Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notification of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions, 87246-87272 [2016-28817]

Download as PDF 87246 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2016–0095; FF09E21000 FXES11190900000 167] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notification of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notification of review. AGENCY: In this Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), present an updated list of plant and animal species native to the United States that we regard as candidates for or, have proposed for addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Identification of candidate species can assist environmental planning efforts by providing advance notice of potential listings, and by allowing landowners and resource managers to alleviate threats and thereby possibly remove the need to list species as endangered or threatened. Even if we subsequently list a candidate species, the early notice provided here could result in more options for species management and recovery by prompting earlier candidate conservation measures to alleviate threats to the species. This CNOR summarizes the status and threats that we evaluated in order to determine whether species qualify as candidates, to assign a listing priority number (LPN) to each candidate species, and to determine whether a species should be removed from candidate status. Additional material that we relied on is available in the Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Forms (species assessment forms) for each candidate species. This CNOR changes the LPN for one candidate. Combined with other decisions for individual species that were published separately from this CNOR in the past year, the current number of species that are candidates for listing is 30. This document also includes our findings on resubmitted petitions and describes our progress in revising the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) during the asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 period October 1, 2015, through September 30, 2016. Moreover, we request any additional status information that may be available for the candidate species identified in this CNOR. DATES: We will accept information on any of the species in this Candidate Notice of Review at any time. ADDRESSES: This notification is available on the Internet at http:// www.regulations.gov and http:// www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/ cnor.html. Species assessment forms with information and references on a particular candidate species’ range, status, habitat needs, and listing priority assignment are available for review at the appropriate Regional Office listed below in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION or at the Branch of Conservation and Communications, Falls Church, VA (see address under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or on our Web site (http:// ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/ candidate-species-report). Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions of a general nature on this notice to the Falls Church, VA, address listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions pertaining to a particular species to the address of the Endangered Species Coordinator in the appropriate Regional Office listed in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Speciesspecific information and materials we receive will be available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at the appropriate Regional Office listed below under Request for Information in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. General information we receive will be available at the Branch of Conservation and Communications, Falls Church, VA (see address under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief, Branch of Conservation and Communications, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 3803 (telephone 703–358–2171). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 800–877– 8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We request additional status information that may be available for any of the candidate species identified in this CNOR. We will consider this information to monitor changes in the status or LPN of candidate species and to manage candidates as we prepare listing documents and future revisions PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 to the notice of review. We also request information on additional species to consider including as candidates as we prepare future updates of this notice. Candidate Notice of Review Background The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; ESA), requires that we identify species of wildlife and plants that are endangered or threatened based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available. As defined in section 3 of the ESA, an endangered species is any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a threatened species is any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Through the Federal rulemaking process, we add species that meet these definitions to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11 or the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants at 50 CFR 17.12. As part of this program, we maintain a list of species that we regard as candidates for listing. A candidate species is one for which we have on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support a proposal for listing as endangered or threatened, but for which preparation and publication of a proposal is precluded by higherpriority listing actions. We may identify a species as a candidate for listing after we have conducted an evaluation of its status—either on our own initiative, or in response to a petition we have received. If we have made a finding on a petition to list a species, and have found that listing is warranted but precluded by other higher priority listing actions, we will add the species to our list of candidates. We maintain this list of candidates for a variety of reasons: (1) To notify the public that these species are facing threats to their survival; (2) to provide advance knowledge of potential listings that could affect decisions of environmental planners and developers; (3) to provide information that may stimulate and guide conservation efforts that will remove or reduce threats to these species and possibly make listing unnecessary; (4) to request input from interested parties to help us identify those candidate species that may not require protection under the ESA, as well as additional species that may require the ESA’s protections; and (5) to request necessary information for setting priorities for preparing listing proposals. We encourage collaborative E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS conservation efforts for candidate species, and offer technical and financial assistance to facilitate such efforts. For additional information regarding such assistance, please contact the appropriate Regional Office listed under Request for Information or visit our Web site, http://www.fws.gov/ endangered/what-we-do/cca.html. Previous Notices of Review We have been publishing CNORs since 1975. The most recent was published on December 24, 2015 (80 FR 80584). CNORs published since 1994 are available on our Web site, http:// www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/ cnor.html. For copies of CNORs published prior to 1994, please contact the Branch of Conservation and Communications (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above). On September 21, 1983, we published guidance for assigning an LPN for each candidate species (48 FR 43098). Using this guidance, we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats, immediacy of threats, and taxonomic status; the lower the LPN, the higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing priority). Section 4(h)(3) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(h)(3)) requires the Secretary to establish guidelines for such a priorityranking system. As explained below, in using this system, we first categorize based on the magnitude of the threat(s), then by the immediacy of the threat(s), and finally by taxonomic status. Under this priority-ranking system, magnitude of threat can be either ‘‘high’’ or ‘‘moderate to low.’’ This criterion helps ensure that the species facing the greatest threats to their continued existence receive the highest listing priority. It is important to recognize that all candidate species face threats to their continued existence, so the magnitude of threats is in relative terms. For all candidate species, the threats are of sufficiently high magnitude to put them in danger of extinction, or make them likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. But for species with higher-magnitude threats, the threats have a greater likelihood of bringing about extinction or are expected to bring about extinction on a shorter timescale (once the threats are imminent) than for species with lowermagnitude threats. Because we do not routinely quantify how likely or how soon extinction would be expected to occur absent listing, we must evaluate factors that contribute to the likelihood and time scale for extinction. We therefore consider information such as: (1) The number of populations or extent VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 of range of the species affected by the threat(s), or both; (2) the biological significance of the affected population(s), taking into consideration the life-history characteristics of the species and its current abundance and distribution; (3) whether the threats affect the species in only a portion of its range, and, if so, the likelihood of persistence of the species in the unaffected portions; (4) the severity of the effects and the rapidity with which they have caused or are likely to cause mortality to individuals and accompanying declines in population levels; (5) whether the effects are likely to be permanent; and (6) the extent to which any ongoing conservation efforts reduce the severity of the threat(s). As used in our priority-ranking system, immediacy of threat is categorized as either ‘‘imminent’’ or ‘‘nonimminent,’’ and is based on when the threats will begin. If a threat is currently occurring or likely to occur in the very near future, we classify the threat as imminent. Determining the immediacy of threats helps ensure that species facing actual, identifiable threats are given priority for listing proposals over species for which threats are only potential or species that are intrinsically vulnerable to certain types of threats but are not known to be presently facing such threats. Our priority-ranking system has three categories for taxonomic status: Species that are the sole members of a genus; full species (in genera that have more than one species); and subspecies and distinct population segments of vertebrate species (DPS). The result of the ranking system is that we assign each candidate a listing priority number of 1 to 12. For example, if the threats are of high magnitude, with immediacy classified as imminent, the listable entity is assigned an LPN of 1, 2, or 3 based on its taxonomic status (i.e., a species that is the only member of its genus would be assigned to the LPN 1 category, a full species to LPN 2, and a subspecies or DPS would be assigned to LPN 3). In summary, the LPN ranking system provides a basis for making decisions about the relative priority for preparing a proposed rule to list a given species. No matter which LPN we assign to a species, each species included in this notice as a candidate is one for which we have concluded that we have sufficient information to prepare a proposed rule for listing because it is in danger of extinction or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. For more information on the process and standards used in assigning LPNs, PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 87247 a copy of the 1983 guidance is available on our Web site at: http://www.fws.gov/ endangered/esa-library/pdf/1983_LPN_ Policy_FR_pub.pdf. Information on the LPN assigned to a particular species is summarized in this CNOR, and the species assessment for each candidate contains the LPN chart and a moredetailed explanation for our determination of the magnitude and immediacy of threat(s) and assignment of the LPN. To the extent this revised notice differs from any previous animal, plant, and combined candidate notices of review for native species or previous 12month warranted-but-precluded petition findings for those candidate species that were petitioned for listing, this notice supercedes them. Summary of This CNOR Since publication of the previous CNOR on December 24, 2015 (80 FR 80584), we reviewed the available information on candidate species to ensure that a proposed listing is justified for each species, and reevaluated the relative LPN assigned to each species. We also evaluated the need to emergency list any of these species, particularly species with higher priorities (i.e., species with LPNs of 1, 2, or 3). This review and reevaluation ensures that we focus conservation efforts on those species at greatest risk. In addition to reviewing candidate species since publication of the last CNOR, we have worked on findings in response to petitions to list species, and on proposed rules to list species under the ESA and on final listing determinations. Some of these findings and determinations have been completed and published in the Federal Register, while work on others is still under way (see Preclusion and Expeditious Progress, below, for details). Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial information, with this CNOR, we change the LPN for one candidate. Combined with other findings and determinations published separately from this CNOR, a total of 30 species (10 plant and 20 animal species) are now candidates awaiting preparation of rules proposing their listing. Table 1 identifies these 30 species, along with the 20 species currently proposed for listing (including 1 species proposed for listing due to similarity in appearance). Table 2 lists the changes for species identified in the previous CNOR, and includes 97 species identified in the previous CNOR as either proposed for listing or classified as candidates that are no longer in those categories. This includes 78 species for which we E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 87248 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules published a final listing rule (includes 11 DPSs of green sea turtle), 18 candidate species for which we published separate not-warranted findings and removed them from candidate status, and 1 species for which we published a withdrawal of a proposed rule. New Candidates We have not identified any new candidate species through this notice but identified one species—island marble butterfly—as a candidate on April 5, 2016, as a result of a separate petition finding published in the Federal Register (81 FR 19527). asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Listing Priority Changes in Candidates We reviewed the LPNs for all candidate species and are changing the number for the following species discussed below. Flowering plants Boechera pusilla (Fremont County rockcress)—The following summary is based on information in our files and in the petition received on July 24, 2007. Fremont County rockcress is a perennial herb consisting of a single population made of eight subpopulations found on sparsely vegetated granite-pegmatite outcrops at an elevation between 2,438 and 2,469 meters (m) (8,000 and 8,100 feet (ft)) in Fremont County, Wyoming. The entire species’ range is located on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and is protected by their regulatory mechanisms as well as by a 1998 Secretarial Order that withdraws the species’ habitat from mineral development for 50 years. The species’ range is likely limited by the presence of granite-pegmatite outcrops; however, the species has likely persisted without competition from other herbaceous plant or sagebrushgrassland species present in the surrounding landscape due to this dependence on a very specific, yet limited, substrate. Overutilization and predation are not threats to the species, and regulatory mechanisms have removed threats associated with habitat loss and fragmentation. We previously determined that threats to the Fremont County rockcress were moderate in magnitude and imminent, due largely to uncertainty regarding a small and declining population size attributed to an unknown threat. Although the population likely declined in the past, new information since our last review has helped clarify that the population likely fluctuates around a stable, average size in response to precipitation, with the population increasing during wet VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 years and declining during dry years, but within a normal range of variation that may not be a threat to the species. Therefore, drought is likely the previously unidentified threat, which reduces the size of the population. Although the effects of climate change may result in drier summers, the Fremont County rockcress may benefit from longer growing seasons and more precipitation at the start of the growing season. Further, asexual reproduction helps reduce risks associated with a small population size. However, stochastic events could negatively affect the population, so drought and small population size are threats to the species. Although the population has declined in the past and could fluctuate in the future due to precipitation, the entire species’ habitat is protected by the BLM’s fully implemented and effective regulatory mechanisms, and no other impacts rise to the level of a threat. With drought implicated as the previously unidentified threat and an improved understanding of population fluctuations, we now determine that the magnitude of the threat to the species from drought is low. This is because the species may be adapted to drought and stochastic events. No other threat is ongoing, so we determine that the threats are now nonimminent. Additional surveys in 2016 will help clarify population trends, fluctuations, and the effects of drought and small population size on the species. Because the threats are low in magnitude and are nonimminent, we are changing the LPN from an 8 to an 11. Petition Findings The ESA provides two mechanisms for considering species for listing. One method allows the Secretary, on the Secretary’s own initiative, to identify species for listing under the standards of section 4(a)(1). We implement this authority through the candidate program, discussed above. The second method for listing a species provides a mechanism for the public to petition us to add a species to the Lists. As described further in the paragraphs that follow, the CNOR serves several purposes as part of the petition process: (1) In some instances (in particular, for petitions to list species that the Service has already identified as candidates on its own initiative), it serves as the initial petition finding; (2) for candidate species for which the Service has made a warranted-but-precluded petition finding, it serves as a ‘‘resubmitted’’ petition finding that the ESA requires the Service to make each year; and (3) it documents the Service’s compliance with the statutory requirement to PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 monitor the status of species for which listing is warranted but precluded, and to ascertain if they need emergency listing. First, the CNOR serves as an initial petition finding in some instances. Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA, when we receive a petition to list a species, we must determine within 90 days, to the maximum extent practicable, whether the petition presents substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted (a ‘‘90-day finding’’). If we make a positive 90-day finding, we must promptly commence a status review of the species under section 4(b)(3)(A); we must then make, within 12 months of the receipt of the petition, one of the following three possible findings (a ‘‘12month finding’’): (1) The petitioned action is not warranted, and promptly publish the finding in the Federal Register; (2) The petitioned action is warranted (in which case we are required to promptly publish a proposed regulation to implement the petitioned action; once we publish a proposed rule for a species, sections 4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) of the ESA govern further procedures, regardless of whether or not we issued the proposal in response to a petition); or (3) The petitioned action is warranted, but (a) the immediate proposal of a regulation and final promulgation of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by pending proposals to determine whether any species is endangered or threatened, and (b) expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to the Lists. We refer to this third option as a ‘‘warranted-but-precluded finding,’’ and after making such a finding, we must promptly publish it in the Federal Register. We define ‘‘candidate species’’ to mean those species for which the Service has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support issuance of a proposed rule to list, but for which issuance of the proposed rule is precluded (61 FR 64481; December 5, 1996). The standard for making a species a candidate through our own initiative is identical to the standard for making a warranted-but-precluded 12month petition finding on a petition to list, and we add all petitioned species for which we have made a warrantedbut-precluded 12-month finding to the candidate list. Therefore, all candidate species identified through our own initiative already have received the equivalent of substantial 90-day and warranted-but- E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules precluded 12-month findings. Nevertheless, if we receive a petition to list a species that we have already identified as a candidate, we review the status of the newly petitioned candidate species and through this CNOR publish specific section 4(b)(3) findings (i.e., substantial 90-day and warranted-butprecluded 12-month findings) in response to the petitions to list these candidate species. We publish these findings as part of the first CNOR following receipt of the petition. We have identified the candidate species for which we received petitions and made a continued warranted-but-precluded finding on a resubmitted petition by the code ‘‘C*’’ in the category column on the left side of Table 1, below. Second, the CNOR serves as a ‘‘resubmitted’’ petition finding. Section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the ESA requires that when we make a warranted-butprecluded finding on a petition, we treat the petition as one that is resubmitted on the date of the finding. Thus, we must make a 12-month petition finding for each such species at least once a year in compliance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA, until we publish a proposal to list the species or make a final notwarranted finding. We make these annual resubmitted petition findings through the CNOR. To the extent these annual findings differ from the initial 12-month warranted-but-precluded finding or any of the resubmitted petition findings in previous CNORs, they supercede the earlier findings, although all previous findings are part of the administrative record for the new finding, and we may rely upon them or incorporate them by reference in the new finding as appropriate. Third, through undertaking the analysis required to complete the CNOR, the Service determines if any candidate species needs emergency listing. Section 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the ESA requires us to ‘‘implement a system to monitor effectively the status of all species’’ for which we have made a warranted-but-precluded 12-month finding, and to ‘‘make prompt use of the [emergency listing] authority [under section 4(b)(7)] to prevent a significant risk to the well being of any such species.’’ The CNOR plays a crucial role in the monitoring system that we have implemented for all candidate species by providing notice that we are actively seeking information regarding the status of those species. We review all new information on candidate species as it becomes available, prepare an annual species assessment form that reflects monitoring results and other new information, and identify any species for which emergency listing may be VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 appropriate. If we determine that emergency listing is appropriate for any candidate, we will make prompt use of the emergency listing authority under section 4(b)(7) of the ESA. For example, on August 10, 2011, we emergency listed the Miami blue butterfly (76 FR 49542). We have been reviewing and will continue to review, at least annually, the status of every candidate, whether or not we have received a petition to list it. Thus, the CNOR and accompanying species assessment forms constitute the Service’s system for monitoring and making annual findings on the status of petitioned species under sections 4(b)(3)(C)(i) and 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the ESA. A number of court decisions have elaborated on the nature and specificity of information that we must consider in making and describing the petition findings in the CNOR. The CNOR that published on November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), describes these court decisions in further detail. As with previous CNORs, we continue to incorporate information of the nature and specificity required by the courts. For example, we include a description of the reasons why the listing of every petitioned candidate species is both warranted and precluded at this time. We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first and also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis (see below). Regional priorities can also be discerned from Table 1, below, which includes the lead region and the LPN for each species. Our preclusion determinations are further based upon our budget for listing activities for unlisted species only, and we explain the priority system and why the work we have accomplished has precluded action on listing candidate species. In preparing this CNOR, we reviewed the current status of, and threats to, the 29 candidates for which we have received a petition to list and the 3 listed species for which we have received a petition to reclassify from threatened to endangered, where we found the petitioned action to be warranted but precluded. We find that the immediate issuance of a proposed rule and timely promulgation of a final rule for each of these species, has been, for the preceding months, and continues to be, precluded by higher-priority listing actions. Additional information that is the basis for this finding is found in the species assessments and our administrative record for each species. Our review included updating the status of, and threats to, petitioned PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 87249 candidate or listed species for which we published findings, under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA, in the previous CNOR. We have incorporated new information we gathered since the prior finding and, as a result of this review, we are making continued warrantedbut-precluded 12-month findings on the petitions for these species. However, for some of these species, we are currently engaged in a thorough review of all available data to determine whether to proceed with a proposed listing rule; as a result of this review we may conclude that listing is no longer warranted. The immediate publication of proposed rules to list these species was precluded by our work on higherpriority listing actions, listed below, during the period from October 1, 2015, through September 30, 2016. Below we describe the actions that continue to preclude the immediate proposal and final promulgation of a regulation implementing each of the petitioned actions for which we have made a warranted-but-precluded finding, and we describe the expeditious progress we are making to add qualified species to, and remove species from, the Lists. We will continue to monitor the status of all candidate species, including petitioned species, as new information becomes available to determine if a change in status is warranted, including the need to emergency list a species under section 4(b)(7) of the ESA. In addition to identifying petitioned candidate species in Table 1 below, we also present brief summaries of why each of these candidates warrants listing. More complete information, including references, is found in the species assessment forms. You may obtain a copy of these forms from the Regional Office having the lead for the species, or from the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Internet Web site: http:// ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/ candidate-species-report. As described above, under section 4 of the ESA, we identify and propose species for listing based on the factors identified in section 4(a)(1)—either on our own initiative or through the mechanism that section 4 provides for the public to petition us to add species to the Lists of Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Preclusion and Expeditious Progress To make a finding that a particular action is warranted but precluded, the Service must make two determinations: (1) That the immediate proposal and timely promulgation of a final regulation is precluded by pending proposals to determine whether any species is threatened or endangered; and (2) that expeditious progress is being E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 87250 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules made to add qualified species to either of the lists and to remove species from the lists (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)(iii)). asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Preclusion A listing proposal is precluded if the Service does not have sufficient resources available to complete the proposal, because there are competing demands for those resources, and the relative priority of those competing demands is higher. Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate whether it will be possible to undertake work on a proposed listing regulation or whether promulgation of such a proposal is precluded by higher-priority listing actions—(1) The amount of resources available for completing the listing function, (2) the estimated cost of completing the proposed listing regulation, and (3) the Service’s workload, along with the Service’s prioritization of the proposed listing regulation in relation to other actions in its workload. Available Resources The resources available for listing actions are determined through the annual Congressional appropriations process. In FY 1998 and for each fiscal year since then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on funds that may be expended for the Listing Program. This spending cap was designed to prevent the listing function from depleting funds needed for other functions under the ESA (for example, recovery functions, such as removing species from the Lists), or for other Service programs (see House Report 105–163, 105th Congress, 1st Session, July 1, 1997). The funds within the spending cap are available to support work involving the following listing actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 90-day and 12-month findings on petitions to add species to the Lists or to change the status of a species from threatened to endangered; annual ‘‘resubmitted’’ petition findings on prior warrantedbut-precluded petition findings as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the ESA; critical habitat petition findings; proposed rules designating critical habitat or final critical habitat determinations; and litigation-related, administrative, and programmanagement functions (including preparing and allocating budgets, responding to Congressional and public inquiries, and conducting public outreach regarding listing and critical habitat). We cannot spend more for the Listing Program than the amount of funds within the spending cap without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, since FY 2002, the Service’s listing budget has included a subcap for critical habitat designations for already-listed species to ensure that some funds within the listing cap are available for completing Listing Program actions other than critical habitat designations for alreadylisted species. (‘‘The critical habitat designation subcap will ensure that some funding is available to address other listing activities.’’ House Report No. 107–103, 107th Congress, 1st Session (June 19, 2001)). In FY 2002 and each year until FY 2006, the Service had to use virtually all of the funds within the critical habitat subcap to address court-mandated designations of critical habitat, and consequently none of the funds within the critical habitat subcap were available for other listing activities. In some FYs since 2006, we have not needed to use all of the funds within the critical habitat to comply with court orders, and we therefore could use the remaining funds within the subcap towards additional proposed listing determinations for high-priority candidate species. In other FYs, while we did not need to use all of the funds within the critical habitat subcap to comply with court orders requiring critical habitat actions, we did not apply any of the remaining funds towards additional proposed listing determinations, and instead applied the remaining funds towards completing critical habitat determinations concurrently with proposed listing determinations. This allowed us to combine the proposed listing determination and proposed critical habitat designation into one rule, thereby being more efficient in our work. In FY 2016, based on the Service’s workload, we were able to use some of the funds within the critical habitat subcap to fund proposed listing determinations. Since FY 2012, Congress has also put in place two additional subcaps within the listing cap: One for listing actions for foreign species and one for petition findings. As with the critical habitat subcap, if the Service does not need to use all of the funds within either subcap, we are able to use the remaining funds for completing proposed or final listing determinations. In FY 2016, based on the Service’s workload, we were able to use some of the funds within the petitions subcap to fund proposed listing determinations. We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first, and because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis. Through the PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 listing cap, the three subcaps, and the amount of funds needed to complete court-mandated actions within the cap and subcaps, Congress and the courts have in effect determined the amount of money available for listing activities nationwide. Therefore, the funds that remain within the listing cap—after paying for work within the subcaps needed to comply with court orders or court-approved settlement agreements requiring critical habitat actions for already-listed species, listing actions for foreign species, and petition findings, respectively—set the framework within which we make our determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress. For FY 2016, on December 18, 2015, Congress passed a Consolidated Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 114–113), which provided funding through September 30, 2016. That Appropriations Act included an overall spending cap of $20,515,000 for the listing program. Of that, no more than $4,605,000 could be used for critical habitat determinations; no more than $1,504,000 could be used for listing actions for foreign species; and no more than $1,501,000 could be used to make 90-day or 12-month findings on petitions. The Service thus had $12,905,000 available to work on proposed and final listing determinations for domestic species. In addition, if the Service had funding available within the critical habitat, foreign species, or petition subcaps after those workloads had been completed, it could use those funds to work on listing actions other than critical habitat designations or foreign species. Costs of Listing Actions. The work involved in preparing various listing documents can be extensive, and may include, but is not limited to: Gathering and assessing the best scientific and commercial data available and conducting analyses used as the basis for our decisions; writing and publishing documents; and obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating public comments and peer-review comments on proposed rules and incorporating relevant information from those comments into final rules. The number of listing actions that we can undertake in a given year also is influenced by the complexity of those listing actions; that is, more complex actions generally are more costly. In the past, we estimated that the median cost for preparing and publishing a 90-day finding was $4,500 and for a 12-month finding, $68,875. We have streamlined our processes for making 12-month petition findings to be as efficient as possible to reduce these costs and we estimate that we have cut this cost in half. We estimate that the E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules median costs for preparing and publishing a proposed listing rule with proposed critical habitat is $240,000; and for a final listing determination with a final critical habitat determination, $205,000. Prioritizing Listing Actions. The Service’s Listing Program workload is broadly composed of four types of actions, which the Service prioritizes as follows: (1) Compliance with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements requiring that petition findings or listing or critical habitat determinations be completed by a specific date; (2) essential litigationrelated, administrative, and listing program-management functions; (3) section 4 (of the ESA) listing and critical habitat actions with absolute statutory deadlines; and (4) section 4 listing actions that do not have absolute statutory deadlines. In previous years, the Service received many new petitions and a single petition to list 404 species, significantly increasing the number of actions within the third category of our workload—actions that have absolute statutory deadlines. As a result of the outstanding petitions to list hundreds of species, and our successful efforts to continue making initial petition findings within 90 days of receiving the petition to the maximum extent practicable, we currently have over 550 12-month petition findings yet to be initiated and completed. Because we are not able to work on all of these at once, we recently finalized a new methodology for prioritizing status reviews and accompanying 12-month findings (81 FR 49248; July 27, 2016). Moving forward, we are applying this methodology to 12-month findings to prioritize the outstanding petition findings and develop a multi-year workplan for completing them. An additional way in which we prioritize work in the section 4 program is application of the listing priority guidelines (48 FR 43098; September 21, 1983). Under those guidelines, we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats (high or moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or nonimminent), and taxonomic status of the species (in order of priority: Monotypic genus (a species that is the sole member of a genus), a species, or a part of a species (subspecies or distinct population segment)). The lower the listing priority number, the higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing priority). A species with a higher LPN would generally be precluded from listing by species with lower LPNs, unless work VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 on a proposed rule for the species with the higher LPN can be combined with work on a proposed rule for other highpriority species. Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened species to endangered species are generally lower in priority, because as listed species, they are already afforded the protections of the ESA and implementing regulations. However, for efficiency reasons, we may choose to work on a proposed rule to reclassify a species to endangered if we can combine this with work that is subject to a court order or court-approved deadline. Since before Congress first established the spending cap for the Listing Program in 1998, the Listing Program workload has required considerably more resources than the amount of funds Congress has allowed for the Listing Program. It is therefore important that we be as efficient as possible in our listing process. On September 1, 2016, the Service released its National Listing Workplan for addressing ESA listing and critical habitat decisions over the next seven years. The workplan identifies the Service’s schedule for addressing all 30 species currently on the candidate list and conducting 320 status reviews (also referred to as 12-month findings) for species that have been petitioned for federal protections under the ESA. The petitioned species are prioritized using our final prioritization methodology. As we implement our listing work plan and work on proposed rules for the highestpriority species, we prepare multispecies proposals when appropriate, and these include species with lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same threats as one of the highest-priority species. Listing Program Workload. From 2011–2016, we proposed and finalized listing determinations in accordance with a workplan we had developed for our listing work for that time period; we have subsequently developed a National Listing Workplan to cover the future period from 2017 to 2023. Each FY we determine, based on the amount of funding Congress has made available within the Listing Program spending cap, if we can accomplish the work that we have planned to do. Up until 2012, we prepared Allocation Tables that identified the actions that we funded for that FY, and how much we estimated it would cost to complete each action; these Allocation Tables are part of our record for the listing program. Our Allocation Table for FY 2012, which incorporated the Service’s approach to prioritizing its workload, was adopted as part of a settlement agreement in a PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 87251 case before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 10–377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (‘‘MDL Litigation’’), Document 31–1 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011) (‘‘MDL Settlement Agreement’’)). The requirements of paragraphs 1 through 7 of that settlement agreement, combined with the work plan attached to the agreement as Exhibit B, reflected the Service’s Allocation Tables for FY 2011 and FY 2012. In addition, paragraphs 2 through 7 of the agreement require the Service to take numerous other actions through FY 2017—in particular, complete either a proposed listing rule or a not-warranted finding for all 251 species designated as ‘‘candidates’’ in the 2010 candidate notice of review (‘‘CNOR’’) before the end of FY 2016, and complete final listing determinations for those species proposed for listing within the statutory deadline (usually one year from the proposal). Paragraph 10 of that settlement agreement sets forth the Service’s conclusion that ‘‘fulfilling the commitments set forth in this Agreement, along with other commitments required by court orders or court-approved settlement agreements already in existence at the signing of this Settlement Agreement (listed in Exhibit A), will require substantially all of the resources in the Listing Program.’’ As part of the same lawsuit, the court also approved a separate settlement agreement with the other plaintiff in the case; that settlement agreement requires the Service to complete additional actions in specific fiscal years—including 12month petition findings for 11 species, 90-day petition findings for 478 species, and proposed listing rules or notwarranted findings for 40 species. These settlement agreements have led to a number of results that affect our preclusion analysis. First, the Service has been limited in the extent to which it can undertake additional actions within the Listing Program through FY 2017, beyond what is required by the MDL Settlement Agreements. Second, because the settlement is courtapproved, completion, before the end of FY 2016, of proposed listings or notwarranted findings for the remaining candidate species that were included in the 2010 CNOR was the Service’s highest priority (compliance with a court order) for FY 2016. Therefore, one of the Service’s highest priorities is to make steady progress towards completing by the end of 2017 the remaining final listing determinations for the 2010 candidate species taking E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 87252 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules into consideration the availability of staff resources. Based on these prioritization factors, we continue to find that proposals to list the petitioned candidate species included in Table 1 are all precluded by higher-priority listing actions, including listing actions with deadlines required by court orders and court-approved settlement agreements and listing actions with absolute statutory deadlines. We provide tables in the Expeditious Progress section, below, identifying the listing actions that we completed in FY 2016, as well as those we worked on but did not complete in FY 2016. Expeditious Progress As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made to add and remove qualified species to and from the Lists. As with our ‘‘precluded’’ finding, the evaluation of whether progress in adding qualified species to the Lists has been expeditious is a function of the resources available for listing and the competing demands for those funds. (Although we do not discuss it in detail here, we are also making expeditious progress in removing species from the list under the Recovery program in light of the resources available for delisting, which is funded by a separate line item in the budget of the Endangered Species Program. During FY 2016, we completed delisting rules for seven species.) As discussed below, given the limited resources available for listing, we find that we are making expeditious progress in adding qualified species to the Lists. We provide below tables cataloguing the work of the Service’s Listing Program in FY 2016. This work includes all three of the steps necessary for adding species to the Lists: (1) Identifying species that may warrant listing; (2) undertaking the evaluation of the best available scientific data about those species and the threats they face in preparation for a proposed or final determination; and (3) adding species to the Lists by publishing proposed and final listing rules that include a summary of the data on which the rule is based and show the relationship of that data to the rule. After taking into consideration the limited resources available for listing, the competing demands for those funds, and the completed work catalogued in the tables below, we find that we are making expeditious progress to add qualified species to the Lists. First, we are making expeditious progress in listing qualified species. In FY 2016, we resolved the status of 97 species that we determined, or had previously determined, qualified for listing. Moreover, for 78 of those species, the resolution was to add them to the Lists, some with concurrent designations of critical habitat, and for 1 species we published a withdrawal of the proposed rule. We also proposed to list an additional 18 qualified species. Second, we are making expeditious progress in working towards adding qualified species to the Lists. In FY 2016, we worked on developing proposed listing rules or not-warranted 12-month petition findings for 3 species (most of them with concurrent critical habitat proposals). Although we have not yet completed those actions, we are making expeditious progress towards doing so. Third, we are making expeditious progress in identifying additional species that may qualify for listing. In FY 2016, we completed 90-day petition findings for 57 species and 12-month petition findings for 30 species. Our accomplishments this year should also be considered in the broader context of our commitment to reduce the number of candidate species for which we have not made final determinations whether to list. On May 10, 2011, the Service filed in the MDL Litigation a settlement agreement that put in place an ambitious schedule for completing proposed and final listing determinations at least through FY 2016; the court approved that settlement agreement on September 9, 2011. That agreement required, among other things, that for all 251 species that were included as candidates in the 2010 CNOR, the Service submit to the Federal Register proposed listing rules or not-warranted findings by the end of FY 2016, and for any proposed listing rules, the Service complete final listing determinations within the statutory time frame. The Service has completed proposed listing rules or not-warranted findings for all 251 of the 2010 candidate species, as well as final listing rules for 140 of those proposed rules, and is therefore making adequate progress towards meeting all of the requirements of the MDL Settlement Agreement. Both by entering into the settlement agreement and by making progress towards final listing determinations for those species proposed for listing (of the 251 species on the 2010 candidate list), the Service is making expeditious progress to add qualified species to the lists. The Service’s progress in FY 2016 included completing and publishing the following determinations: FY 2016 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS Publication date Title Actions FR pages 12/22/2015 ............... 90-Day and 12-month petition findings—Substantial and warranted; Proposed listing; Endangered. 80 FR 79533–79554. 12-Month petition finding; Not warranted ........... 81 FR 435–458. 1/12/2016 ................. 90-Day and 12-month Findings on a Petition to List the Miami Tiger Beetle as an Endangered or Threatened Species; Proposed Endangered Species Status for the Miami Tiger Beetle. 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Alexander Archipelago Wolf as an Endangered or Threatened Species. 90-Day Findings on 17 Petitions ........................ 81 FR 1368–1375. 3/16/2016 ................. 90-Day Findings on 29 Petitions ........................ 4/5/2016 ................... 12-Month Findings on Petitions To List Island Marble Butterfly, San Bernardino Flying Squirrel, Spotless Crake, and Sprague’s Pipit as Endangered or Threatened Species. 90-Day petition findings; Substantial and not substantial. 90-Day petition findings; Substantial and not substantial. 12-Month petition finding; Warranted but precluded and; Not warranted; Candidate removal. asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 1/6/2016 ................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 81 FR 14058–14072. 81 FR 19527–19542. Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 87253 FY 2016 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued Publication date Title Actions FR pages 4/6/2016 ................... Final Rule to List Eleven Distinct Population Segments of the Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) as Endangered or Threatened and Revision of Current Listings Under the Endangered Species Act. Final Listing Determination for the Big Sandy Crayfish and the Guyandotte River Crayfish. Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule To List the West Coast Distinct Population Segment of Fisher. Threatened Species Status for the Elfin-Woods Warbler With 4(d) Rule. 12-Month Findings on Petitions To List the Eagle Lake Rainbow Trout and the Ichetucknee Siltsnail as Endangered or Threatened Species. Endangered Species Status for Texas Hornshell. Threatened Status for Lepidium papilliferum (Slickspot Peppergrass) Throughout Its Range. Endangered Species Status for Guadalupe Fescue. Threatened Species Status for Platanthera integrilabia (White Fringeless Orchid). 90-Day Findings on 10 Petitions ........................ Final Listing; Endangered and Threatened ....... 81 FR 20057–20090. Final Listing; Endangered and Threatened ....... 81 FR 20449–20481. Proposed Listing; Withdrawal ............................ 81 FR 22709–22808. Final Listing; Threatened ................................... 81 FR 40534–40547. 12-Month petition finding; Not warranted ........... 81 FR 43972–43979. Proposed Listing; Endangered ........................... 81 FR 52796–52809. Final Listing; Threatened ................................... 81 FR 55057–55084. Proposed Listing; Endangered ........................... 81 FR 62450–62455. Proposed Listing; Threatened ............................ 81 FR 62826–62833. 90-Day petition findings; Substantial and not substantial. Proposed Listing; Threatened ............................ 81 FR 63160–63165. 12-Month petition finding; Warranted; Proposed Listing; Threatened. Proposed Listing; Endangered ........................... 81 FR 64414–64426. 4/7/2016 ................... 4/18/2016 ................. 6/22/2016 ................. 7/6/2016 ................... 8/10/2016 ................. 8/17/2016 ................. 9/9/2016 ................... 9/13/2016 ................. 9/14/2016 ................. 9/15/2016 ................. 9/20/2016 ................. 9/21/2016 ................. 9/21/2016 ................. 9/21/2016 ................. 9/22/2016 ................. 9/22/2016 ................. 9/29/2016 ................. 9/30/2016 ................. 9/30/2016 ................. 9/30/2016 ................. 10/4/2016 ................. asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 10/5/2016 ................. 10/5/2016 ................. 10/6/2016 ................. 10/6/2016 ................. 10/6/2016 ................. 10/6/2016 ................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 Threatened Species Status for Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina (San Fernando Valley Spineflower). Threatened Species Status for the Iiwi (Drepanis coccinea). Endangered Species Status for Sonoyta Mud Turtle. 12-Month Findings on Petitions To List Nine Species as Endangered or Threatened Species. Threatened Species Status for Pearl Darter ..... Endangered Species Status for Rusty Patched Bumble Bee. Endangered Status for Five Species from American Samoa. Endangered Species Status for Chamaecrista lineata var. keyensis (Big Pine Partridge Pea), Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. serpyllum (Wedge Spurge), and Linum arenicola (Sand Flax), and Threatened Species Status for Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett’s Silverbush). Threatened Species Status for the Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake. Endangered Species Status for the Kenk’s Amphipod. Endangered Status for 49 Species From the Hawaiian Islands. 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Western Glacier Stonefly as an Endangered or Threatened Species; Proposed Threatened Species Status for Meltwater Lednian Stonefly and Western Glacier Stonefly. Threatened Species Status for Kentucky Arrow Darter with 4(d) Rule. Endangered Species Status for the Miami Tiger Beetle (Cicindelidia floridana). Threatened Species Status for Suwannee Moccasinshell. 12-Month Findings on Petitions To List 10 Species as Endangered or Threatened Species. Proposed Threatened Species Status for Louisiana pinesnake. Endangered Species Status for Black Warrior Waterdog. 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 81 FR 63454–63466. 81 FR 64829–64843. 12-Month petition findings; Not warranted; Candidate removals. 81 FR 64843–64857. Proposed Listing; Threatened ............................ 12-Month petition finding; Warranted; Proposed Listing; Endangered. Final Listing; Threatened ................................... 81 FR 64857–64868. 81 FR 65324–65334. Final Listing; Threatened and Endangered ....... 81 FR 66842–66865. Final Listing; Threatened ................................... 81 FR 67193–67214. Proposed Listing; Endangered ........................... 81 FR 67270–67287. Final Listing; Endangered .................................. 81 FR 67786–67860. 12-Month petition finding; Warranted; Proposed Listing; Threatened. 81 FR 68379–68397. Final Listing; Threatened ................................... 81 FR 68963–68985. Final Listing; Endangered .................................. 81 FR 68985–69007. Final Listing; Threatened ................................... 81 FR 69417–69425. 12-Month petition finding; Not warranted; Candidate removal. Proposed Listing; Threatened ............................ 81 FR 69425–69442. 81 FR 69454–69475. Proposed Listing; Endangered ........................... 81 FR 69500–69508. Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 81 FR 65465–65508. 87254 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules FY 2016 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued Publication date Title Actions FR pages 10/11/2016 ............... Proposed Threatened Species Status for Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense (Everglades Bully), Digitaria pauciflora (Florida Pineland Crabgrass), and Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum (Pineland Sandmat) and Endangered Species Status for Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana (Florida PrairieClover). Proposed Listing; Threatened; Endangered ...... 81 FR 70282–70308. Our expeditious progress also included work on listing actions that we funded in previous fiscal years and in FY 2016, but did not complete in FY 2016. For these species, we have completed the first step, and have been working on the second step, necessary for adding species to the Lists. These actions are listed below. The Pacific walrus proposed listing determination in the top portion of the table is being conducted under a deadline set by a court through a court-approved settlement agreement. ACTIONS FUNDED IN PREVIOUS FYS AND FY 2016 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED Species Action Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement Pacific walrus ............................................................................................ Proposed listing determination. Other Actions asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Hermes copper butterfly ........................................................................... Cirsium wrightii (Wright’s marsh thistle) ................................................... We also funded work on resubmitted petition findings for 29 candidate species (species petitioned prior to the last CNOR). We did not include an updated assessment form as part of our resubmitted petition findings for the three candidate species for which we are preparing either proposed listing determinations or not-warranted 12-month findings. However, in the course of preparing the proposed listing determinations or 12-month notwarranted findings for those species, we have continued to monitor new information about their status so that we can make prompt use of our authority under section 4(b)(7) of the ESA in the case of an emergency posing a significant risk to the well-being of any of these candidate species; see summaries below regarding publication of these determinations (these species will remain on the candidate list until a proposed listing rule is published). Because the majority of these petitioned species were already candidate species prior to our receipt of a petition to list them, we had already assessed their status using funds from our Candidate Conservation Program, so we continue to monitor the status of these species through our Candidate Conservation Program. The cost of updating the species assessment forms and publishing the joint publication of the CNOR and resubmitted petition findings VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 Proposed listing determination. Proposed listing determination. is shared between the Listing Program and the Candidate Conservation Program. During FY 2016, we also funded work on resubmitted petition findings for petitions to uplist three listed species (one grizzly bear population, Delta smelt, and Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette cactus)), for which we had previously received a petition and made a warranted-but-precluded finding. Another way that we have been expeditious in making progress to add qualified species to the Lists is that we have endeavored to make our listing actions as efficient and timely as possible, given the requirements of the relevant law and regulations and constraints relating to workload and personnel. We are continually considering ways to streamline processes or achieve economies of scale, and have been batching related actions together. Given our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the ESA, these efforts also contribute towards finding that we are making expeditious progress to add qualified species to the Lists. Although we have not resolved the listing status of all of the species we identified as candidates after 2010, we continue to contribute to the conservation of these species through several programs in the Service. In particular, the Candidate Conservation PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Program, which is separately budgeted, focuses on providing technical expertise for developing conservation strategies and agreements to guide voluntary onthe-ground conservation work for candidate and other at-risk species. The main goal of this program is to address the threats facing candidate species. Through this program, we work with our partners (other Federal agencies, State agencies, Tribes, local governments, private landowners, and private conservation organizations) to address the threats to candidate species and other species at risk. We are currently working with our partners to implement voluntary conservation agreements for more than 110 species covering 6.1 million acres of habitat. In some instances, the sustained implementation of strategically designed conservation efforts has culminated in making listing unnecessary for species that are candidates for listing or for which listing has been proposed (see http:// ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/nonlisted-species-precluded-from-listingdue-to-conservation-report). Findings for Petitioned Candidate Species Below are updated summaries for petitioned candidates for which we published findings under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA. In accordance E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS with section 4(b)(3)(C)(i), we treat any petitions for which we made warrantedbut-precluded 12-month findings within the past year as having been resubmitted on the date of the warranted-butprecluded finding. We are making continued warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings on the petitions for these species. Mammals ˜ Penasco least chipmunk (Tamias minimus atristria)—The following summary is based on information ˜ contained in our files. Penasco least chipmunk is endemic to the White Mountains, Otero and Lincoln Counties, and the Sacramento Mountains, Otero ˜ County, New Mexico. The Penasco least chipmunk historically had a broad distribution throughout the Sacramento Mountains within ponderosa pine forests. The last verification of persistence of the Sacramento ˜ Mountains population of Penasco least chipmunk was in 1966, and the subspecies appears to be extirpated from the Sacramento Mountains. The only remaining known distribution of the ˜ Penasco least chipmunk is restricted to open, high-elevation talus slopes within a subalpine grassland, located in the Sierra Blanca area of the White Mountains in Lincoln and Otero Counties, New Mexico. ˜ The Penasco least chipmunk faces threats from present or threatened destruction, modification, and curtailment of its habitat from the alteration or loss of mature ponderosa pine forests in one of the two historically occupied areas. The documented decline in occupied localities, in conjunction with the small numbers of individuals captured, is linked to widespread habitat alteration. Moreover, the highly fragmented nature of its distribution is a significant contributor to the vulnerability of this subspecies and increases the likelihood of very small, isolated populations being extirpated. As a result of this fragmentation, even if suitable habitat exists (or is restored) in the Sacramento Mountains, the likelihood of natural recolonization of historical habitat or population expansion from the White Mountains is extremely remote. Considering the high magnitude and immediacy of these threats to the subspecies and its habitat, and the vulnerability of the White Mountains population, we conclude that the ˜ Penasco least chipmunk is in danger of extinction throughout all of its known range now or in the foreseeable future. Because the one known remaining ˜ extant population of Penasco least chipmunk in the White Mountains is VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 particularly susceptible to extinction as a result of small, reduced population sizes, and its isolation due to the lack of contiguous habitat, even a small impact on the White Mountains could have a very large impact on the status of the subspecies as a whole. The combination of its restricted range, apparent small population size, and fragmented historical habitat make the White Mountains population inherently vulnerable to extinction due to effects of small population sizes (e.g., loss of genetic diversity). These impacts are likely to be seen in the population at some point in the foreseeable future, but do not appear to be affecting this population currently as it appears to be stable at this time. Therefore, we conclude that the threats to this population are of high magnitude, but not imminent, and we assign an LPN of 6 to the subspecies. Sierra Nevada red fox, Sierra Nevada DPS (Vulpes vulpes necator)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files and in our warranted-but-precluded finding, published in the Federal Register on October 8, 2015 (80 FR 60990). The Sierra Nevada red fox is a subspecies of red fox found at high elevations (above 4,000 ft) in the Cascade and Sierra Nevada mountains of Oregon and California. It is somewhat smaller than lowland-dwelling red foxes, with a thicker coat and furry pads on its feet during winter months to facilitate travel over snow. The subspecies consists of two distinct population segments (DPSs), one in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the other in the Cascades. The only known remnant of the Sierra Nevada DPS is a population in the Sonora Pass area estimated to contain approximately 29 adults, including an estimated 14 breeding individuals. The Sierra Nevada DPS originally extended along the Sierra Nevada Mountains above about 1,200 m (3,937 ft), from Sierra County south into Inyo and Tulare Counties. Recent sightings have been limited to the general area around Sonora Pass, and to the northern portion of Yosemite National Park. Those areas are connected by highquality habitat, facilitating potential travel between them. The Yosemite sightings were collected by remote camera on 3 days in the winter of 2014– 2015, and indicate one to three individuals. The sightings around Sonora Pass primarily consist of photographs and genetically-tested hair or scat samples collected from 2011 to 2014 as part of a study of red foxes in the area. The study covered approximately 50 square miles (130 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 87255 square kilometers), which was estimated to constitute 20 to 50 percent of the contiguous high-quality habitat in the general area. Sierra Nevada red fox numbers in the study area dropped from six in 2011 to two in 2014. During the same time period, the study also documented an increase in nonnative red foxes from zero to two (possibly three), and an increase in the number of hybrids from zero to eight. Scientists identified an additional three hybrids in 2013, but they were no longer in the area in 2014. There is no evidence of hybrids in the study area since 2014. The Sierra Nevada DPS of the Sierra Nevada red fox may be vulnerable to extinction from genetic swamping (gradual loss of the identifying characteristics of a population due to extensive hybridization). The DPS may also be vulnerable to outbreeding depression (lowered survival or reproductive fitness in hybrids). Because the DPS consists of few individuals, any portions of the population not undergoing hybridization may be subject to inbreeding depression (congenital defects due to breeding among close relatives). If additional interbreeding with nonnative foxes is curtailed, then inbreeding depression may also be a future concern for those portions of the population that have undergone hybridization, because hybridization can introduce new deleterious alleles into the population. Small populations may also suffer proportionately greater impacts from deleterious chance events such as storms or local disease outbreaks. Finally, the DPS may be made more susceptible to extinction because of competition with coyotes. Coyotes are known to chase and kill red foxes, thereby excluding them from necessary habitat. Normally they are kept out of high-elevation areas during winter, and during the red-fox pupping season in early spring, by high snow banks, but coyotes have recently been found living year-round in areas around Sonora Pass occupied by Sierra Nevada red foxes. Global climate change may facilitate encroachment of coyotes into the area by limiting deposition and longevity of high-elevation snowpacks in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The threats to this red fox population are ongoing and, therefore, imminent. The threats are high in magnitude because the population is so small (fewer than 50 adults), and it could be extirpated by any of the population-level threats discussed above. Therefore, we assigned the Sierra Nevada DPS of the Sierra Nevada red fox a LPN of 3. Red tree vole, north Oregon coast DPS (Arborimus longicaudus)—The E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 87256 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules following summary is based on information contained in our files and in our initial warranted-but-precluded finding, published in the Federal Register on October 13, 2011 (76 FR 63720). Red tree voles are small, mousesized rodents that live in conifer forests and spend almost all of their time in the tree canopy. They are one of the few animals that can persist on a diet of conifer needles, which is their principal food. Red tree voles are endemic to the humid, coniferous forests of western Oregon (generally west of the crest of the Cascade Range) and northwestern California (north of the Klamath River). The north Oregon coast DPS of the red tree vole comprises that portion of the Oregon Coast Range from the Columbia River south to the Siuslaw River. Red tree voles demonstrate strong selection for nesting in older conifer forests, which are now relatively rare across the DPS. Red tree voles generally avoid younger forests, and while their nests are found in younger forests, these forests are unlikely to provide long-term persistence of red tree vole populations. Although data are not available to rigorously assess population trends, information from retrospective surveys indicates population numbers of red tree voles have declined in the DPS and are largely absent in areas where they were once relatively abundant. Older forests that provide habitat for red tree voles are limited and highly fragmented, while ongoing forest practices in much of the DPS maintain the remnant patches of older forest in a highly fragmented and isolated condition. Modeling indicates that 11 percent of the DPS currently contains tree vole habitat, largely restricted to the 22 percent of the DPS that is under Federal ownership. Existing regulatory mechanisms on State and private lands are not preventing continued harvest of forest stands at a scale and extent that would be meaningful for conserving red tree voles. Biological characteristics of red tree voles, such as small home ranges, limited dispersal distances, and low reproductive potential, limit their ability to persist in areas of extensive habitat loss and alteration. These biological characteristics also make it difficult for the tree voles to recolonize isolated habitat patches. Due to the species’ reduced distribution, the red tree vole is vulnerable to random environmental disturbances that may remove or further isolate large blocks of already limited habitat, and to extirpation within the DPS from such factors as lack of genetic variability, inbreeding depression, and demographic stochasticity. Although the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 entire population is experiencing threats, the impact is less pronounced on Federal lands, where much of the red tree vole habitat remains. Hence, the magnitude of these threats is moderate to low. The threats are imminent because habitat loss and reduced distribution are currently occurring within the DPS. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 9 for this DPS. Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens)—We continue to find that listing this subspecies is warranted but precluded as of the date of publication of this notice. However, we are working on a thorough review of all available data and expect to publish either a proposed listing rule or a 12-month notwarranted finding prior to making the next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the course of preparing a proposed listing rule or notwarranted petition finding, we are continuing to monitor new information about this subspecies’ status so that we can make prompt use of our authority under section 4(b)(7) of the ESA in the case of an emergency posing a significant risk to the subspecies. Birds Red-crowned parrot (Amazona viridigenalis)—The following summary is based on information contained in the notice of 12-month finding (76 FR 62016; October 6, 2011), scientific reports, journal articles, and newspaper and magazine articles, and on communications with internal and external partners. Currently, there are no changes to the range or distribution of the red-crowned parrot. The redcrowned parrot is non-migratory, and occurs in fragmented areas of isolated habitat in the Mexican states of Veracruz, San Luis Potosi, Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas, and northeast Queretaro, with the majority of its remaining range in Tamaulipas. In Texas, red-crowned parrots occur in the cities of Mission, McAllen, Pharr, and Edinburg (Hidalgo County) and in Brownsville, Los Fresnos, San Benito, and Harlingen (Cameron County). Feral populations also exist in southern California, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Florida, and escaped birds have been reported in central Texas. As of 2004, half of the wild population is believed to be found in the United States. The species is nomadic during the winter (non-breeding) season when large flocks range widely to forage, moving tens of kilometers during a single flight in Mexico. The species within Texas is thought to move between urban areas in search for food and other available resources. Parrots were found to occur exclusively in PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 urban habitats in the Texas Lower Rio Grande Valley during the breeding season. Loss of nesting habitat is a concern for the species in southern Texas. Nest boxes were provided in 2011, in areas where the red-crowned parrots had actively traveled during the prior spring, summer, and fall months; however, as of March 2013, these nest sites had not been used. Recent monitoring efforts for red-crowned parrots in Mexico have been done on a relatively localized level, taking place on pastureland in southeastern Tamaulipas and in forested areas of the Tamaulipan Sierras nearby to Ciudad Victoria. In southern Texas, redcrowned parrots have been included in Christmas Bird Counts, and special monitoring efforts have included an online iNaturalist project developed in 2015, and an intensive, one-night roost survey in January 2016. The primary threats within Mexico and Texas remain habitat destruction and modification from logging, deforestation, conversion of suitable habitat, and urbanization; trapping; and illegal trade. Recent reassessment of a site in southeastern Tamaulipas, first studied in the 1990s, showed redcrowned parrots to be persisting in pastureland with remaining large trees, providing some hope that this species can coexist with ranching, provided that large trees are left standing and there is a high level of watchfulness to prevent poaching. Multiple laws and regulations have been passed to control illegal trade, but they are not adequately enforced; poaching of nests has been documented as recently as 2015. In addition, existing regulations do not address the habitat threats to the species. In South Texas, at least four city ordinances have been put in place that prohibit malicious acts (injury, mortality) to birds and their habitat. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department now considers the species to be indigenous in Texas, a classification that affords State protection for the individual parrots. Conservation efforts include monitoring and habitat-use research, as well as education and outreach in Mexico and Texas. Conservation also includes revegetation efforts, as well as conservation of existing native tracts of land, to provide habitat in the future once trees have matured. Threats to the species are extensive and are imminent, and, therefore, we have determined that an LPN of 2 remains appropriate for the species. Reptiles Gopher tortoise, eastern population (Gopherus polyphemus) — The E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS following summary is based on information in our files. The gopher tortoise is a large, terrestrial, herbivorous turtle that reaches a total length up to 15 inches (in) (38 centimeters (cm)) and typically inhabits the sandhills, pine/scrub oak uplands, and pine flatwoods associated with the longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) ecosystem. A fossorial animal, the gopher tortoise is usually found in areas with well-drained, deep, sandy soils; an open tree canopy; and a diverse, abundant, herbaceous groundcover. The gopher tortoise ranges from extreme southern South Carolina south through peninsular Florida, and west through southern Georgia, Florida, southern Alabama, and Mississippi, into extreme southeastern Louisiana. In the eastern portion of the gopher tortoise’s range in South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and Alabama (east of the Mobile and Tombigbee Rivers) it is a candidate species; the gopher tortoise is federally listed as threatened in the western portion of its range, which includes Alabama (west of the Mobile and Tombigbee Rivers), Mississippi, and Louisiana. The primary threat to the gopher tortoise is habitat fragmentation, destruction, and modification (either deliberately or from inattention), including conversion of longleaf pine forests to incompatible silvicultural or agricultural habitats, urbanization, shrub/hardwood encroachment (mainly from fire exclusion or insufficient fire management), and establishment and spread of invasive species. Other threats include disease and predation (mainly on nests and young tortoises), and existing regulatory mechanisms do not address habitat enhancement or protection in perpetuity for relocated tortoise populations. The magnitude of threats to the gopher tortoise in the eastern part of its range is moderate to low, as populations extend over a broad geographic area and conservation measures are in place in some areas. However, because the species is currently being affected by a number of threats including destruction and modification of its habitat, disease, predation, and exotics, the threat is imminent. Thus, we have assigned an LPN of 8 for this species. Amphibians Striped newt (Notophthalmus perstriatus)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. The striped newt is a small salamander that inhabits ephemeral ponds surrounded by upland habitats of high pine, scrubby flatwoods, and scrub. Longleaf pine–turkey oak stands with VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 intact ground cover containing wiregrass are the preferred upland habitat for striped newts, followed by scrub, then flatwoods. Life-history stages of the striped newt are complex, and include the use of both aquatic and terrestrial habitats throughout their life cycle. Striped newts are opportunistic feeders that prey on a variety of items such as frog eggs, worms, snails, fairy shrimp, spiders, and insects (adult and larvae) that are of appropriate size. They occur in appropriate habitats from the Atlantic Coastal Plain of southeastern Georgia to the north-central peninsula of Florida and through the Florida panhandle into portions of southwest Georgia, upward to Taylor County in western Georgia. Prior to 2014, scientists thought there was a 125-km (78-mi) separation between the western and eastern portions of the striped newt’s range. However, in 2014, the discovery of five adult striped newts in Taylor County, Florida, represents a significant reduction in the gap between these areas. In addition to the newts discovered in Taylor County, Florida, researchers also discovered 15 striped newts (14 paedomorphs and 1 nongilled adult) in a pond in Osceola County, Florida, in 2014, which represents a significant range expansion to the south. The historical range of the striped newt was likely similar to the current range. However, loss of native longleaf habitat, fire suppression, and the natural patchy distribution of upland habitats used by striped newts have resulted in fragmentation of existing populations. Other threats to the species include disease and drought, and existing regulatory mechanisms have not addressed the threats. Overall, the magnitude of the threats is moderate, and the threats are ongoing and, therefore, imminent. Therefore, we assigned an LPN of 8 to the striped newt. Berry Cave salamander (Gyrinophilus gulolineatus)—The following summary is based on information in our files. The Berry Cave salamander is recorded from Berry Cave in Roane County; from Mud Flats, Aycock Spring, Christian, Meades Quarry, Meades River, Fifth, and The Lost Puddle caves in Knox County; from Blythe Ferry Cave in Meigs County; from Small Cave in McMinn County; and from an unknown cave in Athens, McMinn County, Tennessee. These cave systems are all located within the Upper Tennessee River and Clinch River drainages. A total of 113 caves in Middle and East Tennessee were surveyed from the time period of April 2004 through June 2007, resulting in observations of 63 Berry Cave PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 87257 salamanders. These surveys documented two new populations of Berry Cave salamanders at Aycock Spring and Christian caves and led species experts to conclude that Berry Cave salamander populations are robust at Berry and Mudflats caves, where population declines had been previously reported. Further survey efforts in Berry Cave and Mudflats Cave in 2014 and early 2015 confirmed that viable populations of Berry Cave salamanders persist in these caves. One juvenile Berry Cave salamander was spotted during a May 10, 2014, survey in Small Cave, McMinn County. Significant sediment deposition was observed in the sinkhole entrance to the cave, likely due to nearby agricultural and pastureland use. Ongoing threats to this species include lye leaching in the Meades Quarry Cave as a result of past quarrying activities, the possible development of a roadway with potential to affect the recharge area for the Meades Quarry Cave system, urban development in Knox County, water-quality impacts despite existing State and Federal laws, and hybridization between spring salamanders and Berry Cave salamanders in Meades Quarry Cave. These threats, coupled with confined distribution of the species and apparent low population densities, are all factors that leave the Berry Cave salamander vulnerable to extirpation. We have determined that the Berry Cave salamander faces ongoing and therefore imminent threats. The threats to the salamander are moderate in magnitude because, although some of the threats to the species are widespread, the salamander still occurs in several different cave systems, and existing populations appear stable. We continue to assign this species an LPN of 8. Fishes Longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), Bay-Delta DPS—The following summary is based on information contained in our files and the petition we received on August 8, 2007. On April 2, 2012 (77 FR 19756), we determined that the longfin smelt San Francisco Bay-Delta distinct population segment (Bay-Delta DPS) warranted listing as an endangered or threatened species under the ESA, but that listing was precluded by higherpriority listing actions. Longfin smelt measure 9–11 cm (3.5–4.3 in) standard length. Longfin smelt are considered pelagic and anadromous, although anadromy in longfin smelt is poorly understood, and certain populations in other parts of the species’ range are not anadromous and complete their entire E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 87258 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules life cycle in freshwater lakes and streams. Longfin smelt usually live for 2 years, spawn, and then die, although some individuals may spawn as 1- or 3year-old fish before dying. In the BayDelta, longfin smelt are believed to spawn primarily in freshwater in the lower reaches of the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River. Longfin smelt numbers in the BayDelta have declined significantly since the 1980s. Abundance indices derived from the Fall Midwater Trawl (FMWT), Bay Study Midwater Trawl (BSMT), and Bay Study Otter Trawl (BSOT) all show marked declines in Bay-Delta longfin smelt populations from 2002 to 2016. Longfin smelt abundance over the last decade is the lowest recorded in the 40year history of the FMWT monitoring surveys of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly the California Department of Fish and Game). The 2015 longfin smelt abundance index numbers for the FMWT are the lowest ever recorded. The primary threat to the DPS is from reduced freshwater flows. Freshwater flows, especially winter-spring flows, are significantly correlated with longfin smelt abundance (i.e., longfin smelt abundance is lower when winter-spring flows are lower). The long-term decline in abundance of longfin smelt in the Bay-Delta has been partially attributed to reductions in food availability and disruptions of the Bay-Delta food web caused by establishment of the nonnative overbite clam (Corbula amurensis) and likely by increasing ammonium concentrations. The threats remain high in magnitude, as they pose a significant risk to the DPS throughout its range. The threats are ongoing, and thus are imminent. Thus, we are maintaining an LPN of 3 for this population. asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Clams Texas fatmucket (Lampsilis bracteata)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. The Texas fatmucket is a large, elongated freshwater mussel that is endemic to central Texas. Its shell can be moderately thick, smooth, and rhomboidal to oval in shape. Its external coloration varies from tan to brown with continuous dark brown, green-brown, or black rays, and internally it is pearly white, with some having a light salmon tint. This species historically occurred throughout the Colorado and Guadalupe–San Antonio River basins but is now known to occur only in nine streams within these basins in very limited numbers. All existing populations are represented by only one VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 or two individuals and are not likely to be stable or recruiting. The Texas fatmucket is primarily threatened by habitat destruction and modification from impoundments, which scour river beds, thereby removing mussel habitat; decrease water quality; modify stream flows; and prevent host fish migration and distribution of freshwater mussels. This species is also threatened by sedimentation, dewatering, sand and gravel mining, and chemical contaminants. These threats may be exacerbated by the current and projected effects of climate change, population fragmentation and isolation, and the anticipated threat of nonnative species. Threats to the Texas fatmucket and its habitat are not being adequately addressed through existing regulatory mechanisms. Because of the limited distribution of this endemic species and its lack of mobility, these threats are likely to result in the extinction of the Texas fatmucket in the foreseeable future. The threats to the Texas fatmucket are high in magnitude, because habitat loss and degradation from impoundments, sedimentation, sand and gravel mining, and chemical contaminants are widespread throughout the range of the Texas fatmucket and profoundly affect its survival and recruitment. These threats are exacerbated by climate change, which will increase the frequency and magnitude of droughts. Remaining populations are small, isolated, and highly vulnerable to stochastic events, which could lead to extirpation or extinction. These threats are imminent, because they are ongoing and will continue in the foreseeable future. Habitat loss and degradation have already occurred and will continue as the human population continues to grow in central Texas. Texas fatmucket populations may already be below the minimum viable population requirement, which causes a reduction in the resliency of a population and an increase in the species’ vulnerability to extinction. Based on imminent, highmagnitude threats, we maintained an LPN of 2 for the Texas fatmucket. Texas fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. The Texas fawnsfoot is a small, relatively thin-shelled freshwater mussel that is endemic to central Texas. Its shell is long and oval, generally free of external sculpturing, with external coloration that varies from yellowish- or orangish-tan, brown, reddish-brown, to smoky-green with a pattern of broken rays or irregular blotches. The internal color is bluish-white or white and PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 iridescent posteriorly. This species historically occurred throughout the Colorado and Brazos River basins and is now known from only five locations. The Texas fawnsfoot has been extirpated from nearly all of the Colorado River basin and from much of the Brazos River basin. Of the populations that remain, only three are likely to be stable and recruiting; the remaining populations are disjunct and restricted to short stream reaches. The Texas fawnsfoot is primarily threatened by habitat destruction and modification from impoundments, which scour river beds, thereby removing mussel habitat; decrease water quality; modify stream flows; and prevent host fish migration and distribution of freshwater mussels. The species is also threatened by sedimentation, dewatering, sand and gravel mining, and chemical contaminants. These threats may be exacerbated by the current and projected effects of climate change, population fragmentation and isolation, and the anticipated threat of nonnative species. Threats to the Texas fawnsfoot and its habitat are not being adequately addressed through existing regulatory mechanisms. Because of the limited distribution of this endemic species and its lack of mobility, these threats are likely to result in the extinction of the Texas fawnsfoot in the foreseeable future. The threats to the Texas fawnsfoot are high in magnitude. Habitat loss and degradation from impoundments, sedimentation, sand and gravel mining, and chemical contaminants are widespread throughout the range of the Texas fawnsfoot and profoundly affect its habitat. These threats are exacerbated by climate change, which will increase the frequency and magnitude of droughts. Remaining populations are small, isolated, and highly vulnerable to stochastic events. These threats are imminent, because they are ongoing and will continue in the foreseeable future. Habitat loss and degradation has already occurred and will continue as the human population continues to grow in central Texas. The Texas fawnsfoot populations may already be below the minimum viable population requirement, which causes a reduction in the resiliency of a population and an increase in the species’ vulnerability to extinction. Based on imminent, highmagnitude threats, we assigned the Texas fawnsfoot an LPN of 2. Golden orb (Quadrula aurea)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. The golden orb is a small, round-shaped freshwater mussel that is endemic to E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules central Texas. This species historically occurred throughout the Nueces-Frio and Guadalupe–San Antonio River basins and is now known from only nine locations in four rivers. The golden orb has been eliminated from nearly the entire Nueces-Frio River basin. Four of these populations appear to be stable and reproducing, and the remaining five populations are small and isolated and show no evidence of recruitment. It appears that the populations in the middle Guadalupe and lower San Marcos Rivers are likely connected. The remaining extant populations are highly fragmented and restricted to short reaches. The golden orb is primarily threatened by habitat destruction and modification from impoundments, which scour river beds (thereby removing mussel habitat), decrease water quality, modify stream flows, and prevent host fish migration and distribution of freshwater mussels. The species is also threatened by sedimentation, dewatering, sand and gravel mining, and chemical contaminants. These threats may be exacerbated by the current and projected effects of climate change, population fragmentation and isolation, and the anticipated threat of nonnative species. Threats to the golden orb and its habitat are not being addressed by existing regulatory mechanisms. Because of the limited distribution of this endemic species and its lack of mobility, these threats may be likely to result in the golden orb becoming in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. The threats to the golden orb are moderate in magnitude. Although habitat loss and degradation from impoundments, sedimentation, sand and gravel mining, and chemical contaminants are widespread throughout the range of the golden orb and are likely to be exacerbated by climate change, which will increase the frequency and magnitude of droughts, four large populations remain, including one that was recently discovered, suggesting that the threats are not high in magnitude. The threats from habitat loss and degradation are imminent, because habitat loss and degradation have already occurred and will likely continue as the human population continues to grow in central Texas. Several golden orb populations may already be below the minimum viable population requirement, which causes a reduction in the resliency of a population and an increase in the species’ vulnerability to extinction. Based on imminent, moderate threats, VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 we maintain an LPN of 8 for the golden orb. Smooth pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. The smooth pimpleback is a small, round-shaped freshwater mussel that is endemic to central Texas. This species historically occurred throughout the Colorado and Brazos River basins and is now known from only nine locations. The smooth pimpleback has been eliminated from nearly the entire Colorado River and all but one of its tributaries, and has been limited to the central and lower Brazos River drainage. Five of the populations are represented by no more than a few individuals and are small and isolated. Six of the existing populations appear to be relatively stable and recruiting. The smooth pimpleback is primarily threatened by habitat destruction and modification from impoundments, which scour river beds (thereby removing mussel habitat), decrease water quality, modify stream flows, and prevent host fish migration and distribution of freshwater mussels. The species is also threatened by sedimentation, dewatering, sand and gravel mining, and chemical contaminants. These threats may be exacerbated by the current and projected effects of climate change, population fragmentation, and isolation, and the anticipated threat of nonnative species. Threats to the smooth pimpleback and its habitat are not being adequately addressed through existing regulatory mechanisms. Because of the limited distribution of this endemic species and its lack of mobility, these threats may be likely to result in the smooth pimpleback becoming in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. The threats to the smooth pimpleback are moderate in magnitude. Although habitat loss and degradation from impoundments, sedimentation, sand and gravel mining, and chemical contaminants are widespread throughout the range of the smooth pimpleback and may be exacerbated by climate change, which will increase the frequency and magnitude of droughts, several large populations remain, including one that was recently discovered, suggesting that the threats are not high in magnitude. The threats from habitat loss and degradation are imminent, because they have already occurred and will continue as the human population continues to grow in central Texas. Several smooth pimpleback populations may already be below the minimum viable population requirement, which causes a reduction in the resliency of a population and an PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 87259 increase in the species’ vulnerability to extinction. Based on imminent, moderate threats, we maintain an LPN of 8 for the smooth pimpleback. Texas pimpleback (Quadrula petrina)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. The Texas pimpleback is a large freshwater mussel that is endemic to central Texas. This species historically occurred throughout the Colorado and Guadalupe–San Antonio River basins, but it is now known to occur only in four streams within these basins. Only two populations appear large enough to be stable, but evidence of recruitment is limited in one of them (the Concho River population) so the San Saba River population may be the only remaining recruiting populations of Texas pimpleback. The remaining two populations are represented by one or two individuals and are highly disjunct. The Texas pimpleback is primarily threatened by habitat destruction and modification from impoundments, which scour river beds (thereby removing mussel habitat), decrease water quality, modify stream flows, and prevent host fish migration and distribution of freshwater mussels. This species is also threatened by sedimentation, dewatering, sand and gravel mining, and chemical contaminants. These threats may be exacerbated by the current and projected effects of climate change (which will increase the frequency and magnitude of droughts), population fragmentation and isolation, and the anticipated threat of nonnative species. Threats to the Texas pimpleback and its habitat are not being addressed through existing regulatory mechanisms. Because of the limited distribution of this endemic species and its lack of mobility, these threats may be likely to result in the Texas pimpleback becoming in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. The threats to the Texas pimpleback are high in magnitude, because habitat loss and degradation from impoundments, sedimentation, sand and gravel mining, and chemical contaminants are widespread throughout the entire range of the Texas pimpleback and profoundly affect its survival and recruitment. The only remaining populations are small, isolated, and highly vulnerable to stochastic events, which could lead to extirpation or extinction. The threats are imminent, because habitat loss and degradation have already occurred and will continue as the human population continues to grow in central Texas. All Texas pimpleback populations may already be below the minimum viable E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 87260 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS population requirement, which causes a reduction in the resiliency of a population and an increase in the species’ vulnerability to extinction. Based on imminent, high-magnitude threats, we assigned the Texas pimpleback an LPN of 2. Snails Magnificent ramshorn (Planorbella magnifica)—Magnificent ramshorn is the largest North American air-breathing freshwater snail in the family Planorbidae. It has a discoidal (i.e., coiling in one plane), relatively thin shell that reaches a diameter commonly exceeding 35 millimeters (mm) and heights exceeding 20 mm. The great width of its shell, in relation to the diameter, makes it easily identifiable at all ages. The shell is brown colored (often with leopard like spots) and fragile, thus indicating it is adapted to still or slow-flowing aquatic habitats. The magnificent ramshorn is believed to be a southeastern North Carolina endemic. The species was historically known from only four sites in the lower Cape Fear River Basin in North Carolina—all four sites appear to be extirpated. Although the complete historical range of the species is unknown, the size of the species and the fact that it was not reported until 1903 suggest that the species may have always been rare and localized. Salinity and pH appear to have been major factors limiting the distribution of the magnificent ramshorn, as the snail prefers freshwater bodies with circumneutral pH (i.e., pH within the range of 6.8–7.5). While members of the family Planorbidae are hermaphroditic, it is currently unknown whether magnificent ramshorns self-fertilize their eggs, mate with other individuals of the species, or both. Like other members of the Planorbidae family, the magnificent ramshorn is believed to be primarily a vegetarian, feeding on submerged aquatic plants, algae, and detritus. While several factors have likely contributed to the possible extirpation of the magnificent ramshorn in the wild, the primary factors include loss of habitat associated with the extirpation of beavers (and their impoundments) in the early 20th century, increased salinity and alteration of flow patterns, as well as increased input of nutrients and other pollutants. The magnificent ramshorn appears to be extirpated from the wild due to habitat loss and degradation resulting from a variety of humaninduced and natural factors. The only known surviving individuals of the species are presently being held and propagated at a private residence, a lab VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 at North Carolina State University’s Veterinary School, and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission’s Watha State Fish Hatchery. While efforts have been made to restore habitat for the magnificent ramshorn at one of the sites known to have previously supported the species, all of the sites continue to be affected or threatened by the same factors (i.e., saltwater intrusion and other water-quality degradation, nuisance-aquatic-plant control, storms, sea-level rise, etc.) believed to have resulted in extirpation of the species from the wild. Currently, only three captive populations exist: A population of the species comprised of approximately 300+ adults, a population with approximately 200+ adults, and a population of 50+ small individuals. Although captive populations of the species have been maintained since 1993, a single catastrophic event, such as a severe storm, disease, or predator infestation, affecting a captive population could result in the near extinction of the species. The threats are high in magnitude and ongoing—therefore, we assigned this species an LPN of 2. Insects Hermes copper butterfly (Lycaena hermes)—We continue to find that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of publication of this notice. However, we are working on a thorough review of all available data and expect to publish either a proposed listing rule or a 12-month notwarranted finding prior to making the next annual resubmitted petition 12month finding. In the course of preparing a proposed listing rule or notwarranted petition finding, we are continuing to monitor new information about this species’ status so that we can make prompt use of our authority under section 4(b)(7) of the ESA in the case of an emergency posing a significant risk to the species. Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly (Atlantea tulita)—The following summary is based on information in our files and in the petition we received on February 29, 2009. The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is endemic to Puerto Rico, and one of the four species endemic to the Greater Antilles within the genus Atlantea. This species occurs within the subtropical-moist-forest life zone in the northern karst region (i.e., municipality of Quebradillas) of Puerto Rico, and in the subtropical-wet-forest life zone (i.e., Maricao Commonwealth Forest, municipality of Maricao). The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly population has been estimated at PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 around 50 adults in the northern karst region and fewer than 20 adults in the volcanic serpentine central mountains of the island. The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly has only been found utilizing Oplonia spinosa (prickly bush) as its host plant (i.e., plant used for laying the eggs, which also serves as a food source for development of the larvae). The primary threats to the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly are development, habitat fragmentation, and other natural or manmade factors such as human-induced fires, use of herbicides and pesticides, vegetation management, and climate change. These factors, if they occurred in habitat occupied by the species, would substantially affect the distribution and abundance of the species, as well as its habitat. In addition, due to the lack of effective enforcement of existing policies and regulations, the threats to the species’ habitat are not being reduced. These threats are of a high magnitue and are imminent because the occurrence of known populations in areas that are subject to development, increased traffic, increased road maintenance and construction, and other threats directly affects the species during all life stages and is likely to result in population decreases. These threats are expected to continue and potentially increase in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we assign an LPN of 2 to the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly. In 2015, the Service, through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, signed a cooperative agreement with a local nongovernmental organization, ´ Iniciativa Herpetologica, to promote the enhancement and conservation of suitable habitat for the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly on private lands located within its range on the northern karst region of the island. Rattlesnake-master borer moth (Papaipema eryngii)—Rattlesnakemaster borer moths are obligate residents of undisturbed prairie remnants, savanna, and pine barrens that contain their only food plant, rattlesnake master (Eryngium yuccifolium). The rattlesnake-master borer moth is known from 31 sites in 7 States: Illinois, Arkansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Kansas, and Missouri. Currently 27 of the sites contain extant populations, 3 contain populations with unknown status, and 1 contains a population that is considered extirpated. The 14 Missouri populations and 1 Kansas population were identified in 2015 and are considered extant; however, there are no trend data for these sites. E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules Although the rattlesnake master plant is widely distributed across 26 States and is a common plant in remnant prairies, it is a conservative species, meaning it is not found in disturbed areas, with relative frequencies of less than 1 percent. The habitat range for the rattlesnake-master borer moth is very narrow and appears to be limiting for the species. The ongoing effects of habitat loss, fragmentation, degradation, and modification from agriculture, development, flooding, invasive species, and secondary succession have resulted in fragmented populations and population declines. Rattlesnake-master borer moths are affected by habitat fragmentation and population isolation. Almost all of the sites with extant populations of the rattlesnake-master borer moth are isolated from one another, with the populations in Kentucky, North Carolina, and Oklahoma occurring within a single site for each State, thus precluding recolonization from other populations. These small, isolated populations are likely to become unviable over time due to: Lower genetic diversity, reducing their ability to adapt to environmental change; the effects of stochastic events; and their inability to recolonize areas where they are extirpated. Rattlesnake-master borer moths have life-history traits that make them more susceptible to outside stressors. They are univoltine (having a single flight per year), do not disperse widely, and are monophagous (have only one food source). The life history of the species makes it particularly sensitive to fire, which is the primary practice used in prairie management. The species is only safe from fire once it bores into the root of the host plant, which makes adult, egg, and first larval stages subject to mortality during prescribed burns and wildfires. Fire and grazing cause direct mortality to the moth and destroy food plants if the intensity, extent, or timing is not conducive to the species’ biology. Although fire management is a threat to the species, lack of management is also a threat, and at least one site has become extirpated likely because of the succession to woody habitat. The species is sought after by collectors and the host plant is very easy to identify, making the moth susceptible to collection, and thus many sites are kept undisclosed to the public. Existing regulatory mechanisms provide protection for 12 of the 16 sites containing rattlesnake-master borer moth populations recorded before 2015. The 15 populations identified in 2015 are under a range of protection and management levels. Illinois’ endangered species statute provides regulatory VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 mechanisms to protect the species from potential impacts from actions such as development and collecting on the 10 Illinois sites; however, illegal collections of the species have occurred at two sites. A permit is required for collection by site managers within the sites in North Carolina and Oklahoma. The rattlesnake-master borer moth is also listed as endangered in Kentucky by the State’s Nature Preserves Commission, although this status currently provides no statutory protection. There are no statutory mechanisms in place to protect the populations in North Carolina, Arkansas, or Oklahoma. Some threats that the rattlesnakemaster moth faces are high in magnitude, such as habitat conversion and fragmentation, and population isolation. These threats with the highest magnitude occur in many of the populations throughout the species’ range, but although they are likely to affect each population at some time, they are not likely to affect all of the populations at any one time. Other threats, such as agricultural and nonagricultural development, mortality from implementation of some prairie management tools (such as fire), flooding, succession, and climate change, are of moderate to low magnitude. For example, the life history of rattlesnake-master borer moths makes them highly sensitive to fire, which can cause mortality of individuals through most of the year and can affect entire populations. Conversely, complete fire suppression can also be a threat to rattlesnake-master borer moths as prairie habitat declines and woody or invasive species become established such that the species’ only food plant is not found in disturbed prairies. Although these threats can cause direct and indirect mortality of the species, they are of moderate or low magnitude because they affect only some populations throughout the range and to varying degrees. Overall, the threats are moderate. The threats are imminent, because they are ongoing; every known population of rattlesnake-master borer moth has at least one ongoing threat, and some have several working in tandem. Thus, we assigned an LPN of 8 to this species. Arapahoe snowfly (Arsapnia arapahoe)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files. This insect is a winter stonefly associated with clean, cool, running waters. Adult snowflies emerge in late winter from the space underneath stream ice. Until 2013, the Arapahoe snowfly had been confirmed in only two streams (Elkhorn Creek and Young PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 87261 Gulch), both of which are small tributaries of the Cache la Poudre River in the Roosevelt National Forest, Larimer County, Colorado. However, the species has not been identified in Young Gulch since 1986; it is likely that either the habitat became unsuitable or other unknown causes extirpated the species. Habitats at Young Gulch were further degraded by the High Park Fire in 2012, and potentially by a flash flood in September 2013. New surveys completed in 2013 and 2014 identified the Arapahoe snowfly in seven new localities, including Elkhorn Creek, Sheep Creek (a tributary of the Big Thompson River), Central Gulch (a tributary of Saint Vrain Creek), and Bummer’s Gulch, Martin Gulch, and Bear Canyon Creek (tributaries of Boulder Creek in Boulder County). However, the numbers of specimens collected at each location were extremely low. These new locations occur on U.S. Forest Service land, Boulder County Open Space, and private land. Climate change is a threat to the Arapahoe snowfly and modifies its habitats by reducing snowpacks, altering streamflows, increasing water temperatures, fostering mountain pine beetle outbreaks, and increasing the frequency of destructive wildfires. Limited dispersal capabilities, a restricted range, dependence on pristine habitats, and a small population size make the Arapahoe snowfly vulnerable to demographic stochasticity, environmental stochasticity, and random catastrophes. Furthermore, regulatory mechanisms are not addressing these threats, which may act cumulatively to affect the species. The threats to the Arapahoe snowfly are high in magnitude because they occur throughout the species’ limited range. However, the threats are nonimminent. While limited dispersal capabilities, restricted range, dependence on pristine habitats, and small population size are characteristics that make this species vulnerable to stochastic events and catastrophic events (and potential impacts from climate change), there are no stochastic or catastrophic events that are currently occurring, and although temperatures are increasing, the increasing temperatures are not yet having adverse effects on the species. Therefore, we have assigned the Arapahoe snowfly an LPN of 5. Flowering Plants Astragalus microcymbus (Skiff milkvetch)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files and in the petition we received on July 30, 2007. Skiff milkvetch is a E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 87262 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules perennial forb that dies back to the ground every year. It has a very limited range and a spotty distribution within Gunnison and Saguache Counties in Colorado, where it is found in open, park-like landscapes in the sagebrushsteppe ecosystem on rocky or cobbly, moderate-to-steep slopes of hills and draws. The most significant threats to skiff milkvetch are recreation, roads, trails, and habitat fragmentation and degradation. Existing regulatory mechanisms are not addressing these threats to the species. Recreational impacts are likely to increase, given the close proximity of skiff milkvetch to the town of Gunnison and the increasing popularity of mountain biking, motorcycling, and all-terrain vehicles. Furthermore, the Hartman Rocks Recreation Area draws users, and contains over 40 percent of the skiff milkvetch units. Other threats to the species include residential and urban development; livestock, deer, and elk use; climate change; increasing periodic drought; nonnative, invasive cheatgrass; and wildfire. The threats to skiff milkvetch are moderate in magnitude, because, while serious and occurring rangewide, they do not collectively result in population declines on a short time scale. The threats are imminent, because the species is currently facing them in many portions of its range. Therefore, we have assigned skiff milkvetch an LPN of 8. Astragalus schmolliae (Chapin Mesa milkvetch)—The following summary is based on information provided by Mesa Verde National Park and Colorado Natural Heritage Program, contained in our files, and in the petition we received on July 30, 2007. Chapin Mesa milkvetch is a narrow endemic perennial plant that grows in the mature pinyon–juniper woodland of mesa tops on Chapin Mesa in the Mesa Verde National Park and in the adjoining Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Park in southern Colorado. The most significant threats to the species are degradation of habitat by fire, followed by invasion by nonnative cheatgrass and subsequent increase in fire frequency. These threats currently affect about 40 percent of the species’ entire known range. Cheatgrass is likely to increase given its rapid spread and persistence in habitat disturbed by wildfires, fire and fuels management, and development of infrastructure, and given the inability of land managers to control it on a landscape scale. Other threats to Chapin Mesa milkvetch include fires, fire-break clearings, and drought. Existing regulatory mechanisms are not addressing the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 threats. The threats to the species overall are imminent and moderate in magnitude, because the species is currently facing them in many portions of its range, but the threats do not collectively result in population declines on a short time scale. Therefore, we have assigned Chapin Mesa milkvetch an LPN of 8. Boechera pusilla (Fremont County rockcress)—See above summary under Listing Priority Changes in Candidates. Cirsium wrightii (Wright’s marsh thistle)—We continue to find that listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of publication of this notice. However, we are working on a thorough review of all available data and expect to publish either a proposed listing rule or a 12-month not-warranted finding prior to making the next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the course of preparing a proposed listing rule or not-warranted petition finding, we are continuing to monitor new information about this species’ status so that we can make prompt use of our authority under section 4(b)(7) of the ESA in the case of an emergency posing a significant risk to the species. Eriogonum soredium (Frisco buckwheat)—The following summary is based on information in our files and the petition we received on July 30, 2007. Frisco buckwheat is a narrowendemic perennial plant restricted to soils derived from Ordovician limestone outcrops. The range of the species is less than 5 square miles (13 square kilometers), with four known populations. All four populations occur exclusively on private lands in Beaver County, Utah, and each population occupies a very small area with high densities of plants. Available population estimates are highly variable and inaccurate due to the limited access for surveys associated with private lands. The primary threat to Frisco buckwheat is habitat destruction from precious-metal and gravel mining. Mining for precious metals historically occurred within the vicinity of all four populations. Three of the populations are currently in the immediate vicinity of active limestone quarries. Ongoing mining in the species’ habitat has the potential to extirpate one population in the near future and extirpate all populations in the foreseeable future. Ongoing exploration for precious metals and gravel indicate that mining will continue, but it will take time for the mining operations to be put into place and to affect the species. This will result in the loss and fragmentation of Frisco buckwheat populations over a longer time scale. Other threats to the species include nonnative species in PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 conjunction with surface disturbance from mining activities. Existing regulatory mechanisms are not addressing the threats to the species. Vulnerabilities of the species include small population size and climate change. The threats that Frisco buckwheat faces are moderate in magnitude, because while serious and occurring rangewide, the threats do not significantly reduce populations on a short time scale. The threats are imminent, because three of the populations are currently in the immediate vicinity of active limestone quarries. Therefore, we have assigned Frisco buckwheat an LPN of 8. Lepidium ostleri (Ostler’s peppergrass)—The following summary is based on information in our files and the petition we received on July 30, 2007. Ostler’s peppergrass is a longlived perennial herb in the mustard family that grows in dense, cushion-like tufts. Ostler’s peppergrass is a narrow endemic restricted to soils derived from Ordovician limestone outcrops. The range of the species is less than 5 square miles (13 square kilometers), with only four known populations. All four populations occur exclusively on private lands in the southern San Francisco Mountains of Beaver County, Utah. Available population estimates are highly variable and inaccurate due largely to the limited access for surveys associated with private lands. The primary threat to Ostler’s peppergrass is habitat destruction from precious-metal and gravel mining. Mining for precious metals historically occurred within the vicinity of all four populations. Three of the populations are currently in the immediate vicinity of active limestone quarries, but mining is only currently occurring in the area of one population. Ongoing mining in the species’ habitat has the potential to extirpate one population in the future. Ongoing exploration for precious metals and gravel indicate that mining will continue, but will take time for the mining operations to be put into place. This will result in the loss and fragmentation of Ostler’s peppergrass populations over a longer time scale. Other threats to the species include nonnative species, vulnerability associated with small population size, and climate change. Existing regulatory mechanisms are not addressing the threats to the species. The threats that Ostler’s peppergrass faces are moderate in magnitude, because, while serious and occurring rangewide, the threats do not collectively result in significant population declines on a short time scale. The threats are imminent, because the species is currently facing them E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules across its entire range. Therefore, we have assigned Ostler’s peppergrass an LPN of 8. Pinus albicaulis (whitebark pine)— The following summary is based on information in our files and in the petition received on December 9, 2008. Whitebark pine is a hardy conifer found at alpine-tree-line and subalpine elevations in Washington, Oregon, Nevada, California, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, and in British Columbia and Alberta, Canada. In the United States, approximately 96 percent of land where the species occurs is federally owned or managed, primarily by the U.S. Forest Service. Whitebark pine is a slowgrowing, long-lived tree that often lives for 500 and sometimes more than 1,000 years. It is considered a keystone, or foundation, species in western North America, where it increases biodiversity and contributes to critical ecosystem functions. The primary threat to the species is from disease in the form of the nonnative white pine blister rust and its interaction with other threats. Although whitebark pine is still also experiencing some mortality from predation by the native mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae), the current epidemic is subsiding. We also anticipate that continuing environmental effects resulting from climate change will result in direct habitat loss for whitebark pine. Models predict that suitable habitat for whitebark pine will decline precipitously within the next 100 years. Past and ongoing fire suppression is also negatively affecting populations of whitebark pine through direct habitat loss. Additionally, environmental changes resulting from changing climatic conditions are acting alone and in combination with the effects of fire suppression to increase the frequency and severity of wildfires. Lastly, the existing regulatory mechanisms are not addressing the threats presented above. As the mountain-pine-beetle epidemic is subsiding, we no longer consider this threat to be having the high level of impact that was seen in recent years. However, given projected warming trends, we expect that conditions will remain favorable for epidemic levels of mountain pine beetle into the foreseeable future. The significant threats from white pine blister rust, fire and fire suppression, and environmental effects of climate change remain on the landscape. However, the overall magnitude of threats to whitebark pine is somewhat diminished given the current absence of epidemic levels of mountain pine beetle, and because of this, individuals with genetic resistance VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 to white pine blister rust likely have a higher probability of survival. Survival and reproduction of genetically resistant trees are critical to the persistence of the species given the imminent, ubiquitous presence of white pine blister rust on the landscape. Overall, the threats to the species are ongoing, and therefore imminent, and are moderate in magnitude. We find the current LPN of 8 is appropriate. Solanum conocarpum (marron bacora)—The following summary is based on information in our files and in the petition we received on November 21, 1996. Solanum conocarpum is a dryforest shrub in the island of St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. Its current distribution includes eight localities in the island of St. John, each ranging from 1 to 144 individuals. The species has been reported to occur on dry, poor soils. It can be locally abundant in exposed topography on sites disturbed by erosion, areas that have received moderate grazing, and around ridgelines as an understory component in diverse woodland communities. A habitat suitability model suggests that the vast majority of Solanum conocarpum habitat is found in the lower-elevation coastal-scrub forest. Efforts have been conducted to propagate the species to enhance natural populations, and planting of seedlings has been conducted in the island of St. John. Solanum conocarpum is threatened by the lack of natural recruitment, absence of dispersers, fragmented distribution, lack of genetic variation, climate change, and habitat destruction or modification by exotic mammal species. These threats are evidenced by the reduced number of individuals, low number of populations, and lack of connectivity between populations. Overall, the threats are of high magnitude because they are leading to population declines for a species that already has low population numbers and fragmented distribution; the threats are also ongoing and therefore imminent. Therefore, we assigned an LPN of 2 to Solanum conocarpum. Streptanthus bracteatus (bracted twistflower)—The following summary is based on information obtained from our files, on-line herbarium databases, surveys and monitoring data, seedcollection data, and scientific publications. Bracted twistflower, an annual herbaceous plant of the Brassicaceae (mustard family), is endemic to a small portion of the Edwards Plateau of Texas. The Texas Natural Diversity Database, as revised on March 8, 2015, lists 17 element occurrences (EOs; populations) that were documented from 1989 to 2015 in PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 87263 five counties. Currently, 10 EOs remain with intact habitat, 2 EOs are partially intact, 2 EOs are on managed rights-ofway, and 3 EO sites have been developed and the populations are presumed extirpated. Only 8 of the intact EOs and portions of 2 EOs are in protected natural areas. Four extant EOs are vulnerable to development and other impacts. Five EOs have been partially or completely developed, including 2 EOs that were destroyed in 2012 and 2013, respectively. The continued survival of bracted twistflower is imminently threatened by habitat destruction from urban development, severe herbivory from dense herds of white-tailed deer and other herbivores, and the increased density of woody plant cover. Additional ongoing threats include erosion and trampling from foot and mountain-bike trails, a pathogenic fungus of unknown origin, and insufficient protection by existing regulations. Furthermore, due to the small size and isolation of remaining populations, and lack of gene flow between them, several populations are now inbred and may have insufficient genetic diversity for long-term survival. Bracted twistflower populations often occur in habitats that also support the endangered golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia), and while that does afford some protection to the plant, the two species may require different vegetation management. Bracted twistflower is potentially threatened by as-yet unknown impacts of climate change. The Service has established a voluntary memorandum of agreement with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the City of Austin, Travis County, the Lower Colorado River Authority, and the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center to protect bracted twistflower and its habitats on tracts of Balcones Canyonlands Preserve. While the scope of this agreement does not protect the species throughout its range, the implementaiton of these responsibilities result in a moderate magnitude of threats and in the future will contribute to the species’ conservation and recovery. The threats to bracted twistflower are ongoing and, therefore, imminent; consequently we maintain an LPN of 8 for this species. Trifolium friscanum (Frisco clover)— The following summary is based on information in our files and the petition we received on July 30, 2007. Frisco clover is a narrow endemic perennial herb found only in Utah, with five known populations restricted to sparsely vegetated, pinion-juniper sagebrush communities and shallow, gravel soils derived from volcanic E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 87264 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS gravels, Ordovician limestone, and dolomite outcrops. The majority (68 percent) of Frisco clover plants occur on private lands, with the remaining plants found on Federal and State lands. On the private and State lands, the most significant threat to Frisco clover is habitat destruction from mining for precious metals and gravel. Active mining claims, recent prospecting, and an increasing demand for precious metals and gravel indicate that mining in Frisco clover habitats will increase in the foreseeable future, likely resulting in the loss of large numbers of plants. Other threats to Frisco clover include nonnative, invasive species in conjunction with surface disturbance from mining activities. Existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect the species from these threats. Vulnerabilities of the species include small population size and climate change. The threats to Frisco clover are moderate in magnitude, because, while serious and occurring throughout a majority of its range, they are not acting independently or cumulatively to have a highly significant negative impact on its survival or reproductive capacity. For example, although mining for precious metals and gravel historically occurred throughout Frisco clover’s range, and mining operations may eventually expand into occupied habitats, there are no active mines within the immediate vicinity of any known population. However, activity may resume at one gravel mine on State lands in the near future where expansion plans have been discussed but not submitted to the State of Utah for permitting. At this time, avoidance of occupied habitat appears to be feasible for this mine’s expansion. Overall, the threats of mining activities, invasive species, inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, small population size, and climate change are imminent, because the species is currently facing these threats across its entire range. Therefore, we have assigned Frisco clover an LPN of 8. Petitions To Reclassify Species Already Listed We previously made warranted-butprecluded findings on three petitions seeking to reclassify threatened species to endangered status. The taxa involved in the reclassification petitions are one population of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus), and Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette cactus). Because these species are already listed under the ESA, they are not candidates for listing and are not VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 included in Table 1. However, this notice and associated species assessment forms or 5-year review documents also constitute the findings for the resubmitted petitions to reclassify these species. Our updated assessments for these species are provided below. We find that reclassification to endangered status for one grizzly bear ecosystem population, delta smelt, and Sclerocactus brevispinus are all currently warranted but precluded by work identified above (see Findings for Petitioned Candidate Species, above). One of the primary reasons that the work identified above is considered to have higher priority is that the grizzly bear population, delta smelt, and Sclerocactus brevispinus are currently listed as threatened, and therefore already receive certain protections under the ESA. Those protections are set forth in our regulations: 50 CFR 17.40(b) (grizzly bear); 50 CFR 17.31, and, by reference, 50 CFR 17.21 (delta smelt); and 50 CFR 17.71, and, by reference, 50 CFR 17.61 (Sclerocactus brevispinus). It is therefore unlawful for any person, among other prohibited acts, to take (i.e., to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in such activity) a grizzly bear or a delta smelt, subject to applicable exceptions. And it is unlawful for any person, among other prohibited acts, to remove or reduce to possession Sclerocactus brevispinus from an area under Federal jurisdiction, subject to applicable exceptions. Other protections that apply to these threatened species even before we complete proposed and final reclassification rules include those under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, whereby Federal agencies must insure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species. Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), North Cascades ecosystem population (Region 6)—Since 1990, we have received and reviewed five petitions requesting a change in status for the North Cascades grizzly bear population (55 FR 32103, August 7, 1990; 56 FR 33892, July 24, 1991; 57 FR 14372, April 20, 1992; 58 FR 43856, August 18, 1993; 63 FR 30453, June 4, 1998). In response to these petitions, we determined that grizzly bears in the North Cascade ecosystem warrant a change to endangered status. We have continued to find that these petitions are warranted but precluded through our annual CNOR process. On February 19, 2015, in partnership with the National PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Park Service, we issued a notice of intent to jointly prepare a North Cascades Ecosystem Grizzly Bear Restoration Plan and Environmental Impact Statement to determine how to restore the grizzly bear to the North Cascades ecosystem (80 FR 8894; February 19, 2015). Natural recovery in this ecosystem is challenged by the absence of a verified population (only three confirmed observations in the last 20 years), as well as isolation from any contiguous population in British Columbia and the United States. In 2016, we continue to find that reclassifying grizzly bears in this ecosystem as endangered is warranted but precluded, and we continue to assign an LPN of 3 for the uplisting of the North Cascades population based on high-magnitude threats, including very small population size, incomplete habitat protection measures (motorizedaccess management), and population fragmentation resulting in genetic isolation. However, we also acknowledge the possibility that there is no longer a population present in the ecosystem, and restoration efforts (possibly including designation of an experimental population under section 10(j) of the ESA) may be used to establish a viable population in this recovery zone. The threats are high in magnitude, because the limiting factors for grizzly bears in this recovery zone are human-caused mortality and extremely small population size. The threats are ongoing, and thus imminent. However, higher-priority listing actions, including court-approved settlements, court-ordered and statutory deadlines for petition findings and listing determinations, emergency listing determinations, and responses to litigation, continue to preclude reclassifying grizzly bears in this ecosystem. Furthermore, proposed rules to reclassify threatened species to endangered are a lower priority than listing currently unprotected species (i.e., candidate species), as species currently listed as threatened are already afforded protection under the ESA and the implementing regulations. We continue to monitor grizzly bears in this ecosystem and will change their status or implement an emergency uplisting if necessary. Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) (Region 8) (see 75 FR 17667, April 7, 2010, for additional information on why reclassification to endangered is warranted but precluded)—The following summary is based on information contained in our files and the petition we received on March 8, 2006. Delta smelt are slenderbodied fish, generally about 60 to 70 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules millimeters (mm) (2 to 3 inches (in)) long, although they may reach lengths of up to 120 mm (4.7 in). Delta smelt are in the Osmeridae family (smelts). Live fish are nearly translucent and have a steely blue sheen to their sides. Delta smelt feed primarily on small planktonic (free-floating) crustaceans, and occasionally on insect larvae. Delta smelt are endemic to the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Delta) in California. Studies indicate that delta smelt require specific environmental conditions (freshwater flow, water quality) and habitat types within the estuary for migration, spawning, egg incubation, rearing, and larval and juvenile transport from spawning to rearing habitats. Delta smelt are a euryhaline (tolerate a wide range of salinities) species; however, they rarely occur in water with salinities more than 10–12 (about one-third seawater). Feyrer et al. found that relative abundance of delta smelt was related to fall salinity and turbidity (water clarity). Laboratory studies found that delta smelt larval feeding increased with increased turbidity. Delta smelt have been in decline for decades, and numbers have trended precipitously downward since the early 2000s. In the wet water year of 2011, the Fall Mid-Water Trawl (FMWT) index for delta smelt increased to 343, which is the highest index recorded since 2001. It immediately declined again in 2012 to 42 and continued to decline in 2013 and 2014, when the index was 18 and 9, respectively. A new all-time low was reached in 2015 with an index of 7. Eleven of the last 12 years have seen FMWT indexes that have been the lowest ever recorded, and the 2015– 2016 results from all five of the surveys analyzed in this review have been the lowest ever recorded for the delta smelt. The primary known threats cited in the 12-month finding to reclassify the delta smelt from threatened to endangered (75 FR 17667; April 7, 2010) are: Entrainment by State and Federal water export facilities; summer and fall increases in salinity due to reductions in freshwater flow and summer and fall increases in water clarity; and effects from introduced species, primarily the overbite clam and Egeria densa. Additional threats included predation, entrainment into power plants, contaminants, and the increased vulnerability to all these threats resulting from small population size. Since the 2010 warranted 12-month finding, we have identified climate change as a threat; climate change was not analyzed in the 2010 12-month finding. Since the 2010 12-month finding, one of the two power plants VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 within the range of the delta smelt using water for cooling has shut down, and power plants are no longer thought to be a threat to the population as a whole. We have identified a number of existing regulatory mechanisms that provide protective measures that affect the stressors acting on the delta smelt. Despite these existing regulatory mechanisms and other conservations efforts, the decrease in population levels makes clear that the stressors continue to act on the species such that it is warranted for uplisting under the ESA. We are unable to determine with certainty which threats or combinations of threats are directly responsible for the decrease in delta smelt abundance. However, the apparent low abundance of delta smelt in concert with ongoing threats throughout its range indicates that the delta smelt is now in danger of extinction throughout its range. The threats to the species are of a high magnitude, and imminent. Therefore, we retained an LPN of 2 for uplisting this species. Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette cactus) (Region 6) (see 72 FR 53211, September 18, 2007, and the species assessment form (see ADDRESSES) for additional information on why reclassification to endangered is warranted but precluded)—Pariette cactus is restricted to clay badlands of the Uinta geologic formation in the Uinta Basin of northeastern Utah. The species is restricted to one population with an overall range of approximately 16 miles by 5 miles in extent. The species’ entire population is within a developed and expanding oil and gas field. The location of the species’ habitat exposes it to destruction from road, pipeline, and well-site construction in connection with oil and gas development. The species may be illegally collected as a specimen plant for horticultural use. Recreational offroad vehicle use and livestock trampling are additional threats. The species is currently federally listed as threatened (44 FR 58868, October 11, 1979; 74 FR 47112, September 15, 2009). The threats are of a high magnitude, because any one of the threats has the potential to severely affect the survival of this species, a narrow endemic with a highly limited range and distribution. Threats are ongoing and, therefore, are imminent. Thus, we assigned an LPN of 2 to this species for uplisting. However, higher-priority listing actions, including court-approved settlements, courtordered and statutory deadlines for petition findings and listing determinations, emergency listing determinations, and responses to litigation, continue to preclude PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 87265 reclassifying the Pariette cactus. Furthermore, proposed rules to reclassify threatened species to endangered are generally a lower priority than listing currently unprotected species (i.e., candidate species), as species currently listed as threatened are already afforded the protection of the ESA and the implementing regulations. Current Notice of Review We gather data on plants and animals native to the United States that appear to merit consideration for addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists). This document identifies those species that we currently regard as candidates for addition to the Lists. These candidates include species and subspecies of fish, wildlife, or plants, and DPSs of vertebrate animals. This compilation relies on information from status surveys conducted for candidate assessment and on information from State Natural Heritage Programs, other State and Federal agencies, knowledgeable scientists, public and private natural resource interests, and comments received in response to previous notices of review. Tables 1 and 2 list animals arranged alphabetically by common names under the major group headings, and list plants alphabetically by names of genera, species, and relevant subspecies and varieties. Animals are grouped by class or order. Plants are subdivided into two groups: (1) Flowering plants and (2) ferns and their allies. Useful synonyms and subgeneric scientific names appear in parentheses with the synonyms preceded by an ‘‘equals’’ sign. Several species that have not yet been formally described in the scientific literature are included; such species are identified by a generic or specific name (in italics), followed by ‘‘sp.’’ or ‘‘ssp.’’ We incorporate standardized common names in these notices as they become available. We sort plants by scientific name due to the inconsistencies in common names, the inclusion of vernacular and composite subspecific names, and the fact that many plants still lack a standardized common name. Table 1 lists all candidate species, plus species currently proposed for listing under the ESA. We emphasize that in this notice we are not proposing to list any of the candidate species; rather, we will develop and publish proposed listing rules for these species in the future. We encourage State agencies, other Federal agencies, and other parties to give consideration to these species in environmental planning. E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 87266 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules In Table 1, the ‘‘category’’ column on the left side of the table identifies the status of each species according to the following codes: PE—Species proposed for listing as endangered. Proposed species are those species for which we have published a proposed rule to list as endangered or threatened in the Federal Register. This category does not include species for which we have withdrawn or finalized the proposed rule. PT—Species proposed for listing as threatened. PSAT—Species proposed for listing as threatened due to similarity of appearance. C—Candidates: Species for which we have on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list them as endangered or threatened. Issuance of proposed rules for these species is precluded at present by other higher priority listing actions. This category includes species for which we made a 12-month warranted-but-precluded finding on a petition to list. We made new findings on all petitions for which we previously made ‘‘warranted-but-precluded’’ findings. We identify the species for which we made a continued warranted-butprecluded finding on a resubmitted petition by the code ‘‘C*’’ in the category column (see Findings for Petitioned Candidate Species for additional information). The ‘‘Priority’’ column indicates the LPN for each candidate species, which we use to determine the most appropriate use of our available resources. The lowest numbers have the highest priority. We assign LPNs based on the immediacy and magnitude of threats, as well as on taxonomic status. We published a complete description of our listing priority system in the Federal Register (48 FR 43098, September 21, 1983). The third column, ‘‘Lead Region,’’ identifies the Regional Office to which you should direct information, comments, or questions (see addresses under Request for Information at the end of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section). Following the scientific name (fourth column) and the family designation (fifth column) is the common name (sixth column). The seventh column provides the known historical range for the species or vertebrate population (for vertebrate populations, this is the historical range for the entire species or subspecies and not just the historical range for the distinct population VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 segment), indicated by postal code abbreviations for States and U.S. territories. Many species no longer occur in all of the areas listed. Species in Table 2 of this notice are those we included either as proposed species or as candidates in the previous CNOR (published December 24, 2015, at 80 FR 80584) that are no longer proposed species or candidates for listing. Since December 24, 2015, we listed 78 species, withdrew 1 species from proposed status, and removed 18 species from the candidate list. The first column indicates the present status of each species, using the following codes (not all of these codes may have been used in this CNOR): E—Species we listed as endangered. T—Species we listed as threatened. Rc—Species we removed from the candidate list, because currently available information does not support a proposed listing. Rp—Species we removed from the candidate list, because we have withdrawn the proposed listing. The second column indicates why the species is no longer a candidate or proposed species, using the following codes (not all of these codes may have been used in this CNOR): A—Species that are more abundant or widespread than previously believed and species that are not subject to the degree of threats sufficient that the species is a candidate for listing (for reasons other than that conservation efforts have removed or reduced the threats to the species). F—Species whose range no longer includes a U.S. territory. I—Species for which the best available information on biological vulnerability and threats is insufficient to support a conclusion that the species is an endangered species or a threatened species. L—Species we added to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. M—Species we mistakenly included as candidates or proposed species in the last notice of review. N—Species that are not listable entities based on the ESA’s definition of ‘‘species’’ and current taxonomic understanding. U—Species that are not subject to the degree of threats sufficient to warrant issuance of a proposed listing and therefore are not candidates for listing, due, in part or totally, to conservation efforts that remove or reduce the threats to the species. X—Species we believe to be extinct. The columns describing lead region, scientific name, family, common name, PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 and historical range include information as previously described for Table 1. Request for Information We request you submit any further information on the species named in this notice as soon as possible or whenever it becomes available. We are particularly interested in any information: (1) Indicating that we should add a species to the list of candidate species; (2) Indicating that we should remove a species from candidate status; (3) Recommending areas that we should designate as critical habitat for a species, or indicating that designation of critical habitat would not be prudent for a species; (4) Documenting threats to any of the included species; (5) Describing the immediacy or magnitude of threats facing candidate species; (6) Pointing out taxonomic or nomenclature changes for any of the species; (7) Suggesting appropriate common names; and (8) Noting any mistakes, such as errors in the indicated historical ranges. Submit information, materials, or comments regarding a particular species to the Regional Director of the Region identified as having the lead responsibility for that species. The regional addresses follow: Region 1. Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, American Samoa, Guam, and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Eastside Federal Complex, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232– 4181 (503/231–6158). Region 2. Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 500 Gold Avenue SW., Room 4012, Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505/ 248–6920). Region 3. Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 55437–1458 (612/ 713–5334). Region 4. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30345 (404/ 679–4156). Region 5. Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 87267 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035–9589 (413/253– 8615). Region 6. Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225– 0486 (303/236–7400). Region 7. Alaska. Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503–6199 (907/786–3505). Region 8. California and Nevada. Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W2606, Sacramento, CA 95825 (916/414–6464). HQ (Foreign). Chief, Branch of Foreign Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803 (703/358–2370). We will provide information we receive to the Region having lead responsibility for each candidate species mentioned in the submission. We will likewise consider all information provided in response to this CNOR in deciding whether to propose species for listing and when to undertake necessary listing actions (including whether emergency listing under section 4(b)(7) of the ESA is appropriate). Information and comments we receive will become part of the administrative record for the species, which we maintain at the appropriate Regional Office. Public Availability of Comments Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your submission, be advised that your entire submission—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. Although you can ask us in your submission to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Authority This notice is published under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Dated: November 14, 2016. Stephen Guertin, Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. TABLE 1—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS) [Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table] Status Category Priority Lead region Scientific name Family Common name Historical range MAMMALS Sciuridae .............. ˜ Chipmunk, Penasco least U.S.A. (NM). R8 ................ Tamias minimus atristriatus. Vulpes vulpes necator ..... Canidae ................ U.S.A. (CA, OR). 9 ............ R1 ................ Arborimus longicaudus .... Cricetidae ............. C * .......... 9 ............ R7 ................ Odobenus rosmarus divergens. Odobenidae .......... Fox, Sierra Nevada red (Sierra Nevada DPS). Vole, Red (north Oregon coast DPS). Walrus, Pacific ................ PT .......... 6 ............ R6 ................ Gulo gulo luscus ............. Mustelidae ............ C * .......... 6 ............ R2 ................ C * .......... 3 ............ C * .......... Wolverine, North American (Contiguous U.S. DPS). U.S.A. (OR). U.S.A. (AK), Russian Federation (Kamchatka and Chukotka). U.S.A. (CA, CO, ID, MT, OR, UT, WA, WY). BIRDS PT .......... C * .......... ............... 2 ............ R1 ................ R2 ................ Drepanis coccinea ........... Amazona viridigenalis ..... Fringillidae ............ Psittacidae ............ Iiwi (honeycreeper) .......... Parrot, red-crowned ........ U.S.A. (HI). U.S.A. (TX), Mexico. Snake, Louisiana pine ..... Tortoise, gopher (eastern population). Turtle, Sonoyta mud ........ U.S.A. (LA, TX). U.S.A. (AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, SC). U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico. Salamandridae ..... Newt, striped ................... U.S.A. (FL, GA). Plethodontidae ..... Proteidae .............. Salamander, Berry Cave Waterdog, black warrior ( = Sipsey Fork). U.S.A. (TN). U.S.A. (AL). Chub, headwater ............. Chub, roundtail (Lower Colorado River Basin DPS). U.S.A. (AZ, NM). U.S.A. (AZ, CO, NM, UT, WY). REPTILES PT .......... C * .......... 5 ............ 8 ............ R4 ................ R4 ................ Pituophis ruthveni ............ Gopherus polyphemus .... Colubridae ............ Testudinidae ......... PE .......... 6 ............ R2 ................ Kinosternon sonoriense longifemorale. Kinosternidae ....... AMPHIBIANS asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS C * .......... 8 ............ R4 ................ C * .......... PE .......... 8 ............ 2 ............ R4 ................ R4 ................ Notophthalmus perstriatus. Gyrinophilus gulolineatus Necturus alabamensis ..... FISHES PT .......... PT .......... 8 ............ 9 ............ VerDate Sep<11>2014 R2 ................ R2 ................ 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Gila nigra ......................... Gila robusta ..................... Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Cyprinidae ............ Cyprinidae ............ Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 87268 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued [Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table] Status Family Common name Priority Lead region Scientific name Category PE .......... 2 ............ R5 ................ Crystallaria cincotta ......... Percidae ............... Darter, diamond .............. PT .......... C * .......... 8 ............ 3 ............ R4 ................ R8 ................ Percina aurora ................. Spirinchus thaleichthys ... Percidae ............... Osmeridae ............ PSAT ...... N/A ........ R1 ................ Salvelinus malma ............ Salmonidae .......... Darter, Pearl .................... Smelt, longfin (San Francisco Bay–Delta DPS). Trout, Dolly Varden ......... Historical range U.S.A. (KY, OH, TN, WV). U.S.A. (LA, MS). U.S.A. (AK, CA, OR, WA), Canada. U.S.A. (AK, WA), Canada, East Asia. CLAMS C* C* PE C* C* C* .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 2 2 8 8 8 2 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ Lampsilis bracteata ......... Truncilla macrodon .......... Popenaias popei ............. Quadrula aurea ............... Quadrula houstonensis ... Quadrula petrina ............. Unionidae Unionidae Unionidae Unionidae Unionidae Unionidae ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. Fatmucket, Texas ............ Fawnsfoot, Texas ............ Hornshell, Texas ............. Orb, golden ..................... Pimpleback, smooth ........ Pimpleback, Texas .......... U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. (TX). (TX). (NM, TX), Mexico. (TX). (TX). (TX). Planorbidae .......... Ramshorn, magnificent ... U.S.A. (NC). U.S.A. (CT, DE, DC, GA, IL, IN, IA, KY, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MO, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, , PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, VT, VA, WV, WI, Canada (Ontario, Quebec). U.S.A. (CA). U.S.A. (WA). SNAILS C * .......... 2 ............ R4 ................ Planorbella magnifica ...... INSECTS PE .......... ............... R3 ................ Bombus affinis ................. Apidae .................. Bee, rusty patched bumble. C * .......... C * .......... 5 ............ 3 ............ R8 ................ R1 ................ Lycaenidae ........... Pieridae ................ Butterfly, Hermes copper Butterfly, Island marble ... C * .......... 2 ............ R4 ................ Lycaena hermes .............. Euchloe ausonides insulanus. Atlantea tulita .................. Nymphalidae ........ C * .......... 8 ............ R3 ................ Papaipema eryngii .......... Noctuidae ............. C * .......... 5 ............ R6 ................ Capniidae ............. PT .......... 5 ............ R6 ................ Arsapnia (= Capnia) arapahoe. Lednia tumana ................ Butterfly, Puerto Rican harlequin. Moth, rattlesnake-master borer. Snowfly, Arapahoe .......... Nemouridae .......... PT .......... ............... R6 ................ Zapada glacier ................ Nemouridae .......... U.S.A. (PR). U.S.A. (AR, IL, KY, NC, OK). U.S.A. (CO). Stonefly, meltwater lednian. Stonefly, western glacier U.S.A. (MT). Amphipod, Kenk’s ........... U.S.A. (DC). Milkvetch, skiff ................. Milkvetch, Chapin Mesa .. Rockcress, Fremont County or small. Sandmat, pineland .......... U.S.A. (CO). U.S.A. (CO). U.S.A. (WY). Spineflower, San Fernando Valley. Thistle, Wright’s ............... Prairie-clover, Florida ...... U.S.A. (CA). U.S.A. (MT). CRUSTACEANS PE .......... 8 ............ R5 ................ Stygobromus kenki .......... Crangonyctidae .... FLOWERING PLANTS 8 ............ 8 ............ 8 ............ R6 ................ R6 ................ R6 ................ PT .......... 12 .......... R4 ................ PT .......... asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS C * .......... C * .......... C * .......... 6 ............ R8 ................ C * .......... PT .......... 8 ............ 3 ............ R2 ................ R4 ................ PT .......... 5 ............ R4 ................ Astragalus microcymbus Astragalus schmolliae ..... Boechera (= Arabis) pusilla. Chamaesyce deltoidea pinetorum. Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina. Cirsium wrightii ................ Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana. Digitaria pauciflora .......... C* PE C* C* .......... .......... .......... .......... 8 ............ 11 .......... 8 ............ 8 ............ R6 R2 R6 R6 ................ ................ ................ ................ Eriogonum soredium ....... Festuca ligulata ............... Lepidium ostleri ............... Pinus albicaulis ............... Polygonaceae ....... Poaceae ............... Brassicaceae ........ Pinaceae .............. Crabgrass, Florida pineland. Buckwheat, Frisco ........... Fescue, Guadalupe ......... Peppergrass, Ostler’s ...... Pine, whitebark ................ PE .......... 2 ............ R1 ................ Sicyos macrophyllus ....... Cucurbitaceae ...... Anunu .............................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fabaceae ............. Fabaceae ............. Brassicaceae ........ Euphorbiaceae ..... Polygonaceae ....... Asteraceae ........... Fabaceae ............. Poaceae ............... Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 U.S.A. (FL). U.S.A. (AZ, NM), Mexico. U.S.A. (FL). U.S.A. (FL). U.S.A. (UT). U.S.A. (TX), Mexico. U.S.A. (UT). U.S.A. (CA, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA, WY), Canada (AB, BC). U.S.A. (HI). 87269 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued [Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table] Status Family Common name Priority Lead region Scientific name Category PT .......... 12 .......... R4 ................ Sapotaceae .......... Bully, Everglades ............ U.S.A. (FL). C * .......... C * .......... C * .......... 2 ............ 8 ............ 8 ............ R4 ................ R2 ................ R6 ................ Sideroxylon reclinatum austrofloridense. Solanum conocarpum ..... Streptanthus bracteatus .. Trifolium friscanum .......... Solanaceae .......... Brassicaceae ........ Fabaceae ............. Bacora, marron ............... Twistflower, bracted ........ Clover, Frisco .................. U.S.A. (PR). U.S.A. (TX). U.S.A. (UT). Historical range TABLE 2—ANIMALS AND PLANTS FORMERLY CANDIDATES OR FORMERLY PROPOSED FOR LISTING [Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table] Status Code Expl. Lead region Scientific name Family Common name Historical range Bat, Pacific sheath-tailed (American Samoa DPS). Fisher (west coast DPS) U.S.A. (AS), Fiji, Independent Samoa, Tonga, Vanuatu. U.S.A. (CA, CT, IA, ID, IL, IN, KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MT, ND, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, TN, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY), Canada. U.S.A. (WA, OR). MAMMALS E ............. L ............ R1 ................ Emballonura semicaudata semicaudata. Emballonuridae .... Rp .......... A ........... R8 ................ Martes pennanti .............. Mustelidae ............ Rc ........... U ........... R1 ................ Urocitellus washingtoni ... Sciuridae .............. Squirrel, Washington ground. BIRDS Rc ........... A ........... R1 ................ Porzana tabuensis .......... Rallidae ................ Crake, spotless (American Samoa DPS). E ............. L ............ R1 ................ Gallicolumba stairi ........... Columbidae .......... E ............. L ............ R1 ................ Oceanodroma castro ....... Hydrobatidae ........ Ground-dove, friendly (American Samoa DPS). Storm-petrel, bandrumped (Hawaii DPS). E ............. L ............ R1 ................ Gymnomyza samoensis .. Meliphagidae ........ Ma’oma’o ......................... Rc ........... U ........... R8 ................ Alcidae .................. Murrelet, Xantus’s ........... Rc ........... A ........... R6 ................ Synthliboramphus hypoleucus. Anthus spragueii ............. Motacillidae .......... Pipit, Sprague’s ............... T ............. L ............ R4 ................ Dendroica angelae .......... Emberizidae ......... Warbler, elfin-woods ....... U.S.A. (AS), Australia, Fiji, Independent Samoa, Marquesas, Philippines, Society Islands, Tonga. U.S.A. (AS), Independent Samoa. U.S.A. (HI), Atlantic Ocean, Ecuador (Galapagos Islands), Japan. U.S.A. (AS), Independent Samoa. U.S.A. (CA), Mexico. U.S.A. (AR, AZ, CO, KS, LA, MN, MS, MT, ND, NE, NM, OK, SD, TX), Canada, Mexico. U.S.A. (PR). REPTILES 8 ............ R3 ................ Sistrurus catenatus ......... Viperidae .............. T ............. asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS PT .......... L ............ R1 ................ Chelonia mydas .............. Cheloniidae .......... E ............. L ............ R1 ................ Chelonia mydas .............. Cheloniidae .......... E ............. L ............ R1 ................ Chelonia mydas .............. Cheloniidae .......... T ............. L ............ HQ (Foreign) Chelonia mydas .............. Cheloniidae .......... T ............. L ............ R8 ................ Chelonia mydas .............. Cheloniidae .......... E ............. L ............ HQ (Foreign) Chelonia mydas .............. Cheloniidae .......... VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Massasauga (= rattlesnake), eastern. U.S.A. (IA, IL, IN, MI, MN, MO, NY, OH, PA, WI), Canada. Sea turtle, green (Central Central North Pacific North Pacific DPS). Ocean. Sea turtle, green (Central Central South Pacific South Pacific DPS). Ocean. Sea turtle, green (Central Central West Pacific West Pacific DPS). Ocean. Sea turtle, green (East In- Eastern Indian and Westdian-West Pacific DPS). ern Pacific Oceans. Sea turtle, green (East East Pacific Ocean. Pacific DPS). Sea turtle, green (MediMediterranean Sea. terranean DPS). E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 87270 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2—ANIMALS AND PLANTS FORMERLY CANDIDATES OR FORMERLY PROPOSED FOR LISTING—Continued [Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table] Status Family Common name Expl. Lead region Scientific name Code T ............. L ............ R4 ................ Chelonia mydas .............. Cheloniidae .......... North Atlantic Ocean. T ............. L ............ HQ (Foreign) Chelonia mydas .............. Cheloniidae .......... T ............. L ............ R4 ................ Chelonia mydas .............. Cheloniidae .......... T ............. L ............ HQ (Foreign) Chelonia mydas .............. Cheloniidae .......... T ............. L ............ HQ (Foreign) Chelonia mydas .............. Cheloniidae .......... Sea turtle, green (North Atlantic DPS). Sea turtle, green (North Indian DPS). Sea turtle, green (South Atlantic DPS). Sea turtle, green (Southwest Indian DPS). Sea turtle, green (Southwest Pacific DPS). Frog, relict leopard .......... Treefrog, Arizona (Huachuca/Canelo DPS). U.S.A. (AZ, NV, UT). U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico (Sonora). Historical range North Indian Ocean. South Atlantic Ocean. Southwest Indian Ocean. Southwest Pacific Ocean. AMPHIBIANS Rc ........... Rc ........... U ........... N ........... R8 ................ R2 ................ Lithobates onca ............... Hyla wrightorum .............. Ranidae ................ Hylidae ................. FISHES Rc ........... A ........... R6 ................ Etheostoma cragini ......... Percidae ............... Darter, Arkansas ............. T ............. Rc ........... L ............ U ........... R4 ................ R4 ................ Etheostoma spilotum ....... Moxostoma sp. ................ Percidae ............... Catostomidae ....... Darter, Kentucky arrow ... Redhorse, sicklefin .......... U.S.A. (AR, CO, KS, MO, OK). U.S.A. (KY). U.S.A. (GA, NC, TN). Moccasinshell, Suwannee U.S.A. (FL, GA). Mudalia, black ................. Snail, no common name Snail, no common name Springsnail, Huachuca .... U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. (HI). U.S.A. (KY). CLAMS T ............. L ............ R4 ................ Medionidus walkeri .......... Unionidae ............. SNAILS Rc ........... E ............. E ............. Rc ........... N ........... L ............ L ............ A ........... R4 R1 R1 R2 ................ ................ ................ ................ Elimia melanoides ........... Eua zebrina ..................... Ostodes strigatus ............ Pyrgulopsis thompsoni .... Pleuroceridae ....... Partulidae ............. Potaridae .............. Hydrobiidae .......... (AL). (AS). (AS). (AZ), Mexico. INSECTS L ............ R1 ................ Hylaeus anthracinus ........ Colletidae ............. E ............. L ............ R1 ................ Hylaeus assimulans ........ Colletidae ............. E ............. L ............ R1 ................ Hylaeus facilis ................. Colletidae ............. E ............. L ............ R1 ................ Hylaeus hilaris ................. Colletidae ............. E ............. L ............ R1 ................ Hylaeus kuakea ............... Colletidae ............. E ............. L ............ R1 ................ Hylaeus longiceps ........... Colletidae ............. E ............. L ............ R1 ................ Hylaeus mana ................. Colletidae ............. Rc ........... A ........... R4 ................ Carabidae ............. A ........... R4 ................ Carabidae ............. Cave beetle, icebox ........ U.S.A. (KY). Rc ........... A ........... R4 ................ Carabidae ............. Cave beetle, Louisville .... U.S.A. (KY). Rc ........... X ........... R4 ................ Carabidae ............. Cave beetle, Tatum ......... U.S.A. (KY). E ............. L ............ R1 ................ Pseudanophthalmus caecus. Pseudanophthalmus frigidus. Pseudanophthalmus troglodytes. Pseudanophthalmus parvus. Megalagrion xanthomelas Bee, Hawaiian yellowfaced. Bee, Hawaiian yellowfaced. Bee, Hawaiian yellowfaced. Bee, Hawaiian yellowfaced. Bee, Hawaiian yellowfaced. Bee, Hawaiian yellowfaced. Bee, Hawaiian yellowfaced. Cave beetle, Clifton ......... Rc ........... asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS E ............. Coenagrionidae .... U.S.A. (HI). Rc ........... Rc ........... E ............. X ........... A ........... L ............ R2 ................ R4 ................ R4 ................ Heterelmis stephani ........ Cicindela highlandensis .. Cicindelidia floridana ....... Elmidae ................ Cicindelidae .......... Cicindelidae .......... Damselfly, orangeblack Hawaiian. Riffle beetle, Stephan’s ... Tiger beetle, highlands .... Tiger beetle, Miami ......... U.S.A. (AZ). U.S.A. (FL). U.S.A. (FL). Crayfish, Big Sandy ........ U.S.A. (KY, VA, WV). U.S.A. (HI). U.S.A. (HI). U.S.A. (HI). U.S.A. (HI). U.S.A. (HI). U.S.A. (HI). CRUSTACEANS T ............. L ............ VerDate Sep<11>2014 R5 ................ 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Cambarus callainus ......... Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Cambaridae .......... Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 87271 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2—ANIMALS AND PLANTS FORMERLY CANDIDATES OR FORMERLY PROPOSED FOR LISTING—Continued [Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table] Status Family Common name Expl. Lead region Scientific name Code E ............. L ............ R5 ................ Cambarus veteranus ....... Cambaridae .......... E ............. L ............ R1 ................ Procaris hawaiana ........... Procarididae ......... Crayfish, Guyandotte River. Shrimp, anchialine pool ... U.S.A. (HI). Historical range U.S.A. (WV). FLOWERING PLANTS T ............. Rc ........... L ............ A ........... R4 ................ R1 ................ E ............. E ............. L ............ L ............ R1 ................ R4 ................ E ............. L ............ R4 ................ E ............. E ............. E ............. Rc ........... L ............ L ............ L ............ N ........... R1 R1 R1 R5 ................ ................ ................ ................ E E E E L L L L R1 R1 R1 R1 ................ ................ ................ ................ ............. ............. ............. ............. ............ ............ ............ ............ E ............. L ............ R1 ................ E E E T E E E E E E E T L L L L L L L L L L L L R1 R1 R1 R1 R4 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R4 ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ E ............. E ............. E ............. L ............ L ............ L ............ R1 ................ R1 ................ R1 ................ E E E E E ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. L L L L L ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ E E E E ............. ............. ............. ............. L L L L ............ ............ ............ ............ R1 R1 R1 R1 ................ ................ ................ ................ asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS E ............. L ............ R1 ................ Argythamnia blodgettii ..... Artemisia borealis var. wormskioldii. Calamagrostis expansa ... Chamaecrista lineata var. keyensis. Chamaesyce deltoidea serpyllum. Cyanea kauaulaensis ...... Cyperus neokunthianus .. Cyrtandra hematos .......... Dichanthelium hirstii ........ Euphorbiaceae ..... Asteraceae ........... Silverbush, Blodgett’s ...... Wormwood, northern ....... U.S.A. (FL). U.S.A. (OR, WA). Poaceae ............... Fabaceae ............. Reedgrass, Maui ............. Pea, Big Pine partridge ... U.S.A. (HI). U.S.A. (FL). Euphorbiaceae ..... Spurge, wedge ................ U.S.A. (FL). Campanulaceae ... Cyperaceae .......... Gesneriaceae ....... Poaceae ............... U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. (HI). (HI). (HI). (DE, GA, NC, NJ). Exocarpos menziesii ....... Festuca hawaiiensis ........ Gardenia remyi ................ Joinvillea ascendens ascendens. Kadua (= Hedyotis) fluviatilis. Kadua haupuensis .......... Labordia lorenciana ......... Lepidium orbiculare ......... Lepidium papilliferum ...... Linum arenicola ............... Myrsine fosbergii ............. Nothocestrum latifolium ... Ochrosia haleakalae ....... Phyllostegia brevidens .... Phyllostegia helleri .......... Phyllostegia stachyoides Platanthera integrilabia ... Santalaceae ......... Poaceae ............... Rubiaceae ............ Joinvilleaceae ....... No common name ........... No common name ........... Haiwale ............................ Panic grass, Hirst Brothers’. Heau ................................ No common name ........... Nanu ................................ Ohe .................................. U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. (HI). (HI). (HI). (HI). Rubiaceae ............ Kampuaa ......................... U.S.A. (HI). Rubiaceae ............ Loganiaceae ......... Brassicaceae ........ Brassicaceae ........ Linaceae ............... Myrsinaceae ......... Solanaceae .......... Apocynaceae ........ Lamiaceae ............ Lamiaceae ............ Lamiaceae ............ Orchidaceae ......... No common name ........... No common name ........... Anaunau .......................... Peppergrass, slickspot .... Flax, sand ........................ Kolea ............................... Aiea ................................. Holei ................................ No common name ........... No common name ........... No common name ........... Orchid, white fringeless ... Portulaca villosa .............. Pritchardia bakeri ............ Pseudognaphalium (= Gnaphalium) sandwicensium var. molokaiense. Ranunculus hawaiensis .. Ranunculus mauiensis .... Sanicula sandwicensis .... Santalum involutum ......... Schiedea diffusa ssp. diffusa. Schiedea pubescens ....... Sicyos lanceoloideus ....... Solanum nelsonii ............. Stenogyne kaalae ssp. sherffii. Wikstroemia skottsbergiana. Portulacaceae ...... Arecaceae ............ Asteraceae ........... Ihi ..................................... Loulu (= Loulu lelo) ......... Enaena ............................ U.S.A. (HI). U.S.A. (HI). U.S.A. (HI). U.S.A. (ID). U.S.A. (FL). U.S.A. (HI). U.S.A. (HI). U.S.A. (HI). U.S.A. (HI). U.S.A. (HI). U.S.A. (HI). U.S.A. (AL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA). U.S.A. (HI). U.S.A. (HI). U.S.A. (HI). Ranunculaceae .... Ranunculaceae .... Apiaceae .............. Santalaceae ......... Caryophyllaceae ... Makou .............................. Makou .............................. No common name ........... Iliahi ................................. No common name ........... U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. (HI). (HI). (HI). (HI). (HI). Caryophyllaceae ... Cucurbitaceae ...... Solanaceae .......... Lamiaceae ............ Maolioli ............................ Anunu .............................. Popolo ............................. No common name ........... U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. (HI). (HI). (HI). (HI). Thymelaceae ........ Akia ................................. U.S.A. (HI). Aspleniaceae ........ Thelypteridaceae .. Athyraceae ........... Dryopteridaceae ... No common name ........... Kupukupu makalii ............ No common name ........... Hohiu ............................... U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. Lycopodiaceae ..... No common name ........... U.S.A. (HI). FERNS AND ALLIES E E E E ............. ............. ............. ............. E ............. L L L L ............ ............ ............ ............ L ............ VerDate Sep<11>2014 R1 R1 R1 R1 ................ ................ ................ ................ R1 ................ 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Asplenium diellaciniatum Cyclosorus boydiae ......... Deparia kaalaana ............ Dryopteris glabra var. pusilla. Huperzia (= Phlegmariurus) stemmermanniae. Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 (HI). (HI). (HI). (HI). 87272 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2—ANIMALS AND PLANTS FORMERLY CANDIDATES OR FORMERLY PROPOSED FOR LISTING—Continued [Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table] Status Expl. Lead region Scientific name Code E ............. L ............ R1 ................ E ............. L ............ R1 ................ Hypolepis hawaiiensis var. mauiensis. Microlepia strigosa var. mauiensis (= Microlepia mauiensis). Family Common name Dennstaedtiaceae Olua ................................. U.S.A. (HI). Dennstaedtiaceae No common name ........... U.S.A. (HI). [FR Doc. 2016–28817 Filed 12–1–16; 8:45 am] asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS BILLING CODE 4333–15–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Historical range Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 232 (Friday, December 2, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 87246-87272]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28817]



[[Page 87245]]

Vol. 81

Friday,

No. 232

December 2, 2016

Part III





 Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species 
That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual 
Notification of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description 
of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 87246]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2016-0095; FF09E21000 FXES11190900000 167]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native 
Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; 
Annual Notification of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual 
Description of Progress on Listing Actions

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notification of review.

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

SUMMARY: In this Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service (Service), present an updated list of plant and 
animal species native to the United States that we regard as candidates 
for or, have proposed for addition to the Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended. Identification of candidate species can assist 
environmental planning efforts by providing advance notice of potential 
listings, and by allowing landowners and resource managers to alleviate 
threats and thereby possibly remove the need to list species as 
endangered or threatened. Even if we subsequently list a candidate 
species, the early notice provided here could result in more options 
for species management and recovery by prompting earlier candidate 
conservation measures to alleviate threats to the species.
    This CNOR summarizes the status and threats that we evaluated in 
order to determine whether species qualify as candidates, to assign a 
listing priority number (LPN) to each candidate species, and to 
determine whether a species should be removed from candidate status. 
Additional material that we relied on is available in the Species 
Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Forms (species assessment 
forms) for each candidate species.
    This CNOR changes the LPN for one candidate. Combined with other 
decisions for individual species that were published separately from 
this CNOR in the past year, the current number of species that are 
candidates for listing is 30.
    This document also includes our findings on resubmitted petitions 
and describes our progress in revising the Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) during the period October 1, 
2015, through September 30, 2016.
    Moreover, we request any additional status information that may be 
available for the candidate species identified in this CNOR.

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

ADDRESSES: This notification is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/cnor.html. Species assessment forms with information and references on 
a particular candidate species' range, status, habitat needs, and 
listing priority assignment are available for review at the appropriate 
Regional Office listed below in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION or at the 
Branch of Conservation and Communications, Falls Church, VA (see 
address under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or on our Web site 
(http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/candidate-species-report). 
Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions of 
a general nature on this notice to the Falls Church, VA, address listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any new 
information, materials, comments, or questions pertaining to a 
particular species to the address of the Endangered Species Coordinator 
in the appropriate Regional Office listed in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 
Species-specific information and materials we receive will be available 
for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at 
the appropriate Regional Office listed below under Request for 
Information in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. General information we 
receive will be available at the Branch of Conservation and 
Communications, Falls Church, VA (see address under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief, Branch of Conservation and 
Communications, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: ES, 
5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (telephone 703-358-
2171). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may 
call the Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We request additional status information 
that may be available for any of the candidate species identified in 
this CNOR. We will consider this information to monitor changes in the 
status or LPN of candidate species and to manage candidates as we 
prepare listing documents and future revisions to the notice of review. 
We also request information on additional species to consider including 
as candidates as we prepare future updates of this notice.

Candidate Notice of Review

Background

    The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.; ESA), requires that we identify species of wildlife and plants 
that are endangered or threatened based solely on the best scientific 
and commercial data available. As defined in section 3 of the ESA, an 
endangered species is any species that is in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a threatened 
species is any species that is likely to become an endangered species 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range. Through the Federal rulemaking process, we add species 
that meet these definitions to the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11 or the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Plants at 50 CFR 17.12. As part of this program, we maintain a list of 
species that we regard as candidates for listing. A candidate species 
is one for which we have on file sufficient information on biological 
vulnerability and threats to support a proposal for listing as 
endangered or threatened, but for which preparation and publication of 
a proposal is precluded by higher-priority listing actions. We may 
identify a species as a candidate for listing after we have conducted 
an evaluation of its status--either on our own initiative, or in 
response to a petition we have received. If we have made a finding on a 
petition to list a species, and have found that listing is warranted 
but precluded by other higher priority listing actions, we will add the 
species to our list of candidates.
    We maintain this list of candidates for a variety of reasons: (1) 
To notify the public that these species are facing threats to their 
survival; (2) to provide advance knowledge of potential listings that 
could affect decisions of environmental planners and developers; (3) to 
provide information that may stimulate and guide conservation efforts 
that will remove or reduce threats to these species and possibly make 
listing unnecessary; (4) to request input from interested parties to 
help us identify those candidate species that may not require 
protection under the ESA, as well as additional species that may 
require the ESA's protections; and (5) to request necessary information 
for setting priorities for preparing listing proposals. We encourage 
collaborative

[[Page 87247]]

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

Previous Notices of Review

    We have been publishing CNORs since 1975. The most recent was 
published on December 24, 2015 (80 FR 80584). CNORs published since 
1994 are available on our Web site, http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/cnor.html. For copies of CNORs published prior to 1994, please 
contact the Branch of Conservation and Communications (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT, above).
    On September 21, 1983, we published guidance for assigning an LPN 
for each candidate species (48 FR 43098). Using this guidance, we 
assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of 
threats, immediacy of threats, and taxonomic status; the lower the LPN, 
the higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 
would have the highest listing priority). Section 4(h)(3) of the ESA 
(16 U.S.C. 1533(h)(3)) requires the Secretary to establish guidelines 
for such a priority-ranking system. As explained below, in using this 
system, we first categorize based on the magnitude of the threat(s), 
then by the immediacy of the threat(s), and finally by taxonomic 
status.
    Under this priority-ranking system, magnitude of threat can be 
either ``high'' or ``moderate to low.'' This criterion helps ensure 
that the species facing the greatest threats to their continued 
existence receive the highest listing priority. It is important to 
recognize that all candidate species face threats to their continued 
existence, so the magnitude of threats is in relative terms. For all 
candidate species, the threats are of sufficiently high magnitude to 
put them in danger of extinction, or make them likely to become in 
danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. But for species with 
higher-magnitude threats, the threats have a greater likelihood of 
bringing about extinction or are expected to bring about extinction on 
a shorter timescale (once the threats are imminent) than for species 
with lower-magnitude threats. Because we do not routinely quantify how 
likely or how soon extinction would be expected to occur absent 
listing, we must evaluate factors that contribute to the likelihood and 
time scale for extinction. We therefore consider information such as: 
(1) The number of populations or extent of range of the species 
affected by the threat(s), or both; (2) the biological significance of 
the affected population(s), taking into consideration the life-history 
characteristics of the species and its current abundance and 
distribution; (3) whether the threats affect the species in only a 
portion of its range, and, if so, the likelihood of persistence of the 
species in the unaffected portions; (4) the severity of the effects and 
the rapidity with which they have caused or are likely to cause 
mortality to individuals and accompanying declines in population 
levels; (5) whether the effects are likely to be permanent; and (6) the 
extent to which any ongoing conservation efforts reduce the severity of 
the threat(s).
    As used in our priority-ranking system, immediacy of threat is 
categorized as either ``imminent'' or ``nonimminent,'' and is based on 
when the threats will begin. If a threat is currently occurring or 
likely to occur in the very near future, we classify the threat as 
imminent. Determining the immediacy of threats helps ensure that 
species facing actual, identifiable threats are given priority for 
listing proposals over species for which threats are only potential or 
species that are intrinsically vulnerable to certain types of threats 
but are not known to be presently facing such threats.
    Our priority-ranking system has three categories for taxonomic 
status: Species that are the sole members of a genus; full species (in 
genera that have more than one species); and subspecies and distinct 
population segments of vertebrate species (DPS).
    The result of the ranking system is that we assign each candidate a 
listing priority number of 1 to 12. For example, if the threats are of 
high magnitude, with immediacy classified as imminent, the listable 
entity is assigned an LPN of 1, 2, or 3 based on its taxonomic status 
(i.e., a species that is the only member of its genus would be assigned 
to the LPN 1 category, a full species to LPN 2, and a subspecies or DPS 
would be assigned to LPN 3). In summary, the LPN ranking system 
provides a basis for making decisions about the relative priority for 
preparing a proposed rule to list a given species. No matter which LPN 
we assign to a species, each species included in this notice as a 
candidate is one for which we have concluded that we have sufficient 
information to prepare a proposed rule for listing because it is in 
danger of extinction or likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.
    For more information on the process and standards used in assigning 
LPNs, a copy of the 1983 guidance is available on our Web site at: 
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/1983_LPN_Policy_FR_pub.pdf. Information on the LPN assigned to a 
particular species is summarized in this CNOR, and the species 
assessment for each candidate contains the LPN chart and a more-
detailed explanation for our determination of the magnitude and 
immediacy of threat(s) and assignment of the LPN.
    To the extent this revised notice differs from any previous animal, 
plant, and combined candidate notices of review for native species or 
previous 12-month warranted-but-precluded petition findings for those 
candidate species that were petitioned for listing, this notice 
supercedes them.

Summary of This CNOR

    Since publication of the previous CNOR on December 24, 2015 (80 FR 
80584), we reviewed the available information on candidate species to 
ensure that a proposed listing is justified for each species, and 
reevaluated the relative LPN assigned to each species. We also 
evaluated the need to emergency list any of these species, particularly 
species with higher priorities (i.e., species with LPNs of 1, 2, or 3). 
This review and reevaluation ensures that we focus conservation efforts 
on those species at greatest risk.
    In addition to reviewing candidate species since publication of the 
last CNOR, we have worked on findings in response to petitions to list 
species, and on proposed rules to list species under the ESA and on 
final listing determinations. Some of these findings and determinations 
have been completed and published in the Federal Register, while work 
on others is still under way (see Preclusion and Expeditious Progress, 
below, for details).
    Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information, with this CNOR, we change the LPN for one candidate. 
Combined with other findings and determinations published separately 
from this CNOR, a total of 30 species (10 plant and 20 animal species) 
are now candidates awaiting preparation of rules proposing their 
listing. Table 1 identifies these 30 species, along with the 20 species 
currently proposed for listing (including 1 species proposed for 
listing due to similarity in appearance).
    Table 2 lists the changes for species identified in the previous 
CNOR, and includes 97 species identified in the previous CNOR as either 
proposed for listing or classified as candidates that are no longer in 
those categories. This includes 78 species for which we

[[Page 87248]]

published a final listing rule (includes 11 DPSs of green sea turtle), 
18 candidate species for which we published separate not-warranted 
findings and removed them from candidate status, and 1 species for 
which we published a withdrawal of a proposed rule.
New Candidates
    We have not identified any new candidate species through this 
notice but identified one species--island marble butterfly--as a 
candidate on April 5, 2016, as a result of a separate petition finding 
published in the Federal Register (81 FR 19527).
Listing Priority Changes in Candidates
    We reviewed the LPNs for all candidate species and are changing the 
number for the following species discussed below.

Flowering plants

    Boechera pusilla (Fremont County rockcress)--The following summary 
is based on information in our files and in the petition received on 
July 24, 2007. Fremont County rockcress is a perennial herb consisting 
of a single population made of eight subpopulations found on sparsely 
vegetated granite-pegmatite outcrops at an elevation between 2,438 and 
2,469 meters (m) (8,000 and 8,100 feet (ft)) in Fremont County, 
Wyoming. The entire species' range is located on lands managed by the 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and is protected by their regulatory 
mechanisms as well as by a 1998 Secretarial Order that withdraws the 
species' habitat from mineral development for 50 years. The species' 
range is likely limited by the presence of granite-pegmatite outcrops; 
however, the species has likely persisted without competition from 
other herbaceous plant or sagebrush-grassland species present in the 
surrounding landscape due to this dependence on a very specific, yet 
limited, substrate.
    Overutilization and predation are not threats to the species, and 
regulatory mechanisms have removed threats associated with habitat loss 
and fragmentation. We previously determined that threats to the Fremont 
County rockcress were moderate in magnitude and imminent, due largely 
to uncertainty regarding a small and declining population size 
attributed to an unknown threat. Although the population likely 
declined in the past, new information since our last review has helped 
clarify that the population likely fluctuates around a stable, average 
size in response to precipitation, with the population increasing 
during wet years and declining during dry years, but within a normal 
range of variation that may not be a threat to the species. Therefore, 
drought is likely the previously unidentified threat, which reduces the 
size of the population. Although the effects of climate change may 
result in drier summers, the Fremont County rockcress may benefit from 
longer growing seasons and more precipitation at the start of the 
growing season. Further, asexual reproduction helps reduce risks 
associated with a small population size. However, stochastic events 
could negatively affect the population, so drought and small population 
size are threats to the species. Although the population has declined 
in the past and could fluctuate in the future due to precipitation, the 
entire species' habitat is protected by the BLM's fully implemented and 
effective regulatory mechanisms, and no other impacts rise to the level 
of a threat. With drought implicated as the previously unidentified 
threat and an improved understanding of population fluctuations, we now 
determine that the magnitude of the threat to the species from drought 
is low. This is because the species may be adapted to drought and 
stochastic events. No other threat is ongoing, so we determine that the 
threats are now nonimminent. Additional surveys in 2016 will help 
clarify population trends, fluctuations, and the effects of drought and 
small population size on the species. Because the threats are low in 
magnitude and are nonimminent, we are changing the LPN from an 8 to an 
11.
Petition Findings
    The ESA provides two mechanisms for considering species for 
listing. One method allows the Secretary, on the Secretary's own 
initiative, to identify species for listing under the standards of 
section 4(a)(1). We implement this authority through the candidate 
program, discussed above. The second method for listing a species 
provides a mechanism for the public to petition us to add a species to 
the Lists. As described further in the paragraphs that follow, the CNOR 
serves several purposes as part of the petition process: (1) In some 
instances (in particular, for petitions to list species that the 
Service has already identified as candidates on its own initiative), it 
serves as the initial petition finding; (2) for candidate species for 
which the Service has made a warranted-but-precluded petition finding, 
it serves as a ``resubmitted'' petition finding that the ESA requires 
the Service to make each year; and (3) it documents the Service's 
compliance with the statutory requirement to monitor the status of 
species for which listing is warranted but precluded, and to ascertain 
if they need emergency listing.
    First, the CNOR serves as an initial petition finding in some 
instances. Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA, when we receive a 
petition to list a species, we must determine within 90 days, to the 
maximum extent practicable, whether the petition presents substantial 
information indicating that listing may be warranted (a ``90-day 
finding''). If we make a positive 90-day finding, we must promptly 
commence a status review of the species under section 4(b)(3)(A); we 
must then make, within 12 months of the receipt of the petition, one of 
the following three possible findings (a ``12-month finding''):
    (1) The petitioned action is not warranted, and promptly publish 
the finding in the Federal Register;
    (2) The petitioned action is warranted (in which case we are 
required to promptly publish a proposed regulation to implement the 
petitioned action; once we publish a proposed rule for a species, 
sections 4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) of the ESA govern further procedures, 
regardless of whether or not we issued the proposal in response to a 
petition); or
    (3) The petitioned action is warranted, but (a) the immediate 
proposal of a regulation and final promulgation of a regulation 
implementing the petitioned action is precluded by pending proposals to 
determine whether any species is endangered or threatened, and (b) 
expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to the 
Lists. We refer to this third option as a ``warranted-but-precluded 
finding,'' and after making such a finding, we must promptly publish it 
in the Federal Register.
    We define ``candidate species'' to mean those species for which the 
Service has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability 
and threat(s) to support issuance of a proposed rule to list, but for 
which issuance of the proposed rule is precluded (61 FR 64481; December 
5, 1996). The standard for making a species a candidate through our own 
initiative is identical to the standard for making a warranted-but-
precluded 12-month petition finding on a petition to list, and we add 
all petitioned species for which we have made a warranted-but-precluded 
12-month finding to the candidate list.
    Therefore, all candidate species identified through our own 
initiative already have received the equivalent of substantial 90-day 
and warranted-but-

[[Page 87249]]

precluded 12-month findings. Nevertheless, if we receive a petition to 
list a species that we have already identified as a candidate, we 
review the status of the newly petitioned candidate species and through 
this CNOR publish specific section 4(b)(3) findings (i.e., substantial 
90-day and warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings) in response to 
the petitions to list these candidate species. We publish these 
findings as part of the first CNOR following receipt of the petition. 
We have identified the candidate species for which we received 
petitions and made a continued warranted-but-precluded finding on a 
resubmitted petition by the code ``C*'' in the category column on the 
left side of Table 1, below.
    Second, the CNOR serves as a ``resubmitted'' petition finding. 
Section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the ESA requires that when we make a 
warranted-but-precluded finding on a petition, we treat the petition as 
one that is resubmitted on the date of the finding. Thus, we must make 
a 12-month petition finding for each such species at least once a year 
in compliance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA, until we publish a 
proposal to list the species or make a final not-warranted finding. We 
make these annual resubmitted petition findings through the CNOR. To 
the extent these annual findings differ from the initial 12-month 
warranted-but-precluded finding or any of the resubmitted petition 
findings in previous CNORs, they supercede the earlier findings, 
although all previous findings are part of the administrative record 
for the new finding, and we may rely upon them or incorporate them by 
reference in the new finding as appropriate.
    Third, through undertaking the analysis required to complete the 
CNOR, the Service determines if any candidate species needs emergency 
listing. Section 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the ESA requires us to ``implement 
a system to monitor effectively the status of all species'' for which 
we have made a warranted-but-precluded 12-month finding, and to ``make 
prompt use of the [emergency listing] authority [under section 4(b)(7)] 
to prevent a significant risk to the well being of any such species.'' 
The CNOR plays a crucial role in the monitoring system that we have 
implemented for all candidate species by providing notice that we are 
actively seeking information regarding the status of those species. We 
review all new information on candidate species as it becomes 
available, prepare an annual species assessment form that reflects 
monitoring results and other new information, and identify any species 
for which emergency listing may be appropriate. If we determine that 
emergency listing is appropriate for any candidate, we will make prompt 
use of the emergency listing authority under section 4(b)(7) of the 
ESA. For example, on August 10, 2011, we emergency listed the Miami 
blue butterfly (76 FR 49542). We have been reviewing and will continue 
to review, at least annually, the status of every candidate, whether or 
not we have received a petition to list it. Thus, the CNOR and 
accompanying species assessment forms constitute the Service's system 
for monitoring and making annual findings on the status of petitioned 
species under sections 4(b)(3)(C)(i) and 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the ESA.
    A number of court decisions have elaborated on the nature and 
specificity of information that we must consider in making and 
describing the petition findings in the CNOR. The CNOR that published 
on November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), describes these court decisions in 
further detail. As with previous CNORs, we continue to incorporate 
information of the nature and specificity required by the courts. For 
example, we include a description of the reasons why the listing of 
every petitioned candidate species is both warranted and precluded at 
this time. We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide 
basis to ensure that the species most in need of listing will be 
addressed first and also because we allocate our listing budget on a 
nationwide basis (see below). Regional priorities can also be discerned 
from Table 1, below, which includes the lead region and the LPN for 
each species. Our preclusion determinations are further based upon our 
budget for listing activities for unlisted species only, and we explain 
the priority system and why the work we have accomplished has precluded 
action on listing candidate species.
    In preparing this CNOR, we reviewed the current status of, and 
threats to, the 29 candidates for which we have received a petition to 
list and the 3 listed species for which we have received a petition to 
reclassify from threatened to endangered, where we found the petitioned 
action to be warranted but precluded. We find that the immediate 
issuance of a proposed rule and timely promulgation of a final rule for 
each of these species, has been, for the preceding months, and 
continues to be, precluded by higher-priority listing actions. 
Additional information that is the basis for this finding is found in 
the species assessments and our administrative record for each species.
    Our review included updating the status of, and threats to, 
petitioned candidate or listed species for which we published findings, 
under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA, in the previous CNOR. We have 
incorporated new information we gathered since the prior finding and, 
as a result of this review, we are making continued warranted-but-
precluded 12-month findings on the petitions for these species. 
However, for some of these species, we are currently engaged in a 
thorough review of all available data to determine whether to proceed 
with a proposed listing rule; as a result of this review we may 
conclude that listing is no longer warranted.
    The immediate publication of proposed rules to list these species 
was precluded by our work on higher-priority listing actions, listed 
below, during the period from October 1, 2015, through September 30, 
2016. Below we describe the actions that continue to preclude the 
immediate proposal and final promulgation of a regulation implementing 
each of the petitioned actions for which we have made a warranted-but-
precluded finding, and we describe the expeditious progress we are 
making to add qualified species to, and remove species from, the Lists. 
We will continue to monitor the status of all candidate species, 
including petitioned species, as new information becomes available to 
determine if a change in status is warranted, including the need to 
emergency list a species under section 4(b)(7) of the ESA.
    In addition to identifying petitioned candidate species in Table 1 
below, we also present brief summaries of why each of these candidates 
warrants listing. More complete information, including references, is 
found in the species assessment forms. You may obtain a copy of these 
forms from the Regional Office having the lead for the species, or from 
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Internet Web site: http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/candidate-species-report. As described above, under 
section 4 of the ESA, we identify and propose species for listing based 
on the factors identified in section 4(a)(1)--either on our own 
initiative or through the mechanism that section 4 provides for the 
public to petition us to add species to the Lists of Endangered or 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants.

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress

    To make a finding that a particular action is warranted but 
precluded, the Service must make two determinations: (1) That the 
immediate proposal and timely promulgation of a final regulation is 
precluded by pending proposals to determine whether any species is 
threatened or endangered; and (2) that expeditious progress is being

[[Page 87250]]

made to add qualified species to either of the lists and to remove 
species from the lists (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)(iii)).

Preclusion

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

Available Resources

    The resources available for listing actions are determined through 
the annual Congressional appropriations process. In FY 1998 and for 
each fiscal year since then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on 
funds that may be expended for the Listing Program. This spending cap 
was designed to prevent the listing function from depleting funds 
needed for other functions under the ESA (for example, recovery 
functions, such as removing species from the Lists), or for other 
Service programs (see House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st 
Session, July 1, 1997). The funds within the spending cap are available 
to support work involving the following listing actions: Proposed and 
final listing rules; 90-day and 12-month findings on petitions to add 
species to the Lists or to change the status of a species from 
threatened to endangered; annual ``resubmitted'' petition findings on 
prior warranted-but-precluded petition findings as required under 
section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the ESA; critical habitat petition findings; 
proposed rules designating critical habitat or final critical habitat 
determinations; and litigation-related, administrative, and program-
management functions (including preparing and allocating budgets, 
responding to Congressional and public inquiries, and conducting public 
outreach regarding listing and critical habitat).
    We cannot spend more for the Listing Program than the amount of 
funds within the spending cap without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act 
(31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, since FY 2002, the Service's 
listing budget has included a subcap for critical habitat designations 
for already-listed species to ensure that some funds within the listing 
cap are available for completing Listing Program actions other than 
critical habitat designations for already-listed species. (``The 
critical habitat designation subcap will ensure that some funding is 
available to address other listing activities.'' House Report No. 107-
103, 107th Congress, 1st Session (June 19, 2001)). In FY 2002 and each 
year until FY 2006, the Service had to use virtually all of the funds 
within the critical habitat subcap to address court-mandated 
designations of critical habitat, and consequently none of the funds 
within the critical habitat subcap were available for other listing 
activities. In some FYs since 2006, we have not needed to use all of 
the funds within the critical habitat to comply with court orders, and 
we therefore could use the remaining funds within the subcap towards 
additional proposed listing determinations for high-priority candidate 
species. In other FYs, while we did not need to use all of the funds 
within the critical habitat subcap to comply with court orders 
requiring critical habitat actions, we did not apply any of the 
remaining funds towards additional proposed listing determinations, and 
instead applied the remaining funds towards completing critical habitat 
determinations concurrently with proposed listing determinations. This 
allowed us to combine the proposed listing determination and proposed 
critical habitat designation into one rule, thereby being more 
efficient in our work. In FY 2016, based on the Service's workload, we 
were able to use some of the funds within the critical habitat subcap 
to fund proposed listing determinations.
    Since FY 2012, Congress has also put in place two additional 
subcaps within the listing cap: One for listing actions for foreign 
species and one for petition findings. As with the critical habitat 
subcap, if the Service does not need to use all of the funds within 
either subcap, we are able to use the remaining funds for completing 
proposed or final listing determinations. In FY 2016, based on the 
Service's workload, we were able to use some of the funds within the 
petitions subcap to fund proposed listing determinations.
    We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to 
ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed 
first, and because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide 
basis. Through the listing cap, the three subcaps, and the amount of 
funds needed to complete court-mandated actions within the cap and 
subcaps, Congress and the courts have in effect determined the amount 
of money available for listing activities nationwide. Therefore, the 
funds that remain within the listing cap--after paying for work within 
the subcaps needed to comply with court orders or court-approved 
settlement agreements requiring critical habitat actions for already-
listed species, listing actions for foreign species, and petition 
findings, respectively--set the framework within which we make our 
determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.
    For FY 2016, on December 18, 2015, Congress passed a Consolidated 
Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 114-113), which provided funding through 
September 30, 2016. That Appropriations Act included an overall 
spending cap of $20,515,000 for the listing program. Of that, no more 
than $4,605,000 could be used for critical habitat determinations; no 
more than $1,504,000 could be used for listing actions for foreign 
species; and no more than $1,501,000 could be used to make 90-day or 
12-month findings on petitions. The Service thus had $12,905,000 
available to work on proposed and final listing determinations for 
domestic species. In addition, if the Service had funding available 
within the critical habitat, foreign species, or petition subcaps after 
those workloads had been completed, it could use those funds to work on 
listing actions other than critical habitat designations or foreign 
species.
    Costs of Listing Actions. The work involved in preparing various 
listing documents can be extensive, and may include, but is not limited 
to: Gathering and assessing the best scientific and commercial data 
available and conducting analyses used as the basis for our decisions; 
writing and publishing documents; and obtaining, reviewing, and 
evaluating public comments and peer-review comments on proposed rules 
and incorporating relevant information from those comments into final 
rules. The number of listing actions that we can undertake in a given 
year also is influenced by the complexity of those listing actions; 
that is, more complex actions generally are more costly. In the past, 
we estimated that the median cost for preparing and publishing a 90-day 
finding was $4,500 and for a 12-month finding, $68,875. We have 
streamlined our processes for making 12-month petition findings to be 
as efficient as possible to reduce these costs and we estimate that we 
have cut this cost in half. We estimate that the

[[Page 87251]]

median costs for preparing and publishing a proposed listing rule with 
proposed critical habitat is $240,000; and for a final listing 
determination with a final critical habitat determination, $205,000.
    Prioritizing Listing Actions. The Service's Listing Program 
workload is broadly composed of four types of actions, which the 
Service prioritizes as follows: (1) Compliance with court orders and 
court-approved settlement agreements requiring that petition findings 
or listing or critical habitat determinations be completed by a 
specific date; (2) essential litigation-related, administrative, and 
listing program-management functions; (3) section 4 (of the ESA) 
listing and critical habitat actions with absolute statutory deadlines; 
and (4) section 4 listing actions that do not have absolute statutory 
deadlines.
    In previous years, the Service received many new petitions and a 
single petition to list 404 species, significantly increasing the 
number of actions within the third category of our workload--actions 
that have absolute statutory deadlines. As a result of the outstanding 
petitions to list hundreds of species, and our successful efforts to 
continue making initial petition findings within 90 days of receiving 
the petition to the maximum extent practicable, we currently have over 
550 12-month petition findings yet to be initiated and completed. 
Because we are not able to work on all of these at once, we recently 
finalized a new methodology for prioritizing status reviews and 
accompanying 12-month findings (81 FR 49248; July 27, 2016). Moving 
forward, we are applying this methodology to 12-month findings to 
prioritize the outstanding petition findings and develop a multi-year 
workplan for completing them.
    An additional way in which we prioritize work in the section 4 
program is application of the listing priority guidelines (48 FR 43098; 
September 21, 1983). Under those guidelines, we assign each candidate 
an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats (high or 
moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or nonimminent), and 
taxonomic status of the species (in order of priority: Monotypic genus 
(a species that is the sole member of a genus), a species, or a part of 
a species (subspecies or distinct population segment)). The lower the 
listing priority number, the higher the listing priority (that is, a 
species with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing priority). A 
species with a higher LPN would generally be precluded from listing by 
species with lower LPNs, unless work on a proposed rule for the species 
with the higher LPN can be combined with work on a proposed rule for 
other high-priority species.
    Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened species 
to endangered species are generally lower in priority, because as 
listed species, they are already afforded the protections of the ESA 
and implementing regulations. However, for efficiency reasons, we may 
choose to work on a proposed rule to reclassify a species to endangered 
if we can combine this with work that is subject to a court order or 
court-approved deadline.
    Since before Congress first established the spending cap for the 
Listing Program in 1998, the Listing Program workload has required 
considerably more resources than the amount of funds Congress has 
allowed for the Listing Program. It is therefore important that we be 
as efficient as possible in our listing process.
    On September 1, 2016, the Service released its National Listing 
Workplan for addressing ESA listing and critical habitat decisions over 
the next seven years. The workplan identifies the Service's schedule 
for addressing all 30 species currently on the candidate list and 
conducting 320 status reviews (also referred to as 12-month findings) 
for species that have been petitioned for federal protections under the 
ESA. The petitioned species are prioritized using our final 
prioritization methodology. As we implement our listing work plan and 
work on proposed rules for the highest-priority species, we prepare 
multi-species proposals when appropriate, and these include species 
with lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same 
threats as one of the highest-priority species.
    Listing Program Workload. From 2011-2016, we proposed and finalized 
listing determinations in accordance with a workplan we had developed 
for our listing work for that time period; we have subsequently 
developed a National Listing Workplan to cover the future period from 
2017 to 2023. Each FY we determine, based on the amount of funding 
Congress has made available within the Listing Program spending cap, if 
we can accomplish the work that we have planned to do. Up until 2012, 
we prepared Allocation Tables that identified the actions that we 
funded for that FY, and how much we estimated it would cost to complete 
each action; these Allocation Tables are part of our record for the 
listing program. Our Allocation Table for FY 2012, which incorporated 
the Service's approach to prioritizing its workload, was adopted as 
part of a settlement agreement in a case before the U.S. District Court 
for the District of Columbia (Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline 
Litigation, No. 10-377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (``MDL Litigation''), 
Document 31-1 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011) (``MDL Settlement Agreement'')). 
The requirements of paragraphs 1 through 7 of that settlement 
agreement, combined with the work plan attached to the agreement as 
Exhibit B, reflected the Service's Allocation Tables for FY 2011 and FY 
2012. In addition, paragraphs 2 through 7 of the agreement require the 
Service to take numerous other actions through FY 2017--in particular, 
complete either a proposed listing rule or a not-warranted finding for 
all 251 species designated as ``candidates'' in the 2010 candidate 
notice of review (``CNOR'') before the end of FY 2016, and complete 
final listing determinations for those species proposed for listing 
within the statutory deadline (usually one year from the proposal). 
Paragraph 10 of that settlement agreement sets forth the Service's 
conclusion that ``fulfilling the commitments set forth in this 
Agreement, along with other commitments required by court orders or 
court-approved settlement agreements already in existence at the 
signing of this Settlement Agreement (listed in Exhibit A), will 
require substantially all of the resources in the Listing Program.'' As 
part of the same lawsuit, the court also approved a separate settlement 
agreement with the other plaintiff in the case; that settlement 
agreement requires the Service to complete additional actions in 
specific fiscal years--including 12-month petition findings for 11 
species, 90-day petition findings for 478 species, and proposed listing 
rules or not-warranted findings for 40 species.
    These settlement agreements have led to a number of results that 
affect our preclusion analysis. First, the Service has been limited in 
the extent to which it can undertake additional actions within the 
Listing Program through FY 2017, beyond what is required by the MDL 
Settlement Agreements. Second, because the settlement is court-
approved, completion, before the end of FY 2016, of proposed listings 
or not-warranted findings for the remaining candidate species that were 
included in the 2010 CNOR was the Service's highest priority 
(compliance with a court order) for FY 2016. Therefore, one of the 
Service's highest priorities is to make steady progress towards 
completing by the end of 2017 the remaining final listing 
determinations for the 2010 candidate species taking

[[Page 87252]]

into consideration the availability of staff resources.
    Based on these prioritization factors, we continue to find that 
proposals to list the petitioned candidate species included in Table 1 
are all precluded by higher-priority listing actions, including listing 
actions with deadlines required by court orders and court-approved 
settlement agreements and listing actions with absolute statutory 
deadlines. We provide tables in the Expeditious Progress section, 
below, identifying the listing actions that we completed in FY 2016, as 
well as those we worked on but did not complete in FY 2016.
Expeditious Progress
    As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but 
precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made 
to add and remove qualified species to and from the Lists. As with our 
``precluded'' finding, the evaluation of whether progress in adding 
qualified species to the Lists has been expeditious is a function of 
the resources available for listing and the competing demands for those 
funds. (Although we do not discuss it in detail here, we are also 
making expeditious progress in removing species from the list under the 
Recovery program in light of the resources available for delisting, 
which is funded by a separate line item in the budget of the Endangered 
Species Program. During FY 2016, we completed delisting rules for seven 
species.) As discussed below, given the limited resources available for 
listing, we find that we are making expeditious progress in adding 
qualified species to the Lists.
    We provide below tables cataloguing the work of the Service's 
Listing Program in FY 2016. This work includes all three of the steps 
necessary for adding species to the Lists: (1) Identifying species that 
may warrant listing; (2) undertaking the evaluation of the best 
available scientific data about those species and the threats they face 
in preparation for a proposed or final determination; and (3) adding 
species to the Lists by publishing proposed and final listing rules 
that include a summary of the data on which the rule is based and show 
the relationship of that data to the rule. After taking into 
consideration the limited resources available for listing, the 
competing demands for those funds, and the completed work catalogued in 
the tables below, we find that we are making expeditious progress to 
add qualified species to the Lists.
    First, we are making expeditious progress in listing qualified 
species. In FY 2016, we resolved the status of 97 species that we 
determined, or had previously determined, qualified for listing. 
Moreover, for 78 of those species, the resolution was to add them to 
the Lists, some with concurrent designations of critical habitat, and 
for 1 species we published a withdrawal of the proposed rule. We also 
proposed to list an additional 18 qualified species.
    Second, we are making expeditious progress in working towards 
adding qualified species to the Lists. In FY 2016, we worked on 
developing proposed listing rules or not-warranted 12-month petition 
findings for 3 species (most of them with concurrent critical habitat 
proposals). Although we have not yet completed those actions, we are 
making expeditious progress towards doing so.
    Third, we are making expeditious progress in identifying additional 
species that may qualify for listing. In FY 2016, we completed 90-day 
petition findings for 57 species and 12-month petition findings for 30 
species.
    Our accomplishments this year should also be considered in the 
broader context of our commitment to reduce the number of candidate 
species for which we have not made final determinations whether to 
list. On May 10, 2011, the Service filed in the MDL Litigation a 
settlement agreement that put in place an ambitious schedule for 
completing proposed and final listing determinations at least through 
FY 2016; the court approved that settlement agreement on September 9, 
2011. That agreement required, among other things, that for all 251 
species that were included as candidates in the 2010 CNOR, the Service 
submit to the Federal Register proposed listing rules or not-warranted 
findings by the end of FY 2016, and for any proposed listing rules, the 
Service complete final listing determinations within the statutory time 
frame. The Service has completed proposed listing rules or not-
warranted findings for all 251 of the 2010 candidate species, as well 
as final listing rules for 140 of those proposed rules, and is 
therefore making adequate progress towards meeting all of the 
requirements of the MDL Settlement Agreement. Both by entering into the 
settlement agreement and by making progress towards final listing 
determinations for those species proposed for listing (of the 251 
species on the 2010 candidate list), the Service is making expeditious 
progress to add qualified species to the lists.
    The Service's progress in FY 2016 included completing and 
publishing the following determinations:

                                        FY 2016 Completed Listing Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Publication date                   Title                 Actions                     FR pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/22/2015......................  90-Day and 12-month     90-Day and 12-month    80 FR 79533-79554.
                                   Findings on a           petition findings--
                                   Petition to List the    Substantial and
                                   Miami Tiger Beetle as   warranted; Proposed
                                   an Endangered or        listing; Endangered.
                                   Threatened Species;
                                   Proposed Endangered
                                   Species Status for
                                   the Miami Tiger
                                   Beetle.
1/6/2016........................  12-Month Finding on a   12-Month petition      81 FR 435-458.
                                   Petition to List the    finding; Not
                                   Alexander Archipelago   warranted.
                                   Wolf as an Endangered
                                   or Threatened Species.
1/12/2016.......................  90-Day Findings on 17   90-Day petition        81 FR 1368-1375.
                                   Petitions.              findings;
                                                           Substantial and not
                                                           substantial.
3/16/2016.......................  90-Day Findings on 29   90-Day petition        81 FR 14058-14072.
                                   Petitions.              findings;
                                                           Substantial and not
                                                           substantial.
4/5/2016........................  12-Month Findings on    12-Month petition      81 FR 19527-19542.
                                   Petitions To List       finding; Warranted
                                   Island Marble           but precluded and;
                                   Butterfly, San          Not warranted;
                                   Bernardino Flying       Candidate removal.
                                   Squirrel, Spotless
                                   Crake, and Sprague's
                                   Pipit as Endangered
                                   or Threatened Species.

[[Page 87253]]

 
4/6/2016........................  Final Rule to List      Final Listing;         81 FR 20057-20090.
                                   Eleven Distinct         Endangered and
                                   Population Segments     Threatened.
                                   of the Green Sea
                                   Turtle (Chelonia
                                   mydas) as Endangered
                                   or Threatened and
                                   Revision of Current
                                   Listings Under the
                                   Endangered Species
                                   Act.
4/7/2016........................  Final Listing           Final Listing;         81 FR 20449-20481.
                                   Determination for the   Endangered and
                                   Big Sandy Crayfish      Threatened.
                                   and the Guyandotte
                                   River Crayfish.
4/18/2016.......................  Withdrawal of the       Proposed Listing;      81 FR 22709-22808.
                                   Proposed Rule To List   Withdrawal.
                                   the West Coast
                                   Distinct Population
                                   Segment of Fisher.
6/22/2016.......................  Threatened Species      Final Listing;         81 FR 40534-40547.
                                   Status for the Elfin-   Threatened.
                                   Woods Warbler With
                                   4(d) Rule.
7/6/2016........................  12-Month Findings on    12-Month petition      81 FR 43972-43979.
                                   Petitions To List the   finding; Not
                                   Eagle Lake Rainbow      warranted.
                                   Trout and the
                                   Ichetucknee Siltsnail
                                   as Endangered or
                                   Threatened Species.
8/10/2016.......................  Endangered Species      Proposed Listing;      81 FR 52796-52809.
                                   Status for Texas        Endangered.
                                   Hornshell.
8/17/2016.......................  Threatened Status for   Final Listing;         81 FR 55057-55084.
                                   Lepidium papilliferum   Threatened.
                                   (Slickspot
                                   Peppergrass)
                                   Throughout Its Range.
9/9/2016........................  Endangered Species      Proposed Listing;      81 FR 62450-62455.
                                   Status for Guadalupe    Endangered.
                                   Fescue.
9/13/2016.......................  Threatened Species      Proposed Listing;      81 FR 62826-62833.
                                   Status for              Threatened.
                                   Platanthera
                                   integrilabia (White
                                   Fringeless Orchid).
9/14/2016.......................  90-Day Findings on 10   90-Day petition        81 FR 63160-63165.
                                   Petitions.              findings;
                                                           Substantial and not
                                                           substantial.
9/15/2016.......................  Threatened Species      Proposed Listing;      81 FR 63454-63466.
                                   Status for              Threatened.
                                   Chorizanthe parryi
                                   var. fernandina (San
                                   Fernando Valley
                                   Spineflower).
9/20/2016.......................  Threatened Species      12-Month petition      81 FR 64414-64426.
                                   Status for the Iiwi     finding; Warranted;
                                   (Drepanis coccinea).    Proposed Listing;
                                                           Threatened.
9/21/2016.......................  Endangered Species      Proposed Listing;      81 FR 64829-64843.
                                   Status for Sonoyta      Endangered.
                                   Mud Turtle.
9/21/2016.......................  12-Month Findings on    12-Month petition      81 FR 64843-64857.
                                   Petitions To List       findings; Not
                                   Nine Species as         warranted; Candidate
                                   Endangered or           removals.
                                   Threatened Species.
9/21/2016.......................  Threatened Species      Proposed Listing;      81 FR 64857-64868.
                                   Status for Pearl        Threatened.
                                   Darter.
9/22/2016.......................  Endangered Species      12-Month petition      81 FR 65324-65334.
                                   Status for Rusty        finding; Warranted;
                                   Patched Bumble Bee.     Proposed Listing;
                                                           Endangered.
9/22/2016.......................  Endangered Status for   Final Listing;         81 FR 65465-65508.
                                   Five Species from       Threatened.
                                   American Samoa.
9/29/2016.......................  Endangered Species      Final Listing;         81 FR 66842-66865.
                                   Status for              Threatened and
                                   Chamaecrista lineata    Endangered.
                                   var. keyensis (Big
                                   Pine Partridge Pea),
                                   Chamaesyce deltoidea
                                   ssp. serpyllum (Wedge
                                   Spurge), and Linum
                                   arenicola (Sand
                                   Flax), and Threatened
                                   Species Status for
                                   Argythamnia
                                   blodgettii
                                   (Blodgett's
                                   Silverbush).
9/30/2016.......................  Threatened Species      Final Listing;         81 FR 67193-67214.
                                   Status for the          Threatened.
                                   Eastern Massasauga
                                   Rattlesnake.
9/30/2016.......................  Endangered Species      Proposed Listing;      81 FR 67270-67287.
                                   Status for the Kenk's   Endangered.
                                   Amphipod.
9/30/2016.......................  Endangered Status for   Final Listing;         81 FR 67786-67860.
                                   49 Species From the     Endangered.
                                   Hawaiian Islands.
10/4/2016.......................  12-Month Finding on a   12-Month petition      81 FR 68379-68397.
                                   Petition to List the    finding; Warranted;
                                   Western Glacier         Proposed Listing;
                                   Stonefly as an          Threatened.
                                   Endangered or
                                   Threatened Species;
                                   Proposed Threatened
                                   Species Status for
                                   Meltwater Lednian
                                   Stonefly and Western
                                   Glacier Stonefly.
10/5/2016.......................  Threatened Species      Final Listing;         81 FR 68963-68985.
                                   Status for Kentucky     Threatened.
                                   Arrow Darter with
                                   4(d) Rule.
10/5/2016.......................  Endangered Species      Final Listing;         81 FR 68985-69007.
                                   Status for the Miami    Endangered.
                                   Tiger Beetle
                                   (Cicindelidia
                                   floridana).
10/6/2016.......................  Threatened Species      Final Listing;         81 FR 69417-69425.
                                   Status for Suwannee     Threatened.
                                   Moccasinshell.
10/6/2016.......................  12-Month Findings on    12-Month petition      81 FR 69425-69442.
                                   Petitions To List 10    finding; Not
                                   Species as Endangered   warranted; Candidate
                                   or Threatened Species.  removal.
10/6/2016.......................  Proposed Threatened     Proposed Listing;      81 FR 69454-69475.
                                   Species Status for      Threatened.
                                   Louisiana pinesnake.
10/6/2016.......................  Endangered Species      Proposed Listing;      81 FR 69500-69508.
                                   Status for Black        Endangered.
                                   Warrior Waterdog.

[[Page 87254]]

 
10/11/2016......................  Proposed Threatened     Proposed Listing;      81 FR 70282-70308.
                                   Species Status for      Threatened;
                                   Sideroxylon             Endangered.
                                   reclinatum ssp.
                                   austrofloridense
                                   (Everglades Bully),
                                   Digitaria pauciflora
                                   (Florida Pineland
                                   Crabgrass), and
                                   Chamaesyce deltoidea
                                   ssp. pinetorum
                                   (Pineland Sandmat)
                                   and Endangered
                                   Species Status for
                                   Dalea carthagenensis
                                   var. floridana
                                   (Florida Prairie-
                                   Clover).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our expeditious progress also included work on listing actions that 
we funded in previous fiscal years and in FY 2016, but did not complete 
in FY 2016. For these species, we have completed the first step, and 
have been working on the second step, necessary for adding species to 
the Lists. These actions are listed below. The Pacific walrus proposed 
listing determination in the top portion of the table is being 
conducted under a deadline set by a court through a court-approved 
settlement agreement.

    Actions Funded in Previous FYs and FY 2016 but Not Yet Completed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Species                               Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific walrus.........................  Proposed listing determination.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Other Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hermes copper butterfly................  Proposed listing determination.
Cirsium wrightii (Wright's marsh         Proposed listing determination.
 thistle).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also funded work on resubmitted petition findings for 29 
candidate species (species petitioned prior to the last CNOR). We did 
not include an updated assessment form as part of our resubmitted 
petition findings for the three candidate species for which we are 
preparing either proposed listing determinations or not-warranted 12-
month findings. However, in the course of preparing the proposed 
listing determinations or 12-month not-warranted findings for those 
species, we have continued to monitor new information about their 
status so that we can make prompt use of our authority under section 
4(b)(7) of the ESA in the case of an emergency posing a significant 
risk to the well-being of any of these candidate species; see summaries 
below regarding publication of these determinations (these species will 
remain on the candidate list until a proposed listing rule is 
published). Because the majority of these petitioned species were 
already candidate species prior to our receipt of a petition to list 
them, we had already assessed their status using funds from our 
Candidate Conservation Program, so we continue to monitor the status of 
these species through our Candidate Conservation Program. The cost of 
updating the species assessment forms and publishing the joint 
publication of the CNOR and resubmitted petition findings is shared 
between the Listing Program and the Candidate Conservation Program.
    During FY 2016, we also funded work on resubmitted petition 
findings for petitions to uplist three listed species (one grizzly bear 
population, Delta smelt, and Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette 
cactus)), for which we had previously received a petition and made a 
warranted-but-precluded finding.
    Another way that we have been expeditious in making progress to add 
qualified species to the Lists is that we have endeavored to make our 
listing actions as efficient and timely as possible, given the 
requirements of the relevant law and regulations and constraints 
relating to workload and personnel. We are continually considering ways 
to streamline processes or achieve economies of scale, and have been 
batching related actions together. Given our limited budget for 
implementing section 4 of the ESA, these efforts also contribute 
towards finding that we are making expeditious progress to add 
qualified species to the Lists.
    Although we have not resolved the listing status of all of the 
species we identified as candidates after 2010, we continue to 
contribute to the conservation of these species through several 
programs in the Service. In particular, the Candidate Conservation 
Program, which is separately budgeted, focuses on providing technical 
expertise for developing conservation strategies and agreements to 
guide voluntary on-the-ground conservation work for candidate and other 
at-risk species. The main goal of this program is to address the 
threats facing candidate species. Through this program, we work with 
our partners (other Federal agencies, State agencies, Tribes, local 
governments, private landowners, and private conservation 
organizations) to address the threats to candidate species and other 
species at risk. We are currently working with our partners to 
implement voluntary conservation agreements for more than 110 species 
covering 6.1 million acres of habitat. In some instances, the sustained 
implementation of strategically designed conservation efforts has 
culminated in making listing unnecessary for species that are 
candidates for listing or for which listing has been proposed (see 
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/non-listed-species-precluded-from-listing-due-to-conservation-report).

Findings for Petitioned Candidate Species

    Below are updated summaries for petitioned candidates for which we 
published findings under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA. In accordance

[[Page 87255]]

with section 4(b)(3)(C)(i), we treat any petitions for which we made 
warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings within the past year as 
having been resubmitted on the date of the warranted-but-precluded 
finding. We are making continued warranted-but-precluded 12-month 
findings on the petitions for these species.
Mammals
    Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk (Tamias minimus atristria)--The 
following summary is based on information contained in our files. 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is endemic to the White Mountains, Otero 
and Lincoln Counties, and the Sacramento Mountains, Otero County, New 
Mexico. The Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk historically had a broad 
distribution throughout the Sacramento Mountains within ponderosa pine 
forests. The last verification of persistence of the Sacramento 
Mountains population of Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk was in 1966, and 
the subspecies appears to be extirpated from the Sacramento Mountains. 
The only remaining known distribution of the Pe[ntilde]asco least 
chipmunk is restricted to open, high-elevation talus slopes within a 
subalpine grassland, located in the Sierra Blanca area of the White 
Mountains in Lincoln and Otero Counties, New Mexico.
    The Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk faces threats from present or 
threatened destruction, modification, and curtailment of its habitat 
from the alteration or loss of mature ponderosa pine forests in one of 
the two historically occupied areas. The documented decline in occupied 
localities, in conjunction with the small numbers of individuals 
captured, is linked to widespread habitat alteration. Moreover, the 
highly fragmented nature of its distribution is a significant 
contributor to the vulnerability of this subspecies and increases the 
likelihood of very small, isolated populations being extirpated. As a 
result of this fragmentation, even if suitable habitat exists (or is 
restored) in the Sacramento Mountains, the likelihood of natural 
recolonization of historical habitat or population expansion from the 
White Mountains is extremely remote. Considering the high magnitude and 
immediacy of these threats to the subspecies and its habitat, and the 
vulnerability of the White Mountains population, we conclude that the 
Pe[ntilde]asco least chipmunk is in danger of extinction throughout all 
of its known range now or in the foreseeable future.
    Because the one known remaining extant population of Pe[ntilde]asco 
least chipmunk in the White Mountains is particularly susceptible to 
extinction as a result of small, reduced population sizes, and its 
isolation due to the lack of contiguous habitat, even a small impact on 
the White Mountains could have a very large impact on the status of the 
subspecies as a whole. The combination of its restricted range, 
apparent small population size, and fragmented historical habitat make 
the White Mountains population inherently vulnerable to extinction due 
to effects of small population sizes (e.g., loss of genetic diversity). 
These impacts are likely to be seen in the population at some point in 
the foreseeable future, but do not appear to be affecting this 
population currently as it appears to be stable at this time. 
Therefore, we conclude that the threats to this population are of high 
magnitude, but not imminent, and we assign an LPN of 6 to the 
subspecies.
    Sierra Nevada red fox, Sierra Nevada DPS (Vulpes vulpes necator)--
The following summary is based on information contained in our files 
and in our warranted-but-precluded finding, published in the Federal 
Register on October 8, 2015 (80 FR 60990). The Sierra Nevada red fox is 
a subspecies of red fox found at high elevations (above 4,000 ft) in 
the Cascade and Sierra Nevada mountains of Oregon and California. It is 
somewhat smaller than lowland-dwelling red foxes, with a thicker coat 
and furry pads on its feet during winter months to facilitate travel 
over snow. The subspecies consists of two distinct population segments 
(DPSs), one in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the other in the 
Cascades. The only known remnant of the Sierra Nevada DPS is a 
population in the Sonora Pass area estimated to contain approximately 
29 adults, including an estimated 14 breeding individuals.
    The Sierra Nevada DPS originally extended along the Sierra Nevada 
Mountains above about 1,200 m (3,937 ft), from Sierra County south into 
Inyo and Tulare Counties. Recent sightings have been limited to the 
general area around Sonora Pass, and to the northern portion of 
Yosemite National Park. Those areas are connected by high-quality 
habitat, facilitating potential travel between them. The Yosemite 
sightings were collected by remote camera on 3 days in the winter of 
2014-2015, and indicate one to three individuals. The sightings around 
Sonora Pass primarily consist of photographs and genetically-tested 
hair or scat samples collected from 2011 to 2014 as part of a study of 
red foxes in the area. The study covered approximately 50 square miles 
(130 square kilometers), which was estimated to constitute 20 to 50 
percent of the contiguous high-quality habitat in the general area. 
Sierra Nevada red fox numbers in the study area dropped from six in 
2011 to two in 2014. During the same time period, the study also 
documented an increase in nonnative red foxes from zero to two 
(possibly three), and an increase in the number of hybrids from zero to 
eight. Scientists identified an additional three hybrids in 2013, but 
they were no longer in the area in 2014. There is no evidence of 
hybrids in the study area since 2014.
    The Sierra Nevada DPS of the Sierra Nevada red fox may be 
vulnerable to extinction from genetic swamping (gradual loss of the 
identifying characteristics of a population due to extensive 
hybridization). The DPS may also be vulnerable to outbreeding 
depression (lowered survival or reproductive fitness in hybrids). 
Because the DPS consists of few individuals, any portions of the 
population not undergoing hybridization may be subject to inbreeding 
depression (congenital defects due to breeding among close relatives). 
If additional interbreeding with nonnative foxes is curtailed, then 
inbreeding depression may also be a future concern for those portions 
of the population that have undergone hybridization, because 
hybridization can introduce new deleterious alleles into the 
population. Small populations may also suffer proportionately greater 
impacts from deleterious chance events such as storms or local disease 
outbreaks. Finally, the DPS may be made more susceptible to extinction 
because of competition with coyotes. Coyotes are known to chase and 
kill red foxes, thereby excluding them from necessary habitat. Normally 
they are kept out of high-elevation areas during winter, and during the 
red-fox pupping season in early spring, by high snow banks, but coyotes 
have recently been found living year-round in areas around Sonora Pass 
occupied by Sierra Nevada red foxes. Global climate change may 
facilitate encroachment of coyotes into the area by limiting deposition 
and longevity of high-elevation snowpacks in the Sierra Nevada 
Mountains. The threats to this red fox population are ongoing and, 
therefore, imminent. The threats are high in magnitude because the 
population is so small (fewer than 50 adults), and it could be 
extirpated by any of the population-level threats discussed above. 
Therefore, we assigned the Sierra Nevada DPS of the Sierra Nevada red 
fox a LPN of 3.
    Red tree vole, north Oregon coast DPS (Arborimus longicaudus)--The

[[Page 87256]]

following summary is based on information contained in our files and in 
our initial warranted-but-precluded finding, published in the Federal 
Register on October 13, 2011 (76 FR 63720). Red tree voles are small, 
mouse-sized rodents that live in conifer forests and spend almost all 
of their time in the tree canopy. They are one of the few animals that 
can persist on a diet of conifer needles, which is their principal 
food. Red tree voles are endemic to the humid, coniferous forests of 
western Oregon (generally west of the crest of the Cascade Range) and 
northwestern California (north of the Klamath River). The north Oregon 
coast DPS of the red tree vole comprises that portion of the Oregon 
Coast Range from the Columbia River south to the Siuslaw River. Red 
tree voles demonstrate strong selection for nesting in older conifer 
forests, which are now relatively rare across the DPS. Red tree voles 
generally avoid younger forests, and while their nests are found in 
younger forests, these forests are unlikely to provide long-term 
persistence of red tree vole populations.
    Although data are not available to rigorously assess population 
trends, information from retrospective surveys indicates population 
numbers of red tree voles have declined in the DPS and are largely 
absent in areas where they were once relatively abundant. Older forests 
that provide habitat for red tree voles are limited and highly 
fragmented, while ongoing forest practices in much of the DPS maintain 
the remnant patches of older forest in a highly fragmented and isolated 
condition. Modeling indicates that 11 percent of the DPS currently 
contains tree vole habitat, largely restricted to the 22 percent of the 
DPS that is under Federal ownership.
    Existing regulatory mechanisms on State and private lands are not 
preventing continued harvest of forest stands at a scale and extent 
that would be meaningful for conserving red tree voles. Biological 
characteristics of red tree voles, such as small home ranges, limited 
dispersal distances, and low reproductive potential, limit their 
ability to persist in areas of extensive habitat loss and alteration. 
These biological characteristics also make it difficult for the tree 
voles to recolonize isolated habitat patches. Due to the species' 
reduced distribution, the red tree vole is vulnerable to random 
environmental disturbances that may remove or further isolate large 
blocks of already limited habitat, and to extirpation within the DPS 
from such factors as lack of genetic variability, inbreeding 
depression, and demographic stochasticity. Although the entire 
population is experiencing threats, the impact is less pronounced on 
Federal lands, where much of the red tree vole habitat remains. Hence, 
the magnitude of these threats is moderate to low. The threats are 
imminent because habitat loss and reduced distribution are currently 
occurring within the DPS. Therefore, we have retained an LPN of 9 for 
this DPS.
    Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens)--We continue to find 
that listing this subspecies is warranted but precluded as of the date 
of publication of this notice. However, we are working on a thorough 
review of all available data and expect to publish either a proposed 
listing rule or a 12-month not-warranted finding prior to making the 
next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the course of 
preparing a proposed listing rule or not-warranted petition finding, we 
are continuing to monitor new information about this subspecies' status 
so that we can make prompt use of our authority under section 4(b)(7) 
of the ESA in the case of an emergency posing a significant risk to the 
subspecies.
Birds
    Red-crowned parrot (Amazona viridigenalis)--The following summary 
is based on information contained in the notice of 12-month finding (76 
FR 62016; October 6, 2011), scientific reports, journal articles, and 
newspaper and magazine articles, and on communications with internal 
and external partners. Currently, there are no changes to the range or 
distribution of the red-crowned parrot. The red-crowned parrot is non-
migratory, and occurs in fragmented areas of isolated habitat in the 
Mexican states of Veracruz, San Luis Potosi, Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas, 
and northeast Queretaro, with the majority of its remaining range in 
Tamaulipas. In Texas, red-crowned parrots occur in the cities of 
Mission, McAllen, Pharr, and Edinburg (Hidalgo County) and in 
Brownsville, Los Fresnos, San Benito, and Harlingen (Cameron County). 
Feral populations also exist in southern California, Puerto Rico, 
Hawaii, and Florida, and escaped birds have been reported in central 
Texas. As of 2004, half of the wild population is believed to be found 
in the United States.
    The species is nomadic during the winter (non-breeding) season when 
large flocks range widely to forage, moving tens of kilometers during a 
single flight in Mexico. The species within Texas is thought to move 
between urban areas in search for food and other available resources. 
Parrots were found to occur exclusively in urban habitats in the Texas 
Lower Rio Grande Valley during the breeding season. Loss of nesting 
habitat is a concern for the species in southern Texas. Nest boxes were 
provided in 2011, in areas where the red-crowned parrots had actively 
traveled during the prior spring, summer, and fall months; however, as 
of March 2013, these nest sites had not been used. Recent monitoring 
efforts for red-crowned parrots in Mexico have been done on a 
relatively localized level, taking place on pastureland in southeastern 
Tamaulipas and in forested areas of the Tamaulipan Sierras nearby to 
Ciudad Victoria. In southern Texas, red-crowned parrots have been 
included in Christmas Bird Counts, and special monitoring efforts have 
included an online iNaturalist project developed in 2015, and an 
intensive, one-night roost survey in January 2016.
    The primary threats within Mexico and Texas remain habitat 
destruction and modification from logging, deforestation, conversion of 
suitable habitat, and urbanization; trapping; and illegal trade. Recent 
reassessment of a site in southeastern Tamaulipas, first studied in the 
1990s, showed red-crowned parrots to be persisting in pastureland with 
remaining large trees, providing some hope that this species can 
coexist with ranching, provided that large trees are left standing and 
there is a high level of watchfulness to prevent poaching. Multiple 
laws and regulations have been passed to control illegal trade, but 
they are not adequately enforced; poaching of nests has been documented 
as recently as 2015. In addition, existing regulations do not address 
the habitat threats to the species. In South Texas, at least four city 
ordinances have been put in place that prohibit malicious acts (injury, 
mortality) to birds and their habitat. Texas Parks and Wildlife 
Department now considers the species to be indigenous in Texas, a 
classification that affords State protection for the individual 
parrots. Conservation efforts include monitoring and habitat-use 
research, as well as education and outreach in Mexico and Texas. 
Conservation also includes revegetation efforts, as well as 
conservation of existing native tracts of land, to provide habitat in 
the future once trees have matured. Threats to the species are 
extensive and are imminent, and, therefore, we have determined that an 
LPN of 2 remains appropriate for the species.
Reptiles
    Gopher tortoise, eastern population (Gopherus polyphemus) -- The

[[Page 87257]]

following summary is based on information in our files. The gopher 
tortoise is a large, terrestrial, herbivorous turtle that reaches a 
total length up to 15 inches (in) (38 centimeters (cm)) and typically 
inhabits the sandhills, pine/scrub oak uplands, and pine flatwoods 
associated with the longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) ecosystem. A 
fossorial animal, the gopher tortoise is usually found in areas with 
well-drained, deep, sandy soils; an open tree canopy; and a diverse, 
abundant, herbaceous groundcover.
    The gopher tortoise ranges from extreme southern South Carolina 
south through peninsular Florida, and west through southern Georgia, 
Florida, southern Alabama, and Mississippi, into extreme southeastern 
Louisiana. In the eastern portion of the gopher tortoise's range in 
South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and Alabama (east of the Mobile and 
Tombigbee Rivers) it is a candidate species; the gopher tortoise is 
federally listed as threatened in the western portion of its range, 
which includes Alabama (west of the Mobile and Tombigbee Rivers), 
Mississippi, and Louisiana.
    The primary threat to the gopher tortoise is habitat fragmentation, 
destruction, and modification (either deliberately or from 
inattention), including conversion of longleaf pine forests to 
incompatible silvicultural or agricultural habitats, urbanization, 
shrub/hardwood encroachment (mainly from fire exclusion or insufficient 
fire management), and establishment and spread of invasive species. 
Other threats include disease and predation (mainly on nests and young 
tortoises), and existing regulatory mechanisms do not address habitat 
enhancement or protection in perpetuity for relocated tortoise 
populations. The magnitude of threats to the gopher tortoise in the 
eastern part of its range is moderate to low, as populations extend 
over a broad geographic area and conservation measures are in place in 
some areas. However, because the species is currently being affected by 
a number of threats including destruction and modification of its 
habitat, disease, predation, and exotics, the threat is imminent. Thus, 
we have assigned an LPN of 8 for this species.
Amphibians
    Striped newt (Notophthalmus perstriatus)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. The striped newt is a 
small salamander that inhabits ephemeral ponds surrounded by upland 
habitats of high pine, scrubby flatwoods, and scrub. Longleaf pine-
turkey oak stands with intact ground cover containing wiregrass are the 
preferred upland habitat for striped newts, followed by scrub, then 
flatwoods. Life-history stages of the striped newt are complex, and 
include the use of both aquatic and terrestrial habitats throughout 
their life cycle. Striped newts are opportunistic feeders that prey on 
a variety of items such as frog eggs, worms, snails, fairy shrimp, 
spiders, and insects (adult and larvae) that are of appropriate size. 
They occur in appropriate habitats from the Atlantic Coastal Plain of 
southeastern Georgia to the north-central peninsula of Florida and 
through the Florida panhandle into portions of southwest Georgia, 
upward to Taylor County in western Georgia.
    Prior to 2014, scientists thought there was a 125-km (78-mi) 
separation between the western and eastern portions of the striped 
newt's range. However, in 2014, the discovery of five adult striped 
newts in Taylor County, Florida, represents a significant reduction in 
the gap between these areas. In addition to the newts discovered in 
Taylor County, Florida, researchers also discovered 15 striped newts 
(14 paedomorphs and 1 non-gilled adult) in a pond in Osceola County, 
Florida, in 2014, which represents a significant range expansion to the 
south. The historical range of the striped newt was likely similar to 
the current range. However, loss of native longleaf habitat, fire 
suppression, and the natural patchy distribution of upland habitats 
used by striped newts have resulted in fragmentation of existing 
populations. Other threats to the species include disease and drought, 
and existing regulatory mechanisms have not addressed the threats. 
Overall, the magnitude of the threats is moderate, and the threats are 
ongoing and, therefore, imminent. Therefore, we assigned an LPN of 8 to 
the striped newt.
    Berry Cave salamander (Gyrinophilus gulolineatus)--The following 
summary is based on information in our files. The Berry Cave salamander 
is recorded from Berry Cave in Roane County; from Mud Flats, Aycock 
Spring, Christian, Meades Quarry, Meades River, Fifth, and The Lost 
Puddle caves in Knox County; from Blythe Ferry Cave in Meigs County; 
from Small Cave in McMinn County; and from an unknown cave in Athens, 
McMinn County, Tennessee. These cave systems are all located within the 
Upper Tennessee River and Clinch River drainages. A total of 113 caves 
in Middle and East Tennessee were surveyed from the time period of 
April 2004 through June 2007, resulting in observations of 63 Berry 
Cave salamanders. These surveys documented two new populations of Berry 
Cave salamanders at Aycock Spring and Christian caves and led species 
experts to conclude that Berry Cave salamander populations are robust 
at Berry and Mudflats caves, where population declines had been 
previously reported. Further survey efforts in Berry Cave and Mudflats 
Cave in 2014 and early 2015 confirmed that viable populations of Berry 
Cave salamanders persist in these caves. One juvenile Berry Cave 
salamander was spotted during a May 10, 2014, survey in Small Cave, 
McMinn County. Significant sediment deposition was observed in the 
sinkhole entrance to the cave, likely due to nearby agricultural and 
pastureland use.
    Ongoing threats to this species include lye leaching in the Meades 
Quarry Cave as a result of past quarrying activities, the possible 
development of a roadway with potential to affect the recharge area for 
the Meades Quarry Cave system, urban development in Knox County, water-
quality impacts despite existing State and Federal laws, and 
hybridization between spring salamanders and Berry Cave salamanders in 
Meades Quarry Cave. These threats, coupled with confined distribution 
of the species and apparent low population densities, are all factors 
that leave the Berry Cave salamander vulnerable to extirpation. We have 
determined that the Berry Cave salamander faces ongoing and therefore 
imminent threats. The threats to the salamander are moderate in 
magnitude because, although some of the threats to the species are 
widespread, the salamander still occurs in several different cave 
systems, and existing populations appear stable. We continue to assign 
this species an LPN of 8.
Fishes
    Longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), Bay-Delta DPS--The 
following summary is based on information contained in our files and 
the petition we received on August 8, 2007. On April 2, 2012 (77 FR 
19756), we determined that the longfin smelt San Francisco Bay-Delta 
distinct population segment (Bay-Delta DPS) warranted listing as an 
endangered or threatened species under the ESA, but that listing was 
precluded by higher-priority listing actions. Longfin smelt measure 9-
11 cm (3.5-4.3 in) standard length. Longfin smelt are considered 
pelagic and anadromous, although anadromy in longfin smelt is poorly 
understood, and certain populations in other parts of the species' 
range are not anadromous and complete their entire

[[Page 87258]]

life cycle in freshwater lakes and streams. Longfin smelt usually live 
for 2 years, spawn, and then die, although some individuals may spawn 
as 1- or 3-year-old fish before dying. In the Bay-Delta, longfin smelt 
are believed to spawn primarily in freshwater in the lower reaches of 
the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River.
    Longfin smelt numbers in the Bay-Delta have declined significantly 
since the 1980s. Abundance indices derived from the Fall Midwater Trawl 
(FMWT), Bay Study Midwater Trawl (BSMT), and Bay Study Otter Trawl 
(BSOT) all show marked declines in Bay-Delta longfin smelt populations 
from 2002 to 2016. Longfin smelt abundance over the last decade is the 
lowest recorded in the 40-year history of the FMWT monitoring surveys 
of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly the 
California Department of Fish and Game). The 2015 longfin smelt 
abundance index numbers for the FMWT are the lowest ever recorded.
    The primary threat to the DPS is from reduced freshwater flows. 
Freshwater flows, especially winter-spring flows, are significantly 
correlated with longfin smelt abundance (i.e., longfin smelt abundance 
is lower when winter-spring flows are lower). The long-term decline in 
abundance of longfin smelt in the Bay-Delta has been partially 
attributed to reductions in food availability and disruptions of the 
Bay-Delta food web caused by establishment of the nonnative overbite 
clam (Corbula amurensis) and likely by increasing ammonium 
concentrations. The threats remain high in magnitude, as they pose a 
significant risk to the DPS throughout its range. The threats are 
ongoing, and thus are imminent. Thus, we are maintaining an LPN of 3 
for this population.
Clams
    Texas fatmucket (Lampsilis bracteata)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. The Texas fatmucket is a 
large, elongated freshwater mussel that is endemic to central Texas. 
Its shell can be moderately thick, smooth, and rhomboidal to oval in 
shape. Its external coloration varies from tan to brown with continuous 
dark brown, green-brown, or black rays, and internally it is pearly 
white, with some having a light salmon tint. This species historically 
occurred throughout the Colorado and Guadalupe-San Antonio River basins 
but is now known to occur only in nine streams within these basins in 
very limited numbers. All existing populations are represented by only 
one or two individuals and are not likely to be stable or recruiting.
    The Texas fatmucket is primarily threatened by habitat destruction 
and modification from impoundments, which scour river beds, thereby 
removing mussel habitat; decrease water quality; modify stream flows; 
and prevent host fish migration and distribution of freshwater mussels. 
This species is also threatened by sedimentation, dewatering, sand and 
gravel mining, and chemical contaminants. These threats may be 
exacerbated by the current and projected effects of climate change, 
population fragmentation and isolation, and the anticipated threat of 
nonnative species. Threats to the Texas fatmucket and its habitat are 
not being adequately addressed through existing regulatory mechanisms. 
Because of the limited distribution of this endemic species and its 
lack of mobility, these threats are likely to result in the extinction 
of the Texas fatmucket in the foreseeable future.
    The threats to the Texas fatmucket are high in magnitude, because 
habitat loss and degradation from impoundments, sedimentation, sand and 
gravel mining, and chemical contaminants are widespread throughout the 
range of the Texas fatmucket and profoundly affect its survival and 
recruitment. These threats are exacerbated by climate change, which 
will increase the frequency and magnitude of droughts. Remaining 
populations are small, isolated, and highly vulnerable to stochastic 
events, which could lead to extirpation or extinction. These threats 
are imminent, because they are ongoing and will continue in the 
foreseeable future. Habitat loss and degradation have already occurred 
and will continue as the human population continues to grow in central 
Texas. Texas fatmucket populations may already be below the minimum 
viable population requirement, which causes a reduction in the 
resliency of a population and an increase in the species' vulnerability 
to extinction. Based on imminent, high-magnitude threats, we maintained 
an LPN of 2 for the Texas fatmucket.
    Texas fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. The Texas fawnsfoot is a 
small, relatively thin-shelled freshwater mussel that is endemic to 
central Texas. Its shell is long and oval, generally free of external 
sculpturing, with external coloration that varies from yellowish- or 
orangish-tan, brown, reddish-brown, to smoky-green with a pattern of 
broken rays or irregular blotches. The internal color is bluish-white 
or white and iridescent posteriorly. This species historically occurred 
throughout the Colorado and Brazos River basins and is now known from 
only five locations. The Texas fawnsfoot has been extirpated from 
nearly all of the Colorado River basin and from much of the Brazos 
River basin. Of the populations that remain, only three are likely to 
be stable and recruiting; the remaining populations are disjunct and 
restricted to short stream reaches.
    The Texas fawnsfoot is primarily threatened by habitat destruction 
and modification from impoundments, which scour river beds, thereby 
removing mussel habitat; decrease water quality; modify stream flows; 
and prevent host fish migration and distribution of freshwater mussels. 
The species is also threatened by sedimentation, dewatering, sand and 
gravel mining, and chemical contaminants. These threats may be 
exacerbated by the current and projected effects of climate change, 
population fragmentation and isolation, and the anticipated threat of 
nonnative species. Threats to the Texas fawnsfoot and its habitat are 
not being adequately addressed through existing regulatory mechanisms. 
Because of the limited distribution of this endemic species and its 
lack of mobility, these threats are likely to result in the extinction 
of the Texas fawnsfoot in the foreseeable future.
    The threats to the Texas fawnsfoot are high in magnitude. Habitat 
loss and degradation from impoundments, sedimentation, sand and gravel 
mining, and chemical contaminants are widespread throughout the range 
of the Texas fawnsfoot and profoundly affect its habitat. These threats 
are exacerbated by climate change, which will increase the frequency 
and magnitude of droughts. Remaining populations are small, isolated, 
and highly vulnerable to stochastic events. These threats are imminent, 
because they are ongoing and will continue in the foreseeable future. 
Habitat loss and degradation has already occurred and will continue as 
the human population continues to grow in central Texas. The Texas 
fawnsfoot populations may already be below the minimum viable 
population requirement, which causes a reduction in the resiliency of a 
population and an increase in the species' vulnerability to extinction. 
Based on imminent, high-magnitude threats, we assigned the Texas 
fawnsfoot an LPN of 2.
    Golden orb (Quadrula aurea)--The following summary is based on 
information contained in our files. The golden orb is a small, round-
shaped freshwater mussel that is endemic to

[[Page 87259]]

central Texas. This species historically occurred throughout the 
Nueces-Frio and Guadalupe-San Antonio River basins and is now known 
from only nine locations in four rivers. The golden orb has been 
eliminated from nearly the entire Nueces-Frio River basin. Four of 
these populations appear to be stable and reproducing, and the 
remaining five populations are small and isolated and show no evidence 
of recruitment. It appears that the populations in the middle Guadalupe 
and lower San Marcos Rivers are likely connected. The remaining extant 
populations are highly fragmented and restricted to short reaches.
    The golden orb is primarily threatened by habitat destruction and 
modification from impoundments, which scour river beds (thereby 
removing mussel habitat), decrease water quality, modify stream flows, 
and prevent host fish migration and distribution of freshwater mussels. 
The species is also threatened by sedimentation, dewatering, sand and 
gravel mining, and chemical contaminants. These threats may be 
exacerbated by the current and projected effects of climate change, 
population fragmentation and isolation, and the anticipated threat of 
nonnative species. Threats to the golden orb and its habitat are not 
being addressed by existing regulatory mechanisms. Because of the 
limited distribution of this endemic species and its lack of mobility, 
these threats may be likely to result in the golden orb becoming in 
danger of extinction in the foreseeable future.
    The threats to the golden orb are moderate in magnitude. Although 
habitat loss and degradation from impoundments, sedimentation, sand and 
gravel mining, and chemical contaminants are widespread throughout the 
range of the golden orb and are likely to be exacerbated by climate 
change, which will increase the frequency and magnitude of droughts, 
four large populations remain, including one that was recently 
discovered, suggesting that the threats are not high in magnitude. The 
threats from habitat loss and degradation are imminent, because habitat 
loss and degradation have already occurred and will likely continue as 
the human population continues to grow in central Texas. Several golden 
orb populations may already be below the minimum viable population 
requirement, which causes a reduction in the resliency of a population 
and an increase in the species' vulnerability to extinction. Based on 
imminent, moderate threats, we maintain an LPN of 8 for the golden orb.
    Smooth pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. The smooth pimpleback is a 
small, round-shaped freshwater mussel that is endemic to central Texas. 
This species historically occurred throughout the Colorado and Brazos 
River basins and is now known from only nine locations. The smooth 
pimpleback has been eliminated from nearly the entire Colorado River 
and all but one of its tributaries, and has been limited to the central 
and lower Brazos River drainage. Five of the populations are 
represented by no more than a few individuals and are small and 
isolated. Six of the existing populations appear to be relatively 
stable and recruiting.
    The smooth pimpleback is primarily threatened by habitat 
destruction and modification from impoundments, which scour river beds 
(thereby removing mussel habitat), decrease water quality, modify 
stream flows, and prevent host fish migration and distribution of 
freshwater mussels. The species is also threatened by sedimentation, 
dewatering, sand and gravel mining, and chemical contaminants. These 
threats may be exacerbated by the current and projected effects of 
climate change, population fragmentation, and isolation, and the 
anticipated threat of nonnative species. Threats to the smooth 
pimpleback and its habitat are not being adequately addressed through 
existing regulatory mechanisms. Because of the limited distribution of 
this endemic species and its lack of mobility, these threats may be 
likely to result in the smooth pimpleback becoming in danger of 
extinction in the foreseeable future.
    The threats to the smooth pimpleback are moderate in magnitude. 
Although habitat loss and degradation from impoundments, sedimentation, 
sand and gravel mining, and chemical contaminants are widespread 
throughout the range of the smooth pimpleback and may be exacerbated by 
climate change, which will increase the frequency and magnitude of 
droughts, several large populations remain, including one that was 
recently discovered, suggesting that the threats are not high in 
magnitude. The threats from habitat loss and degradation are imminent, 
because they have already occurred and will continue as the human 
population continues to grow in central Texas. Several smooth 
pimpleback populations may already be below the minimum viable 
population requirement, which causes a reduction in the resliency of a 
population and an increase in the species' vulnerability to extinction. 
Based on imminent, moderate threats, we maintain an LPN of 8 for the 
smooth pimpleback.
    Texas pimpleback (Quadrula petrina)--The following summary is based 
on information contained in our files. The Texas pimpleback is a large 
freshwater mussel that is endemic to central Texas. This species 
historically occurred throughout the Colorado and Guadalupe-San Antonio 
River basins, but it is now known to occur only in four streams within 
these basins. Only two populations appear large enough to be stable, 
but evidence of recruitment is limited in one of them (the Concho River 
population) so the San Saba River population may be the only remaining 
recruiting populations of Texas pimpleback. The remaining two 
populations are represented by one or two individuals and are highly 
disjunct.
    The Texas pimpleback is primarily threatened by habitat destruction 
and modification from impoundments, which scour river beds (thereby 
removing mussel habitat), decrease water quality, modify stream flows, 
and prevent host fish migration and distribution of freshwater mussels. 
This species is also threatened by sedimentation, dewatering, sand and 
gravel mining, and chemical contaminants. These threats may be 
exacerbated by the current and projected effects of climate change 
(which will increase the frequency and magnitude of droughts), 
population fragmentation and isolation, and the anticipated threat of 
nonnative species. Threats to the Texas pimpleback and its habitat are 
not being addressed through existing regulatory mechanisms. Because of 
the limited distribution of this endemic species and its lack of 
mobility, these threats may be likely to result in the Texas pimpleback 
becoming in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future.
    The threats to the Texas pimpleback are high in magnitude, because 
habitat loss and degradation from impoundments, sedimentation, sand and 
gravel mining, and chemical contaminants are widespread throughout the 
entire range of the Texas pimpleback and profoundly affect its survival 
and recruitment. The only remaining populations are small, isolated, 
and highly vulnerable to stochastic events, which could lead to 
extirpation or extinction. The threats are imminent, because habitat 
loss and degradation have already occurred and will continue as the 
human population continues to grow in central Texas. All Texas 
pimpleback populations may already be below the minimum viable

[[Page 87260]]

population requirement, which causes a reduction in the resiliency of a 
population and an increase in the species' vulnerability to extinction. 
Based on imminent, high-magnitude threats, we assigned the Texas 
pimpleback an LPN of 2.
Snails
    Magnificent ramshorn (Planorbella magnifica)--Magnificent ramshorn 
is the largest North American air-breathing freshwater snail in the 
family Planorbidae. It has a discoidal (i.e., coiling in one plane), 
relatively thin shell that reaches a diameter commonly exceeding 35 
millimeters (mm) and heights exceeding 20 mm. The great width of its 
shell, in relation to the diameter, makes it easily identifiable at all 
ages. The shell is brown colored (often with leopard like spots) and 
fragile, thus indicating it is adapted to still or slow-flowing aquatic 
habitats. The magnificent ramshorn is believed to be a southeastern 
North Carolina endemic. The species was historically known from only 
four sites in the lower Cape Fear River Basin in North Carolina--all 
four sites appear to be extirpated. Although the complete historical 
range of the species is unknown, the size of the species and the fact 
that it was not reported until 1903 suggest that the species may have 
always been rare and localized.
    Salinity and pH appear to have been major factors limiting the 
distribution of the magnificent ramshorn, as the snail prefers 
freshwater bodies with circumneutral pH (i.e., pH within the range of 
6.8-7.5). While members of the family Planorbidae are hermaphroditic, 
it is currently unknown whether magnificent ramshorns self-fertilize 
their eggs, mate with other individuals of the species, or both. Like 
other members of the Planorbidae family, the magnificent ramshorn is 
believed to be primarily a vegetarian, feeding on submerged aquatic 
plants, algae, and detritus. While several factors have likely 
contributed to the possible extirpation of the magnificent ramshorn in 
the wild, the primary factors include loss of habitat associated with 
the extirpation of beavers (and their impoundments) in the early 20th 
century, increased salinity and alteration of flow patterns, as well as 
increased input of nutrients and other pollutants. The magnificent 
ramshorn appears to be extirpated from the wild due to habitat loss and 
degradation resulting from a variety of human-induced and natural 
factors. The only known surviving individuals of the species are 
presently being held and propagated at a private residence, a lab at 
North Carolina State University's Veterinary School, and the North 
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission's Watha State Fish Hatchery.
    While efforts have been made to restore habitat for the magnificent 
ramshorn at one of the sites known to have previously supported the 
species, all of the sites continue to be affected or threatened by the 
same factors (i.e., salt-water intrusion and other water-quality 
degradation, nuisance-aquatic-plant control, storms, sea-level rise, 
etc.) believed to have resulted in extirpation of the species from the 
wild. Currently, only three captive populations exist: A population of 
the species comprised of approximately 300+ adults, a population with 
approximately 200+ adults, and a population of 50+ small individuals. 
Although captive populations of the species have been maintained since 
1993, a single catastrophic event, such as a severe storm, disease, or 
predator infestation, affecting a captive population could result in 
the near extinction of the species. The threats are high in magnitude 
and ongoing--therefore, we assigned this species an LPN of 2.
Insects
    Hermes copper butterfly (Lycaena hermes)--We continue to find that 
listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of 
publication of this notice. However, we are working on a thorough 
review of all available data and expect to publish either a proposed 
listing rule or a 12-month not-warranted finding prior to making the 
next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the course of 
preparing a proposed listing rule or not-warranted petition finding, we 
are continuing to monitor new information about this species' status so 
that we can make prompt use of our authority under section 4(b)(7) of 
the ESA in the case of an emergency posing a significant risk to the 
species.
    Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly (Atlantea tulita)--The following 
summary is based on information in our files and in the petition we 
received on February 29, 2009. The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly is 
endemic to Puerto Rico, and one of the four species endemic to the 
Greater Antilles within the genus Atlantea. This species occurs within 
the subtropical-moist-forest life zone in the northern karst region 
(i.e., municipality of Quebradillas) of Puerto Rico, and in the 
subtropical-wet-forest life zone (i.e., Maricao Commonwealth Forest, 
municipality of Maricao). The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly 
population has been estimated at around 50 adults in the northern karst 
region and fewer than 20 adults in the volcanic serpentine central 
mountains of the island. The Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly has only 
been found utilizing Oplonia spinosa (prickly bush) as its host plant 
(i.e., plant used for laying the eggs, which also serves as a food 
source for development of the larvae).
    The primary threats to the Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly are 
development, habitat fragmentation, and other natural or manmade 
factors such as human-induced fires, use of herbicides and pesticides, 
vegetation management, and climate change. These factors, if they 
occurred in habitat occupied by the species, would substantially affect 
the distribution and abundance of the species, as well as its habitat. 
In addition, due to the lack of effective enforcement of existing 
policies and regulations, the threats to the species' habitat are not 
being reduced. These threats are of a high magnitue and are imminent 
because the occurrence of known populations in areas that are subject 
to development, increased traffic, increased road maintenance and 
construction, and other threats directly affects the species during all 
life stages and is likely to result in population decreases. These 
threats are expected to continue and potentially increase in the 
foreseeable future. Therefore, we assign an LPN of 2 to the Puerto 
Rican harlequin butterfly. In 2015, the Service, through the Partners 
for Fish and Wildlife Program, signed a cooperative agreement with a 
local nongovernmental organization, Iniciativa Herpetol[oacute]gica, to 
promote the enhancement and conservation of suitable habitat for the 
Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly on private lands located within its 
range on the northern karst region of the island.
    Rattlesnake-master borer moth (Papaipema eryngii)--Rattlesnake-
master borer moths are obligate residents of undisturbed prairie 
remnants, savanna, and pine barrens that contain their only food plant, 
rattlesnake master (Eryngium yuccifolium). The rattlesnake-master borer 
moth is known from 31 sites in 7 States: Illinois, Arkansas, Kentucky, 
Oklahoma, North Carolina, Kansas, and Missouri. Currently 27 of the 
sites contain extant populations, 3 contain populations with unknown 
status, and 1 contains a population that is considered extirpated. The 
14 Missouri populations and 1 Kansas population were identified in 2015 
and are considered extant; however, there are no trend data for these 
sites.

[[Page 87261]]

    Although the rattlesnake master plant is widely distributed across 
26 States and is a common plant in remnant prairies, it is a 
conservative species, meaning it is not found in disturbed areas, with 
relative frequencies of less than 1 percent. The habitat range for the 
rattlesnake-master borer moth is very narrow and appears to be limiting 
for the species. The ongoing effects of habitat loss, fragmentation, 
degradation, and modification from agriculture, development, flooding, 
invasive species, and secondary succession have resulted in fragmented 
populations and population declines. Rattlesnake-master borer moths are 
affected by habitat fragmentation and population isolation. Almost all 
of the sites with extant populations of the rattlesnake-master borer 
moth are isolated from one another, with the populations in Kentucky, 
North Carolina, and Oklahoma occurring within a single site for each 
State, thus precluding recolonization from other populations. These 
small, isolated populations are likely to become unviable over time due 
to: Lower genetic diversity, reducing their ability to adapt to 
environmental change; the effects of stochastic events; and their 
inability to recolonize areas where they are extirpated.
    Rattlesnake-master borer moths have life-history traits that make 
them more susceptible to outside stressors. They are univoltine (having 
a single flight per year), do not disperse widely, and are monophagous 
(have only one food source). The life history of the species makes it 
particularly sensitive to fire, which is the primary practice used in 
prairie management. The species is only safe from fire once it bores 
into the root of the host plant, which makes adult, egg, and first 
larval stages subject to mortality during prescribed burns and 
wildfires. Fire and grazing cause direct mortality to the moth and 
destroy food plants if the intensity, extent, or timing is not 
conducive to the species' biology. Although fire management is a threat 
to the species, lack of management is also a threat, and at least one 
site has become extirpated likely because of the succession to woody 
habitat. The species is sought after by collectors and the host plant 
is very easy to identify, making the moth susceptible to collection, 
and thus many sites are kept undisclosed to the public.
    Existing regulatory mechanisms provide protection for 12 of the 16 
sites containing rattlesnake-master borer moth populations recorded 
before 2015. The 15 populations identified in 2015 are under a range of 
protection and management levels. Illinois' endangered species statute 
provides regulatory mechanisms to protect the species from potential 
impacts from actions such as development and collecting on the 10 
Illinois sites; however, illegal collections of the species have 
occurred at two sites. A permit is required for collection by site 
managers within the sites in North Carolina and Oklahoma. The 
rattlesnake-master borer moth is also listed as endangered in Kentucky 
by the State's Nature Preserves Commission, although this status 
currently provides no statutory protection. There are no statutory 
mechanisms in place to protect the populations in North Carolina, 
Arkansas, or Oklahoma.
    Some threats that the rattlesnake-master moth faces are high in 
magnitude, such as habitat conversion and fragmentation, and population 
isolation. These threats with the highest magnitude occur in many of 
the populations throughout the species' range, but although they are 
likely to affect each population at some time, they are not likely to 
affect all of the populations at any one time. Other threats, such as 
agricultural and nonagricultural development, mortality from 
implementation of some prairie management tools (such as fire), 
flooding, succession, and climate change, are of moderate to low 
magnitude. For example, the life history of rattlesnake-master borer 
moths makes them highly sensitive to fire, which can cause mortality of 
individuals through most of the year and can affect entire populations. 
Conversely, complete fire suppression can also be a threat to 
rattlesnake-master borer moths as prairie habitat declines and woody or 
invasive species become established such that the species' only food 
plant is not found in disturbed prairies. Although these threats can 
cause direct and indirect mortality of the species, they are of 
moderate or low magnitude because they affect only some populations 
throughout the range and to varying degrees. Overall, the threats are 
moderate. The threats are imminent, because they are ongoing; every 
known population of rattlesnake-master borer moth has at least one 
ongoing threat, and some have several working in tandem. Thus, we 
assigned an LPN of 8 to this species.
    Arapahoe snowfly (Arsapnia arapahoe)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files. This insect is a winter 
stonefly associated with clean, cool, running waters. Adult snowflies 
emerge in late winter from the space underneath stream ice. Until 2013, 
the Arapahoe snowfly had been confirmed in only two streams (Elkhorn 
Creek and Young Gulch), both of which are small tributaries of the 
Cache la Poudre River in the Roosevelt National Forest, Larimer County, 
Colorado. However, the species has not been identified in Young Gulch 
since 1986; it is likely that either the habitat became unsuitable or 
other unknown causes extirpated the species. Habitats at Young Gulch 
were further degraded by the High Park Fire in 2012, and potentially by 
a flash flood in September 2013. New surveys completed in 2013 and 2014 
identified the Arapahoe snowfly in seven new localities, including 
Elkhorn Creek, Sheep Creek (a tributary of the Big Thompson River), 
Central Gulch (a tributary of Saint Vrain Creek), and Bummer's Gulch, 
Martin Gulch, and Bear Canyon Creek (tributaries of Boulder Creek in 
Boulder County). However, the numbers of specimens collected at each 
location were extremely low. These new locations occur on U.S. Forest 
Service land, Boulder County Open Space, and private land.
    Climate change is a threat to the Arapahoe snowfly and modifies its 
habitats by reducing snowpacks, altering streamflows, increasing water 
temperatures, fostering mountain pine beetle outbreaks, and increasing 
the frequency of destructive wildfires. Limited dispersal capabilities, 
a restricted range, dependence on pristine habitats, and a small 
population size make the Arapahoe snowfly vulnerable to demographic 
stochasticity, environmental stochasticity, and random catastrophes. 
Furthermore, regulatory mechanisms are not addressing these threats, 
which may act cumulatively to affect the species. The threats to the 
Arapahoe snowfly are high in magnitude because they occur throughout 
the species' limited range. However, the threats are nonimminent. While 
limited dispersal capabilities, restricted range, dependence on 
pristine habitats, and small population size are characteristics that 
make this species vulnerable to stochastic events and catastrophic 
events (and potential impacts from climate change), there are no 
stochastic or catastrophic events that are currently occurring, and 
although temperatures are increasing, the increasing temperatures are 
not yet having adverse effects on the species. Therefore, we have 
assigned the Arapahoe snowfly an LPN of 5.
Flowering Plants
    Astragalus microcymbus (Skiff milkvetch)--The following summary is 
based on information contained in our files and in the petition we 
received on July 30, 2007. Skiff milkvetch is a

[[Page 87262]]

perennial forb that dies back to the ground every year. It has a very 
limited range and a spotty distribution within Gunnison and Saguache 
Counties in Colorado, where it is found in open, park-like landscapes 
in the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem on rocky or cobbly, moderate-to-steep 
slopes of hills and draws.
    The most significant threats to skiff milkvetch are recreation, 
roads, trails, and habitat fragmentation and degradation. Existing 
regulatory mechanisms are not addressing these threats to the species. 
Recreational impacts are likely to increase, given the close proximity 
of skiff milkvetch to the town of Gunnison and the increasing 
popularity of mountain biking, motorcycling, and all-terrain vehicles. 
Furthermore, the Hartman Rocks Recreation Area draws users, and 
contains over 40 percent of the skiff milkvetch units. Other threats to 
the species include residential and urban development; livestock, deer, 
and elk use; climate change; increasing periodic drought; nonnative, 
invasive cheatgrass; and wildfire. The threats to skiff milkvetch are 
moderate in magnitude, because, while serious and occurring rangewide, 
they do not collectively result in population declines on a short time 
scale. The threats are imminent, because the species is currently 
facing them in many portions of its range. Therefore, we have assigned 
skiff milkvetch an LPN of 8.
    Astragalus schmolliae (Chapin Mesa milkvetch)--The following 
summary is based on information provided by Mesa Verde National Park 
and Colorado Natural Heritage Program, contained in our files, and in 
the petition we received on July 30, 2007. Chapin Mesa milkvetch is a 
narrow endemic perennial plant that grows in the mature pinyon-juniper 
woodland of mesa tops on Chapin Mesa in the Mesa Verde National Park 
and in the adjoining Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Park in southern Colorado.
    The most significant threats to the species are degradation of 
habitat by fire, followed by invasion by nonnative cheatgrass and 
subsequent increase in fire frequency. These threats currently affect 
about 40 percent of the species' entire known range. Cheatgrass is 
likely to increase given its rapid spread and persistence in habitat 
disturbed by wildfires, fire and fuels management, and development of 
infrastructure, and given the inability of land managers to control it 
on a landscape scale. Other threats to Chapin Mesa milkvetch include 
fires, fire-break clearings, and drought. Existing regulatory 
mechanisms are not addressing the threats. The threats to the species 
overall are imminent and moderate in magnitude, because the species is 
currently facing them in many portions of its range, but the threats do 
not collectively result in population declines on a short time scale. 
Therefore, we have assigned Chapin Mesa milkvetch an LPN of 8.
    Boechera pusilla (Fremont County rockcress)--See above summary 
under Listing Priority Changes in Candidates.
    Cirsium wrightii (Wright's marsh thistle)--We continue to find that 
listing this species is warranted but precluded as of the date of 
publication of this notice. However, we are working on a thorough 
review of all available data and expect to publish either a proposed 
listing rule or a 12-month not-warranted finding prior to making the 
next annual resubmitted petition 12-month finding. In the course of 
preparing a proposed listing rule or not-warranted petition finding, we 
are continuing to monitor new information about this species' status so 
that we can make prompt use of our authority under section 4(b)(7) of 
the ESA in the case of an emergency posing a significant risk to the 
species.
    Eriogonum soredium (Frisco buckwheat)--The following summary is 
based on information in our files and the petition we received on July 
30, 2007. Frisco buckwheat is a narrow-endemic perennial plant 
restricted to soils derived from Ordovician limestone outcrops. The 
range of the species is less than 5 square miles (13 square 
kilometers), with four known populations. All four populations occur 
exclusively on private lands in Beaver County, Utah, and each 
population occupies a very small area with high densities of plants. 
Available population estimates are highly variable and inaccurate due 
to the limited access for surveys associated with private lands.
    The primary threat to Frisco buckwheat is habitat destruction from 
precious-metal and gravel mining. Mining for precious metals 
historically occurred within the vicinity of all four populations. 
Three of the populations are currently in the immediate vicinity of 
active limestone quarries. Ongoing mining in the species' habitat has 
the potential to extirpate one population in the near future and 
extirpate all populations in the foreseeable future. Ongoing 
exploration for precious metals and gravel indicate that mining will 
continue, but it will take time for the mining operations to be put 
into place and to affect the species. This will result in the loss and 
fragmentation of Frisco buckwheat populations over a longer time scale. 
Other threats to the species include nonnative species in conjunction 
with surface disturbance from mining activities. Existing regulatory 
mechanisms are not addressing the threats to the species. 
Vulnerabilities of the species include small population size and 
climate change. The threats that Frisco buckwheat faces are moderate in 
magnitude, because while serious and occurring rangewide, the threats 
do not significantly reduce populations on a short time scale. The 
threats are imminent, because three of the populations are currently in 
the immediate vicinity of active limestone quarries. Therefore, we have 
assigned Frisco buckwheat an LPN of 8.
    Lepidium ostleri (Ostler's peppergrass)--The following summary is 
based on information in our files and the petition we received on July 
30, 2007. Ostler's peppergrass is a long-lived perennial herb in the 
mustard family that grows in dense, cushion-like tufts. Ostler's 
peppergrass is a narrow endemic restricted to soils derived from 
Ordovician limestone outcrops. The range of the species is less than 5 
square miles (13 square kilometers), with only four known populations. 
All four populations occur exclusively on private lands in the southern 
San Francisco Mountains of Beaver County, Utah. Available population 
estimates are highly variable and inaccurate due largely to the limited 
access for surveys associated with private lands.
    The primary threat to Ostler's peppergrass is habitat destruction 
from precious-metal and gravel mining. Mining for precious metals 
historically occurred within the vicinity of all four populations. 
Three of the populations are currently in the immediate vicinity of 
active limestone quarries, but mining is only currently occurring in 
the area of one population. Ongoing mining in the species' habitat has 
the potential to extirpate one population in the future. Ongoing 
exploration for precious metals and gravel indicate that mining will 
continue, but will take time for the mining operations to be put into 
place. This will result in the loss and fragmentation of Ostler's 
peppergrass populations over a longer time scale. Other threats to the 
species include nonnative species, vulnerability associated with small 
population size, and climate change. Existing regulatory mechanisms are 
not addressing the threats to the species. The threats that Ostler's 
peppergrass faces are moderate in magnitude, because, while serious and 
occurring rangewide, the threats do not collectively result in 
significant population declines on a short time scale. The threats are 
imminent, because the species is currently facing them

[[Page 87263]]

across its entire range. Therefore, we have assigned Ostler's 
peppergrass an LPN of 8.
    Pinus albicaulis (whitebark pine)--The following summary is based 
on information in our files and in the petition received on December 9, 
2008. Whitebark pine is a hardy conifer found at alpine-tree-line and 
subalpine elevations in Washington, Oregon, Nevada, California, Idaho, 
Montana, and Wyoming, and in British Columbia and Alberta, Canada. In 
the United States, approximately 96 percent of land where the species 
occurs is federally owned or managed, primarily by the U.S. Forest 
Service. Whitebark pine is a slow-growing, long-lived tree that often 
lives for 500 and sometimes more than 1,000 years. It is considered a 
keystone, or foundation, species in western North America, where it 
increases biodiversity and contributes to critical ecosystem functions.
    The primary threat to the species is from disease in the form of 
the nonnative white pine blister rust and its interaction with other 
threats. Although whitebark pine is still also experiencing some 
mortality from predation by the native mountain pine beetle 
(Dendroctonus ponderosae), the current epidemic is subsiding. We also 
anticipate that continuing environmental effects resulting from climate 
change will result in direct habitat loss for whitebark pine. Models 
predict that suitable habitat for whitebark pine will decline 
precipitously within the next 100 years. Past and ongoing fire 
suppression is also negatively affecting populations of whitebark pine 
through direct habitat loss. Additionally, environmental changes 
resulting from changing climatic conditions are acting alone and in 
combination with the effects of fire suppression to increase the 
frequency and severity of wildfires. Lastly, the existing regulatory 
mechanisms are not addressing the threats presented above.
    As the mountain-pine-beetle epidemic is subsiding, we no longer 
consider this threat to be having the high level of impact that was 
seen in recent years. However, given projected warming trends, we 
expect that conditions will remain favorable for epidemic levels of 
mountain pine beetle into the foreseeable future. The significant 
threats from white pine blister rust, fire and fire suppression, and 
environmental effects of climate change remain on the landscape. 
However, the overall magnitude of threats to whitebark pine is somewhat 
diminished given the current absence of epidemic levels of mountain 
pine beetle, and because of this, individuals with genetic resistance 
to white pine blister rust likely have a higher probability of 
survival. Survival and reproduction of genetically resistant trees are 
critical to the persistence of the species given the imminent, 
ubiquitous presence of white pine blister rust on the landscape. 
Overall, the threats to the species are ongoing, and therefore 
imminent, and are moderate in magnitude. We find the current LPN of 8 
is appropriate.
    Solanum conocarpum (marron bacora)--The following summary is based 
on information in our files and in the petition we received on November 
21, 1996. Solanum conocarpum is a dry-forest shrub in the island of St. 
John, U.S. Virgin Islands. Its current distribution includes eight 
localities in the island of St. John, each ranging from 1 to 144 
individuals. The species has been reported to occur on dry, poor soils. 
It can be locally abundant in exposed topography on sites disturbed by 
erosion, areas that have received moderate grazing, and around 
ridgelines as an understory component in diverse woodland communities. 
A habitat suitability model suggests that the vast majority of Solanum 
conocarpum habitat is found in the lower-elevation coastal-scrub 
forest. Efforts have been conducted to propagate the species to enhance 
natural populations, and planting of seedlings has been conducted in 
the island of St. John.
    Solanum conocarpum is threatened by the lack of natural 
recruitment, absence of dispersers, fragmented distribution, lack of 
genetic variation, climate change, and habitat destruction or 
modification by exotic mammal species. These threats are evidenced by 
the reduced number of individuals, low number of populations, and lack 
of connectivity between populations. Overall, the threats are of high 
magnitude because they are leading to population declines for a species 
that already has low population numbers and fragmented distribution; 
the threats are also ongoing and therefore imminent. Therefore, we 
assigned an LPN of 2 to Solanum conocarpum.
    Streptanthus bracteatus (bracted twistflower)--The following 
summary is based on information obtained from our files, on-line 
herbarium databases, surveys and monitoring data, seed-collection data, 
and scientific publications. Bracted twistflower, an annual herbaceous 
plant of the Brassicaceae (mustard family), is endemic to a small 
portion of the Edwards Plateau of Texas. The Texas Natural Diversity 
Database, as revised on March 8, 2015, lists 17 element occurrences 
(EOs; populations) that were documented from 1989 to 2015 in five 
counties. Currently, 10 EOs remain with intact habitat, 2 EOs are 
partially intact, 2 EOs are on managed rights-of-way, and 3 EO sites 
have been developed and the populations are presumed extirpated. Only 8 
of the intact EOs and portions of 2 EOs are in protected natural areas. 
Four extant EOs are vulnerable to development and other impacts. Five 
EOs have been partially or completely developed, including 2 EOs that 
were destroyed in 2012 and 2013, respectively.
    The continued survival of bracted twistflower is imminently 
threatened by habitat destruction from urban development, severe 
herbivory from dense herds of white-tailed deer and other herbivores, 
and the increased density of woody plant cover. Additional ongoing 
threats include erosion and trampling from foot and mountain-bike 
trails, a pathogenic fungus of unknown origin, and insufficient 
protection by existing regulations. Furthermore, due to the small size 
and isolation of remaining populations, and lack of gene flow between 
them, several populations are now inbred and may have insufficient 
genetic diversity for long-term survival. Bracted twistflower 
populations often occur in habitats that also support the endangered 
golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia), and while that does 
afford some protection to the plant, the two species may require 
different vegetation management. Bracted twistflower is potentially 
threatened by as-yet unknown impacts of climate change. The Service has 
established a voluntary memorandum of agreement with Texas Parks and 
Wildlife Department, the City of Austin, Travis County, the Lower 
Colorado River Authority, and the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center 
to protect bracted twistflower and its habitats on tracts of Balcones 
Canyonlands Preserve. While the scope of this agreement does not 
protect the species throughout its range, the implementaiton of these 
responsibilities result in a moderate magnitude of threats and in the 
future will contribute to the species' conservation and recovery. The 
threats to bracted twistflower are ongoing and, therefore, imminent; 
consequently we maintain an LPN of 8 for this species.
    Trifolium friscanum (Frisco clover)--The following summary is based 
on information in our files and the petition we received on July 30, 
2007. Frisco clover is a narrow endemic perennial herb found only in 
Utah, with five known populations restricted to sparsely vegetated, 
pinion-juniper sagebrush communities and shallow, gravel soils derived 
from volcanic

[[Page 87264]]

gravels, Ordovician limestone, and dolomite outcrops. The majority (68 
percent) of Frisco clover plants occur on private lands, with the 
remaining plants found on Federal and State lands.
    On the private and State lands, the most significant threat to 
Frisco clover is habitat destruction from mining for precious metals 
and gravel. Active mining claims, recent prospecting, and an increasing 
demand for precious metals and gravel indicate that mining in Frisco 
clover habitats will increase in the foreseeable future, likely 
resulting in the loss of large numbers of plants. Other threats to 
Frisco clover include nonnative, invasive species in conjunction with 
surface disturbance from mining activities. Existing regulatory 
mechanisms are inadequate to protect the species from these threats. 
Vulnerabilities of the species include small population size and 
climate change.
    The threats to Frisco clover are moderate in magnitude, because, 
while serious and occurring throughout a majority of its range, they 
are not acting independently or cumulatively to have a highly 
significant negative impact on its survival or reproductive capacity. 
For example, although mining for precious metals and gravel 
historically occurred throughout Frisco clover's range, and mining 
operations may eventually expand into occupied habitats, there are no 
active mines within the immediate vicinity of any known population. 
However, activity may resume at one gravel mine on State lands in the 
near future where expansion plans have been discussed but not submitted 
to the State of Utah for permitting. At this time, avoidance of 
occupied habitat appears to be feasible for this mine's expansion. 
Overall, the threats of mining activities, invasive species, inadequacy 
of existing regulatory mechanisms, small population size, and climate 
change are imminent, because the species is currently facing these 
threats across its entire range. Therefore, we have assigned Frisco 
clover an LPN of 8.
Petitions To Reclassify Species Already Listed
    We previously made warranted-but-precluded findings on three 
petitions seeking to reclassify threatened species to endangered 
status. The taxa involved in the reclassification petitions are one 
population of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), delta smelt 
(Hypomesus transpacificus), and Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette 
cactus). Because these species are already listed under the ESA, they 
are not candidates for listing and are not included in Table 1. 
However, this notice and associated species assessment forms or 5-year 
review documents also constitute the findings for the resubmitted 
petitions to reclassify these species. Our updated assessments for 
these species are provided below. We find that reclassification to 
endangered status for one grizzly bear ecosystem population, delta 
smelt, and Sclerocactus brevispinus are all currently warranted but 
precluded by work identified above (see Findings for Petitioned 
Candidate Species, above). One of the primary reasons that the work 
identified above is considered to have higher priority is that the 
grizzly bear population, delta smelt, and Sclerocactus brevispinus are 
currently listed as threatened, and therefore already receive certain 
protections under the ESA. Those protections are set forth in our 
regulations: 50 CFR 17.40(b) (grizzly bear); 50 CFR 17.31, and, by 
reference, 50 CFR 17.21 (delta smelt); and 50 CFR 17.71, and, by 
reference, 50 CFR 17.61 (Sclerocactus brevispinus). It is therefore 
unlawful for any person, among other prohibited acts, to take (i.e., to 
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 
collect, or attempt to engage in such activity) a grizzly bear or a 
delta smelt, subject to applicable exceptions. And it is unlawful for 
any person, among other prohibited acts, to remove or reduce to 
possession Sclerocactus brevispinus from an area under Federal 
jurisdiction, subject to applicable exceptions. Other protections that 
apply to these threatened species even before we complete proposed and 
final reclassification rules include those under section 7(a)(2) of the 
ESA, whereby Federal agencies must insure that any action they 
authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of any endangered or threatened species.
    Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), North Cascades ecosystem 
population (Region 6)--Since 1990, we have received and reviewed five 
petitions requesting a change in status for the North Cascades grizzly 
bear population (55 FR 32103, August 7, 1990; 56 FR 33892, July 24, 
1991; 57 FR 14372, April 20, 1992; 58 FR 43856, August 18, 1993; 63 FR 
30453, June 4, 1998). In response to these petitions, we determined 
that grizzly bears in the North Cascade ecosystem warrant a change to 
endangered status. We have continued to find that these petitions are 
warranted but precluded through our annual CNOR process. On February 
19, 2015, in partnership with the National Park Service, we issued a 
notice of intent to jointly prepare a North Cascades Ecosystem Grizzly 
Bear Restoration Plan and Environmental Impact Statement to determine 
how to restore the grizzly bear to the North Cascades ecosystem (80 FR 
8894; February 19, 2015). Natural recovery in this ecosystem is 
challenged by the absence of a verified population (only three 
confirmed observations in the last 20 years), as well as isolation from 
any contiguous population in British Columbia and the United States.
    In 2016, we continue to find that reclassifying grizzly bears in 
this ecosystem as endangered is warranted but precluded, and we 
continue to assign an LPN of 3 for the uplisting of the North Cascades 
population based on high-magnitude threats, including very small 
population size, incomplete habitat protection measures (motorized-
access management), and population fragmentation resulting in genetic 
isolation. However, we also acknowledge the possibility that there is 
no longer a population present in the ecosystem, and restoration 
efforts (possibly including designation of an experimental population 
under section 10(j) of the ESA) may be used to establish a viable 
population in this recovery zone. The threats are high in magnitude, 
because the limiting factors for grizzly bears in this recovery zone 
are human-caused mortality and extremely small population size. The 
threats are ongoing, and thus imminent. However, higher-priority 
listing actions, including court-approved settlements, court-ordered 
and statutory deadlines for petition findings and listing 
determinations, emergency listing determinations, and responses to 
litigation, continue to preclude reclassifying grizzly bears in this 
ecosystem. Furthermore, proposed rules to reclassify threatened species 
to endangered are a lower priority than listing currently unprotected 
species (i.e., candidate species), as species currently listed as 
threatened are already afforded protection under the ESA and the 
implementing regulations. We continue to monitor grizzly bears in this 
ecosystem and will change their status or implement an emergency 
uplisting if necessary.
    Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) (Region 8) (see 75 FR 17667, 
April 7, 2010, for additional information on why reclassification to 
endangered is warranted but precluded)--The following summary is based 
on information contained in our files and the petition we received on 
March 8, 2006. Delta smelt are slender-bodied fish, generally about 60 
to 70

[[Page 87265]]

millimeters (mm) (2 to 3 inches (in)) long, although they may reach 
lengths of up to 120 mm (4.7 in). Delta smelt are in the Osmeridae 
family (smelts). Live fish are nearly translucent and have a steely 
blue sheen to their sides. Delta smelt feed primarily on small 
planktonic (free-floating) crustaceans, and occasionally on insect 
larvae. Delta smelt are endemic to the San Francisco Bay and 
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Delta) in California. Studies 
indicate that delta smelt require specific environmental conditions 
(freshwater flow, water quality) and habitat types within the estuary 
for migration, spawning, egg incubation, rearing, and larval and 
juvenile transport from spawning to rearing habitats. Delta smelt are a 
euryhaline (tolerate a wide range of salinities) species; however, they 
rarely occur in water with salinities more than 10-12 (about one-third 
seawater). Feyrer et al. found that relative abundance of delta smelt 
was related to fall salinity and turbidity (water clarity). Laboratory 
studies found that delta smelt larval feeding increased with increased 
turbidity.
    Delta smelt have been in decline for decades, and numbers have 
trended precipitously downward since the early 2000s. In the wet water 
year of 2011, the Fall Mid-Water Trawl (FMWT) index for delta smelt 
increased to 343, which is the highest index recorded since 2001. It 
immediately declined again in 2012 to 42 and continued to decline in 
2013 and 2014, when the index was 18 and 9, respectively. A new all-
time low was reached in 2015 with an index of 7. Eleven of the last 12 
years have seen FMWT indexes that have been the lowest ever recorded, 
and the 2015-2016 results from all five of the surveys analyzed in this 
review have been the lowest ever recorded for the delta smelt.
    The primary known threats cited in the 12-month finding to 
reclassify the delta smelt from threatened to endangered (75 FR 17667; 
April 7, 2010) are: Entrainment by State and Federal water export 
facilities; summer and fall increases in salinity due to reductions in 
freshwater flow and summer and fall increases in water clarity; and 
effects from introduced species, primarily the overbite clam and Egeria 
densa. Additional threats included predation, entrainment into power 
plants, contaminants, and the increased vulnerability to all these 
threats resulting from small population size. Since the 2010 warranted 
12-month finding, we have identified climate change as a threat; 
climate change was not analyzed in the 2010 12-month finding. Since the 
2010 12-month finding, one of the two power plants within the range of 
the delta smelt using water for cooling has shut down, and power plants 
are no longer thought to be a threat to the population as a whole. We 
have identified a number of existing regulatory mechanisms that provide 
protective measures that affect the stressors acting on the delta 
smelt. Despite these existing regulatory mechanisms and other 
conservations efforts, the decrease in population levels makes clear 
that the stressors continue to act on the species such that it is 
warranted for uplisting under the ESA.
    We are unable to determine with certainty which threats or 
combinations of threats are directly responsible for the decrease in 
delta smelt abundance. However, the apparent low abundance of delta 
smelt in concert with ongoing threats throughout its range indicates 
that the delta smelt is now in danger of extinction throughout its 
range. The threats to the species are of a high magnitude, and 
imminent. Therefore, we retained an LPN of 2 for uplisting this 
species.
    Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette cactus) (Region 6) (see 72 FR 
53211, September 18, 2007, and the species assessment form (see 
ADDRESSES) for additional information on why reclassification to 
endangered is warranted but precluded)--Pariette cactus is restricted 
to clay badlands of the Uinta geologic formation in the Uinta Basin of 
northeastern Utah. The species is restricted to one population with an 
overall range of approximately 16 miles by 5 miles in extent. The 
species' entire population is within a developed and expanding oil and 
gas field. The location of the species' habitat exposes it to 
destruction from road, pipeline, and well-site construction in 
connection with oil and gas development. The species may be illegally 
collected as a specimen plant for horticultural use. Recreational off-
road vehicle use and livestock trampling are additional threats. The 
species is currently federally listed as threatened (44 FR 58868, 
October 11, 1979; 74 FR 47112, September 15, 2009). The threats are of 
a high magnitude, because any one of the threats has the potential to 
severely affect the survival of this species, a narrow endemic with a 
highly limited range and distribution. Threats are ongoing and, 
therefore, are imminent. Thus, we assigned an LPN of 2 to this species 
for uplisting. However, higher-priority listing actions, including 
court-approved settlements, court-ordered and statutory deadlines for 
petition findings and listing determinations, emergency listing 
determinations, and responses to litigation, continue to preclude 
reclassifying the Pariette cactus. Furthermore, proposed rules to 
reclassify threatened species to endangered are generally a lower 
priority than listing currently unprotected species (i.e., candidate 
species), as species currently listed as threatened are already 
afforded the protection of the ESA and the implementing regulations.
Current Notice of Review
    We gather data on plants and animals native to the United States 
that appear to merit consideration for addition to the Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists). This document 
identifies those species that we currently regard as candidates for 
addition to the Lists. These candidates include species and subspecies 
of fish, wildlife, or plants, and DPSs of vertebrate animals. This 
compilation relies on information from status surveys conducted for 
candidate assessment and on information from State Natural Heritage 
Programs, other State and Federal agencies, knowledgeable scientists, 
public and private natural resource interests, and comments received in 
response to previous notices of review.
    Tables 1 and 2 list animals arranged alphabetically by common names 
under the major group headings, and list plants alphabetically by names 
of genera, species, and relevant subspecies and varieties. Animals are 
grouped by class or order. Plants are subdivided into two groups: (1) 
Flowering plants and (2) ferns and their allies. Useful synonyms and 
subgeneric scientific names appear in parentheses with the synonyms 
preceded by an ``equals'' sign. Several species that have not yet been 
formally described in the scientific literature are included; such 
species are identified by a generic or specific name (in italics), 
followed by ``sp.'' or ``ssp.'' We incorporate standardized common 
names in these notices as they become available. We sort plants by 
scientific name due to the inconsistencies in common names, the 
inclusion of vernacular and composite subspecific names, and the fact 
that many plants still lack a standardized common name.
    Table 1 lists all candidate species, plus species currently 
proposed for listing under the ESA. We emphasize that in this notice we 
are not proposing to list any of the candidate species; rather, we will 
develop and publish proposed listing rules for these species in the 
future. We encourage State agencies, other Federal agencies, and other 
parties to give consideration to these species in environmental 
planning.

[[Page 87266]]

    In Table 1, the ``category'' column on the left side of the table 
identifies the status of each species according to the following codes:

PE--Species proposed for listing as endangered. Proposed species are 
those species for which we have published a proposed rule to list as 
endangered or threatened in the Federal Register. This category does 
not include species for which we have withdrawn or finalized the 
proposed rule.
PT--Species proposed for listing as threatened.
PSAT--Species proposed for listing as threatened due to similarity of 
appearance.
C--Candidates: Species for which we have on file sufficient information 
on biological vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list 
them as endangered or threatened. Issuance of proposed rules for these 
species is precluded at present by other higher priority listing 
actions. This category includes species for which we made a 12-month 
warranted-but-precluded finding on a petition to list. We made new 
findings on all petitions for which we previously made ``warranted-but-
precluded'' findings. We identify the species for which we made a 
continued warranted-but-precluded finding on a resubmitted petition by 
the code ``C*'' in the category column (see Findings for Petitioned 
Candidate Species for additional information).
    The ``Priority'' column indicates the LPN for each candidate 
species, which we use to determine the most appropriate use of our 
available resources. The lowest numbers have the highest priority. We 
assign LPNs based on the immediacy and magnitude of threats, as well as 
on taxonomic status. We published a complete description of our listing 
priority system in the Federal Register (48 FR 43098, September 21, 
1983).
    The third column, ``Lead Region,'' identifies the Regional Office 
to which you should direct information, comments, or questions (see 
addresses under Request for Information at the end of the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section).
    Following the scientific name (fourth column) and the family 
designation (fifth column) is the common name (sixth column). The 
seventh column provides the known historical range for the species or 
vertebrate population (for vertebrate populations, this is the 
historical range for the entire species or subspecies and not just the 
historical range for the distinct population segment), indicated by 
postal code abbreviations for States and U.S. territories. Many species 
no longer occur in all of the areas listed.
    Species in Table 2 of this notice are those we included either as 
proposed species or as candidates in the previous CNOR (published 
December 24, 2015, at 80 FR 80584) that are no longer proposed species 
or candidates for listing. Since December 24, 2015, we listed 78 
species, withdrew 1 species from proposed status, and removed 18 
species from the candidate list. The first column indicates the present 
status of each species, using the following codes (not all of these 
codes may have been used in this CNOR):

E--Species we listed as endangered.
T--Species we listed as threatened.
Rc--Species we removed from the candidate list, because currently 
available information does not support a proposed listing.
Rp--Species we removed from the candidate list, because we have 
withdrawn the proposed listing.

    The second column indicates why the species is no longer a 
candidate or proposed species, using the following codes (not all of 
these codes may have been used in this CNOR):

A--Species that are more abundant or widespread than previously 
believed and species that are not subject to the degree of threats 
sufficient that the species is a candidate for listing (for reasons 
other than that conservation efforts have removed or reduced the 
threats to the species).
F--Species whose range no longer includes a U.S. territory.
I--Species for which the best available information on biological 
vulnerability and threats is insufficient to support a conclusion that 
the species is an endangered species or a threatened species.
L--Species we added to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 
and Plants.
M--Species we mistakenly included as candidates or proposed species in 
the last notice of review.
N--Species that are not listable entities based on the ESA's definition 
of ``species'' and current taxonomic understanding.
U--Species that are not subject to the degree of threats sufficient to 
warrant issuance of a proposed listing and therefore are not candidates 
for listing, due, in part or totally, to conservation efforts that 
remove or reduce the threats to the species.
X--Species we believe to be extinct.

    The columns describing lead region, scientific name, family, common 
name, and historical range include information as previously described 
for Table 1.

Request for Information

    We request you submit any further information on the species named 
in this notice as soon as possible or whenever it becomes available. We 
are particularly interested in any information:
    (1) Indicating that we should add a species to the list of 
candidate species;
    (2) Indicating that we should remove a species from candidate 
status;
    (3) Recommending areas that we should designate as critical habitat 
for a species, or indicating that designation of critical habitat would 
not be prudent for a species;
    (4) Documenting threats to any of the included species;
    (5) Describing the immediacy or magnitude of threats facing 
candidate species;
    (6) Pointing out taxonomic or nomenclature changes for any of the 
species;
    (7) Suggesting appropriate common names; and
    (8) Noting any mistakes, such as errors in the indicated historical 
ranges.
    Submit information, materials, or comments regarding a particular 
species to the Regional Director of the Region identified as having the 
lead responsibility for that species. The regional addresses follow:

Region 1. Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, American Samoa, Guam, and 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Regional Director (TE), 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Eastside Federal Complex, 911 NE. 11th 
Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181 (503/231-6158).
Region 2. Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. Regional Director 
(TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 500 Gold Avenue SW., Room 4012, 
Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505/248-6920).
Region 3. Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, 
and Wisconsin. Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 55437-1458 (612/
713-5334).
Region 4. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Puerto Rico, 
and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30345 
(404/679-4156).
Region 5. Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine,

[[Page 87267]]

Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. 
Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate 
Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035-9589 (413/253-8615).
Region 6. Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South 
Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 
80225-0486 (303/236-7400).
Region 7. Alaska. Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503-6199 (907/786-3505).
Region 8. California and Nevada. Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W2606, Sacramento, CA 95825 
(916/414-6464).
HQ (Foreign). Chief, Branch of Foreign Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service Headquarters, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 
22041-3803 (703/358-2370).

    We will provide information we receive to the Region having lead 
responsibility for each candidate species mentioned in the submission. 
We will likewise consider all information provided in response to this 
CNOR in deciding whether to propose species for listing and when to 
undertake necessary listing actions (including whether emergency 
listing under section 4(b)(7) of the ESA is appropriate). Information 
and comments we receive will become part of the administrative record 
for the species, which we maintain at the appropriate Regional Office.

Public Availability of Comments

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or 
other personal identifying information in your submission, be advised 
that your entire submission--including your personal identifying 
information--may be made publicly available at any time. Although you 
can ask us in your submission to withhold from public review your 
personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be 
able to do so.

Authority

    This notice is published under the authority of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: November 14, 2016.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

                            Table 1--Candidate Notice of Review (Animals and Plants)
          [Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Status
---------------------------    Lead region    Scientific name       Family        Common name       Historical
   Category      Priority                                                                             range
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     MAMMALS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C *..........  6..........  R2..............  Tamias minimus   Sciuridae......  Chipmunk,        U.S.A. (NM).
                                               atristriatus.                     Pe[ntilde]asco
                                                                                 least.
C *..........  3..........  R8..............  Vulpes vulpes    Canidae........  Fox, Sierra      U.S.A. (CA,
                                               necator.                          Nevada red       OR).
                                                                                 (Sierra Nevada
                                                                                 DPS).
C *..........  9..........  R1..............  Arborimus        Cricetidae.....  Vole, Red        U.S.A. (OR).
                                               longicaudus.                      (north Oregon
                                                                                 coast DPS).
C *..........  9..........  R7..............  Odobenus         Odobenidae.....  Walrus, Pacific  U.S.A. (AK),
                                               rosmarus                                           Russian
                                               divergens.                                         Federation
                                                                                                  (Kamchatka and
                                                                                                  Chukotka).
PT...........  6..........  R6..............  Gulo gulo        Mustelidae.....  Wolverine,       U.S.A. (CA, CO,
                                               luscus.                           North American   ID, MT, OR,
                                                                                 (Contiguous      UT, WA, WY).
                                                                                 U.S. DPS).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      BIRDS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PT...........  ...........  R1..............  Drepanis         Fringillidae...  Iiwi             U.S.A. (HI).
                                               coccinea.                         (honeycreeper).
C *..........  2..........  R2..............  Amazona          Psittacidae....  Parrot, red-     U.S.A. (TX),
                                               viridigenalis.                    crowned.         Mexico.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    REPTILES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PT...........  5..........  R4..............  Pituophis        Colubridae.....  Snake,           U.S.A. (LA,
                                               ruthveni.                         Louisiana pine.  TX).
C *..........  8..........  R4..............  Gopherus         Testudinidae...  Tortoise,        U.S.A. (AL, FL,
                                               polyphemus.                       gopher           GA, LA, MS,
                                                                                 (eastern         SC).
                                                                                 population).
PE...........  6..........  R2..............  Kinosternon      Kinosternidae..  Turtle, Sonoyta  U.S.A. (AZ),
                                               sonoriense                        mud.             Mexico.
                                               longifemorale.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   AMPHIBIANS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C *..........  8..........  R4..............  Notophthalmus    Salamandridae..  Newt, striped..  U.S.A. (FL,
                                               perstriatus.                                       GA).
C *..........  8..........  R4..............  Gyrinophilus     Plethodontidae.  Salamander,      U.S.A. (TN).
                                               gulolineatus.                     Berry Cave.
PE...........  2..........  R4..............  Necturus         Proteidae......  Waterdog, black  U.S.A. (AL).
                                               alabamensis.                      warrior ( =
                                                                                 Sipsey Fork).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     FISHES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PT...........  8..........  R2..............  Gila nigra.....  Cyprinidae.....  Chub, headwater  U.S.A. (AZ,
                                                                                                  NM).
PT...........  9..........  R2..............  Gila robusta...  Cyprinidae.....  Chub, roundtail  U.S.A. (AZ, CO,
                                                                                 (Lower           NM, UT, WY).
                                                                                 Colorado River
                                                                                 Basin DPS).

[[Page 87268]]

 
PE...........  2..........  R5..............  Crystallaria     Percidae.......  Darter, diamond  U.S.A. (KY, OH,
                                               cincotta.                                          TN, WV).
PT...........  8..........  R4..............  Percina aurora.  Percidae.......  Darter, Pearl..  U.S.A. (LA,
                                                                                                  MS).
C *..........  3..........  R8..............  Spirinchus       Osmeridae......  Smelt, longfin   U.S.A. (AK, CA,
                                               thaleichthys.                     (San Francisco   OR, WA),
                                                                                 Bay-Delta DPS).  Canada.
PSAT.........  N/A........  R1..............  Salvelinus       Salmonidae.....  Trout, Dolly     U.S.A. (AK,
                                               malma.                            Varden.          WA), Canada,
                                                                                                  East Asia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      CLAMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C *..........  2..........  R2..............  Lampsilis        Unionidae......  Fatmucket,       U.S.A. (TX).
                                               bracteata.                        Texas.
C *..........  2..........  R2..............  Truncilla        Unionidae......  Fawnsfoot,       U.S.A. (TX).
                                               macrodon.                         Texas.
PE...........  8..........  R2..............  Popenaias popei  Unionidae......  Hornshell,       U.S.A. (NM,
                                                                                 Texas.           TX), Mexico.
C *..........  8..........  R2..............  Quadrula aurea.  Unionidae......  Orb, golden....  U.S.A. (TX).
C *..........  8..........  R2..............  Quadrula         Unionidae......  Pimpleback,      U.S.A. (TX).
                                               houstonensis.                     smooth.
C *..........  2..........  R2..............  Quadrula         Unionidae......  Pimpleback,      U.S.A. (TX).
                                               petrina.                          Texas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     SNAILS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C *..........  2..........  R4..............  Planorbella      Planorbidae....  Ramshorn,        U.S.A. (NC).
                                               magnifica.                        magnificent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     INSECTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PE...........  ...........  R3..............  Bombus affinis.  Apidae.........  Bee, rusty       U.S.A. (CT, DE,
                                                                                 patched bumble.  DC, GA, IL,
                                                                                                  IN, IA, KY,
                                                                                                  ME, MD, MA,
                                                                                                  MI, MN, MO,
                                                                                                  NH, NJ, NY,
                                                                                                  NC, ND, OH, ,
                                                                                                  PA, RI, SC,
                                                                                                  SD, TN, VT,
                                                                                                  VA, WV, WI,
                                                                                                  Canada
                                                                                                  (Ontario,
                                                                                                  Quebec).
C *..........  5..........  R8..............  Lycaena hermes.  Lycaenidae.....  Butterfly,       U.S.A. (CA).
                                                                                 Hermes copper.
C *..........  3..........  R1..............  Euchloe          Pieridae.......  Butterfly,       U.S.A. (WA).
                                               ausonides                         Island marble.
                                               insulanus.
C *..........  2..........  R4..............  Atlantea tulita  Nymphalidae....  Butterfly,       U.S.A. (PR).
                                                                                 Puerto Rican
                                                                                 harlequin.
C *..........  8..........  R3..............  Papaipema        Noctuidae......  Moth,            U.S.A. (AR, IL,
                                               eryngii.                          rattlesnake-     KY, NC, OK).
                                                                                 master borer.
C *..........  5..........  R6..............  Arsapnia (=      Capniidae......  Snowfly,         U.S.A. (CO).
                                               Capnia)                           Arapahoe.
                                               arapahoe.
PT...........  5..........  R6..............  Lednia tumana..  Nemouridae.....  Stonefly,        U.S.A. (MT).
                                                                                 meltwater
                                                                                 lednian.
PT...........  ...........  R6..............  Zapada glacier.  Nemouridae.....  Stonefly,        U.S.A. (MT).
                                                                                 western
                                                                                 glacier.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   CRUSTACEANS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PE...........  8..........  R5..............  Stygobromus      Crangonyctidae.  Amphipod,        U.S.A. (DC).
                                               kenki.                            Kenk's.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                FLOWERING PLANTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C *..........  8..........  R6..............  Astragalus       Fabaceae.......  Milkvetch,       U.S.A. (CO).
                                               microcymbus.                      skiff.
C *..........  8..........  R6..............  Astragalus       Fabaceae.......  Milkvetch,       U.S.A. (CO).
                                               schmolliae.                       Chapin Mesa.
C *..........  8..........  R6..............  Boechera (=      Brassicaceae...  Rockcress,       U.S.A. (WY).
                                               Arabis)                           Fremont County
                                               pusilla.                          or small.
PT...........  12.........  R4..............  Chamaesyce       Euphorbiaceae..  Sandmat,         U.S.A. (FL).
                                               deltoidea                         pineland.
                                               pinetorum.
PT...........  6..........  R8..............  Chorizanthe      Polygonaceae...  Spineflower,     U.S.A. (CA).
                                               parryi var.                       San Fernando
                                               fernandina.                       Valley.
C *..........  8..........  R2..............  Cirsium          Asteraceae.....  Thistle,         U.S.A. (AZ,
                                               wrightii.                         Wright's.        NM), Mexico.
PT...........  3..........  R4..............  Dalea            Fabaceae.......  Prairie-clover,  U.S.A. (FL).
                                               carthagenensis                    Florida.
                                               var. floridana.
PT...........  5..........  R4..............  Digitaria        Poaceae........  Crabgrass,       U.S.A. (FL).
                                               pauciflora.                       Florida
                                                                                 pineland.
C *..........  8..........  R6..............  Eriogonum        Polygonaceae...  Buckwheat,       U.S.A. (UT).
                                               soredium.                         Frisco.
PE...........  11.........  R2..............  Festuca          Poaceae........  Fescue,          U.S.A. (TX),
                                               ligulata.                         Guadalupe.       Mexico.
C *..........  8..........  R6..............  Lepidium         Brassicaceae...  Peppergrass,     U.S.A. (UT).
                                               ostleri.                          Ostler's.
C *..........  8..........  R6..............  Pinus            Pinaceae.......  Pine, whitebark  U.S.A. (CA, ID,
                                               albicaulis.                                        MT, NV, OR,
                                                                                                  WA, WY),
                                                                                                  Canada (AB,
                                                                                                  BC).
PE...........  2..........  R1..............  Sicyos           Cucurbitaceae..  Anunu..........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               macrophyllus.

[[Page 87269]]

 
PT...........  12.........  R4..............  Sideroxylon      Sapotaceae.....  Bully,           U.S.A. (FL).
                                               reclinatum                        Everglades.
                                               austrofloriden
                                               se.
C *..........  2..........  R4..............  Solanum          Solanaceae.....  Bacora, marron.  U.S.A. (PR).
                                               conocarpum.
C *..........  8..........  R2..............  Streptanthus     Brassicaceae...  Twistflower,     U.S.A. (TX).
                                               bracteatus.                       bracted.
C *..........  8..........  R6..............  Trifolium        Fabaceae.......  Clover, Frisco.  U.S.A. (UT).
                                               friscanum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                Table 2--Animals and Plants Formerly Candidates or Formerly Proposed for Listing
          [Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Status
---------------------------    Lead region    Scientific name       Family        Common name       Historical
     Code         Expl.                                                                               range
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     MAMMALS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E............  L..........  R1..............  Emballonura      Emballonuridae.  Bat, Pacific     U.S.A. (AS),
                                               semicaudata                       sheath-tailed    Fiji,
                                               semicaudata.                      (American        Independent
                                                                                 Samoa DPS).      Samoa, Tonga,
                                                                                                  Vanuatu.
Rp...........  A..........  R8..............  Martes pennanti  Mustelidae.....  Fisher (west     U.S.A. (CA, CT,
                                                                                 coast DPS).      IA, ID, IL,
                                                                                                  IN, KY, MA,
                                                                                                  MD, ME, MI,
                                                                                                  MN, MT, ND,
                                                                                                  NH, NJ, NY,
                                                                                                  OH, OR, PA,
                                                                                                  RI, TN, UT,
                                                                                                  VA, VT, WA,
                                                                                                  WI, WV, WY),
                                                                                                  Canada.
Rc...........  U..........  R1..............  Urocitellus      Sciuridae......  Squirrel,        U.S.A. (WA,
                                               washingtoni.                      Washington       OR).
                                                                                 ground.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      BIRDS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rc...........  A..........  R1..............  Porzana          Rallidae.......  Crake, spotless  U.S.A. (AS),
                                               tabuensis.                        (American        Australia,
                                                                                 Samoa DPS).      Fiji,
                                                                                                  Independent
                                                                                                  Samoa,
                                                                                                  Marquesas,
                                                                                                  Philippines,
                                                                                                  Society
                                                                                                  Islands,
                                                                                                  Tonga.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Gallicolumba     Columbidae.....  Ground-dove,     U.S.A. (AS),
                                               stairi.                           friendly         Independent
                                                                                 (American        Samoa.
                                                                                 Samoa DPS).
E............  L..........  R1..............  Oceanodroma      Hydrobatidae...  Storm-petrel,    U.S.A. (HI),
                                               castro.                           band-rumped      Atlantic
                                                                                 (Hawaii DPS).    Ocean, Ecuador
                                                                                                  (Galapagos
                                                                                                  Islands),
                                                                                                  Japan.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Gymnomyza        Meliphagidae...  Ma'oma'o.......  U.S.A. (AS),
                                               samoensis.                                         Independent
                                                                                                  Samoa.
Rc...........  U..........  R8..............  Synthliboramphu  Alcidae........  Murrelet,        U.S.A. (CA),
                                               s hypoleucus.                     Xantus's.        Mexico.
Rc...........  A..........  R6..............  Anthus           Motacillidae...  Pipit,           U.S.A. (AR, AZ,
                                               spragueii.                        Sprague's.       CO, KS, LA,
                                                                                                  MN, MS, MT,
                                                                                                  ND, NE, NM,
                                                                                                  OK, SD, TX),
                                                                                                  Canada,
                                                                                                  Mexico.
T............  L..........  R4..............  Dendroica        Emberizidae....  Warbler, elfin-  U.S.A. (PR).
                                               angelae.                          woods.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    REPTILES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PT...........  8..........  R3..............  Sistrurus        Viperidae......  Massasauga (=    U.S.A. (IA, IL,
                                               catenatus.                        rattlesnake),    IN, MI, MN,
                                                                                 eastern.         MO, NY, OH,
                                                                                                  PA, WI),
                                                                                                  Canada.
T............  L..........  R1..............  Chelonia mydas.  Cheloniidae....  Sea turtle,      Central North
                                                                                 green (Central   Pacific Ocean.
                                                                                 North Pacific
                                                                                 DPS).
E............  L..........  R1..............  Chelonia mydas.  Cheloniidae....  Sea turtle,      Central South
                                                                                 green (Central   Pacific Ocean.
                                                                                 South Pacific
                                                                                 DPS).
E............  L..........  R1..............  Chelonia mydas.  Cheloniidae....  Sea turtle,      Central West
                                                                                 green (Central   Pacific Ocean.
                                                                                 West Pacific
                                                                                 DPS).
T............  L..........  HQ (Foreign)....  Chelonia mydas.  Cheloniidae....  Sea turtle,      Eastern Indian
                                                                                 green (East      and Western
                                                                                 Indian-West      Pacific
                                                                                 Pacific DPS).    Oceans.
T............  L..........  R8..............  Chelonia mydas.  Cheloniidae....  Sea turtle,      East Pacific
                                                                                 green (East      Ocean.
                                                                                 Pacific DPS).
E............  L..........  HQ (Foreign)....  Chelonia mydas.  Cheloniidae....  Sea turtle,      Mediterranean
                                                                                 green            Sea.
                                                                                 (Mediterranean
                                                                                 DPS).

[[Page 87270]]

 
T............  L..........  R4..............  Chelonia mydas.  Cheloniidae....  Sea turtle,      North Atlantic
                                                                                 green (North     Ocean.
                                                                                 Atlantic DPS).
T............  L..........  HQ (Foreign)....  Chelonia mydas.  Cheloniidae....  Sea turtle,      North Indian
                                                                                 green (North     Ocean.
                                                                                 Indian DPS).
T............  L..........  R4..............  Chelonia mydas.  Cheloniidae....  Sea turtle,      South Atlantic
                                                                                 green (South     Ocean.
                                                                                 Atlantic DPS).
T............  L..........  HQ (Foreign)....  Chelonia mydas.  Cheloniidae....  Sea turtle,      Southwest
                                                                                 green            Indian Ocean.
                                                                                 (Southwest
                                                                                 Indian DPS).
T............  L..........  HQ (Foreign)....  Chelonia mydas.  Cheloniidae....  Sea turtle,      Southwest
                                                                                 green            Pacific Ocean.
                                                                                 (Southwest
                                                                                 Pacific DPS).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   AMPHIBIANS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rc...........  U..........  R8..............  Lithobates onca  Ranidae........  Frog, relict     U.S.A. (AZ, NV,
                                                                                 leopard.         UT).
Rc...........  N..........  R2..............  Hyla wrightorum  Hylidae........  Treefrog,        U.S.A. (AZ),
                                                                                 Arizona          Mexico
                                                                                 (Huachuca/       (Sonora).
                                                                                 Canelo DPS).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     FISHES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rc...........  A..........  R6..............  Etheostoma       Percidae.......  Darter,          U.S.A. (AR, CO,
                                               cragini.                          Arkansas.        KS, MO, OK).
T............  L..........  R4..............  Etheostoma       Percidae.......  Darter,          U.S.A. (KY).
                                               spilotum.                         Kentucky arrow.
Rc...........  U..........  R4..............  Moxostoma sp...  Catostomidae...  Redhorse,        U.S.A. (GA, NC,
                                                                                 sicklefin.       TN).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      CLAMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T............  L..........  R4..............  Medionidus       Unionidae......  Moccasinshell,   U.S.A. (FL,
                                               walkeri.                          Suwannee.        GA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     SNAILS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rc...........  N..........  R4..............  Elimia           Pleuroceridae..  Mudalia, black.  U.S.A. (AL).
                                               melanoides.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Eua zebrina....  Partulidae.....  Snail, no        U.S.A. (AS).
                                                                                 common name.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Ostodes          Potaridae......  Snail, no        U.S.A. (AS).
                                               strigatus.                        common name.
Rc...........  A..........  R2..............  Pyrgulopsis      Hydrobiidae....  Springsnail,     U.S.A. (AZ),
                                               thompsoni.                        Huachuca.        Mexico.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     INSECTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E............  L..........  R1..............  Hylaeus          Colletidae.....  Bee, Hawaiian    U.S.A. (HI).
                                               anthracinus.                      yellow-faced.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Hylaeus          Colletidae.....  Bee, Hawaiian    U.S.A. (HI).
                                               assimulans.                       yellow-faced.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Hylaeus facilis  Colletidae.....  Bee, Hawaiian    U.S.A. (HI).
                                                                                 yellow-faced.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Hylaeus hilaris  Colletidae.....  Bee, Hawaiian    U.S.A. (HI).
                                                                                 yellow-faced.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Hylaeus kuakea.  Colletidae.....  Bee, Hawaiian    U.S.A. (HI).
                                                                                 yellow-faced.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Hylaeus          Colletidae.....  Bee, Hawaiian    U.S.A. (HI).
                                               longiceps.                        yellow-faced.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Hylaeus mana...  Colletidae.....  Bee, Hawaiian    U.S.A. (HI).
                                                                                 yellow-faced.
Rc...........  A..........  R4..............  Pseudanophthalm  Carabidae......  Cave beetle,     U.S.A. (KY).
                                               us caecus.                        Clifton.
Rc...........  A..........  R4..............  Pseudanophthalm  Carabidae......  Cave beetle,     U.S.A. (KY).
                                               us frigidus.                      icebox.
Rc...........  A..........  R4..............  Pseudanophthalm  Carabidae......  Cave beetle,     U.S.A. (KY).
                                               us troglodytes.                   Louisville.
Rc...........  X..........  R4..............  Pseudanophthalm  Carabidae......  Cave beetle,     U.S.A. (KY).
                                               us parvus.                        Tatum.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Megalagrion      Coenagrionidae.  Damselfly,       U.S.A. (HI).
                                               xanthomelas.                      orangeblack
                                                                                 Hawaiian.
Rc...........  X..........  R2..............  Heterelmis       Elmidae........  Riffle beetle,   U.S.A. (AZ).
                                               stephani.                         Stephan's.
Rc...........  A..........  R4..............  Cicindela        Cicindelidae...  Tiger beetle,    U.S.A. (FL).
                                               highlandensis.                    highlands.
E............  L..........  R4..............  Cicindelidia     Cicindelidae...  Tiger beetle,    U.S.A. (FL).
                                               floridana.                        Miami.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   CRUSTACEANS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T............  L..........  R5..............  Cambarus         Cambaridae.....  Crayfish, Big    U.S.A. (KY, VA,
                                               callainus.                        Sandy.           WV).

[[Page 87271]]

 
E............  L..........  R5..............  Cambarus         Cambaridae.....  Crayfish,        U.S.A. (WV).
                                               veteranus.                        Guyandotte
                                                                                 River.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Procaris         Procarididae...  Shrimp,          U.S.A. (HI).
                                               hawaiana.                         anchialine
                                                                                 pool.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                FLOWERING PLANTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T............  L..........  R4..............  Argythamnia      Euphorbiaceae..  Silverbush,      U.S.A. (FL).
                                               blodgettii.                       Blodgett's.
Rc...........  A..........  R1..............  Artemisia        Asteraceae.....  Wormwood,        U.S.A. (OR,
                                               borealis var.                     northern.        WA).
                                               wormskioldii.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Calamagrostis    Poaceae........  Reedgrass, Maui  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               expansa.
E............  L..........  R4..............  Chamaecrista     Fabaceae.......  Pea, Big Pine    U.S.A. (FL).
                                               lineata var.                      partridge.
                                               keyensis.
E............  L..........  R4..............  Chamaesyce       Euphorbiaceae..  Spurge, wedge..  U.S.A. (FL).
                                               deltoidea
                                               serpyllum.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Cyanea           Campanulaceae..  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               kauaulaensis.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Cyperus          Cyperaceae.....  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               neokunthianus.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Cyrtandra        Gesneriaceae...  Haiwale........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               hematos.
Rc...........  N..........  R5..............  Dichanthelium    Poaceae........  Panic grass,     U.S.A. (DE, GA,
                                               hirstii.                          Hirst            NC, NJ).
                                                                                 Brothers'.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Exocarpos        Santalaceae....  Heau...........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               menziesii.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Festuca          Poaceae........  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               hawaiiensis.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Gardenia remyi.  Rubiaceae......  Nanu...........  U.S.A. (HI).
E............  L..........  R1..............  Joinvillea       Joinvilleaceae.  Ohe............  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               ascendens
                                               ascendens.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Kadua (=         Rubiaceae......  Kampuaa........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               Hedyotis)
                                               fluviatilis.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Kadua            Rubiaceae......  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               haupuensis.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Labordia         Loganiaceae....  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               lorenciana.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Lepidium         Brassicaceae...  Anaunau........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               orbiculare.
T............  L..........  R1..............  Lepidium         Brassicaceae...  Peppergrass,     U.S.A. (ID).
                                               papilliferum.                     slickspot.
E............  L..........  R4..............  Linum arenicola  Linaceae.......  Flax, sand.....  U.S.A. (FL).
E............  L..........  R1..............  Myrsine          Myrsinaceae....  Kolea..........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               fosbergii.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Nothocestrum     Solanaceae.....  Aiea...........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               latifolium.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Ochrosia         Apocynaceae....  Holei..........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               haleakalae.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Phyllostegia     Lamiaceae......  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               brevidens.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Phyllostegia     Lamiaceae......  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               helleri.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Phyllostegia     Lamiaceae......  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               stachyoides.
T............  L..........  R4..............  Platanthera      Orchidaceae....  Orchid, white    U.S.A. (AL, GA,
                                               integrilabia.                     fringeless.      KY, MS, NC,
                                                                                                  SC, TN, VA).
E............  L..........  R1..............  Portulaca        Portulacaceae..  Ihi............  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               villosa.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Pritchardia      Arecaceae......  Loulu (= Loulu   U.S.A. (HI).
                                               bakeri.                           lelo).
E............  L..........  R1..............  Pseudognaphaliu  Asteraceae.....  Enaena.........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               m (=
                                               Gnaphalium)
                                               sandwicensium
                                               var.
                                               molokaiense.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Ranunculus       Ranunculaceae..  Makou..........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               hawaiensis.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Ranunculus       Ranunculaceae..  Makou..........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               mauiensis.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Sanicula         Apiaceae.......  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               sandwicensis.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Santalum         Santalaceae....  Iliahi.........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               involutum.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Schiedea         Caryophyllaceae  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               diffusa ssp.
                                               diffusa.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Schiedea         Caryophyllaceae  Maolioli.......  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               pubescens.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Sicyos           Cucurbitaceae..  Anunu..........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               lanceoloideus.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Solanum          Solanaceae.....  Popolo.........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               nelsonii.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Stenogyne        Lamiaceae......  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               kaalae ssp.
                                               sherffii.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Wikstroemia      Thymelaceae....  Akia...........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               skottsbergiana.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                FERNS AND ALLIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E............  L..........  R1..............  Asplenium        Aspleniaceae...  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               diellaciniatum.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Cyclosorus       Thelypteridacea  Kupukupu         U.S.A. (HI).
                                               boydiae.         e.               makalii.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Deparia          Athyraceae.....  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               kaalaana.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Dryopteris       Dryopteridaceae  Hohiu..........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               glabra var.
                                               pusilla.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Huperzia (=      Lycopodiaceae..  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               Phlegmariurus)
                                               stemmermanniae.

[[Page 87272]]

 
E............  L..........  R1..............  Hypolepis        Dennstaedtiacea  Olua...........  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               hawaiiensis      e.
                                               var. mauiensis.
E............  L..........  R1..............  Microlepia       Dennstaedtiacea  No common name.  U.S.A. (HI).
                                               strigosa var.    e.
                                               mauiensis (=
                                               Microlepia
                                               mauiensis).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-28817 Filed 12-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P