list of candidate species in the November 15, 1994, CNOR (59 FR 58982) as Category 2 species. Category 2 candidate species were identified as those taxa for which the Service possessed information indicating proposing to list the taxa was possibly appropriate, but for which conclusive data on biological vulnerability and threats sufficient to support a proposed listing rule was lacking. The February 28, 1996, CNOR (61 FR 7596) discontinued recognition of categories, so both species were no longer considered candidate species and were therefore removed from the candidate list. In the October 30, 2001, CNOR, the Service re-evaluated both cave beetle species, and placed them back on the candidate list through the Service’s own internal process with an LPN of 5 (66 FR 54808). The Service received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity and others, dated May 11, 2004, to list eight cave beetles, including the Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave beetle, as endangered or threatened species. In the May 11, 2005, CNOR (70 FR 24870), the Service determined that listing the Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave beetle was warranted but precluded by higher priority listing decisions. Further, we have included both species addressed in this finding in every CNOR since 2001 (see October 30, 2001 (66 FR 54808); June 13, 2002 (67 FR 40657); May 4, 2004 (69 FR 24876); May 11, 2005 (70 FR 24870); September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53756), December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034), December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75176), November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222), October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994), November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), December 5, 2014 (79 FR 72450), and December 24, 2015 (80 FR 80584)). Background These two species are small (about 4 mm (0.16 in) in length), predatory cave beetles that occupy moist habitats containing organic matter transported from sources outside the cave environment. Members of the Pseudanophthalmus genus vary in rarity from fairly widespread species that are found in many caves to species that are extremely rare and commonly restricted to one or only a few cave VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 69433 habitats. The Louisville cave beetle is restricted to four caves in Jefferson County, Kentucky, while the Tatum Cave beetle is known from one cave (Tatum Cave) in Marion County, Kentucky. reduced energy inputs, sedimentation, pollution, and human visitation. However, we have no evidence that these stressors are operative threats that are adversely affecting P. troglodytes at a population level. Summary of Status Review When the Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave beetle were identified as candidates for protection under the Act in the October 30, 2001, CNOR (66 FR 54808), the Service considered both species to be vulnerable to toxic chemical spills, discharges of large amounts of polluted water, closure or alterations of cave entrances, and the disruption of cave energy processes by highway construction and industrial, residential, and commercial development. Our general perception was that both species were vulnerable to these habitat stressors, and we suspected that these stressors were significant and the species’ overall population trends were likely decreasing. We also noted the lack of State or Federal regulations to ameliorate those threats. In the May 11, 2005, CNOR (70 FR 24870), we noted both species’ limited distribution and how that would increase their vulnerability to isolated events that would have only a minimal effect on more wide-ranging members of the genus Pseudanophthalmus. Both species were assigned an LPN of 5. Tatum Cave Beetle Louisville Cave Beetle Over the last 2 years, field surveys for the Louisville cave beetle have provided new information on the species’ distribution and stressors. Based on this new information, we have re-examined the species’ status and re-evaluated the magnitude and imminence of its threats. Lewis and Lewis confirmed the continued presence of P. troglodytes in Eleven Jones Cave (a period of 20 years) and observed the species in three new caves (Sauerkraut Cave, Cave Hill Cave, and Cave Creek Cave), demonstrating that the species is more abundant and widespread than previously believed. The species was difficult to find in each of these caves (one to four individuals observed), but this is not unusual for the genus Pseudanophthalmus, which is often difficult to find and is frequently observed in low numbers. Population estimates or discernable trends for these populations have not been possible due to the low number of individuals observed and the difficulty in finding specimens during repeat visits. We acknowledge that caves within the species’ range likely continue to be affected by many of the same stressors identified by previous investigators: PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 With respect to the Tatum Cave beetle, we have no evidence suggesting that the species is still extant in Tatum Cave. The species was relatively abundant (20 individuals) in Tatum Cave when first observed by C. H. Krekeler in 1957, but the species appeared to be less common in 1965, when T. C. Barr observed only two individuals. Since 1965, extensive surveys of Tatum Cave have been completed on eight separate occasions, using search techniques similar to those used by C. H. Krekeler and T. C. Barr (i.e., methodical visual searches of all available habitats). Three of these survey efforts also involved the use of baited pitfall traps (small cups buried in the substrate and baited with limburger cheese) placed in several locations within Tatum Cave for a period of one week. Despite all of these searches, no Tatum Cave beetles have been observed in Tatum Cave since the last observation by Barr in 1965 (a period of 51 years). The Tatum Cave beetle is small in size and may be more difficult to locate than some cave organisms; however, both Krekeler and Barr were able to find the species using methodical, visual searches of suitable habitats in Tatum Cave. Subsequent researchers have used identical search methods on eight separate occasions in the exact same habitats within Tatum Cave, but no Tatum Cave beetles have been observed. Therefore, based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial information, the Service believes the Tatum Cave beetle to be extinct. We acknowledge that it is difficult, if not impossible, to verify a species’ extinction. There is considerable uncertainty about the actual status of the species, and we acknowledge that, as suggested by Lewis and Lewis, there is some chance that the species remains extant but occurs in low numbers and is simply undetectable using traditional search methods. However, considering the best available scientific and commercial information, we believe that it is reasonable to conclude that the species is extinct. The Service encourages continued surveys for the Tatum Cave beetle in Tatum Cave, as time and funding allow. If the species is subsequently found to be extant, we can reevaluate its legal status under the Act in the future. E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 69434 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations Finding Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 10–377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)), for all 251 species that were included as candidate species in the Service’s November 10, 2010, CNOR. This document satisfies the requirements of that settlement agreement for the Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave beetle, and constitutes the Service’s 12month finding on the May 11, 2004, petition to list the Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave beetles as endangered or threatened species under the Act. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Louisville cave beetle’s and Tatum Cave beetle’s species-specific assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above). sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Louisville Cave Beetle Based our review of the best available scientific and commercial information pertaining to the Act’s five threat factors and our review of the species’ status, we conclude that the Louisville cave beetle is not subject to the degree of threats sufficient to indicate that it is in danger of extinction (an endangered species), or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (a threatened species), throughout all of its range. We evaluated the current range of the Louisville cave beetle to determine if there is any apparent geographic concentration of potential threats for this species. It has a relatively small range that is limited to four caves. We examined potential stressors including human visitation and disturbance, commercial and residential development, sources of water quality impairment, and small population size. We found no concentration of stressors that suggests that the species may be in danger of extinction in any portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the Louisville cave beetle as an endangered species or a threatened species under the Act throughout all or a significant portion of its range is not warranted at this time, and consequently we are removing it from candidate status. Tatum Cave Beetle A review of the best available scientific and commercial information, leads us to believe that the Tatum Cave beetle is extinct, and, as such, it is not eligible for listing as an endangered species or a threatened species under the Act. Therefore, we did not further evaluate whether the Tatum Cave beetle is in danger of extinction throughout its range (an endangered species), likely to become in danger of extinction throughout its range in the foreseeable future (a threatened species), or whether the species is an endangered or threatened species in a significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave beetle as endangered or threatened species under the Act throughout all or a significant portion of their respective ranges is not warranted at this time, and consequently we are removing both species from candidate status. As a result of the Service’s 2011 multidistrict litigation settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians, the Service is required to submit a proposed listing rule or a not-warranted 12-month finding to the Federal Register by September 30, 2016 (In re: Endangered VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 Relict Leopard Frog (Lithobates onca) Previous Federal Actions On May 9, 2002, the Service received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity and Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) seeking to list the relict leopard frog and designate critical habitat, under the authority of the Act. The petition identified information regarding the species’ ecology, historical and current distribution, present status, and actual and potential causes of decline. Prior to receipt of the May 2002 petition, the Service was involved in coordinated conservation efforts for the relict leopard frog among multiple partners and was aware of the species’ status. On June 13, 2002, the Service’s CNOR determined the species (as Rana onca) warranted listing but that listing was precluded by higher priorities; therefore, it became a candidate species with an LPN of 5 (67 FR 40657). In 2006, the species’ LPN was lowered to 11, and remained at that LPN through the 2010 CNOR (see September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53756), December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034), December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75176), November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), and November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222)). The lower priority ranking resulted from the development of the 2005 Relict Leopard Frog Conservation Agreement and Strategy (Conservation Agreement) and implementation of conservation actions by the relict leopard frog Conservation Team (Conservation Team), which led to an overall reduction in most threats and an overall improvement in the species’ status. On October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), we changed the species’ LPN to 8, due in part to the discovery of chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd)) in relict leopard frogs in 2010, and we maintained an PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 LPN of 8 for the species through the 2015 CNOR (see November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994), November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), December 5, 2014 (79 FR 72450), and December 24, 2015 (80 FR 80584)). In 2010, we recognized the scientific name of the relict leopard frog as Lithobates onca (see November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222)). Background Relict leopard frogs are endemic to the Colorado, Virgin, Santa Clara, and Muddy Rivers and associated springs in Nevada, Arizona, and Utah. Relict leopard frogs appear to require habitat heterogeneity (consisting of diverse habitat types) in the aquatic and terrestrial environments. Relict leopard frogs historically occupied a variety of habitats including springs, streams, and wetlands characterized by clean, clear water with various depths, and cover such as submerged, emergent, and perimeter vegetation. Nonnative predators such as Louisiana red swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarki), American bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeiana), and nonnative fish are associated with extirpation of relict leopard frogs. The relict leopard frog currently occurs at 8 natural sites—three in the Northshore Springs Complex (along the base of the Muddy Mountains near the Overton Arm area of Lake Mead) and five in the Black Canyon (below Lake Mead). Natural sites are those sites that support wild populations of relict leopard frogs that were not established through translocation effort. The Northshore Springs Complex and Black Canyon populations represent distinct relict leopard frog metapopulations, wherein each metapopulation consists of smaller, spatially separated populations that occasionally interact through the movement of individuals between them, but do not interact with the other metapopuation. Within the Northshore Springs Complex, dispersal of relict leopard frogs may be possible between Blue Point and Rogers Springs. Migration and dispersal among sites also appears likely in Black Canyon but not between the two metapopulations. In addition to natural sites, relict leopard frogs were introduced to 15 sites, 11 of which are extant. Introduction sites are those estimated by deliberately translocating relict leopard frogs to suitable habitat within the assumed historical range. All extant natural and introduction sites occur on lands managed by the National Park Service (NPS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (BR), and the Service. There is low genetic variation within E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations • Investigate the conservation biology of the relict leopard frog, and use the results of such investigations to better meet the overall conservation goal and objectives. the relict leopard frog, which may indicate a history of bottlenecking or small effective population size. Summary of Status Review sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Conservation Actions Implemented The Conservation Team was established in March 2001, and has since met at least twice each year for the past 15 years to establish and carry forward the conservation and monitoring program for the relict leopard frog. The Conservation Team has included Federal, State, and local representatives from the Service, NPS, BLM, BR, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Nevada Department of Wildlife, the Arizona Game and Fish Department, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Clark County (Nevada), the Southern Nevada Water District (including the Las Vegas Springs Preserve), the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, and the University of Nevada-Reno. The primary objective of the Conservation Team was to develop and implement the 2005 Conservation Agreement. Much conservation occurred prior to finalization of the Conservation Agreement, and the Conservation Team developed the first annual work plan in 2003. Conservation actions continue to be implemented by partners through annual work plans. Revision of the Conservation Agreement is in development with an anticipated completion date of late 2016. Part of the management effort the Conservation Team undertakes to increase population sizes and expand the distribution of the species is to collect portions of relict leopard frog egg masses from natural sites, and then captive-rear and translocate them to appropriate sites as late-stage tadpoles and juvenile frogs. The Conservation Team may augment any population, natural or introduction, as determined necessary to conserve the species. The main relict leopard frog conservation actions, both those completed and ongoing into the foreseeable future, are: • Remove or substantially minimize threats to extant populations and occupied habitats. • Enhance existing habitat and/or create new habitats where feasible. • Establish additional populations of relict leopard frogs in existing or created habitats. • Manage relict leopard frogs and their habitats to ensure persistence in diverse aquatic ecosystems, and facilitate processes that promote selfsustaining populations. • Monitor relict leopard frog populations. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 Current Analysis of Stressors Impacting the Relict Leopard Frog In completing our status review for the relict leopard frog, we reviewed the best available scientific and commercial information, and compiled this information in the SSA Report for the relict leopard frog. We evaluated the potential threats (identified in the SSA Report as ‘‘stressors’’ or ‘‘potential stressors,’’ and consistent with the Act’s five threat factors identified in the SSA Report) that may be operative upon the relict leopard frog currently or in the future. As required by the Act, we considered the five threat factors in assessing whether the relict leopard frog is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We examined the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future stressors faced by the relict leopard frog. We reviewed the information available in our files and other available published and unpublished information, and we consulted with recognized relict leopard frog species and habitat experts and other Federal, State, and tribal agencies. Listing under the Act is warranted if, based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that the stressors to the relict leopard frog are so severe or broad in scope as to indicate that the species is in danger of extinction (endangered), or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened), throughout all or a significant portion of its range. In the SSA Report we evaluated each of the potential stressors for the relict leopard frog, and we determined that the following factors have impacted, or may impact individuals, specific sites, or portions of suitable habitat in the future: (1) Alteration of natural spring and groundwater systems and reduced habitat connectivity; (2) overgrowth of emergent vegetation and nonnative or invasive plants; (3) excessive disturbance due to feral horses, burro, and livestock use; (4) disease; (5) nonnative fish predation; (6) small population size; and (7) climate change, flash flood events, and wildfire. Although these stressors may continue to affect the relict leopard frog, they are not causing a population-level risk to the species now nor are they expected to do so into the foreseeable future. PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 69435 Overutilization and crayfish and bullfrog predation were evaluated in the SSA Report for the relict leopard frog but were found to result in no or low impacts, respectively, across the species’ range. Thus, we do not discuss overutilization or predation further in this document. We have summarized the threats analysis from the SSA Report below. A complete description of those stressors and threats, and how they affect the viability of the species, is included in the SSA Report. The effects of historical alteration of natural riverine and groundwater systems and reduced habitat connectivity to the relict leopard frog at the individual or site-specific level are ongoing and may continue into the future. However, there have not been any recent alterations of natural riverine and groundwater systems and reduced habitat connectivity on relict leopard frog populations and their habitat. Historical modification to the Colorado and Virgin rivers effectively isolated the two metapopulations of relict leopard frog, and they will most likely never be reconnected. Although the two relict leopard frog metapopulations and most relict leopard frog introduction sites are not connected, ongoing management actions by the Conservation Team minimizes population isolation through captive rearing and translocation of frogs to targeted sites. We conclude that there are effects to relict leopard frog populations and perhaps the species from historical alteration of natural riverine and ground water systems and reduced habitat connectivity, but these the effects are low in severity and do not threaten the persistence of the species. Some sites can have overgrowth of vegetation that can have adverse effects on relict leopard frogs that reduce the extent of surface water and habitat for breeding and feeding. These effects from overgrowth of vegetation are low in severity because they are reduced by storms that remove vegetation through scouring, by manual removal, and by grazing. Burro and cattle grazing have both degraded and improved aquatic habitat at some sites. Controlled, low-level grazing typically provides disturbance that benefits frog habitat by removing excess vegetation. If grazing increases to heavy use, habitat conditions may become degraded. Similarly, burro and cattle grazing are not having a population-level effect to the relict leopard frog now or into the future. Disease and nonnative fish predation have been evaluated and monitored by the Conservation Team. The presence of the chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) in relict leopard E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES 69436 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations frogs at Lower Blue Point Spring warrants further evaluation of its impact to the species. Although there is evidence that Bd is present in one population, there is no indication any frogs have been adversely affected by disease. The Conservation Team will continue to monitor populations for effects of disease. Any potential effects at the individual or site- specific level resulting from nonnative fish in the Northshore Springs Complex and Corn Creek are low in severity. Disease and predation are not having a populationlevel effect on the relict leopard frog now, and such effects are not expected to occur in the future. The Conservation Team is taking action to improve the conditions for disease and predation through conservation measures (see ‘‘Conservation Actions Implemented,’’ above). The small population size is the focus of conservation efforts, including population augmentation and establishing introduction sites. Low numbers of individual frogs at a given site may increase risk and vulnerability of the species to other stressors. Although small population size can affect the species as a whole by reducing genetic diversity and possibly reducing the species’ ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions, the best available scientific and commercial information shows that this species is capable of persisting into the foreseeable future with current population sizes and under existing levels of management by the Conservation Team. The potential for effects of small population size has been, and will continue to be, minimized by actions taken by the Conservation Team, including habitat management and a captive-rearing program that produces frogs from eggs collected in the wild. These frogs are used to establish new sites and augment both natural and introduction sites, as appropriate. Conservation Team actions continue to minimize the potential for effects of small population size, and small population effects are not expected to affect the persistence of frogs at any site or population. Climate change effects may result in reduced spring flow, habitat loss, increased severity of storms, flooding, and increased prevalence of wildfire that could adversely affect relict leopard frog populations. Although negative effects from climate change could occur to individuals or specific sites, specieslevel effects would not reach a level now or into the foreseeable future to the extent that rangewide numbers and distribution would be substantially reduced. The relict leopard frog Conservation Team has been addressing VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 these stressors in the past, and ongoing efforts are planned to continue into the future. We considered relevant Federal, State, and tribal laws and regulations when evaluating the status of the species. Regulatory mechanisms, if they exist, may preclude the need for listing if we determine that such mechanisms adequately reduce the stressors to the species such that listing is not warranted. The effects of applicable existing regulatory mechanisms are considered in our evaluation of the stressors acting on the species. Below, we briefly review those regulatory mechanisms aimed to help reduce stressors to the relict leopard frog and its habitat. The relict leopard frog is protected by the State laws of Nevada, Arizona, and Utah. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 533.367 states that before a person may obtain a right to the use of water from a spring or water that has seeped to the surface of the ground, that person must ensure that wildlife which customarily uses the water will have access to it. However, the State Engineer, who oversees all water rights, may waive this requirement for a domestic use of water (NRS 533.367). Authority provided by NRS 503.587 allows the Wildlife Commission to use its authority to manage land to carry out a program for conserving, protecting, restoring and propagating selected species of native fish, wildlife, and other vertebrates and their habitat, which are threatened with extinction and destruction. Also, habitat protection for the relict leopard frog is provided by Nevada Administrative Code 504.520, which prohibits alteration of a wetland or stream to the detriment of wildlife without a permit. The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) classified the relict leopard frog as a Tier 1A Species of Greatest Conservation. Commission Order 41 of the AGFD regulations prohibits collection or hunting of relict leopard frogs, except under the authority of a special permit. Protection under Commission Order 41 provides protection to individual frogs, but not to habitat. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources classified the relict leopard frog as a Sensitive Species in Utah. State of Utah Rule 657–3 prohibits the collection, importation, and possession of relict leopard frogs without a certificate of registration but provides no protection of habitat. All populations of the relict leopard frog occur on Federal land (Service, BLM, NPS, BR). Existing Federal laws, such as the NPS Organic Act of 1916, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), National PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Environmental Policy Act of 1976 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105– 57), have facilitated conservation efforts that have reduced the threats to the relict leopard frog. NPS and BLM manage all extant relict leopard frog sites except Pupfish Refuge and Corn Creek. The Pupfish Refuge occurs in a protected area of Hoover Dam and Corn Creek, and is an experimental population on a Service National Wildlife Refuge. NPS provides the captive-rearing facility, which is important for establishing and augmenting relict leopard frog populations. BLM uses their regulatory mechanisms and authority to provide sites to establish new populations of relict leopard frog, a BLM sensitive species, and complete habitat improvements to benefit the species. BLM’s manual (6840—Special Status Species Management) establishes policy for management of BLM sensitive species under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). BLM sensitive species will be managed consistent with species and habitat management objectives in land use and implementation plans to promote their conservation and to minimize the likelihood and need for listing under the Act. BLM is a member of the Conservation Team and implements or authorizes conservation actions for the conservation of the relict leopard frog. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 provides the mission for the Service’s wildlife refuges to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. Each refuge is required to fulfill this mission and provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their habitats within the Refuge System. Within the range of the relict leopard frog, the Desert National Wildlife Refuge would complement efforts of States and other Federal agencies to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitats, and to assist in the maintenance of adequate water quantity and water quality to fulfill the mission. Prior to release of relict leopard frogs at Corn Creek, the Refuge eradicated bullfrogs and substantially improved conditions that created habitat for the relict leopard frog. The Refuge manager provides access to biologists to perform releases of frogs and monitor the population. The Refuge continues to E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations control crayfish, maintain habitat conditions by removing excess vegetation, and inform the public about the species. NPS and BLM authorities and regulatory mechanisms have successfully provided or facilitated conservation of the species (see ‘‘Conservation Actions Implemented,’’ above). NPS, BLM, BR, and the Service are signatories on the Conservation Agreement and actively involved in all actions of the Conservation Team. Each agency coordinates development of annual work plans and utilizes their authority to implement conservation actions that benefit the species. Federal authorities and regulatory mechanisms have successfully provided or facilitated conservation of the species. We did not find any stressors examined under the Act’s threat factors A, B, C, and E to rise to the level of a threat that would cause us to determine listing of the relict leopard frog is warranted. Based on our review of the stressors combined with the beneficial effects that the various conservation efforts and regulatory mechanisms provided to the species, we find that the existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) are adequate to address the stressors currently impacting the relict leopard frog and its habitat. Regarding cumulative effects, there are potential stressors that may act together to affect relict leopard frogs at certain sites. Overgrowth of vegetation, nonnative plants and predators, and disease acting on small populations may adversely affect certain populations concurrently. Flash floods or wildfire may adversely affect a site at the same time as nonnative plants and predators. Reduced habitat connectivity adversely affects sites with small populations at the same time as overgrowth of vegetation, and nonnative plants and predators. Climate change may affect a site at the same time as grazing, wildfire, and flash floods. However, after evaluating the cumulative effects, we conclude that the magnitude of cumulative effects to the relict leopard frog is low to moderate. Most stressors adversely affect the relict leopard frog in a single geographic area due to the isolated distribution of most sites. Although individuals may be affected by cumulative effects in a single geographic area, there would not be population level effects to the species. Multiple stressors on relict leopard frogs may act synergistically, exacerbating effects greater than what may be observed by individual stressors. The effects of climate change may increase the number and frequency of wildfires and flash flood events. The VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 presence of nonnative plants can make the effects of excess vegetation worse. Overgrowth of vegetation may reduce habitat for breeding, potentially making small populations smaller. Disease and nonnative predators such as bullfrogs, crayfish, and fishes may also exacerbate the effects of small populations by removing frogs. We determined that synergistic effects may occur, although they are expected to be low in magnitude. Most individual stressors adversely affect the relict leopard frog in a single geographic area, due to the isolated distribution of most sites. Although individuals may be affected by synergistic effects in a single geographic area, there would not likely be population-level effects to the species. To minimize or mitigate effects from stressors affecting the relict leopard frog, the Conservation Team will continue monitoring populations and reintroducing frogs to sites should they become greatly reduced in numbers or extirpated due to the effects of one or more stressors. Finding Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial information pertaining to the Act’s five threat factors, we find that the stressors acting on the species and its habitat, either singly or in combination, are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate that the relict leopard frog is in danger of extinction (an endangered species) throughout all of its range, or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (a threatened species) throughout all of its range. Populations of relict leopard frogs are improving due to past conservation actions and current efforts to reestablish and increase naturallyoccurring and reintroduced populations. Current and ongoing habitat management, establishment of new sites, and restoration activities have made substantial progress since their inception and are continuing into the future. We have determined that the number of frogs and habitat conditions at individual sites change from year to year and may vary widely, but the rangewide status of the species is stable or increasing. After determining the species is not endangered or threatened throughout all of its range, we then conducted an analysis to determine if it was endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of the species’ range. To do this, we evaluated whether there was any portion of the species’ range where threats were concentrated such PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 69437 that the species in that portion would be endangered or threatened, and that losing that portion of the range would cause the remainder of the species to be endangered or threatened. Once we determined that there was no geographic concentration of threats that would cause any portion of the species’ range to be at greater risk of extinction, then we could conclude that no portion warranted further consideration. Therefore, we find that listing the relict leopard frog as an endangered or a threatened species throughout all of or a significant portion of its range under the Act is not warranted at this time, and, consequently, we are removing it from candidate status. As a result of the Service’s 2011 multidistrict litigation settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians, the Service is required to submit a proposed listing rule or a not-warranted 12-month finding to the Federal Register by September 30, 2016 (In re: Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 10–377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)), for all 251 species that were included as candidate species in the Service’s November 10, 2010, CNOR. This document satisfies the requirements of that settlement agreement for the relict leopard frog, and constitutes the Service’s 12-month finding on the May 8, 2002, petition to list the relict leopard frog as an endangered or threatened species. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding, including the many effective conservation measures completed by the Conservation Team, can be found in the relict leopard frog’s species-specific assessment form, SSA Report, and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above). Sicklefin Redhorse Sucker (Moxostoma sp.) Previous Federal Actions The sicklefin redhorse sucker was originally made a candidate species in the May 11, 2005, CNOR (70 FR 24870), and it was included in the subsequent CNORs through 2015 (see September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53756), December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034), December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75176), November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222), October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994), November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), and December 5, 2014 (79 FR 72450)). On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that the Service list 404 aquatic species as endangered or threatened species under the Act, E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 69438 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES including the sicklefin redhorse sucker. The petition included supporting information regarding the species’ taxonomy and ecology, historical and current distribution, present status, and actual and potential causes of decline. In a partial 90-day finding on the petition to list 404 species, published on September 27, 2011 (76 FR 59836), the Service reaffirmed the existing candidate status of the sicklefin redhorse sucker. Background The sicklefin redhorse sucker (Moxostoma sp.), a freshwater fish species, can grow to a length of approximately 650 mm (roughly 25.6 in). It has an elongate, somewhat compressed body and a highly falcate (sickle shaped) dorsal fin (back fin). Its body is olive-colored, with a coppery or brassy sheen; its lower fins (pectoral, pelvic, and anal fins) are primarily dusky to dark, often tinted yellow or orange and pale edged; the caudal fin (tail fin) is mostly red; and its dorsal fin is olive in color, sometimes partly red. Although the sicklefin redhorse sucker is now known to have been collected in 1937 (based upon preserved specimens collected at the thenunimpounded mouth of Forney Creek near its confluence with the Tuckasegee River), it was not recognized as a potentially distinct species until 1992, when Dr. Robert Jenkins obtained and examined two specimens that had been collected in 1981 and 1982 from the Little Tennessee River by Dr. Edward Menhinick (University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, North Carolina). Based on the characteristics of the specimens’ lower lips, dorsal fins, and pharyngeal teeth, Jenkins recognized the species as possibly a previously unidentified species or a hybrid of the smallmouth redhorse (M. breviceps) and the river redhorse (M. carinatum). Subsequent detailed morphological and behavioral studies and genetic studies have concluded that the sicklefin redhorse sucker is, in fact, a distinct species. The Service has reviewed the available taxonomic literature, and is not aware of any challenges to the validity of this conclusion. The species is currently known to occupy cool to warm, moderate-gradient creeks and rivers and, during at least parts of its early life, large reservoirs. In streams, adults of the species are generally associated with moderate to fast currents, in riffles, runs, and wellflowing pools, while juveniles show a preference for moderate to deep pools with slow currents and large boulder crevice cover. Adults feed and spawn VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 over gravel, cobble, boulder, and bedrock substrates with no, or very little, silt overlay. Past and recent collection records of the sicklefin redhorse sucker, together with what is known about the habitat utilization of the species, indicate that the sicklefin redhorse sucker once inhabited the majority, if not all, of the rivers and large creeks in the Blue Ridge portion of the Hiwassee and Little Tennessee River systems in North Carolina, Tennessee, and Georgia. Currently, there are only two metapopulations of the sicklefin redhorse sucker known to remain: One in the Hiwassee River system and one in the Little Tennessee River system. Estimated occupied stream habitat in the Hiwassee river systems totals about 53.0 river miles (rm). However, use of various streams/stream reaches within this total appears to be seasonal. Available information indicates that the sicklefin redhorse sucker uses Brasstown Creek, Hanging Dog Creek, Beaverdam Creek, Nottely River, and the mid and upper reaches of the Valley River, primarily for spawning. No spawning or courting behavior was observed within the mainstem of the Hiwassee River; the mid and lower Hiwassee River or lower reaches of the spawning tributaries primarily from the post-spawning period through the fall and early winter; or the lower unimpounded reaches of the Hiwassee River, and to a lesser extent, the lower Valley River, during the winter months. The Little Tennessee River system metapopulation of the sicklefin redhorse sucker includes a total of approximately 59.15 rm of creek and river reaches plus near-shore areas of Fontana Reservoir, including: (1) The main stem of the Little Tennessee River in Macon and Swain Counties, North Carolina, between the Franklin Dam and Fontana Reservoir (approximately 23.2 rm), and its tributaries, Burningtown Creek (approximately 5.5 rm) and Iotla Creek (approximately 0.1 rm) in Macon County, North Carolina; (2) the main stem of the Tuckasegee River in Swain and Jackson Counties, North Carolina, from approximately rm 27.5, downstream to Fontana Reservoir (approximately 27.5 rm), and its tributaries, Forney Creek (mouth of the creek), Deep Creek (approximately 2.35 rm), and the Oconaluftee River below the Bryson Dam (also sometimes referred to as the Ela Dam) (approximately 0.5 rm), in Swain County, North Carolina; and (3) subadults in the near shore portions of Fontana Reservoir, Swain County, North Carolina. PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Summary of Status Review In completing our status review, we reviewed the best available scientific and commercial information and compiled this information in the SSA Report for the sicklefin redhorse sucker. For our finding, we evaluated potential stressors related to the sicklefin redhorse sucker and its habitat. The stressors we analyzed were: (1) Hydroelectric operations, inadequate erosion/sedimentation control during agricultural, timbering, and construction activities; (2) runoff and discharge of organic and inorganic pollutants from industrial, municipal, agricultural, and other point and nonpoint sources; (3) habitat alterations associated with channelization and instream dredging/ mining activities; (4) predation and habitat suitability impacts by nonnative species; (5) fragmentation and isolation of surviving populations; and (6) other natural and human-related factors that adversely modify the aquatic environment. Associated with the status review for this 12-month finding, we conducted an analysis of the Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA) for the Sicklefin Redhorse Sucker under the Service’s Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE policy), published in the Federal Register on March 28, 2003 (68 FR 15100), and found that the CCA does meet the PECE policy criteria for certainty of implementation and certainty of effectiveness. A number of factors likely contributed to a reduction in the species’ historical range and may have affected population dynamics within the existing occupied stream reaches. The construction of hydroelectric dams fragmented populations, confining spawning activity only to river reaches accessible from the two reservoirs where this species is thought to reside during the juvenile stage of its life cycle. The sicklefin redhorse sucker also appears to be absent from several reaches of unimpounded river habitat where it was likely extirpated by degradation of the habitat or by cold water from hypolimnetic (deepwater that remains perpetually cold) discharges or hydropeaking (releasing frequent, large discharge pulses of water) for hydropower production. The introduction of blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) into the habitat occupied by the sicklefin redhorse sucker was also considered a potential threat to future population stability in past candidate assessments. Upon further review of the information related to the factors E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations believed to be affecting the species at present, it appears many of them were largely historical, were less significant than previously thought, have been mitigated, or could be managed to alleviate many of the effects on the species. The sicklefin redhorse sucker likely experienced substantial range contraction associated with dam construction, power generation, and historical habitat degradation early in the 20th century, but the remaining populations appear to have stabilized within the present conditions and are successfully spawning and recruiting in four primary river drainages accessible from Hiwassee and Fontana Reservoirs. In the future, we expect human population growth and land development to be primary factors affecting habitat quality in the range of the sicklefin redhorse sucker. However, compared to historical land use effects, we expect the effect of these future activities to be minimized by more stringent State and local land quality regulations, such as are required by current regulations for land development and water quality, and a trend of diminishing agriculture in the area. Improvements in land use practices are likely attributable to the modern regulatory environment that provides protection to the stream environment. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), North Carolina Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Clean Water Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), North Carolina Sediment and Pollution Control Act of 1973, Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Act of 1975, as well as other regulatory actions, were enacted to control the effects of land development and pollution on the aquatic environment. Historical records indicate that the existing populations of the sicklefin redhorse sucker have persisted through significant agricultural land disturbance that resulted in considerable sedimentation of its habitat, indicating that the sicklefin redhorse sucker is likely able to tolerate moderate land disturbance. Rural development and the growth of several small towns within the range of the sicklefin redhorse sucker appear to be the dominant forms of land use disturbance. Rural development is limited in certain areas due to large portions of the watershed that are permanently protected by inclusion in the Nantahala and Chattahoochee National Forests. The region is currently experiencing a trend of diminishing agricultural land use, indicating that widespread conversion to farmland is not likely. Commercial development is VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 likely to be limited by a lack of large metropolitan areas or interstate highways that would facilitate rapid growth. The trend of high suspended sediment yield in the range of the sicklefin redhorse sucker appears to have improved over the last few decades. Increasing environmental regulation, greater public awareness, and the actions of governmental and nongovernmental organizations to improve water quality conditions have resulted in considerable improvements in suspended sediment rates. Therefore, we expect existing regulations for land development and water quality to adequately maintain habitat quality, and we anticipate that the species is likely to persist into the future even with the expected increase in development. The sicklefin redhorse sucker is provided additional protection by State endangered species regulations and association with other federally listed species. It is listed as threatened by the State of North Carolina and endangered by the State of Georgia. Both States prohibit direct take of the species and the collection of the fish for scientific purposes without a valid State collecting permit. In the unimpounded portions of the mainstems of the Little Tennessee River and Tuckasegee River where the sicklefin redhorse sucker occurs, the species’ habitat is indirectly provided Federal protection through the Act, where the mainstem portions of both of these rivers are designated as critical habitat for the endangered Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) (a mussel). In addition to the Appalachian elktoe, the portion of the Little Tennessee River where the sicklefin redhorse sucker occurs also supports populations of the endangered little-wing pearlymussel (Pegias fabula) and the threatened spotfin chub (Erimonax monachus) and is also designated as critical habitat for the spotfin chub. Substantial public land ownership in the watersheds occupied by the sicklefin redhorse sucker provides partial protection to the watershed. Approximately 43 percent of the land adjacent to waterways occupied this species is owned by State and Federal agencies or by nongovernmental conservation organizations. On these conserved properties, land development is prohibited, providing protection to buffers and potentially improving water quality throughout the watershed. Most of the land surrounding Hiwassee and Fontana Lakes is publicly owned, limiting shoreline development and protecting the near shore habitat used by juvenile sicklefin redhorse suckers. The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 69439 has management jurisdiction over a portion of the lands within both the Hiwassee River and Tuckasegee River watersheds, and tribal water quality ordinances protect habitat and water quality. Approximately 65 percent of the occupied area of the Little Tennessee River is protected from development by inclusion in the Needmore Game Lands. Along the other three major spawning tributaries, most of the land is privately held and does not have any restriction on land development. When the sicklefin redhorse sucker was elevated to candidate status in 2005, the blueback herring, an invasive predator species, had been inadvertently introduced into the Hiwassee Reservoir, a major waterbody supporting the sicklefin redhorse sucker. At the time, predation of young sicklefin redhorse sucker by blueback herring was an unassessed threat. However, a recent study examining the gut contents of blueback herring in the Valley River and Hiwassee Reservoir failed to find any sicklefin redhorse suckers among the samples. It appears that the sicklefin redhorse sucker may naturally avoid predation by blueback herring by spawning farther upstream than typical foraging habitat for blueback herring. In the spring of 2016, blueback herring were collected from Fontana Reservoir, the other reservoir important for sicklefin redhorse sucker recruitment. Further investigation is required to determine the degree of impact the presence of blueback herring in Fontana Reservoir poses to the sicklefin redhorse sucker, but the distance to spawning sites upstream of Fontana Reservoir is similar to the distance in the Hiwassee Reservoir, suggesting that blueback herring will be similarly separated from the hatching sicklefin redhorse sucker fry during the time when they are most likely to be present in the reservoir. Collections in the Hiwassee River system in 2014–2015 produced many young adult/late juvenile sicklefin redhorse suckers that have clearly recruited since the herring invasion, even while juvenile walleye and white bass steeply declined immediately after the invasion, suggesting the blueback herring is not preventing successful recruitment of sicklefin redhorse suckers. Therefore, recent observations indicate that blueback herring have not proven to be a threat to the sicklefin redhorse sucker as once feared. Many of the stressors that may affect the sicklefin redhorse sucker in the future can be further minimized by conservation actions carried out under the recently signed CCA among the Service, North Carolina Wildlife E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 69440 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Resources Commission, Duke Energy Carolinas, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Tennessee Valley Authority, and Georgia Department of Natural Resources. A primary goal of the CCA is to expand the range of this species upstream of barrier dams to repopulate stream reaches that were formerly degraded, but currently appear suitable. Expanding the range of the sicklefin redhorse sucker into the upper sections of these watersheds will provide a greater variety of available habitat, allowing the species to more easily adjust to temporary effects of construction and landscape alteration, and providing more opportunities to use areas of refuge during periods of adverse conditions, such as periods of high temperature or increased flow. Accessibility to more suitable habitat will increase the number of available spawning sites, increasing the opportunities for successful recruitment, and will provide alternative spawning areas should some spawning sites become unsuitable. Successful reintroduction will increase the carrying capacity of the sicklefin redhorse sucker by providing the species with additional riverine habitat as well as access to additional reservoirs to serve as juvenile rearing habitat. The SSA Report for the sicklefin redhorse sucker noted that threats (i.e., factors affecting the species) could be exacerbated by climate change or interaction among the threats. However, the SSA Report’s evaluation of all of the threats facing this species indicates that the existing populations are stable and are likely to remain stable in most of the plausible future scenarios. In addition, while populations are currently stable and likely to remain so, under the CCA’s management framework, the parties will work collaboratively to address threats in a way that reduces the likelihood that they will negatively affect the future viability of the species. Finding Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial information pertaining to the Act’s five threat factors, we find that the stressors acting on the species and its habitat, either singly or in combination, are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate that the sicklefin redhorse sucker is in danger of extinction (an endangered species), or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (a threatened species), throughout all of its range. This finding is based on stability of existing populations, re-evaluation of threats that are likely to affect the populations in the future, and development of a CCA VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 that ensures the continued participation by all stakeholders in a focused effort to address and mitigate potential threats while expanding the range and population health of the species. Additionally, we evaluated the current range of the sicklefin redhorse sucker to determine if there is any apparent geographic concentration of potential threats for the species. The current range of the species is relatively small and limited to two river systems in western North Carolina and northwestern Georgia. We examined potential threats from: (1) Hydroelectric operations, inadequate erosion/ sedimentation control during agricultural, timbering, and construction activities; (2) runoff and discharge of organic and inorganic pollutants from industrial, municipal, agricultural, and other point and nonpoint sources; (3) habitat alterations associated with channelization and instream dredging/ mining activities; (4) predation and habitat suitability impacts by nonnative species; (5) fragmentation and isolation of surviving populations; and (6) other natural and human-related factors that adversely modify the aquatic environment. We found no portions of the species’ range where potential threats are significantly concentrated or substantially greater than in other portion of its range so as to suggest that the species may be in danger of extinction in a portion of its range. Therefore, we find that factors affecting the sicklefin redhorse sucker are essentially uniform throughout its range, indicating no portion of the range warrants further consideration of possible endangered or threatened status under the Act. Therefore, we find that listing the sicklefin redhorse sucker as an endangered or a threatened species under the Act is not warranted throughout all or a significant portion of its range at this time, and consequently we are removing it from candidate status. As a result of the Service’s 2011 multidistrict litigation settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians, the Service is required to submit a proposed listing rule or a not-warranted 12-month finding to the Federal Register by September 30, 2016 (In re: Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 10–377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)), for all 251 species that were included as candidate species in the Service’s November 10, 2010, CNOR. This document satisfies the requirements of that settlement agreement for the sicklefin redhorse sucker, and PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 constitutes the Service’s 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to list the sicklefin redhorse sucker as an endangered or threatened species. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding, including the PECE policy analysis of the CCA, can be found in the sicklefin redhorse sucker’s speciesspecific assessment form, SSA Report, and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above). Stephan’s Riffle Beetle (Heterelmis stephani) Previous Federal Actions Stephan’s riffle beetle (Heterelmis stephani) was designated as a Category 2 candidate in the notice published in the Federal Register on May 22, 1984, at 49 FR 21664. Category 2 candidate species were identified as those taxa for which the Service possessed information indicating proposing to list the taxa was possibly appropriate, but for which conclusive data on biological vulnerability and threats sufficient to support a proposed listing rule was lacking. The February 28, 1996, CNOR (61 FR 7596) discontinued recognition of categories, so this species was no longer considered a candidate species. In the June 13, 2002, CNOR (67 FR 40657), Stephan’s riffle beetle was designated as a candidate species as currently defined, with an LPN of 5. On May 11, 2004, we received a petition dated May 4, 2004, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 225 plants and animals, including Stephan’s riffle beetle, be listed as endangered species under the Act and critical habitat be designated. In response to the May 4, 2004, petition to list Stephan’s riffle beetle as an endangered species, we published a warranted-butprecluded 12-month finding in the Federal Register on May 11, 2005 (70 FR 24870). Subsequent warranted-butprecluded 12-month findings were published on September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53756), December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034), December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75176), November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222), October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994), November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), December 5, 2014 (79 FR 72450), and December 24, 2015 (80 FR 80584). Background Stephan’s riffle beetle is one of five known species in the genus Heterelmis found in the United States. Historically, Stephan’s riffle beetle occurred in Santa Cruz and Pima Counties, Arizona, at two known locations: Bog Springs Campground and Sylvester Spring in E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations Madera Canyon. Stephan’s riffle beetle is no longer found at the Bog Springs Campground location, as the habitat there no longer exists. Stephan’s riffle beetle has not been collected or documented since 1993, despite the Service’s surveying for the species at the one remaining known location, Sylvester Spring, and at numerous other nearby locations with potential habitat. Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we believe that the Stephan’s riffle beetle is extinct. The preponderance of Stephan’s riffle beetle specimens have been documented in artificial habitat created by a water tank’s leaking pipeline and overflow at the Bog Springs Campground. Only two specimens have ever been documented from Sylvester Spring, the only relatively intact spring habitat remaining where the species was known to exist. Historically, Stephan’s riffle beetle may have only occupied Sylvester and Bog Springs, and populations may have started declining when water from springs in Madera Canyon was first captured in concrete boxes and piped to divert water for domestic and recreational water supplies. Up until 1993, when Stephan’s riffle beetle was last detected, the species appears to have existed only in extremely low numbers within Sylvester Spring, making it very difficult to detect, in contrast to the relatively large numbers collected in 1979 at the Bog Springs Campground site. The species has not been documented as extant since 1993, 23 years ago, when one individual was found at Sylvester Spring as part of a specific effort to survey for Stephan’s riffle beetle in Madera Canyon. Beginning in 2012, the Service surveyed Sylvester Spring, the one remaining known population location for Stephan’s riffle beetle, and seven other locations with potential habitat on multiple occasions. The most intensive survey efforts occurred at Sylvester Spring and Bog Springs, the water source for the extirpated Bog Springs Campground population. Three different survey methods were used in an effort to find the species, and no Stephan’s riffle beetles were found. While Stephan’s riffle beetle is small in size (and therefore difficult to find), adult beetles, if present, should be detected regardless of the time of year surveyed based on their life history (multi-year metamorphosis and relatively long life span). Therefore, based on the best available scientific and commercial information, the Service believes Stephan’s riffle beetle to be extinct. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 Summary of Status Review The SSA Report for Stephan’s riffle beetle is a summary of the information assembled and reviewed by the Service and incorporates the best available scientific and commercial information for this species. Our analysis leads us to believe Stephan’s riffle beetle is extinct. Species extinction is difficult, if not impossible, to prove, and the Service has no policy specifically defining the level of information necessary to conclude that a species should be considered extinct. For any species there is uncertainty in drawing a conclusion of extinction. For the Stephan’s riffle beetle, we have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the current status of the species. The biological information we reviewed and analyzed as the basis for our findings is documented in the SSA Report. Our analysis of this information found that there has been no confirmation of the existence of the Stephan’s riffle beetle in more than 23 years, despite multiple survey efforts since 2012 in known and potential habitat where other riffle beetles were documented, across multiple seasons, and using a variety of survey methods. The type locality consisting of a leaking pipeline to a water storage tank, where the largest number of Stephan’s riffle beetle was collected, no longer exists. The Service surveyed the only remaining site at which Stephan’s riffle beetle had been documented, Sylvester Spring, on numerous occasions with different survey methods. Despite these efforts, we have been unable to confirm the existence of the species. Finding Our review of the best available scientific and commercial information leads us to believe that the Stephan’s riffle beetle is extinct, and, as such, it is not eligible for listing as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. Although the Act does not directly address the situation of considering a species for listing where the best available information indicates that the species is likely already extinct, the purpose of the Act is to prevent species from becoming extinct. If we believe the species is already extinct, by definition, the species cannot be in danger of, or likely to become in danger of, extinction. Therefore, we did not further evaluate whether Stephan’s riffle beetle is in danger of extinction throughout its range (an endangered species), is likely to become in danger of extinction throughout its range in the foreseeable future (a threatened species), or is an PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 69441 endangered or threatened species in a significant portion of its range. We find that listing Stephan’s riffle beetle as an endangered or a threatened species under the Act is not warranted throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and consequently we are removing it from candidate status. As a result of the Service’s 2011 multidistrict litigation settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians, the Service is required to submit a proposed listing rule or a not-warranted 12-month finding to the Federal Register by September 30, 2016 (In re: Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 10–377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)), for all 251 species that were included as candidate species in the Service’s November 10, 2010, CNOR. This document satisfies the requirements of that settlement agreement for the Stephan’s riffle beetle and constitutes the Service’s 12-month finding on the May 4, 2004, petition to list the Stephan’s riffle beetle as an endangered or threatened species. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Stephan’s riffle beetle’s species-specific assessment form, SSA Report, and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above). New Information We request that you submit any new information concerning the taxonomy, biology, ecology, status of, or stressors to the Huachuca-Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog, the Arkansas darter, black mudalia, Highlands tiger beetle, Dichanthelium (=panicum) hirstii (Hirst Brothers’ panic grass), two Kentucky cave beetles (Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave beetle), relict leopard frog, sicklefin redhorse sucker, and Stephan’s riffle beetle to the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, whenever it becomes available. New information will help us monitor these species and encourage their conservation. We encourage local agencies and stakeholders to continue cooperative monitoring and conservation efforts for these species. If an emergency situation develops for any of these species, we will act to provide immediate protection. References Cited Lists of the references cited in the petition findings are available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 69442 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations Authors The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the Unified Listing Team, Ecological Services Program. Authority The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Dated: September 26, 2016. Stephen Guertin, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 2016–24142 Filed 10–5–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333–15–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 150916863–6211–02] RIN 0648–XE935 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Exchange of Flatfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and AGENCY: Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; reallocation. NMFS is exchanging unused flathead sole Community Development Quota (CDQ) for yellowfin sole CDQ acceptable biological catch (ABC) reserves in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area. This action is necessary to allow the 2016 total allowable catch of yellowfin sole in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area to be harvested. DATES: Effective October 6, 2016 through December 31, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Whitney, 907–586–7228. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. The 2016 flathead sole and yellowfin sole CDQ reserves specified in the BSAI SUMMARY: are 1,617 metric tons (mt), and 16,933 mt as established by the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (81 FR 14773, March 18, 2016) and following revision (81 FR 64782, September 21, 2016). The 2016 flathead sole and yellowfin sole CDQ ABC reserves are 5,472 mt and 5,719 mt as established by the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (81 FR 14773, March 18, 2016) and following revision (81 FR 64782, September 21, 2016). The Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association has requested that NMFS exchange 80 mt of flathead sole CDQ reserves for 80 mt of yellowfin sole CDQ ABC reserves under § 679.31(d). Therefore, in accordance with § 679.31(d), NMFS exchanges 80 mt of flathead sole CDQ reserves for 80 mt of yellowfin sole CDQ ABC reserves in the BSAI. This action also decreases and increases the TACs and CDQ ABC reserves by the corresponding amounts. Tables 11 and 13 of the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (81 FR 14773, March 18, 2016), and following revision (81 FR 64782, September 21, 2016), are revised as follows: TABLE 11—FINAL 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT QUOTA (CDQ) RESERVES, INCIDENTAL CATCH AMOUNTS (ICAS), AND AMENDMENT 80 ALLOCATIONS OF THE ALEUTIAN ISLANDS PACIFIC OCEAN PERCH, AND BSAI FLATHEAD SOLE, ROCK SOLE, AND YELLOWFIN SOLE TACS [Amounts are in metric tons] Pacific ocean perch Sector Eastern Aleutian district TAC .......................................................... CDQ ......................................................... ICA ........................................................... BSAI trawl limited access ........................ Amendment 80 ......................................... Alaska Groundfish Cooperative ............... Alaska Seafood Cooperative ................... Central Aleutian district 7,900 845 200 685 6,169 3,271 2,898 Flathead sole Western Aleutian district 7,000 749 75 618 5,558 2,947 2,611 9,000 963 10 161 7,866 4,171 3,695 Rock sole Yellowfin sole BSAI BSAI BSAI 16,390 1,537 5,000 0 9,853 1,411 8,442 55,180 5,215 6,000 0 43,965 11,129 32,836 150,530 17,013 3,500 14,979 115,038 43,748 71,290 Note: Sector apportionments may not total precisely due to rounding. TABLE 13—FINAL 2016 AND 2017 ABC SURPLUS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT QUOTA (CDQ) ABC RESERVES, AND AMENDMENT 80 ABC RESERVES IN THE BSAI FOR FLATHEAD SOLE, ROCK SOLE, AND YELLOWFIN SOLE sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES [Amounts are in metric tons] 2016 Flathead sole Sector ABC .......................................................... TAC .......................................................... ABC surplus ............................................. ABC reserve ............................................. CDQ ABC reserve ................................... Amendment 80 ABC reserve ................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 66,250 16,390 49,860 49,860 5,552 44,308 PO 00000 Frm 00058 2016 Rock sole 2016 Yellowfin sole 161,100 55,180 105,920 105,920 12,023 93,897 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 211,700 150,530 61,170 61,170 5,639 55,531 2017 Flathead sole 64,580 21,000 43,580 43,580 4,663 38,917 E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 2017 Rock sole 145,000 57,100 87,900 87,900 9,405 78,495 2017 Yellowfin sole 203,500 144,000 59,500 59,500 6,367 53,134

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 194 (Thursday, October 6, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69425-69442]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24142]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[4500090022]

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Findings
on Petitions To List 10 Species as Endangered or Threatened Species

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition findings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 12-
month findings on petitions to list 10 species as endangered or
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act). After a review of the best available scientific and commercial
information, we find that listing the Huachuca-Canelo population of the
Arizona treefrog, the Arkansas darter, black mudalia, Highlands tiger
beetle, Dichanthelium (=panicum) hirstii (Hirst Brothers' panic grass),
two Kentucky cave beetles (Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave
beetle), relict leopard frog, sicklefin redhorse sucker, and Stephan's
riffle beetle is not warranted at this time. However, we ask the public
to submit to us at any time any new information that becomes available
concerning the stressors to any of the 10 species listed above or their
habitats.

DATES: The findings announced in this document were made on October 6,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Detailed descriptions of the basis for each of these
findings are available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at
the following docket numbers:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Docket No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona treefrog (Huachuca-Canelo FWS-R2-ES-2016-0111.
population).
Arkansas darter........................... FWS-R6-ES-2016-0113.
Black mudalia............................. FWS-R4-ES-2016-0112.
Highlands tiger beetle.................... FWS-R4-ES-2016-0114.
Dichanthelium (=panicum) hirstii (Hirst FWS-R5-ES-2016-0105.
Brothers' panic grass).
Kentucky cave beetles (Louisville cave FWS-R4-ES-2016-0115.
beetle and Tatum Cave beetle).
Relict leopard frog....................... FWS-R8-ES-2016-0116.
Sicklefin redhorse sucker................. FWS-R4-ES-2016-0117.
Stephan's riffle beetle................... FWS-R2 ES-2016-0118.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 69426]]

Supporting information used to prepare these findings is available
for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, by
contacting the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any new information, materials,
comments, or questions concerning these findings to the appropriate
person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Contact information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona treefrog (Huachuca- Nathan Allan, Acting Listing Coordinator,
Canelo population). Southwest Regional Office, Ecological
Services, 512-490-0057.
Arkansas darter.............. Jason Luginbill, Field Supervisor, Kansas
Ecological Services Field Office, 785-
539-3474.
Black mudalia................ Bill Pearson, Field Supervisor, Alabama
Ecological Services Field Office, 251-
441-5181.
Highlands tiger beetle....... Roxanna Hinzman, Field Supervisor, South
Florida Ecological Services Field
Office, 772-562-3909.
Dichanthelium (=panicum) Krishna Gifford, Listing Coordinator,
hirstii (Hirst Brothers' Northeast Regional Office, Ecological
panic grass). Services, 413-253-8619.
Submit any new information concerning the
species' taxonomy, population status, or
threats to: New Jersey Ecological
Services Field Office, 4 E. Jimmie Leeds
Road, Suite 4, Galloway, NJ 08205.
Kentucky cave beetles Lee Andrews, Field Supervisor, Kentucky
(Louisville cave beetle and Ecological Services Field Office, 502-
Tatum Cave beetle). 695-0468.
Relict leopard frog.......... Michael Senn, Field Supervisor, Southern
Nevada Ecological Services Field Office,
702-515-5244.
Sicklefin redhorse sucker.... Jason Mays, Asheville (North Carolina)
Ecological Services Field Office, 828-
258-3939.
Stephan's riffle beetle...... Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, Arizona
Ecological Services Field Office, 602-
242-0210.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call
the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) requires that,
within 12 months after receiving any petition to revise the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
listing an animal or plant species may be warranted, we make a finding
(``12-month finding''). In this finding, we determine whether listing
the Huachuca-Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog, the Arkansas
darter, black mudalia, Highlands tiger beetle, Dichanthelium (=panicum)
hirstii (Hirst Brothers' panic grass), two Kentucky cave beetles
(Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave beetle), relict leopard frog,
sicklefin redhorse sucker, and Stephan's riffle beetle is: (1) Not
warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) warranted, but the immediate proposal
of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by
other pending proposals to determine whether species are endangered or
threatened species, and expeditious progress is being made to add or
remove qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (``warranted but precluded''). Section
4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we treat a petition for which the
requested action is found to be warranted but precluded as though
resubmitted on the date of such finding, that is, requiring a
subsequent finding to be made within 12 months. We must publish these
12-month findings in the Federal Register.

Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations in part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing
species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. The Act defines
``endangered species'' as any species that is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C.
1532(6)), and ``threatened species'' as any species that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Under
section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be an
endangered or a threatened species because of any of the following five
factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
We summarize below the information on which we based our evaluation
of the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine
whether the Huachuca-Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog, the
Arkansas darter, black mudalia, Highlands tiger beetle, Dichanthelium
(=panicum) hirstii, two Kentucky cave beetles (Louisville cave beetle
and Tatum Cave beetle), relict leopard frog, sicklefin redhorse sucker,
and Stephan's riffle beetle meet the definition of an endangered or
threatened species. More detailed information about these species is
presented in the species-specific assessment forms found on https://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (see ADDRESSES,
above).
In considering what stressors under the Act's five factors might
constitute threats, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the
species to the factor to determine whether the species responds to the
factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is
exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a positive response,
that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species
responds negatively, the factor may be a threat. In that case, we
determine if that stressor rises to the level of a threat, meaning that
it may drive or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species
such that the species warrants listing as an endangered or threatened
species as those terms are defined by the Act. This does not
necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The combination of
exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the species is likely
affected could suffice. The mere identification of stressors that could
affect a species negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that

[[Page 69427]]

listing is appropriate; we require evidence that these stressors are
operative threats to the species and its habitat, either singly or in
combination, to the point that the species meets the definition of an
endangered or a threatened species under the Act.
In making our 12-month findings, we considered and evaluated the
best available scientific and commercial information regarding the
past, present, and future stressors and threats. We reviewed the
petition, information available in our files, and other available
published and unpublished information. This evaluation may include
information from recognized experts; Federal, State, and tribal
governments; academic institutions; foreign governments; private
entities, and other members of the public.

Arizona Treefrog, Huachuca-Canelo Population (Hyla wrightorum)

Previous Federal Actions

In our annual candidate notice of review (CNOR) published on
December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034), we recognized the Huachuca-Canelo
population of the Arizona treefrog as a candidate for listing as a
distinct population segment (DPS). Subsequently, we published similar
findings in our CNORs on December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75176), November 9,
2009 (74 FR 57804), November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222), October 26, 2011
(76 FR 66370), November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994), November 22, 2013 (78
FR 70104), December 5, 2014 (79 FR 72450), and December 24, 2015 (80 FR
80584). In 2007, the Huachuca-Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog
was assigned a listing priority number (LPN) of 3, reflecting the
taxonomic identity of the listable entity as a subspecies/population
with threats that we considered to be imminent and high in magnitude.
The LPN numbers range from 1 to 11, with 1 being the highest priority.

Background

The Arizona treefrog (Hyla wrightorum) is a small (4.6 centimeters
(cm) (1.8 inches (in)) green frog with a dark eyestripe that extends
past the shoulder onto the side of the body, and sometimes to the groin
area. It occurs in Madrean oak woodland and savannah, pine-oak
woodland, mixed conifer forest, and Plains grasslands at elevations of
approximately 1,525 to 2,590 meters (m) (5,000 to 8,500 feet (ft)), and
requires ponds for successful reproduction.
The Arizona treefrog is known to occur within Arizona, New Mexico,
and Mexico. In Arizona and New Mexico, the Arizona treefrog occurs
along the Mogollon Rim (central Arizona and western New Mexico), in the
Huachuca Mountains and Canelo Hills area (a disjunct mountain range on
the Arizona/Sonora, Mexico border), and farther south in Mexico (in the
Sierra Madre Occidental and sky island mountain ranges). We refer to
these three areas as the Mogollon Rim, Huachuca-Canelo, and Mexico
populations.
Within the Huachuca-Canelo population, historical information has
documented Arizona treefrogs from three general localities at Rancho
Los Fresnos, Sonora, Mexico, and from 13 to 15 verified localities in
the Huachuca Mountains and Canelo Hills, Arizona. The Huachuca-Canelo
population of Arizona treefrog has continued to persist in Arizona sky
island mountain range and Plains grassland habitats, and the treefrog
has recently been found in new locations within grasslands and
ci[eacute]negas (a swamp or marsh, especially one formed and fed by
springs) in Arizona. These new locations in varied habitats indicate
that the Arizona treefrogs may be less selective in choosing breeding
habitat than previously thought. In addition, the species likely occurs
in other wet canyons with suitable breeding habitat in the Huachuca
Mountains, and perhaps in ci[eacute]negas in the vicinity of Rancho Los
Fresnos.
The Huachuca-Canelo DPS of the Arizona treefrog was originally
defined based on the historical locations. However, recently the
Service has received information on Arizona treefrog locations nearby,
but outside of, the DPS area. This new information, along with many new
location detections in the Huachuca Mountains and Canelo Hills,
indicates that the Arizona treefrog is not only more numerous, but is
much more widespread than we knew when the Service made this Arizona
treefrog a candidate species as a DPS. There are now approximately more
than 30 known localities in Arizona in the Huachuca Mountains and
Canelo Hills, and the Arizona treefrog also occurs in areas outside of
the DPS boundary, but within the vicinity of the Huachuca Mountains and
Canelo Hills.

Summary of Status Review

Based on new information and review of previously referenced
studies, we find that the Huachuca-Canelo population of the Arizona
treefrog does not meet the requirements of the Service's Policy
Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments
(DPS Policy) published in the Federal Register on February 7, 1996 (61
FR 4722). The DPS Policy sets forth three elements for the Service to
consider in determining whether a vertebrate population is a DPS that
warrants listing: Whether the population is discrete and whether the
population is significant. If the population is determined to be both
discrete and significant, then the DPS Policy requires the Service to
evaluate the conservation status of the population to determine whether
the population falls within the Act's definition of an ``endangered
species'' or of a ``threatened species.''
On the basis of the best available scientific and commercial
information, and in accordance with our DPS Policy, we conclude that
the Huachuca-Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog is discrete but
it is not significant (i.e., it is not biologically or ecologically
important) to the taxon as a whole. Regarding discreteness, we have
reviewed the best available scientific and commercial information and
the evidence relative to potential differences in physical, behavioral,
morphological, and genetic attributes. We conclude that the Huachuca-
Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog is discrete based on its
geographical separation from the other two populations on the Mogollon
Rim and in Mexico.
Regarding significance, we considered the four classes of
information listed in the DPS Policy as possible considerations in
making a determination, as well as all other information that might be
relevant to making this determination for the Huachuca-Canelo
population. The Huachuca-Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog does
not appear to exhibit any direct or indirect habitat adaptation or
behavioral advantage that would indicate that their persistence in the
Huachuca Mountains and Canelo Hills area is biologically or
ecologically important to the taxon as a whole. Moreover, we considered
the other three considerations that the DPS Policy sets out for
evaluating significance, and none of them provides evidence that the
Huachuca-Canelo population is significant to the Arizona treefrog as a
whole: (1) Loss of the Huachuca-Canelo population would not result in a
significant gap in the range; (2) the Huachuca-Canelo population does
not represent the only surviving natural occurrence of the Arizona
treefrog; and (3) the Huachuca-Canelo population's genetic
characteristics do not differ markedly from those of other Arizona
treefrog populations.

[[Page 69428]]

Finding

Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the Act's five threat factors, we conclude
that the Huachuca-Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog does not
meet the significance criterion of the DPS Policy, as detailed above
and, therefore, is not a valid DPS under our DPS Policy. As a result,
we find that the Huachuca-Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog is
not a listable entity under section 3(16) of the Act. Therefore, we
find that listing the Huachuca-Canelo population of Arizona treefrog as
an endangered or a threatened species is not warranted throughout all
or a significant portion of its range at this time, and consequently,
we are removing it from candidate status.
As a result of the Service's 2011 multidistrict litigation
settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth
Guardians, the Service is required to submit a proposed listing rule or
a not-warranted 12-month finding to the Federal Register by September
30, 2016 (In re: Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation,
No. 10-377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)), for all
251 species that were included as candidate species in the Service's
November 10, 2010, CNOR. This document satisfies the requirements of
that settlement agreement for the Huachuca-Canelo population of the
Arizona treefrog. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding
can be found in the species-specific assessment form for the Huachuca-
Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog and other supporting
documents (see ADDRESSES, above).

Arkansas Darter (Etheostoma cragini)

Previous Federal Actions

The Arkansas darter was first identified as a candidate for listing
under the Act in 1989 (54 FR 554; January 6, 1989), as a Category 2
candidate species. Category 2 candidate species were identified as
those taxa for which the Service possessed information indicating
proposing to list the taxa was possibly appropriate, but for which
conclusive data on biological vulnerability and threats sufficient to
support a proposed listing rule was lacking. On February 28, 1996, the
CNOR (61 FR 7596) discontinued recognition of Categories 1-3. Because
listing the Arkansas darter was warranted but precluded, we assigned
the species an LPN of 5. In 2002, we changed the LPN from 5 to 11 (67
FR 40657; June 13, 2002).
On May 11, 2004, the Service received a petition dated May 4, 2004,
from the Center for Biological Diversity and others to list 225
species, including the Arkansas darter. The Service published a 12-
month finding in the Federal Register on May 11, 2005, with a
reaffirmed determination that listing was warranted but precluded and
that the taxon had an LPN of 11 (70 FR 24870). We have continued to
evaluate the status of the candidate taxon through our annual CNOR and
maintained the LPN of 11 for this species (see September 12, 2006 (71
FR 53756), December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034), December 10, 2008 (73 FR
75176), November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), November 10, 2010 (75 FR
69222), October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), November 21, 2012 (77 FR
69994), November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), December 5, 2014 (79 FR
72450), and December 24, 2015 (80 FR 80584)).

Background

The Arkansas darter (Etheostoma cragini) is a small fish in the
perch family native to the Arkansas River basin. The species occurs
most often in sand- or pebble-bottomed pools of small, spring-fed
streams and marshes, with cool water, and broad-leaved aquatic
vegetation. Arkansas darters prefer flowing, spring-fed streams and
pools in contact with groundwater sources. However, the species is very
tolerant to periods of very poor water quality, including high water
temperatures, low dissolved oxygen, high turbidity, and hyper-
eutrophication.
The Arkansas darter's range includes eastern Colorado, southwest
and central Kansas, northwest and northeast Oklahoma, southwest
Missouri, and northwest Arkansas. Recent surveys have expanded our
knowledge of occupied Arkansas darter populations. We currently
consider to be extant a total of 80 populations within 15
metapopulations rangewide. This is more than we knew of for previous
assessments of this species.

Summary of Status Review

In completing our status review for the Arkansas darter, we
reviewed the best available scientific and commercial information and
compiled this information in the Species Status Assessment Report (SSA
Report) for the Arkansas darter. In previous candidate assessments and
findings for this species, the identified threats we considered were
water depletion, water quality degradation, urbanization and
development, confined-animal feeding operations, dams and reservoirs,
salt cedar invasion, disease, and predation. Although localized
negative effects have been observed, all of these stressors (other than
water depletion) occur at a limited scale and scope, and the overall
impact at the population and species level is minimal.
Water depletion is the stressor with the largest potential impact
to the Arkansas darter's viability, affecting approximately 25 percent
of the geographic range, resulting mainly from groundwater withdrawals
for agriculture. Seasonal low flows and intermittency of streams are
common within the Great Plains portion of its range, and it appears the
species is adapted to this phenomenon. However, the continued existence
of the species in these areas is dependent on localized areas of
refugia. Typically refugia exist where groundwater flows come to the
surface and create permanent pools or small wetland areas along the
stream course. When seasonal precipitation occurs and the streams
become flowing systems, typically in the spring, the stream then
provides habitat for spawning, rearing, and dispersal of young and
adult individuals throughout the watershed. Climate change projections
forecast minimal change in average annual precipitation in the Arkansas
River basin and do not forecast reduced or diminished streamflow as a
result of future changes in precipitation patterns. Therefore, we do
not expect to see climate-change-driven decreased trends in
precipitation and related stream flows.
Water depletion results in decreased resiliency of populations
affected in the portions of the range in southwestern Kansas,
northwestern Oklahoma, and parts of Colorado, approximately 25 percent
of the range. However, the species has endured over 40 years of
groundwater withdrawals in these areas, indicating continued resiliency
of these populations. The large number of populations (80) spread
across the multi-State range provides the Arkansas darter species with
a high level of redundancy should a catastrophic event occur somewhere
within its occupied range. Multiple populations and metapopulations
currently occupying the unique ecological settings of the three unique
physiogeographic areas, the same physiogeographic areas that this
species was known to occupy historically, allow the species to maintain
adaptive potential and the underlying genetic makeup to adapt to
changing environmental conditions.
Over the next 30 years, under our expected scenario, we are likely
to see

[[Page 69429]]

a continuation of similar levels of impact from the stressors affecting
this species as we have in the past. We believe a continued rate of
groundwater usage and continued rates of impact from other stressors
over the next 30 years would not likely result in significant effects
to the occupied range of the Arkansas darter. Although we expect little
change on a rangewide basis, we could see some range contraction in the
western Cimarron and upper Rattlesnake Creek basin in Kansas and
Oklahoma due to water depletion, as well as small portions of the
Colorado range. Additionally, we could see range contraction in the
eastern portion of the range (Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma)
due to development effects. However, we do not expect to see a
reduction in redundancy of the species overall (e.g., no the loss of
entire populations).

Finding

Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the Act's five threat factors, we find that
the stressors acting on the species and its habitat, either singly or
in combination, are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or
magnitude to indicate that the Arkansas darter is currently in danger
of extinction (an endangered species), or likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future (a threatened species). In conclusion, we
find that this species no longer warrants listing throughout its range.
We evaluated the current range of the Arkansas darter to determine
if there is any apparent geographic concentration of potential threats
for the species. Groundwater withdrawals are currently impacting
portions of the upper, central, and lower Arkansas River basins in
Kansas, Oklahoma, and Colorado, an area representing approximately 25
percent of geographic range of the Arkansas darter. Additional
stressors outside of this area are generally low level, localized
impacts not affecting entire populations. The 25 percent of the range
affected by groundwater withdrawal does not meet the biologically based
definition of ``significant'' (i.e., the loss of that portion clearly
would not be expected to increase the vulnerability to extinction of
the entire species). If that 25 percent of the range were lost, the
species would still have approximately 75 percent of its geographic
range in areas that are not expected to be subject to the negative
effects of water depletion. Therefore, we determined that there are no
significant portions of the species' range where the Arkansas darter
meets the definition of an endangered or a threatened species and that
the best available scientific and commercial information indicates this
species is no longer in danger of extinction (endangered) or likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened) throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.
Arkansas darter populations appear to be resilient to threats
identified in previous status assessments; these threats are now
believed to have fewer impacts on the Arkansas darter than previously
understood; the species is expected to maintain a high level of
redundancy and representation into the future; we know of more
currently-occupied populations then we have in previous assessments;
and while groundwater withdrawals affecting water depletion are
expected to continue in approximately 25 percent of the range, we do
not expect to see a reduction in redundancy of the species overall
(e.g., no loss of Arkansas darter populations). Therefore, we find that
listing the Arkansas darter as an endangered or threatened species is
not warranted at this time, and consequently we are removing it from
candidate status.
As a result of the Service's 2011 multidistrict litigation
settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth
Guardians, the Service is required to submit a proposed listing rule or
a not-warranted 12-month finding to the Federal Register by September
30, 2016 (In re: Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation,
No. 10-377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)), for all
251 species that were included as candidate species in the Service's
November 10, 2010, CNOR. This document satisfies the requirements of
that settlement agreement for the Arkansas darter, and constitutes the
Service's 12-month finding on the May 4, 2004, petition to list the
Arkansas darter as an endangered or threatened species. A detailed
discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Arkansas
darter's species-specific assessment form, SSA Report, and other
supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).

Black Mudalia (Elimia melanoides)

Previous Federal Actions

The Service first identified black mudalia as a candidate for
listing in the September 12, 2006, CNOR and assigned an LPN of 2 based
on imminent, high-magnitude threats (71 FR 53756). In the December 6,
2007, CNOR, we concluded that the threats were at the time moderate in
magnitude and changed the LPN to 8 (72 FR 69034). We retained the LPN
of 8 in all subsequent CNORs (see December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75176),
November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222),
October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994),
November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), December 5, 2014 (79 FR 72450), and
December 24, 2015 (80 FR 80584)).
On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity requesting that the Service list 404 species,
including black mudalia, as endangered or threatened. No new
information regarding black mudalia was presented in the petition, and
on September 27, 2011, we published a 90-day finding (76 FR 59836).

Background

The species formerly described as the black mudalia is a small
species of aquatic snail growing to 13 millimeters (mm) (0.5 inches
(in)) in length and belongs to the aquatic snail family of
Pleuroceridae. The species formerly described as the black mudalia was
found clinging to clean gravel, cobble, boulders, and/or logs in
flowing water on shoals and riffles within five streams in the Locust
Fork drainage in Jefferson and Blount Counties, Alabama.

Summary of Status Review

The following summary is based on our review of the best available
scientific and commercial information. No new information was provided
in the petition we received on April 20, 2010. The species was
described from ``rivers in North Alabama'' by T.A. Conrad as
Anculosotus melanoides, but he failed to provide a specific type of
locality. For the second half of the 20th century, the black mudalia
was considered to be extinct. However, in 2003, Dr. Russell Minton
published a paper on the apparent rediscovery of the species, with a
re-description of what he believed was Conrad's black mudalia. He
designated an individual from the upper Black Warrior Basin as the
neotype--a biological specimen that is selected as the type specimen
when the holotype (a single specimen chosen for designation of a new
species), lectotype (a specimen chosen from syntypes to designate types
of species), or any syntypes (any one specimen of a series used to
designate a species when the holotype has not been selected) have been
lost or destroyed--and restricted the type locality to one site on the
Little Warrior River in Blount County, Alabama; however, the neotype is
currently unavailable for study.

[[Page 69430]]

Recently, the Service's Alabama Ecological Services Field Office
learned that a specimen at the Museum of Comparative Zoology in Boston,
Massachusetts, identified by T.A. Conrad as A. melanoides is not the
same species that was described by Minton et al. (2003). Therefore, we
cannot with any certainty determine the status of either the entity
that Conrad (1834) first described as A. melanoides, or the entity that
Minton et al. (2003) re-described as E. melanoides. Additional
taxonomic review, led by the Smithsonian Institution, is underway as of
early 2016. The results of this review will require additional efforts
to define Elimia spp. boundaries, status, and distribution within the
Black Warrior River Basin.

Finding

The Act only allows listing of ``species'' as defined under Section
3(16)--that is, recognized species, subspecies, or distinct population
segments of vertebrates. Based on our review of the best available
scientific and commercial information, and in light of the best
available scientific information regarding taxonomic uncertainty
described above, we conclude that the black mudalia is not currently a
recognized ``species.'' We are therefore removing the black mudalia
from candidate status pending further study.
As a result of the Service's 2011 multidistrict litigation
settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth
Guardians, the Service is required to submit a proposed listing rule or
a not-warranted 12-month finding to the Federal Register by September
30, 2016 (In re: Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation,
No. 10-377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)), for all
251 species that were included as candidate species in the Service's
November 10, 2010, CNOR. This document satisfies the requirements of
that settlement agreement for the black mudalia, and constitutes the
Service's 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to list the
black mudalia as an endangered or threatened species. A detailed
discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the black
mudalia's species-specific assessment form and other supporting
documents (see ADDRESSES, above).

Highlands Tiger Beetle (Cicindela highlandensis)

Previous Federal Actions

The Highlands tiger beetle was first recognized as a candidate
species on November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804), when we assigned the
species an LPN of 2. In the October 30, 2001, CNOR (66 FR 54808), we
changed the LPN for the Highlands tiger beetle from 2 to 5, because the
immediacy of threats to the species' scrub habitat had decreased with
the acquisition of scrub habitat by the State of Florida and
conservation groups. On May 11, 2004, the Service received a petition
dated May 4, 2004, from the Center for Biological Diversity and others
to list 225 species as endangered or threatened, including the
Highlands tiger beetle. The species was maintained as a candidate with
an LPN of 5 through the 2015 CNOR (see June 13, 2002 (67 FR 40657); May
4, 2004 (69 FR 24876); May 11, 2005 (70 FR 24870); September 12, 2006
(71 FR 53756), December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034), December 10, 2008 (73 FR
75176), November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), November 10, 2010 (75 FR
69222), October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), November 21, 2012 (77 FR
69994), November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), December 5, 2014 (79 FR
72450), and December 24, 2015 (80 FR 80584)).

Background

The Highlands tiger beetle is elongate with an oval shape and
bulging eyes, and is one of the smallest (7.0-9.5 mm) (0.28-0.37 in)
tiger beetles in the United States. As is typical of other tiger
beetles, adult Highlands tiger beetles are active diurnal predators
that use their keen vision to detect movement of small arthropods and
run quickly to capture prey with their well-developed mandibles (jaws).
Tiger beetle larvae have an elongate white grub-like body and a dark or
metallic head with large mandibles. Larvae are sedentary sit-and-wait
predators occurring in permanent burrows flush with the ground surface.
When feeding, larvae position themselves at the burrow mouth and
quickly strike at and seize small arthropods that pass within a few
centimeters of the burrow mouth. Larvae prey on small arthropods,
similar to adults.
The Highlands tiger beetle occurs primarily in open sandy patches
of Florida scrub habitat on the Lake Wales Ridge in Highlands and Polk
Counties. The Lake Wales Ridge is one of the largest and oldest Florida
scrub ecosystems. The harsh environment on the Lake Wales Ridge is
characterized by hot weather, nutrient-poor sandy soils, and
(historically) frequent wildfires. The Highlands tiger beetle is often
associated with evergreen scrub oaks, as well as high pineland with
deciduous turkey oak (Quercus laevis) and longleaf pine (Pinus
palustris). High-quality habitat for the species is primarily scrub or
sandhill having natural or management-created interior patches with a
high percent of open sand (greater than 50 percent) that is continuous
or connected to adjacent open patches by lightly disturbed trails or
paths. The known extant range of the Highlands tiger beetle exists in
the core of the suitable (scrub) habitat in the central and south-
central portion of the Lake Wales Ridge, approximately 90 km (56 mi) in
length and about 10 km (6 mi) in width).

Summary of Status Review

The following summary is based on information contained in our
files. The Highlands tiger beetle is narrowly distributed and
restricted to areas of bare sand within scrub and sandhill on ancient
sand dunes of the Lake Wales Ridge in Polk and Highlands Counties,
Florida. Adult tiger beetles have been found in 56 of the total 71
sites surveyed at the core of the Lake Wales Ridge. In 2004-2005
surveys, a total of 1,574 adults were found at four sites. A total of
643 adults at 31 sites were found in 1996, 928 adults at 31 sites in
1995, and 742 adults at 21 sites in 1993. A visual reference count of
2,231 adults was found from 46 sites in 2014. This increase in index
counts over time can be attributed to new survey sites and finding a
large number of beetles at these sites. Estimates from the visual
reference (index) counts are used to provide an estimate of the
populations. Results from a limited removal study suggest that the
actual population size at some survey sites can be as much as two to
three times as high as the visual reference. In addition, surveys for
Highland tiger beetles were not exhaustive, and there are additional
potential suitable habitats. An estimate of beetle numbers likely
present in these additional potential habitats added to the modified
index count produces an estimated minimum total abundance of 10,438
adults in at least 16 populations. Based on these expanded surveys and
the findings of additional large beetle populations at these sites, it
is determined that the Highland tiger beetle is more abundant than
previously documented, and its habitat is of much better quality than
previously documented. Of the 15 sites with the largest populations, 7
sites show an increase in number of individuals. The number of occupied
sites identified as high or good quality also increased from 13 in
2005, to 21 in 2014, and of the currently known sites nearly half of
them (21 of 46) are of high or good quality.

[[Page 69431]]

We evaluated all known potential impacts to the Highlands tiger
beetle, including the Act's five threat factors. While these impacts
were previously believed to pose imminent or significant threats to the
species, and some may have caused losses to individuals or habitat, the
updated information we received regarding species' occurrence and
population size has improved our understanding on how the stressors
affect the status of species. In our current candidate assessment, we
evaluated the best available scientific and commercial information, and
concluded that the species is resilient to these stressors and that
current impacts to the species are not as strong as previously
believed. Approximately 43.4 percent of the existing potential suitable
habitat for the species is protected conservation lands. While
fragmentation of the Lake Wales Ridge scrub and sandhill habitats
exists, 63 percent of the Highlands tiger beetle populations occur on
these protected conservation lands, including three of the largest
known populations. These lands are managed for the scrub habitat and
species, including the Highlands tiger beetle, through government and
private partnership prescribed burn programs, invasive species control,
best management practices, and enforcement and protection of the
resources. Fragmentation of the habitat was identified as a stressor
compromising the dispersal capabilities of Highlands tiger beetle
populations. However, the new information on the number and
distribution of occupied sites and population size indicates that the
threat to the dispersal capabilities of the species is not as high as
previously reported. New sites have been identified in four populations
across the north to south range of the species, and the Lake Wales
Ridge as a whole has areas of open lands, remnant scrub and sandhill,
and patchworks of scrub roadside habitat that can act as corridors or
``stepping stones'' for Highlands tiger beetle movement and flight,
making active migration to new sites or the exchange of individuals
between sites feasible for this species. In addition, storm winds,
water flow, rafting transport, and animals are possible means of
stochastic dispersal of individual beetles.
As a result of the new information and analysis, we no longer
consider the threats originally identified in our previous 12-month
finding for the Highlands tiger beetle to be current or foreseeable
threats for the following reasons: (1) The species is larger in
individual numbers and occurs in more sites across its range than
previously documented; (2) the populations occur primarily on protected
conservation lands; (3) more than half of the potential suitable
habitat for the species consists of protected lands under conservation
management, with new conservation lands and conservation banks acquired
in 2014; (4) the species occurs in 16 populations across 225,920 acres
(91,426 hectares) or 353 square miles (920 square kilometers), and
existing unsurveyed suitable habitat occurs in the species' range; (5)
new survey information has identified an increased number of sites
graded as ``high'' and ``good'' quality habitat for the Highlands tiger
beetle; (6) the analysis reveals annual prescribed burning schedules
are being implemented across the range of the Highlands tiger beetle on
government and private conservation lands; and (7) the stressors
identified in the 2015 candidate assessment, including collections,
occur at the individual level but are not rising to the level of
population or species impacts.
Overall, current information from additional surveys indicates an
increase in occupied sites with a large increase in the number of
beetles. Most threats are being addressed through the presence of large
populations of the species occurring on protected lands and through the
management actions that occur on these lands. Any actual impact from
threats occurs at the individual, not population or species, level, and
no impact, individually or cumulatively, rises to the level that it
contributes to making the species meet the definition of ``threatened
species'' or ``endangered species.''

Finding

Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the Act's five threat factors, we find that
the current stressors acting on the species and its habitat are not of
sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to make the Highlands
tiger beetle warrant listing throughout the species' range at this
time. Because the distribution of the species is relatively stable
across its range and stressors are similar throughout the species'
range, we found no concentration of stressors that suggests that the
Highlands tiger beetle may be in danger of extinction or likely to
become so in any portion of its range. With the documentation of 16
newly identified occupied sites, the identification of improved habitat
quality, and the existing estimated adult beetle count of over 10,000
individuals in 56 sites, we find that Highlands tiger beetle is no
longer in danger of extinction (endangered) or likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened) throughout all of
its range or any portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing
the Highlands tiger beetle as an endangered or a threatened species is
not warranted throughout all or a significant portion of its range at
this time, and consequently we are removing this species from candidate
status.
As a result of the Service's 2011 multidistrict litigation
settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth
Guardians, the Service is required to submit a proposed listing rule or
a not-warranted 12-month finding to the Federal Register by September
30, 2016 (In re: Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation,
No. 10-377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)), for all
251 species that were included as candidate species in the Service's
November 10, 2010, CNOR. This document satisfies the requirements of
that settlement agreement for the Highlands tiger beetle, and
constitutes the Service's 12-month finding on the May 11, 2004,
petition to list the Highlands tiger beetle as an endangered or
threatened species. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding
can be found in the Highland tiger beetle's species-specific assessment
form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).

Dichanthelium (=panicum) hirstii (Hirst Brothers' Panic Grass)

Previous Federal Actions

In 1975, Panicum hirstii (i.e., Dichanthelium hirstii's former
scientific name; see Summary of Status Review, below) was 1 of more
than 3,000 vascular plants included in a Smithsonian Institution report
entitled ``Report on Endangered and Threatened Plants of the United
States'' (Report) that the Service subsequently treated as a petition
under the Act (40 FR 27824; July 1, 1975). The Federal Register notice
indicated that P. hirstii and the other plants were under consideration
for listing, and the notes of endangered or threatened after each
species' name solely represented the views of the authors of the
Report. The Report indicated that P. hirstii occurred in Georgia and
placed it in the endangered category. The Service did not publish
another species notice of review until 1980.
In 1980, Panicum hirstii was considered a Category 2 candidate
species (45 FR 82480; December 15, 1980). Category 2 candidate species
were identified as those taxa for which

[[Page 69432]]

the Service possessed information indicating proposing to list the taxa
was possibly appropriate, but for which conclusive data on biological
vulnerability and threats sufficient to support a proposed listing rule
was lacking. Panicum hirstii remained a Category 2 candidate species in
the subsequent plant notices of review in 1983, 1985, 1990, and 1993
(48 FR 53640, November 28, 1983; 50 FR 39526, September 27, 1985; 55 FR
6184, February 21, 1990; 58 FR 51144, September 30, 1993). The Service
did not publish any other notices of review for plants during this time
period.
The Service revised candidate categories in 1996, and Panicum
hirstii was not included as a candidate species under the updated
categorization (61 FR 7596; February 28, 1996). The revised categories
further defined a candidate species as a species for which we have on
file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to
support preparation of a listing proposal, but for which development of
a listing regulation is precluded by other higher-priority listing
activities.
In 1999, the Service included Panicum hirstii as a new candidate
species, using the updated definition, through its own internal
assessment process (i.e., not via a petition), and assigned it an LPN
of 5, meaning it was a species with a high magnitude of nonimminent
threats (64 FR 57534, October 25, 1999). Panicum hirstii was included
in the subsequent annual CNORs with an LPN of 5 in 2001, 2002, and 2004
(66 FR 54808, October 30, 2001; 67 FR 40657, June 13, 2002; 69 FR
24876, May 4, 2004). The Service did not publish a CNOR in 2003.
On May 11, 2004, we received a petition dated May 4, 2004, from the
Center for Biological Diversity and other groups and individuals
requesting that the Service list Panicum hirstii and 225 other
candidate species as endangered species or threatened species under the
Act. In 2005, the Service again made a warranted-but-precluded finding
for the plant, with an LPN of 5, but noted a change in its scientific
name to Dichanthelium hirstii (70 FR 24870, May 11, 2005). In 2006
through 2014, D. hirstii remained a candidate with an LPN of 5 (see
September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53756), December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034),
December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75176), November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804),
November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222), October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370),
November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994), November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), and
December 5, 2014 (79 FR 72450)). In 2015, D. hirstii was included as a
candidate in the CNOR, but the LPN was elevated from 5 to 2, indicating
a species with a high magnitude of imminent threats (80 FR 80584,
December 24, 2015).

Background

Dichanthelium hirstii, as referenced in some literature, is a
perennial, wetland-obligate grass that is currently estimated to occur
in eight locations distributed across four States: New Jersey
(Barkwoods Pond, Labounsky Pond, and Berlin Avenue Bogs North in
Atlantic County, and Hampton Furnace Pond in Burlington County);
Delaware (Assawoman Pond in Sussex County); North Carolina (Starretts
Meadow and Lyman Road in Onslow County); and Georgia (Leslie Pond in
Sumter County). A ninth location, in Calhoun County, Georgia, is
considered historical.

Summary of Status Review

The plant that the Service has been referring to as either P.
hirstii or D. hirstii has always had a complex taxonomic history, and
has undergone several changes to its scientific name as understanding
about its distribution and morphology has evolved. The Flora of North
America (FNA) is one source of information available to the Service and
is considered the taxonomic authority for plants in North America
because it is a comprehensive, systematic taxonomic account of the
plants of North America. While several authors have published regional
flora and descriptions that recognize Panicum hirstii/Dichanthelium
hirstii as a separate entity, few have published taxonomic treatments.
The last taxonomic treatment was the 2003 FNA, which is a complete
taxonomic treatment of the Dichanthelium genus and the species therein,
that explicitly relegates P. hirstii/D. hirstii to a synonym of D.
dichotomum ssp. roanokense (Ashe). This indicates that the plant the
Service had considered a candidate species is not a valid taxon and is
a component of a larger, more widespread species that appears to grow
on the coastal plain from Delaware to southeastern Texas and in the
West Indies. Although the Integrated Taxonomic Information System
(ITIS; https://www.itis.gov/) reports that Dichanthelium hirstii is an
accepted species and the Service often relies on ITIS as a reliable
database source of taxonomic information, in this instance ITIS is
incorrect. Given this closer review of the taxonomic history of P.
hirstii/D. hirstii, the Service recognizes that we overlooked the
significance of the synonymy information, and in retrospect should not
have included P. hirstii or D. hirstii as a candidate species. While
the 2015 published and draft documents of McAvoy et al. and Weakley,
respectively, and the ITIS database information are more recent than
the 2003 FNA's published treatment, those documents and database do not
individually or collectively represent a more comprehensive systematic
analysis of the plant's taxonomic status because they are not full
taxonomic treatments of Panicum and Dichanthelium. Therefore, the
Service considers the FNA's 2003 treatment of Panicum and Dichanthelium
as representing the best available scientific and commercial
information regarding the plant's taxonomic status. The FNA's treatment
indicates that neither P. hirstii nor D. hirstii is considered a
species, subspecies, or variety. Therefore, the best available
scientific and commercial information indicates that P. hirstii/D.
hirstii does not meet the Act's definition of a species.

Finding

Based on the best available scientific and commercial information,
we find that Dichanthelium hirstii does not meet the Act's definition
of ``species'' and is, therefore, not a listable entity under the Act.
Dichanthelium hirstii was subsumed into D. dichotomum ssp. roanokense
(Ashe), which ``grows on the coastal plain from Delaware to
southeastern Texas and in the West Indies.'' As a result, we are
removing Dichanthelium hirstii from the candidate list.
As a result of the Service's 2011 multidistrict litigation
settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth
Guardians, the Service is required to submit a proposed listing rule or
a not-warranted 12-month finding to the Federal Register by September
30, 2016 (In re: Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation,
No. 10-377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)), for all
251 species that were included as candidate species in the Service's
November 10, 2010, CNOR. This document satisfies the requirements of
that settlement agreement for the Hirst Brothers' panic grass, and
constitutes the Service's 12-month finding on the May 4, 2004, petition
to list the Hirst Brothers' panic grass as an endangered or threatened
species. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding, including
a complete review of the taxonomic history, can be found in the Hirst
Brothers' panic grass's species-specific assessment form and other
supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).

[[Page 69433]]

Two Kentucky Cave Beetles (Louisville Cave Beetle (Pseudanophthalmus
troglodytes) and Tatum Cave Beetle (Pseudanophthalmus parvus)

Previous Federal Actions

The Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave beetle were added to the
Federal list of candidate species in the November 15, 1994, CNOR (59 FR
58982) as Category 2 species. Category 2 candidate species were
identified as those taxa for which the Service possessed information
indicating proposing to list the taxa was possibly appropriate, but for
which conclusive data on biological vulnerability and threats
sufficient to support a proposed listing rule was lacking. The February
28, 1996, CNOR (61 FR 7596) discontinued recognition of categories, so
both species were no longer considered candidate species and were
therefore removed from the candidate list.
In the October 30, 2001, CNOR, the Service re-evaluated both cave
beetle species, and placed them back on the candidate list through the
Service's own internal process with an LPN of 5 (66 FR 54808). The
Service received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity
and others, dated May 11, 2004, to list eight cave beetles, including
the Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave beetle, as endangered or
threatened species. In the May 11, 2005, CNOR (70 FR 24870), the
Service determined that listing the Louisville cave beetle and Tatum
Cave beetle was warranted but precluded by higher priority listing
decisions. Further, we have included both species addressed in this
finding in every CNOR since 2001 (see October 30, 2001 (66 FR 54808);
June 13, 2002 (67 FR 40657); May 4, 2004 (69 FR 24876); May 11, 2005
(70 FR 24870); September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53756), December 6, 2007 (72
FR 69034), December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75176), November 9, 2009 (74 FR
57804), November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222), October 26, 2011 (76 FR
66370), November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994), November 22, 2013 (78 FR
70104), December 5, 2014 (79 FR 72450), and December 24, 2015 (80 FR
80584)).

Background

These two species are small (about 4 mm (0.16 in) in length),
predatory cave beetles that occupy moist habitats containing organic
matter transported from sources outside the cave environment. Members
of the Pseudanophthalmus genus vary in rarity from fairly widespread
species that are found in many caves to species that are extremely rare
and commonly restricted to one or only a few cave habitats. The
Louisville cave beetle is restricted to four caves in Jefferson County,
Kentucky, while the Tatum Cave beetle is known from one cave (Tatum
Cave) in Marion County, Kentucky.

Summary of Status Review

When the Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave beetle were
identified as candidates for protection under the Act in the October
30, 2001, CNOR (66 FR 54808), the Service considered both species to be
vulnerable to toxic chemical spills, discharges of large amounts of
polluted water, closure or alterations of cave entrances, and the
disruption of cave energy processes by highway construction and
industrial, residential, and commercial development. Our general
perception was that both species were vulnerable to these habitat
stressors, and we suspected that these stressors were significant and
the species' overall population trends were likely decreasing. We also
noted the lack of State or Federal regulations to ameliorate those
threats. In the May 11, 2005, CNOR (70 FR 24870), we noted both
species' limited distribution and how that would increase their
vulnerability to isolated events that would have only a minimal effect
on more wide-ranging members of the genus Pseudanophthalmus. Both
species were assigned an LPN of 5.
Louisville Cave Beetle
Over the last 2 years, field surveys for the Louisville cave beetle
have provided new information on the species' distribution and
stressors. Based on this new information, we have re-examined the
species' status and re-evaluated the magnitude and imminence of its
threats. Lewis and Lewis confirmed the continued presence of P.
troglodytes in Eleven Jones Cave (a period of 20 years) and observed
the species in three new caves (Sauerkraut Cave, Cave Hill Cave, and
Cave Creek Cave), demonstrating that the species is more abundant and
widespread than previously believed. The species was difficult to find
in each of these caves (one to four individuals observed), but this is
not unusual for the genus Pseudanophthalmus, which is often difficult
to find and is frequently observed in low numbers. Population estimates
or discernable trends for these populations have not been possible due
to the low number of individuals observed and the difficulty in finding
specimens during repeat visits. We acknowledge that caves within the
species' range likely continue to be affected by many of the same
stressors identified by previous investigators: reduced energy inputs,
sedimentation, pollution, and human visitation. However, we have no
evidence that these stressors are operative threats that are adversely
affecting P. troglodytes at a population level.
Tatum Cave Beetle
With respect to the Tatum Cave beetle, we have no evidence
suggesting that the species is still extant in Tatum Cave. The species
was relatively abundant (20 individuals) in Tatum Cave when first
observed by C. H. Krekeler in 1957, but the species appeared to be less
common in 1965, when T. C. Barr observed only two individuals. Since
1965, extensive surveys of Tatum Cave have been completed on eight
separate occasions, using search techniques similar to those used by C.
H. Krekeler and T. C. Barr (i.e., methodical visual searches of all
available habitats). Three of these survey efforts also involved the
use of baited pitfall traps (small cups buried in the substrate and
baited with limburger cheese) placed in several locations within Tatum
Cave for a period of one week. Despite all of these searches, no Tatum
Cave beetles have been observed in Tatum Cave since the last
observation by Barr in 1965 (a period of 51 years).
The Tatum Cave beetle is small in size and may be more difficult to
locate than some cave organisms; however, both Krekeler and Barr were
able to find the species using methodical, visual searches of suitable
habitats in Tatum Cave. Subsequent researchers have used identical
search methods on eight separate occasions in the exact same habitats
within Tatum Cave, but no Tatum Cave beetles have been observed.
Therefore, based on our review of the best available scientific and
commercial information, the Service believes the Tatum Cave beetle to
be extinct. We acknowledge that it is difficult, if not impossible, to
verify a species' extinction. There is considerable uncertainty about
the actual status of the species, and we acknowledge that, as suggested
by Lewis and Lewis, there is some chance that the species remains
extant but occurs in low numbers and is simply undetectable using
traditional search methods. However, considering the best available
scientific and commercial information, we believe that it is reasonable
to conclude that the species is extinct. The Service encourages
continued surveys for the Tatum Cave beetle in Tatum Cave, as time and
funding allow. If the species is subsequently found to be extant, we
can reevaluate its legal status under the Act in the future.

[[Page 69434]]

Finding

Louisville Cave Beetle
Based our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the Act's five threat factors and our review
of the species' status, we conclude that the Louisville cave beetle is
not subject to the degree of threats sufficient to indicate that it is
in danger of extinction (an endangered species), or likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future (a threatened species),
throughout all of its range.
We evaluated the current range of the Louisville cave beetle to
determine if there is any apparent geographic concentration of
potential threats for this species. It has a relatively small range
that is limited to four caves. We examined potential stressors
including human visitation and disturbance, commercial and residential
development, sources of water quality impairment, and small population
size. We found no concentration of stressors that suggests that the
species may be in danger of extinction in any portion of its range.
Therefore, we find that listing the Louisville cave beetle as an
endangered species or a threatened species under the Act throughout all
or a significant portion of its range is not warranted at this time,
and consequently we are removing it from candidate status.
Tatum Cave Beetle
A review of the best available scientific and commercial
information, leads us to believe that the Tatum Cave beetle is extinct,
and, as such, it is not eligible for listing as an endangered species
or a threatened species under the Act. Therefore, we did not further
evaluate whether the Tatum Cave beetle is in danger of extinction
throughout its range (an endangered species), likely to become in
danger of extinction throughout its range in the foreseeable future (a
threatened species), or whether the species is an endangered or
threatened species in a significant portion of its range.
Therefore, we find that listing the Louisville cave beetle and
Tatum Cave beetle as endangered or threatened species under the Act
throughout all or a significant portion of their respective ranges is
not warranted at this time, and consequently we are removing both
species from candidate status.
As a result of the Service's 2011 multidistrict litigation
settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth
Guardians, the Service is required to submit a proposed listing rule or
a not-warranted 12-month finding to the Federal Register by September
30, 2016 (In re: Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation,
No. 10-377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)), for all
251 species that were included as candidate species in the Service's
November 10, 2010, CNOR. This document satisfies the requirements of
that settlement agreement for the Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave
beetle, and constitutes the Service's 12-month finding on the May 11,
2004, petition to list the Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave
beetles as endangered or threatened species under the Act. A detailed
discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Louisville
cave beetle's and Tatum Cave beetle's species-specific assessment form
and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).

Relict Leopard Frog (Lithobates onca)

Previous Federal Actions

On May 9, 2002, the Service received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity and Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA)
seeking to list the relict leopard frog and designate critical habitat,
under the authority of the Act. The petition identified information
regarding the species' ecology, historical and current distribution,
present status, and actual and potential causes of decline.
Prior to receipt of the May 2002 petition, the Service was involved
in coordinated conservation efforts for the relict leopard frog among
multiple partners and was aware of the species' status. On June 13,
2002, the Service's CNOR determined the species (as Rana onca)
warranted listing but that listing was precluded by higher priorities;
therefore, it became a candidate species with an LPN of 5 (67 FR
40657).
In 2006, the species' LPN was lowered to 11, and remained at that
LPN through the 2010 CNOR (see September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53756),
December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034), December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75176),
November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), and November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222)).
The lower priority ranking resulted from the development of the 2005
Relict Leopard Frog Conservation Agreement and Strategy (Conservation
Agreement) and implementation of conservation actions by the relict
leopard frog Conservation Team (Conservation Team), which led to an
overall reduction in most threats and an overall improvement in the
species' status. On October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), we changed the
species' LPN to 8, due in part to the discovery of chytrid fungus
(Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd)) in relict leopard frogs in 2010,
and we maintained an LPN of 8 for the species through the 2015 CNOR
(see November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994), November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104),
December 5, 2014 (79 FR 72450), and December 24, 2015 (80 FR 80584)).
In 2010, we recognized the scientific name of the relict leopard frog
as Lithobates onca (see November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222)).

Background

Relict leopard frogs are endemic to the Colorado, Virgin, Santa
Clara, and Muddy Rivers and associated springs in Nevada, Arizona, and
Utah. Relict leopard frogs appear to require habitat heterogeneity
(consisting of diverse habitat types) in the aquatic and terrestrial
environments. Relict leopard frogs historically occupied a variety of
habitats including springs, streams, and wetlands characterized by
clean, clear water with various depths, and cover such as submerged,
emergent, and perimeter vegetation. Nonnative predators such as
Louisiana red swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarki), American bullfrogs
(Lithobates catesbeiana), and nonnative fish are associated with
extirpation of relict leopard frogs.
The relict leopard frog currently occurs at 8 natural sites--three
in the Northshore Springs Complex (along the base of the Muddy
Mountains near the Overton Arm area of Lake Mead) and five in the Black
Canyon (below Lake Mead). Natural sites are those sites that support
wild populations of relict leopard frogs that were not established
through translocation effort.
The Northshore Springs Complex and Black Canyon populations
represent distinct relict leopard frog metapopulations, wherein each
metapopulation consists of smaller, spatially separated populations
that occasionally interact through the movement of individuals between
them, but do not interact with the other metapopuation. Within the
Northshore Springs Complex, dispersal of relict leopard frogs may be
possible between Blue Point and Rogers Springs. Migration and dispersal
among sites also appears likely in Black Canyon but not between the two
metapopulations.
In addition to natural sites, relict leopard frogs were introduced
to 15 sites, 11 of which are extant. Introduction sites are those
estimated by deliberately translocating relict leopard frogs to
suitable habitat within the assumed historical range. All extant
natural and introduction sites occur on lands managed by the National
Park Service (NPS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of
Reclamation (BR), and the Service. There is low genetic variation
within

[[Page 69435]]

the relict leopard frog, which may indicate a history of bottlenecking
or small effective population size.

Summary of Status Review

Conservation Actions Implemented
The Conservation Team was established in March 2001, and has since
met at least twice each year for the past 15 years to establish and
carry forward the conservation and monitoring program for the relict
leopard frog. The Conservation Team has included Federal, State, and
local representatives from the Service, NPS, BLM, BR, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Nevada Department of Wildlife, the Arizona Game
and Fish Department, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Clark
County (Nevada), the Southern Nevada Water District (including the Las
Vegas Springs Preserve), the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, and the
University of Nevada-Reno. The primary objective of the Conservation
Team was to develop and implement the 2005 Conservation Agreement. Much
conservation occurred prior to finalization of the Conservation
Agreement, and the Conservation Team developed the first annual work
plan in 2003. Conservation actions continue to be implemented by
partners through annual work plans. Revision of the Conservation
Agreement is in development with an anticipated completion date of late
2016. Part of the management effort the Conservation Team undertakes to
increase population sizes and expand the distribution of the species is
to collect portions of relict leopard frog egg masses from natural
sites, and then captive-rear and translocate them to appropriate sites
as late-stage tadpoles and juvenile frogs. The Conservation Team may
augment any population, natural or introduction, as determined
necessary to conserve the species.
The main relict leopard frog conservation actions, both those
completed and ongoing into the foreseeable future, are:
Remove or substantially minimize threats to extant
populations and occupied habitats.
Enhance existing habitat and/or create new habitats where
feasible.
Establish additional populations of relict leopard frogs
in existing or created habitats.
Manage relict leopard frogs and their habitats to ensure
persistence in diverse aquatic ecosystems, and facilitate processes
that promote self-sustaining populations.
Monitor relict leopard frog populations.
Investigate the conservation biology of the relict leopard
frog, and use the results of such investigations to better meet the
overall conservation goal and objectives.
Current Analysis of Stressors Impacting the Relict Leopard Frog
In completing our status review for the relict leopard frog, we
reviewed the best available scientific and commercial information, and
compiled this information in the SSA Report for the relict leopard
frog. We evaluated the potential threats (identified in the SSA Report
as ``stressors'' or ``potential stressors,'' and consistent with the
Act's five threat factors identified in the SSA Report) that may be
operative upon the relict leopard frog currently or in the future.
As required by the Act, we considered the five threat factors in
assessing whether the relict leopard frog is endangered or threatened
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We examined the
best scientific and commercial information available regarding the
past, present, and future stressors faced by the relict leopard frog.
We reviewed the information available in our files and other available
published and unpublished information, and we consulted with recognized
relict leopard frog species and habitat experts and other Federal,
State, and tribal agencies. Listing under the Act is warranted if,
based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information, we find that the stressors to the relict leopard frog are
so severe or broad in scope as to indicate that the species is in
danger of extinction (endangered), or likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future (threatened), throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
In the SSA Report we evaluated each of the potential stressors for
the relict leopard frog, and we determined that the following factors
have impacted, or may impact individuals, specific sites, or portions
of suitable habitat in the future: (1) Alteration of natural spring and
groundwater systems and reduced habitat connectivity; (2) overgrowth of
emergent vegetation and nonnative or invasive plants; (3) excessive
disturbance due to feral horses, burro, and livestock use; (4) disease;
(5) nonnative fish predation; (6) small population size; and (7)
climate change, flash flood events, and wildfire. Although these
stressors may continue to affect the relict leopard frog, they are not
causing a population-level risk to the species now nor are they
expected to do so into the foreseeable future. Overutilization and
crayfish and bullfrog predation were evaluated in the SSA Report for
the relict leopard frog but were found to result in no or low impacts,
respectively, across the species' range. Thus, we do not discuss
overutilization or predation further in this document. We have
summarized the threats analysis from the SSA Report below. A complete
description of those stressors and threats, and how they affect the
viability of the species, is included in the SSA Report.
The effects of historical alteration of natural riverine and
groundwater systems and reduced habitat connectivity to the relict
leopard frog at the individual or site-specific level are ongoing and
may continue into the future. However, there have not been any recent
alterations of natural riverine and groundwater systems and reduced
habitat connectivity on relict leopard frog populations and their
habitat. Historical modification to the Colorado and Virgin rivers
effectively isolated the two metapopulations of relict leopard frog,
and they will most likely never be reconnected. Although the two relict
leopard frog metapopulations and most relict leopard frog introduction
sites are not connected, ongoing management actions by the Conservation
Team minimizes population isolation through captive rearing and
translocation of frogs to targeted sites. We conclude that there are
effects to relict leopard frog populations and perhaps the species from
historical alteration of natural riverine and ground water systems and
reduced habitat connectivity, but these the effects are low in severity
and do not threaten the persistence of the species.
Some sites can have overgrowth of vegetation that can have adverse
effects on relict leopard frogs that reduce the extent of surface water
and habitat for breeding and feeding. These effects from overgrowth of
vegetation are low in severity because they are reduced by storms that
remove vegetation through scouring, by manual removal, and by grazing.
Burro and cattle grazing have both degraded and improved aquatic
habitat at some sites. Controlled, low-level grazing typically provides
disturbance that benefits frog habitat by removing excess vegetation.
If grazing increases to heavy use, habitat conditions may become
degraded. Similarly, burro and cattle grazing are not having a
population-level effect to the relict leopard frog now or into the
future.
Disease and nonnative fish predation have been evaluated and
monitored by the Conservation Team. The presence of the chytrid fungus,
Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) in relict leopard

[[Page 69436]]

frogs at Lower Blue Point Spring warrants further evaluation of its
impact to the species. Although there is evidence that Bd is present in
one population, there is no indication any frogs have been adversely
affected by disease. The Conservation Team will continue to monitor
populations for effects of disease. Any potential effects at the
individual or site- specific level resulting from nonnative fish in the
Northshore Springs Complex and Corn Creek are low in severity. Disease
and predation are not having a population-level effect on the relict
leopard frog now, and such effects are not expected to occur in the
future. The Conservation Team is taking action to improve the
conditions for disease and predation through conservation measures (see
``Conservation Actions Implemented,'' above).
The small population size is the focus of conservation efforts,
including population augmentation and establishing introduction sites.
Low numbers of individual frogs at a given site may increase risk and
vulnerability of the species to other stressors. Although small
population size can affect the species as a whole by reducing genetic
diversity and possibly reducing the species' ability to adapt to
changing environmental conditions, the best available scientific and
commercial information shows that this species is capable of persisting
into the foreseeable future with current population sizes and under
existing levels of management by the Conservation Team. The potential
for effects of small population size has been, and will continue to be,
minimized by actions taken by the Conservation Team, including habitat
management and a captive-rearing program that produces frogs from eggs
collected in the wild. These frogs are used to establish new sites and
augment both natural and introduction sites, as appropriate.
Conservation Team actions continue to minimize the potential for
effects of small population size, and small population effects are not
expected to affect the persistence of frogs at any site or population.
Climate change effects may result in reduced spring flow, habitat
loss, increased severity of storms, flooding, and increased prevalence
of wildfire that could adversely affect relict leopard frog
populations. Although negative effects from climate change could occur
to individuals or specific sites, species-level effects would not reach
a level now or into the foreseeable future to the extent that rangewide
numbers and distribution would be substantially reduced. The relict
leopard frog Conservation Team has been addressing these stressors in
the past, and ongoing efforts are planned to continue into the future.
We considered relevant Federal, State, and tribal laws and
regulations when evaluating the status of the species. Regulatory
mechanisms, if they exist, may preclude the need for listing if we
determine that such mechanisms adequately reduce the stressors to the
species such that listing is not warranted. The effects of applicable
existing regulatory mechanisms are considered in our evaluation of the
stressors acting on the species. Below, we briefly review those
regulatory mechanisms aimed to help reduce stressors to the relict
leopard frog and its habitat.
The relict leopard frog is protected by the State laws of Nevada,
Arizona, and Utah. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 533.367 states that
before a person may obtain a right to the use of water from a spring or
water that has seeped to the surface of the ground, that person must
ensure that wildlife which customarily uses the water will have access
to it. However, the State Engineer, who oversees all water rights, may
waive this requirement for a domestic use of water (NRS 533.367).
Authority provided by NRS 503.587 allows the Wildlife Commission to use
its authority to manage land to carry out a program for conserving,
protecting, restoring and propagating selected species of native fish,
wildlife, and other vertebrates and their habitat, which are threatened
with extinction and destruction. Also, habitat protection for the
relict leopard frog is provided by Nevada Administrative Code 504.520,
which prohibits alteration of a wetland or stream to the detriment of
wildlife without a permit.
The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) classified the relict
leopard frog as a Tier 1A Species of Greatest Conservation. Commission
Order 41 of the AGFD regulations prohibits collection or hunting of
relict leopard frogs, except under the authority of a special permit.
Protection under Commission Order 41 provides protection to individual
frogs, but not to habitat.
The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources classified the relict
leopard frog as a Sensitive Species in Utah. State of Utah Rule 657-3
prohibits the collection, importation, and possession of relict leopard
frogs without a certificate of registration but provides no protection
of habitat.
All populations of the relict leopard frog occur on Federal land
(Service, BLM, NPS, BR). Existing Federal laws, such as the NPS Organic
Act of 1916, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), National Environmental
Policy Act of 1976 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-57), have
facilitated conservation efforts that have reduced the threats to the
relict leopard frog. NPS and BLM manage all extant relict leopard frog
sites except Pupfish Refuge and Corn Creek. The Pupfish Refuge occurs
in a protected area of Hoover Dam and Corn Creek, and is an
experimental population on a Service National Wildlife Refuge. NPS
provides the captive-rearing facility, which is important for
establishing and augmenting relict leopard frog populations.
BLM uses their regulatory mechanisms and authority to provide sites
to establish new populations of relict leopard frog, a BLM sensitive
species, and complete habitat improvements to benefit the species.
BLM's manual (6840--Special Status Species Management) establishes
policy for management of BLM sensitive species under the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). BLM
sensitive species will be managed consistent with species and habitat
management objectives in land use and implementation plans to promote
their conservation and to minimize the likelihood and need for listing
under the Act. BLM is a member of the Conservation Team and implements
or authorizes conservation actions for the conservation of the relict
leopard frog.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
provides the mission for the Service's wildlife refuges to administer a
national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management,
and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant
resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans. Each refuge is required to fulfill this
mission and provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants,
and their habitats within the Refuge System. Within the range of the
relict leopard frog, the Desert National Wildlife Refuge would
complement efforts of States and other Federal agencies to conserve
fish and wildlife and their habitats, and to assist in the maintenance
of adequate water quantity and water quality to fulfill the mission.
Prior to release of relict leopard frogs at Corn Creek, the Refuge
eradicated bullfrogs and substantially improved conditions that created
habitat for the relict leopard frog. The Refuge manager provides access
to biologists to perform releases of frogs and monitor the population.
The Refuge continues to

[[Page 69437]]

control crayfish, maintain habitat conditions by removing excess
vegetation, and inform the public about the species.
NPS and BLM authorities and regulatory mechanisms have successfully
provided or facilitated conservation of the species (see ``Conservation
Actions Implemented,'' above). NPS, BLM, BR, and the Service are
signatories on the Conservation Agreement and actively involved in all
actions of the Conservation Team. Each agency coordinates development
of annual work plans and utilizes their authority to implement
conservation actions that benefit the species. Federal authorities and
regulatory mechanisms have successfully provided or facilitated
conservation of the species.
We did not find any stressors examined under the Act's threat
factors A, B, C, and E to rise to the level of a threat that would
cause us to determine listing of the relict leopard frog is warranted.
Based on our review of the stressors combined with the beneficial
effects that the various conservation efforts and regulatory mechanisms
provided to the species, we find that the existing regulatory
mechanisms (Factor D) are adequate to address the stressors currently
impacting the relict leopard frog and its habitat.
Regarding cumulative effects, there are potential stressors that
may act together to affect relict leopard frogs at certain sites.
Overgrowth of vegetation, nonnative plants and predators, and disease
acting on small populations may adversely affect certain populations
concurrently. Flash floods or wildfire may adversely affect a site at
the same time as nonnative plants and predators. Reduced habitat
connectivity adversely affects sites with small populations at the same
time as overgrowth of vegetation, and nonnative plants and predators.
Climate change may affect a site at the same time as grazing, wildfire,
and flash floods. However, after evaluating the cumulative effects, we
conclude that the magnitude of cumulative effects to the relict leopard
frog is low to moderate. Most stressors adversely affect the relict
leopard frog in a single geographic area due to the isolated
distribution of most sites. Although individuals may be affected by
cumulative effects in a single geographic area, there would not be
population level effects to the species.
Multiple stressors on relict leopard frogs may act synergistically,
exacerbating effects greater than what may be observed by individual
stressors. The effects of climate change may increase the number and
frequency of wildfires and flash flood events. The presence of
nonnative plants can make the effects of excess vegetation worse.
Overgrowth of vegetation may reduce habitat for breeding, potentially
making small populations smaller. Disease and nonnative predators such
as bullfrogs, crayfish, and fishes may also exacerbate the effects of
small populations by removing frogs. We determined that synergistic
effects may occur, although they are expected to be low in magnitude.
Most individual stressors adversely affect the relict leopard frog in a
single geographic area, due to the isolated distribution of most sites.
Although individuals may be affected by synergistic effects in a single
geographic area, there would not likely be population-level effects to
the species.
To minimize or mitigate effects from stressors affecting the relict
leopard frog, the Conservation Team will continue monitoring
populations and reintroducing frogs to sites should they become greatly
reduced in numbers or extirpated due to the effects of one or more
stressors.

Finding

Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the Act's five threat factors, we find that
the stressors acting on the species and its habitat, either singly or
in combination, are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or
magnitude to indicate that the relict leopard frog is in danger of
extinction (an endangered species) throughout all of its range, or
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (a threatened
species) throughout all of its range.
Populations of relict leopard frogs are improving due to past
conservation actions and current efforts to re-establish and increase
naturally-occurring and reintroduced populations. Current and ongoing
habitat management, establishment of new sites, and restoration
activities have made substantial progress since their inception and are
continuing into the future. We have determined that the number of frogs
and habitat conditions at individual sites change from year to year and
may vary widely, but the rangewide status of the species is stable or
increasing.
After determining the species is not endangered or threatened
throughout all of its range, we then conducted an analysis to determine
if it was endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of
the species' range. To do this, we evaluated whether there was any
portion of the species' range where threats were concentrated such that
the species in that portion would be endangered or threatened, and that
losing that portion of the range would cause the remainder of the
species to be endangered or threatened. Once we determined that there
was no geographic concentration of threats that would cause any portion
of the species' range to be at greater risk of extinction, then we
could conclude that no portion warranted further consideration.
Therefore, we find that listing the relict leopard frog as an
endangered or a threatened species throughout all of or a significant
portion of its range under the Act is not warranted at this time, and,
consequently, we are removing it from candidate status.
As a result of the Service's 2011 multidistrict litigation
settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth
Guardians, the Service is required to submit a proposed listing rule or
a not-warranted 12-month finding to the Federal Register by September
30, 2016 (In re: Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation,
No. 10-377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)), for all
251 species that were included as candidate species in the Service's
November 10, 2010, CNOR. This document satisfies the requirements of
that settlement agreement for the relict leopard frog, and constitutes
the Service's 12-month finding on the May 8, 2002, petition to list the
relict leopard frog as an endangered or threatened species. A detailed
discussion of the basis for this finding, including the many effective
conservation measures completed by the Conservation Team, can be found
in the relict leopard frog's species-specific assessment form, SSA
Report, and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).

Sicklefin Redhorse Sucker (Moxostoma sp.)

Previous Federal Actions

The sicklefin redhorse sucker was originally made a candidate
species in the May 11, 2005, CNOR (70 FR 24870), and it was included in
the subsequent CNORs through 2015 (see September 12, 2006 (71 FR
53756), December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034), December 10, 2008 (73 FR
75176), November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), November 10, 2010 (75 FR
69222), October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), November 21, 2012 (77 FR
69994), November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), and December 5, 2014 (79 FR
72450)).
On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity, requesting that the Service list 404 aquatic
species as endangered or threatened species under the Act,

[[Page 69438]]

including the sicklefin redhorse sucker. The petition included
supporting information regarding the species' taxonomy and ecology,
historical and current distribution, present status, and actual and
potential causes of decline. In a partial 90-day finding on the
petition to list 404 species, published on September 27, 2011 (76 FR
59836), the Service reaffirmed the existing candidate status of the
sicklefin redhorse sucker.

Background

The sicklefin redhorse sucker (Moxostoma sp.), a freshwater fish
species, can grow to a length of approximately 650 mm (roughly 25.6
in). It has an elongate, somewhat compressed body and a highly falcate
(sickle shaped) dorsal fin (back fin). Its body is olive-colored, with
a coppery or brassy sheen; its lower fins (pectoral, pelvic, and anal
fins) are primarily dusky to dark, often tinted yellow or orange and
pale edged; the caudal fin (tail fin) is mostly red; and its dorsal fin
is olive in color, sometimes partly red.
Although the sicklefin redhorse sucker is now known to have been
collected in 1937 (based upon preserved specimens collected at the
then-unimpounded mouth of Forney Creek near its confluence with the
Tuckasegee River), it was not recognized as a potentially distinct
species until 1992, when Dr. Robert Jenkins obtained and examined two
specimens that had been collected in 1981 and 1982 from the Little
Tennessee River by Dr. Edward Menhinick (University of North Carolina
at Charlotte, Charlotte, North Carolina). Based on the characteristics
of the specimens' lower lips, dorsal fins, and pharyngeal teeth,
Jenkins recognized the species as possibly a previously unidentified
species or a hybrid of the smallmouth redhorse (M. breviceps) and the
river redhorse (M. carinatum). Subsequent detailed morphological and
behavioral studies and genetic studies have concluded that the
sicklefin redhorse sucker is, in fact, a distinct species. The Service
has reviewed the available taxonomic literature, and is not aware of
any challenges to the validity of this conclusion.
The species is currently known to occupy cool to warm, moderate-
gradient creeks and rivers and, during at least parts of its early
life, large reservoirs. In streams, adults of the species are generally
associated with moderate to fast currents, in riffles, runs, and well-
flowing pools, while juveniles show a preference for moderate to deep
pools with slow currents and large boulder crevice cover. Adults feed
and spawn over gravel, cobble, boulder, and bedrock substrates with no,
or very little, silt overlay.
Past and recent collection records of the sicklefin redhorse
sucker, together with what is known about the habitat utilization of
the species, indicate that the sicklefin redhorse sucker once inhabited
the majority, if not all, of the rivers and large creeks in the Blue
Ridge portion of the Hiwassee and Little Tennessee River systems in
North Carolina, Tennessee, and Georgia. Currently, there are only two
metapopulations of the sicklefin redhorse sucker known to remain: One
in the Hiwassee River system and one in the Little Tennessee River
system. Estimated occupied stream habitat in the Hiwassee river systems
totals about 53.0 river miles (rm). However, use of various streams/
stream reaches within this total appears to be seasonal. Available
information indicates that the sicklefin redhorse sucker uses Brasstown
Creek, Hanging Dog Creek, Beaverdam Creek, Nottely River, and the mid
and upper reaches of the Valley River, primarily for spawning. No
spawning or courting behavior was observed within the mainstem of the
Hiwassee River; the mid and lower Hiwassee River or lower reaches of
the spawning tributaries primarily from the post-spawning period
through the fall and early winter; or the lower un-impounded reaches of
the Hiwassee River, and to a lesser extent, the lower Valley River,
during the winter months.
The Little Tennessee River system metapopulation of the sicklefin
redhorse sucker includes a total of approximately 59.15 rm of creek and
river reaches plus near-shore areas of Fontana Reservoir, including:
(1) The main stem of the Little Tennessee River in Macon and Swain
Counties, North Carolina, between the Franklin Dam and Fontana
Reservoir (approximately 23.2 rm), and its tributaries, Burningtown
Creek (approximately 5.5 rm) and Iotla Creek (approximately 0.1 rm) in
Macon County, North Carolina; (2) the main stem of the Tuckasegee River
in Swain and Jackson Counties, North Carolina, from approximately rm
27.5, downstream to Fontana Reservoir (approximately 27.5 rm), and its
tributaries, Forney Creek (mouth of the creek), Deep Creek
(approximately 2.35 rm), and the Oconaluftee River below the Bryson Dam
(also sometimes referred to as the Ela Dam) (approximately 0.5 rm), in
Swain County, North Carolina; and (3) sub-adults in the near shore
portions of Fontana Reservoir, Swain County, North Carolina.

Summary of Status Review

In completing our status review, we reviewed the best available
scientific and commercial information and compiled this information in
the SSA Report for the sicklefin redhorse sucker. For our finding, we
evaluated potential stressors related to the sicklefin redhorse sucker
and its habitat. The stressors we analyzed were: (1) Hydroelectric
operations, inadequate erosion/sedimentation control during
agricultural, timbering, and construction activities; (2) runoff and
discharge of organic and inorganic pollutants from industrial,
municipal, agricultural, and other point and nonpoint sources; (3)
habitat alterations associated with channelization and instream
dredging/mining activities; (4) predation and habitat suitability
impacts by nonnative species; (5) fragmentation and isolation of
surviving populations; and (6) other natural and human-related factors
that adversely modify the aquatic environment. Associated with the
status review for this 12-month finding, we conducted an analysis of
the Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA) for the Sicklefin Redhorse
Sucker under the Service's Policy for Evaluation of Conservation
Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE policy), published in the
Federal Register on March 28, 2003 (68 FR 15100), and found that the
CCA does meet the PECE policy criteria for certainty of implementation
and certainty of effectiveness.
A number of factors likely contributed to a reduction in the
species' historical range and may have affected population dynamics
within the existing occupied stream reaches. The construction of
hydroelectric dams fragmented populations, confining spawning activity
only to river reaches accessible from the two reservoirs where this
species is thought to reside during the juvenile stage of its life
cycle. The sicklefin redhorse sucker also appears to be absent from
several reaches of unimpounded river habitat where it was likely
extirpated by degradation of the habitat or by cold water from
hypolimnetic (deepwater that remains perpetually cold) discharges or
hydropeaking (releasing frequent, large discharge pulses of water) for
hydropower production. The introduction of blueback herring (Alosa
aestivalis) into the habitat occupied by the sicklefin redhorse sucker
was also considered a potential threat to future population stability
in past candidate assessments.
Upon further review of the information related to the factors

[[Page 69439]]

believed to be affecting the species at present, it appears many of
them were largely historical, were less significant than previously
thought, have been mitigated, or could be managed to alleviate many of
the effects on the species. The sicklefin redhorse sucker likely
experienced substantial range contraction associated with dam
construction, power generation, and historical habitat degradation
early in the 20th century, but the remaining populations appear to have
stabilized within the present conditions and are successfully spawning
and recruiting in four primary river drainages accessible from Hiwassee
and Fontana Reservoirs.
In the future, we expect human population growth and land
development to be primary factors affecting habitat quality in the
range of the sicklefin redhorse sucker. However, compared to historical
land use effects, we expect the effect of these future activities to be
minimized by more stringent State and local land quality regulations,
such as are required by current regulations for land development and
water quality, and a trend of diminishing agriculture in the area.
Improvements in land use practices are likely attributable to the
modern regulatory environment that provides protection to the stream
environment. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C.
661 et seq.), North Carolina Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Clean
Water Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), North Carolina Sediment and
Pollution Control Act of 1973, Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Act of
1975, as well as other regulatory actions, were enacted to control the
effects of land development and pollution on the aquatic environment.
Historical records indicate that the existing populations of the
sicklefin redhorse sucker have persisted through significant
agricultural land disturbance that resulted in considerable
sedimentation of its habitat, indicating that the sicklefin redhorse
sucker is likely able to tolerate moderate land disturbance. Rural
development and the growth of several small towns within the range of
the sicklefin redhorse sucker appear to be the dominant forms of land
use disturbance. Rural development is limited in certain areas due to
large portions of the watershed that are permanently protected by
inclusion in the Nantahala and Chattahoochee National Forests. The
region is currently experiencing a trend of diminishing agricultural
land use, indicating that widespread conversion to farmland is not
likely. Commercial development is likely to be limited by a lack of
large metropolitan areas or interstate highways that would facilitate
rapid growth. The trend of high suspended sediment yield in the range
of the sicklefin redhorse sucker appears to have improved over the last
few decades. Increasing environmental regulation, greater public
awareness, and the actions of governmental and nongovernmental
organizations to improve water quality conditions have resulted in
considerable improvements in suspended sediment rates. Therefore, we
expect existing regulations for land development and water quality to
adequately maintain habitat quality, and we anticipate that the species
is likely to persist into the future even with the expected increase in
development.
The sicklefin redhorse sucker is provided additional protection by
State endangered species regulations and association with other
federally listed species. It is listed as threatened by the State of
North Carolina and endangered by the State of Georgia. Both States
prohibit direct take of the species and the collection of the fish for
scientific purposes without a valid State collecting permit. In the
unimpounded portions of the mainstems of the Little Tennessee River and
Tuckasegee River where the sicklefin redhorse sucker occurs, the
species' habitat is indirectly provided Federal protection through the
Act, where the mainstem portions of both of these rivers are designated
as critical habitat for the endangered Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta
raveneliana) (a mussel). In addition to the Appalachian elktoe, the
portion of the Little Tennessee River where the sicklefin redhorse
sucker occurs also supports populations of the endangered little-wing
pearlymussel (Pegias fabula) and the threatened spotfin chub (Erimonax
monachus) and is also designated as critical habitat for the spotfin
chub.
Substantial public land ownership in the watersheds occupied by the
sicklefin redhorse sucker provides partial protection to the watershed.
Approximately 43 percent of the land adjacent to waterways occupied
this species is owned by State and Federal agencies or by
nongovernmental conservation organizations. On these conserved
properties, land development is prohibited, providing protection to
buffers and potentially improving water quality throughout the
watershed. Most of the land surrounding Hiwassee and Fontana Lakes is
publicly owned, limiting shoreline development and protecting the near
shore habitat used by juvenile sicklefin redhorse suckers. The Eastern
Band of Cherokee Indians has management jurisdiction over a portion of
the lands within both the Hiwassee River and Tuckasegee River
watersheds, and tribal water quality ordinances protect habitat and
water quality. Approximately 65 percent of the occupied area of the
Little Tennessee River is protected from development by inclusion in
the Needmore Game Lands. Along the other three major spawning
tributaries, most of the land is privately held and does not have any
restriction on land development.
When the sicklefin redhorse sucker was elevated to candidate status
in 2005, the blueback herring, an invasive predator species, had been
inadvertently introduced into the Hiwassee Reservoir, a major waterbody
supporting the sicklefin redhorse sucker. At the time, predation of
young sicklefin redhorse sucker by blueback herring was an unassessed
threat. However, a recent study examining the gut contents of blueback
herring in the Valley River and Hiwassee Reservoir failed to find any
sicklefin redhorse suckers among the samples. It appears that the
sicklefin redhorse sucker may naturally avoid predation by blueback
herring by spawning farther upstream than typical foraging habitat for
blueback herring. In the spring of 2016, blueback herring were
collected from Fontana Reservoir, the other reservoir important for
sicklefin redhorse sucker recruitment. Further investigation is
required to determine the degree of impact the presence of blueback
herring in Fontana Reservoir poses to the sicklefin redhorse sucker,
but the distance to spawning sites upstream of Fontana Reservoir is
similar to the distance in the Hiwassee Reservoir, suggesting that
blueback herring will be similarly separated from the hatching
sicklefin redhorse sucker fry during the time when they are most likely
to be present in the reservoir. Collections in the Hiwassee River
system in 2014-2015 produced many young adult/late juvenile sicklefin
redhorse suckers that have clearly recruited since the herring
invasion, even while juvenile walleye and white bass steeply declined
immediately after the invasion, suggesting the blueback herring is not
preventing successful recruitment of sicklefin redhorse suckers.
Therefore, recent observations indicate that blueback herring have not
proven to be a threat to the sicklefin redhorse sucker as once feared.
Many of the stressors that may affect the sicklefin redhorse sucker
in the future can be further minimized by conservation actions carried
out under the recently signed CCA among the Service, North Carolina
Wildlife

[[Page 69440]]

Resources Commission, Duke Energy Carolinas, Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians, Tennessee Valley Authority, and Georgia Department of Natural
Resources. A primary goal of the CCA is to expand the range of this
species upstream of barrier dams to repopulate stream reaches that were
formerly degraded, but currently appear suitable. Expanding the range
of the sicklefin redhorse sucker into the upper sections of these
watersheds will provide a greater variety of available habitat,
allowing the species to more easily adjust to temporary effects of
construction and landscape alteration, and providing more opportunities
to use areas of refuge during periods of adverse conditions, such as
periods of high temperature or increased flow. Accessibility to more
suitable habitat will increase the number of available spawning sites,
increasing the opportunities for successful recruitment, and will
provide alternative spawning areas should some spawning sites become
unsuitable. Successful reintroduction will increase the carrying
capacity of the sicklefin redhorse sucker by providing the species with
additional riverine habitat as well as access to additional reservoirs
to serve as juvenile rearing habitat. The SSA Report for the sicklefin
redhorse sucker noted that threats (i.e., factors affecting the
species) could be exacerbated by climate change or interaction among
the threats. However, the SSA Report's evaluation of all of the threats
facing this species indicates that the existing populations are stable
and are likely to remain stable in most of the plausible future
scenarios. In addition, while populations are currently stable and
likely to remain so, under the CCA's management framework, the parties
will work collaboratively to address threats in a way that reduces the
likelihood that they will negatively affect the future viability of the
species.

Finding

Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the Act's five threat factors, we find that
the stressors acting on the species and its habitat, either singly or
in combination, are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or
magnitude to indicate that the sicklefin redhorse sucker is in danger
of extinction (an endangered species), or likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future (a threatened species), throughout all of
its range. This finding is based on stability of existing populations,
re-evaluation of threats that are likely to affect the populations in
the future, and development of a CCA that ensures the continued
participation by all stakeholders in a focused effort to address and
mitigate potential threats while expanding the range and population
health of the species. Additionally, we evaluated the current range of
the sicklefin redhorse sucker to determine if there is any apparent
geographic concentration of potential threats for the species. The
current range of the species is relatively small and limited to two
river systems in western North Carolina and northwestern Georgia. We
examined potential threats from: (1) Hydroelectric operations,
inadequate erosion/sedimentation control during agricultural,
timbering, and construction activities; (2) runoff and discharge of
organic and inorganic pollutants from industrial, municipal,
agricultural, and other point and nonpoint sources; (3) habitat
alterations associated with channelization and instream dredging/mining
activities; (4) predation and habitat suitability impacts by nonnative
species; (5) fragmentation and isolation of surviving populations; and
(6) other natural and human-related factors that adversely modify the
aquatic environment. We found no portions of the species' range where
potential threats are significantly concentrated or substantially
greater than in other portion of its range so as to suggest that the
species may be in danger of extinction in a portion of its range.
Therefore, we find that factors affecting the sicklefin redhorse sucker
are essentially uniform throughout its range, indicating no portion of
the range warrants further consideration of possible endangered or
threatened status under the Act. Therefore, we find that listing the
sicklefin redhorse sucker as an endangered or a threatened species
under the Act is not warranted throughout all or a significant portion
of its range at this time, and consequently we are removing it from
candidate status.
As a result of the Service's 2011 multidistrict litigation
settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth
Guardians, the Service is required to submit a proposed listing rule or
a not-warranted 12-month finding to the Federal Register by September
30, 2016 (In re: Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation,
No. 10-377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)), for all
251 species that were included as candidate species in the Service's
November 10, 2010, CNOR. This document satisfies the requirements of
that settlement agreement for the sicklefin redhorse sucker, and
constitutes the Service's 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010,
petition to list the sicklefin redhorse sucker as an endangered or
threatened species. A detailed discussion of the basis for this
finding, including the PECE policy analysis of the CCA, can be found in
the sicklefin redhorse sucker's species-specific assessment form, SSA
Report, and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).

Stephan's Riffle Beetle (Heterelmis stephani)

Previous Federal Actions

Stephan's riffle beetle (Heterelmis stephani) was designated as a
Category 2 candidate in the notice published in the Federal Register on
May 22, 1984, at 49 FR 21664. Category 2 candidate species were
identified as those taxa for which the Service possessed information
indicating proposing to list the taxa was possibly appropriate, but for
which conclusive data on biological vulnerability and threats
sufficient to support a proposed listing rule was lacking. The February
28, 1996, CNOR (61 FR 7596) discontinued recognition of categories, so
this species was no longer considered a candidate species. In the June
13, 2002, CNOR (67 FR 40657), Stephan's riffle beetle was designated as
a candidate species as currently defined, with an LPN of 5. On May 11,
2004, we received a petition dated May 4, 2004, from the Center for
Biological Diversity, requesting that 225 plants and animals, including
Stephan's riffle beetle, be listed as endangered species under the Act
and critical habitat be designated. In response to the May 4, 2004,
petition to list Stephan's riffle beetle as an endangered species, we
published a warranted-but-precluded 12-month finding in the Federal
Register on May 11, 2005 (70 FR 24870). Subsequent warranted-but-
precluded 12-month findings were published on September 12, 2006 (71 FR
53756), December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034), December 10, 2008 (73 FR
75176), November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), November 10, 2010 (75 FR
69222), October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), November 21, 2012 (77 FR
69994), November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), December 5, 2014 (79 FR
72450), and December 24, 2015 (80 FR 80584).

Background

Stephan's riffle beetle is one of five known species in the genus
Heterelmis found in the United States. Historically, Stephan's riffle
beetle occurred in Santa Cruz and Pima Counties, Arizona, at two known
locations: Bog Springs Campground and Sylvester Spring in

[[Page 69441]]

Madera Canyon. Stephan's riffle beetle is no longer found at the Bog
Springs Campground location, as the habitat there no longer exists.
Stephan's riffle beetle has not been collected or documented since
1993, despite the Service's surveying for the species at the one
remaining known location, Sylvester Spring, and at numerous other
nearby locations with potential habitat. Based on our review of the
best available scientific and commercial information, we believe that
the Stephan's riffle beetle is extinct.
The preponderance of Stephan's riffle beetle specimens have been
documented in artificial habitat created by a water tank's leaking
pipeline and overflow at the Bog Springs Campground. Only two specimens
have ever been documented from Sylvester Spring, the only relatively
intact spring habitat remaining where the species was known to exist.
Historically, Stephan's riffle beetle may have only occupied Sylvester
and Bog Springs, and populations may have started declining when water
from springs in Madera Canyon was first captured in concrete boxes and
piped to divert water for domestic and recreational water supplies. Up
until 1993, when Stephan's riffle beetle was last detected, the species
appears to have existed only in extremely low numbers within Sylvester
Spring, making it very difficult to detect, in contrast to the
relatively large numbers collected in 1979 at the Bog Springs
Campground site. The species has not been documented as extant since
1993, 23 years ago, when one individual was found at Sylvester Spring
as part of a specific effort to survey for Stephan's riffle beetle in
Madera Canyon.
Beginning in 2012, the Service surveyed Sylvester Spring, the one
remaining known population location for Stephan's riffle beetle, and
seven other locations with potential habitat on multiple occasions. The
most intensive survey efforts occurred at Sylvester Spring and Bog
Springs, the water source for the extirpated Bog Springs Campground
population. Three different survey methods were used in an effort to
find the species, and no Stephan's riffle beetles were found. While
Stephan's riffle beetle is small in size (and therefore difficult to
find), adult beetles, if present, should be detected regardless of the
time of year surveyed based on their life history (multi-year
metamorphosis and relatively long life span). Therefore, based on the
best available scientific and commercial information, the Service
believes Stephan's riffle beetle to be extinct.

Summary of Status Review

The SSA Report for Stephan's riffle beetle is a summary of the
information assembled and reviewed by the Service and incorporates the
best available scientific and commercial information for this species.
Our analysis leads us to believe Stephan's riffle beetle is extinct.
Species extinction is difficult, if not impossible, to prove, and the
Service has no policy specifically defining the level of information
necessary to conclude that a species should be considered extinct. For
any species there is uncertainty in drawing a conclusion of extinction.
For the Stephan's riffle beetle, we have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information available regarding the current
status of the species. The biological information we reviewed and
analyzed as the basis for our findings is documented in the SSA Report.
Our analysis of this information found that there has been no
confirmation of the existence of the Stephan's riffle beetle in more
than 23 years, despite multiple survey efforts since 2012 in known and
potential habitat where other riffle beetles were documented, across
multiple seasons, and using a variety of survey methods. The type
locality consisting of a leaking pipeline to a water storage tank,
where the largest number of Stephan's riffle beetle was collected, no
longer exists. The Service surveyed the only remaining site at which
Stephan's riffle beetle had been documented, Sylvester Spring, on
numerous occasions with different survey methods. Despite these
efforts, we have been unable to confirm the existence of the species.

Finding

Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information leads us to believe that the Stephan's riffle beetle is
extinct, and, as such, it is not eligible for listing as an endangered
or threatened species under the Act. Although the Act does not directly
address the situation of considering a species for listing where the
best available information indicates that the species is likely already
extinct, the purpose of the Act is to prevent species from becoming
extinct. If we believe the species is already extinct, by definition,
the species cannot be in danger of, or likely to become in danger of,
extinction. Therefore, we did not further evaluate whether Stephan's
riffle beetle is in danger of extinction throughout its range (an
endangered species), is likely to become in danger of extinction
throughout its range in the foreseeable future (a threatened species),
or is an endangered or threatened species in a significant portion of
its range. We find that listing Stephan's riffle beetle as an
endangered or a threatened species under the Act is not warranted
throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and consequently
we are removing it from candidate status.
As a result of the Service's 2011 multidistrict litigation
settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth
Guardians, the Service is required to submit a proposed listing rule or
a not-warranted 12-month finding to the Federal Register by September
30, 2016 (In re: Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation,
No. 10-377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)), for all
251 species that were included as candidate species in the Service's
November 10, 2010, CNOR. This document satisfies the requirements of
that settlement agreement for the Stephan's riffle beetle and
constitutes the Service's 12-month finding on the May 4, 2004, petition
to list the Stephan's riffle beetle as an endangered or threatened
species. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be
found in the Stephan's riffle beetle's species-specific assessment
form, SSA Report, and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES,
above).

New Information

We request that you submit any new information concerning the
taxonomy, biology, ecology, status of, or stressors to the Huachuca-
Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog, the Arkansas darter, black
mudalia, Highlands tiger beetle, Dichanthelium (=panicum) hirstii
(Hirst Brothers' panic grass), two Kentucky cave beetles (Louisville
cave beetle and Tatum Cave beetle), relict leopard frog, sicklefin
redhorse sucker, and Stephan's riffle beetle to the appropriate person,
as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, whenever it becomes
available. New information will help us monitor these species and
encourage their conservation. We encourage local agencies and
stakeholders to continue cooperative monitoring and conservation
efforts for these species. If an emergency situation develops for any
of these species, we will act to provide immediate protection.

References Cited

Lists of the references cited in the petition findings are
available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon
request from the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

[[Page 69442]]

Authors

The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Unified Listing Team, Ecological Services Program.

Authority

The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: September 26, 2016.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-24142 Filed 10-5-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.