Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 19527

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online because the Agency views this as a SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and instructions for submitting comments. noncontroversial submittal and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 12- Once submitted, comments cannot be anticipates no adverse comments. A month findings on petitions to list the edited or removed from Regulations.gov. detailed rationale for the approval is set island marble butterfly, the San EPA may publish any comment received forth in the direct final rule. If no Bernardino flying squirrel, the to its public docket. Do not submit adverse comments are received in American Samoa population of the electronically any information you response to this rule, no further activity spotless crake, and the Sprague’s pipit consider to be Confidential Business is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse as endangered species or threatened Information (CBI) or other information comments, the direct final rule will be species under the Endangered Species whose disclosure is restricted by statute. withdrawn and all public comments Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After Multimedia submissions (audio, video, received will be addressed in a review of the best available scientific etc.) must be accompanied by a written subsequent final rule based on this and commercial information, we find comment. The written comment is proposed rule. EPA will not institute a that listing the island marble butterfly as considered the official comment and second comment period on this an endangered or threatened species is should include discussion of all points document. Any parties interested in warranted. Currently, however, listing you wish to make. EPA will generally commenting on this document should the island marble butterfly is precluded not consider comments or comment do so at this time. by higher priority actions to amend the contents located outside of the primary Dated: March 25, 2016. Lists of Endangered and Threatened submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or Heather McTeer Toney, Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication other file sharing system). For of this 12-month petition finding, we Regional Administrator, Region 4. additional submission methods, the full will add the island marble butterfly to EPA public comment policy, [FR Doc. 2016–07816 Filed 4–4–16; 8:45 am] our candidate species list. We will information about CBI or multimedia BILLING CODE 6560–50–P develop a proposed rule to list the submissions, and general guidance on island marble butterfly as our priorities making effective comments, please visit allow. After review of the best available http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR scientific and commercial information, commenting-epa-dockets. we find that listing the San Bernardino Fish and Wildlife Service FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: flying squirrel, the American Samoa Kelly Sheckler of the Air Regulatory population of the spotless crake, and the Management Section at the Air Planning 50 CFR Part 17 Sprague’s pipit is not warranted at this and Implementation Branch, Air, [4500030113] time. However, we ask the public to Pesticides and Toxics Management submit to us any new information that Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Endangered and Threatened Wildlife becomes available concerning the Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street and Plants; 12-Month Findings on stressors to the San Bernardino flying SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. Petitions To List Island Marble squirrel, the American Samoa Sheckler’s telephone number is 404– Butterfly, San Bernardino Flying population of the spotless crake, the 562–9992. She can also be reached via Squirrel, Spotless Crake, and Sprague’s pipit, or their habitats at any electronic mail at sheckler.kelly@ Sprague’s Pipit as Endangered or time. epa.gov. Threatened Species DATES: The findings announced in this document were made on April 5, 2016. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Final Rules Section of this Federal Interior. ADDRESSES: These findings are available Register, EPA is approving the State’s on the Internet at http:// ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition implementation plan revision as a direct www.regulations.gov at the following findings. final rule without prior proposal docket numbers:

Species Docket No.

Island marble butterfly ...... FWS–R1–ES–2014–0025. San Bernardino flying squirrel ...... FWS–R8–ES–2016–0046. American Samoa population of the spotless crake ...... FWS–HQ–ES–2016–0048. Sprague’s pipit ...... FWS–R6–ES–2009–0081.

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

Species Contact information

Island marble butterfly ...... Eric V. Rickerson, State Supervisor, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 360–753–9440; eric_rickerson@ fws.gov. San Bernardino flying squirrel ...... Mendel Stewart, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 760–731–9440; mendel_stewart@ fws.gov. American Samoa population of the Mary Abrams, Project Leader, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 808–792–9400; mary_abrams@ Spotless crake. fws.gov.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:17 Apr 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 19528 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules

Species Contact information

Sprague’s pipit ...... Kevin Shelley, State Supervisor, North Dakota Ecological Services Field Office, 701–250–4402; kevin_ [email protected].

If you use a telecommunications device (C) Disease or predation; Conservation (Xerces), Center for for the deaf (TDD), please call the (D) The inadequacy of existing Biological Diversity, Friends of the San Federal Information Relay Service regulatory mechanisms; or Juans, and Northwest Ecosystem (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. (E) Other natural or manmade factors Alliance, requesting that we emergency SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: affecting its continued existence. We summarize below the information list the island marble butterfly as an Background on which we based our evaluation of the endangered species, and that we designate critical habitat concurrently Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for the Act in determining whether the with the listing. The petition clearly any petition to revise the Federal Lists island marble butterfly, the San identified itself as such and included of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Bernardino flying squirrel, the the requisite identification information and Plants that contains substantial American Samoa population of the from the petitioner, required at 50 CFR scientific or commercial information spotless crake, and the Sprague’s pipit 424.14(a). Because the Act does not indicating that listing an animal or plant are endangered species or threatened provide for petitions to emergency list species may be warranted, we make a species. More detailed information species, we treat emergency listing finding within 12 months of the date of about these species is presented in the petitions as petitions to list the species. receipt of the petition (‘‘12-month species-specific assessment forms found On February 13, 2006, we published a finding’’). In this finding, we determine on http://www.regulations.gov under the 90-day finding in the Federal Register whether listing the island marble appropriate docket number (see (71 FR 7497) concluding that the butterfly, the San Bernardino flying ADDRESSES). In considering what petition presented substantial scientific squirrel, the American Samoa stressors under the five factors might information indicating that listing the population of the spotless crake, and the constitute threats, we must look beyond island marble butterfly may be Sprague’s pipit is: (1) Not warranted; (2) the mere exposure of the species to the warranted. On November 14, 2006, we warranted; or (3) warranted, but the factor to determine whether the species published a notice of 12-month petition immediate proposal of a regulation responds to the factor in a way that finding, concluding that the island implementing the petitioned action is causes actual impacts to the species. If marble butterfly did not warrant listing precluded by other pending proposals to there is exposure to a factor, but no (71 FR 66292). Please see that 12-month determine whether species are response, or only a positive response, finding for a complete summary of all endangered or threatened species, and that factor is not a threat. If there is previous Federal actions for this expeditious progress is being made to exposure and the species responds add or remove qualified species from negatively, the factor may be a threat. In subspecies. the Federal Lists of Endangered and that case, we determine if that stressor On August 24, 2012, we received a Threatened Wildlife and Plants rises to the level of a threat, meaning second petition from Xerces dated (warranted but precluded). Section that it may drive or contribute to the August 22, 2012, requesting that we 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we risk of extinction of the species such emergency list the island marble treat a petition for which the requested that the species warrants listing as an butterfly as an endangered species and action is found to be warranted but endangered or threatened species as that we designate critical habitat precluded as though resubmitted on the those terms are defined by the Act. This concurrently with the listing. The date of such finding, that is, requiring a does not necessarily require empirical petition clearly identified itself as such subsequent finding to be made within proof of a threat. The combination of and included the requisite identification 12 months. We must publish these 12- exposure and some corroborating information from the petitioner, month findings in the Federal Register. evidence of how the species is likely required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). Included Summary of Information Pertaining to affected could suffice. The mere in the petition was supporting the Five Factors identification of stressors that could information regarding the subspecies’ affect a species negatively is not taxonomy, ecology, historical and Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) sufficient to compel a finding that and the implementing regulations in current distribution, current status, and listing is appropriate; we require part 424 of title 50 of the Code of what the petitioner identified as actual evidence that these stressors are Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) and potential causes of decline. We operative threats that act on the species set forth procedures for adding species acknowledged the receipt of the petition to the point that the species meets the to, removing species from, or in a letter to Xerces, dated September definition of an endangered species or a reclassifying species on the Federal threatened species under the Act. 27, 2012. In that letter we also stated Lists of Endangered and Threatened In making our 12-month findings, we that we would, to the maximum extent Wildlife and Plants. Under section considered and evaluated the best practicable, issue a finding within 90 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be available scientific and commercial days stating whether the petition determined to be an endangered species information. presented substantial information or a threatened species based on any of indicating that listing may be warranted. the following five factors: Island Marble Butterfly (Euchloe (A) The present or threatened ausonides insulanus) On March 6, 2013, we received a destruction, modification, or notice of intent to sue from Xerces for curtailment of its habitat or range; Previous Federal Actions failure to complete the finding on the (B) Overutilization for commercial, On December 11, 2002, we received a petition within 90 days. On January 28, recreational, scientific, or educational petition dated December 10, 2002, from 2014, we entered into a settlement purposes; the Xerces Society for Invertebrate agreement with Xerces stipulating that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Apr 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 19529

we would complete the 90-day finding of our five-factor threat analysis. The of these stressors, including small before September 30, 2014. We assessment is available as a population size and restricted range published our 90-day finding in the supplemental document at Docket No. combined with any stressor that Federal Register on August 19, 2014 (79 FWS–R1–ES–2014–0025. removes individuals from the FR 49045). In that finding, we The island marble butterfly is an population or decreases the island concluded that the petition presented early-flying Pierid butterfly (meaning marble butterfly’s reproductive success. substantial scientific information that it is in the family of butterflies that Habitat loss for the island marble indicating that listing the island marble includes ‘‘whites’’ and ‘‘sulfurs’’) and butterfly is extensive and ongoing, and butterfly may be warranted. The only produces a single brood a year. The has resulted in the extirpation of the settlement agreement did not island marble butterfly is now only island marble butterfly from much of its specifically stipulate a deadline for a found on San Juan Island in a single former range due, in large part, to: (1) subsequent 12-month finding. population centered on American Development; (2) road maintenance We received a notice of intent to sue Camp. There are three known plants activities; (3) agricultural practices; and from Xerces dated September 5, 2014, that can serve as larval host plants for (4) herbivory by black-tailed deer and stating the organization’s intent to file the island marble butterfly, all in the livestock. The last known population of suit to compel the Service to issue a 12- mustard family (Brassicaceae): Lepidium the island marble butterfly is centered month finding as to whether listing the virginicum var. menziesii (Menzies’ on American Camp, a unit of the San island marble butterfly is warranted, not pepperweed), a native species; Brassica Juan Island National Historical Park that warranted, or warranted but precluded. rapa (field mustard), a nonnative is managed by the National Park We entered into a settlement agreement species; and Sisymbrium altissimum L. Service, and we evaluated stressors to with Xerces on April 6, 2015, (tumble mustard), a nonnative species. habitat within the current range of the stipulating that we would submit a 12- Each larval host plant is associated with subspecies. We conclude that herbivory month finding to the Federal Register a specific habitat type, and each is by black-tailed deer and European on or before March 31, 2016. This subject to different stressors; for rabbits, plant succession and document constitutes the 12-month example, Menzies’ pepperweed grows competition with invasive species, and finding on the August 22, 2012, petition in coastal, nearshore habitat and is a projected increased frequency in storm to list the island marble butterfly as an subject to inundation and storm surge surges reduce or destroy habitat for the endangered species. damage, whereas tumble mustard grows island marble butterfly at American To ensure the status review was based primarily in higher elevation sand-dune Camp and constitute a threat to the on the best scientific and commercial habitat where dune stabilization and subspecies. information available, the Service competition with weedy species We did not find substantive evidence requested any new or updated degrade habitat quality. The island to conclude that habitat loss attributable information available for the island marble butterfly primarily nectars on its to development, road construction, road marble butterfly when we published our larval host plants, but also nectars on a maintenance activities, agricultural 90-day finding on August 19, 2014. On wide variety of additional native and practices, herbivory by livestock and February 13, 2016, we published a nonnative species. brown garden snails, or recreation are correction to our 90-day finding (80 FR The island marble butterfly progresses threats at this time. The island marble 5719) to address a clerical error affecting from egg to chrysalis over the course of butterfly occurs almost entirely in the closing date for the initial public 38 days, on average, and may spend National Park Service land. The comment period; the comment period greater than 330 days in diapause before National Park Service constructed deer on the 90-day finding closed on April 6, emerging as adults in late April or early exclusion fencing around virtually all 2015. May. Males generally emerge a few days suitable island marble butterfly habitat before females and adults live between in the park. The fencing has the Summary of Status Review 6 and 9 days. The adult flight season additional benefit of discouraging park In making our 12-month finding on generally begins in late April to early visitors from inadvertently walking the petition, we consider and evaluate May and may extend into late June or through areas potentially occupied by the best available scientific and early July. the island marble butterfly. While it is commercial information. This Our 2006 12-month finding and the possible that recreation may cause a loss evaluation includes information from all status review conducted for our 2016 of larval habitat and trampling of sources, including Federal, State, tribal, 12-month finding both considered a individuals in some small portions of academic, and private entities and the number of stressors (natural or human- the park, we find that the effects of public. However, because we completed induced negative pressures affecting recreation alone do not rise to the level a status review for the subspecies in individuals or subpopulations of a of a threat to the island marble butterfly 2006, we started our evaluation for this species) on the island marble butterfly. at this time. 2016 status review and 12-month These include habitat loss attributed to: We further considered whether finding by considering the November Development; road construction; road predation is a threat to the island marble 14, 2006, 12-month finding (71 FR maintenance activities; grassland butterfly. Direct predation by spiders 66292) on the island marble butterfly. restoration; agricultural practices; (on larvae and adults) and wasps (on We then considered studies and herbivory by black-tailed deer, larvae) accounts for a significant information that have become available livestock, European rabbits, and brown proportion of mortality for the island since that finding. A supporting garden snails; storm surges; recreation; marble butterfly where grazers are document entitled ‘‘Notice of 12-month plant succession; and competition with excluded. Where grazers cannot be petition finding on a petition to list the invasive species. We also evaluated the excluded, incidental predation by Island marble butterfly’’ provides a stressors of over-collection; disease and browsing black-tailed deer accounts for summary of the current (post 2006) predation; inadequacy of regulatory a high proportion of mortality for eggs literature and information regarding the mechanisms; small population size and and larvae of the island marble island marble butterfly’s distribution, vulnerability to stochastic events; butterfly, as deer preferentially eat the habitat requirements, life history, and vehicular collisions; insecticide flowering heads of the larval host plants stressors, as well as a detailed account application; and the cumulative effects where the island marble butterflies lay

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:17 Apr 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 19530 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules

their eggs. We conclude that direct and remove individuals from the population other conservation efforts, the threats to incidental predation is a threat to the or decrease its reproductive success. We the subspecies remain sufficient to put island marble butterfly. further find that the increased frequency the subspecies is in danger of extinction We reviewed all Federal, State, and and strength of storm surges associated or likely to become so in the foreseeable local laws, regulations, and other with climate change is a threat to the future. regulatory mechanisms, as well as any island marble butterfly. On the basis of the best scientific and conservation efforts, that could reduce The scope of the regulatory commercial information available, we or minimize the threats we have mechanisms that are currently in place find that the petitioned action to list the identified to the subspecies; we found is not sufficient to ameliorate these island marble butterfly as an that existing regulatory mechanisms are threats to the subspecies, including endangered or a threatened species is being implemented within their scope habitat loss from herbivory, plant warranted. We will make a and provide some benefit to the island succession, competition with invasive determination on the status of the marble butterfly. species, and increased frequency and subspecies as an endangered or American Camp, as part of San Juan strength of storm surges; predation; and threatened species when we publish a Island National Historic Park, is small population size. Therefore, the proposed listing determination. managed under the National Park habitat loss and mortality due to these However, the immediate proposal of a Service’s Organic Act and implementing stressors, when considered in regulation implementing this action is regulations, which promote natural conjunction with small population size precluded by higher-priority listing resource conservation in the park and and the restricted range of the actions, and progress is being made to prohibit the collection of the island subspecies, results in cumulative effects add or remove qualified species from marble butterfly on lands managed by that pose a threat to the island marble the Lists of Endangered and Threatened the park In addition, under the General butterfly. Wildlife and Plants. Management Plan for the park, the There is no substantiated evidence We reviewed the available National Park Service is required to that overutilization, either scientific or information to determine if the existing follow the 2006 Conservation commercial, is a threat to the island and foreseeable threats render the Agreement and Strategy for the Island marble butterfly. Similarly, there is no subspecies at risk of extinction now Marble Butterfly. Conservation actions evidence that disease is a threat to the such that issuing an emergency for the island marble butterfly include subspecies. Vehicle collisions are a regulation temporarily listing the restoring native grassland ecosystem likely stressor, but there is significant subspecies under section 4(b)(7) of the components at American Camp; uncertainty regarding the extent of Act is warranted. We determined that avoiding management actions that negative impacts on the island marble issuing an emergency regulation would destroy host plants; avoiding butterfly attributable to vehicular temporarily listing the island marble vegetation treatments in island marble collisions. The best available butterfly is not warranted for this butterfly habitat when early life-stages information does not indicate that subspecies at this time because there are are likely to be present; and vehicular collisions pose a threat to the no imminent threats that immediate implementing a monitoring plan for the subspecies at this time. Insecticide Federal protection would feasibly subspecies. application could negatively affect the ameliorate. However, if at any time we The island marble butterfly is island marble butterfly, if it were to take determine that issuing an emergency currently classified as a candidate place in occupied habitat, but the best regulation temporarily listing the island species by the State of Washington. The available information does not indicate marble butterfly is warranted, we will Washington Department of Natural that insecticide use is a threat at this initiate emergency listing at that time. Resources owns the Cattle Point Natural time. We assigned the island marble Resources Conservation Area consisting butterfly a listing priority number (LPN) of 112 acres directly to the east of Finding of 3 based on our finding that the American Camp, a portion of which Based on our review of the best subspecies faces threats that are provides potentially suitable habitat for available scientific and commercial imminent and of high magnitude. These island marble butterflies. Natural information pertaining to the five threats include: (1) Habitat loss Resource Conservation Areas are factors, we identified the following attributable to plant succession and managed to protect outstanding threats: (1) Habitat loss attributable to competition with invasive species, examples of native ecosystems; habitat plant succession and competition with herbivory by deer and European rabbits, for endangered, threatened, and invasive species, herbivory by deer and and storm surges; (2) direct predation by sensitive plants and animals; and scenic European rabbits, and storm surges; (2) spiders and wasps, and incidental landscapes. Removal of any plants or direct predation by spiders and wasps, predation by deer; (3) small population soil is prohibited unless written and incidental predation by deer; (3) size and vulnerability to stochastic permission is obtained from Washington small population size and vulnerability events; and (4) the cumulative effects of Department of Natural Resources. In to stochastic events; and (4) the small population size and restricted addition, state- and county-level cumulative effects of small population range combined with any other stressor regulatory mechanisms that influence size and restricted range combined with that removes individuals from the development and zoning on San Juan any other stressor that removes population or decreases the island and Lopez islands are generally individuals from the population or marble butterfly’s reproductive success. beneficial to suitable habitat that could decreases the island marble butterfly’s This is the highest priority that can be be occupied by the island marble reproductive success. These threats provided to a subspecies under our butterfly in the future. have affected the island marble butterfly guidance. Given that the very small population throughout the entirety of its range, are The island marble butterfly will be at American Camp is likely the only ongoing, and are likely to persist into added to the list of candidate species remaining population of the subspecies, the foreseeable future. When considered upon publication of this 12-month we conclude that small population size individually and cumulatively, these finding. We will continue to evaluate makes it particularly vulnerable to a threats are of a high magnitude. Despite this subspecies as new information number of likely stochastic events that existing regulatory mechanisms and becomes available. Continuing review

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:17 Apr 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 19531

will determine if a change in status is and 12-month findings on petitions to For FY 2012, Congress also put in warranted, including the need to make add species to the Lists or to change the place two additional subcaps within the prompt use of emergency listing status of a species from threatened to listing cap: One for listing actions for procedures. endangered; annual ‘‘resubmitted’’ foreign species and one for petition We intend that any proposed listing petition findings on prior warranted- findings. As with the critical habitat determination for the island marble but-precluded petition findings as subcap, if the Service does not need to butterfly will be as accurate as possible. required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of use all of the funds within either Therefore, we will continue to accept the Act; critical habitat petition subcap, we are able to use the remaining additional information and comments findings; proposed and final rules funds for completing proposed or final from all concerned governmental designating or revising critical habitat; listing determinations. In FY 2016, agencies, the scientific community, and litigation-related, administrative, based on the Service’s workload and industry, or any other interested party and program-management functions available funding, we may use some of concerning this finding. (including preparing and allocating the funds within the critical habitat Preclusion and Expeditious Progress budgets, responding to Congressional subcap, foreign species subcap, and/or and public inquiries, and conducting the petitions subcap to fund proposed To make a finding that a particular public outreach regarding listing and listing determinations if necessary. action is warranted-but-precluded, the critical habitat). We make our determinations of Service must make two findings: (1) We cannot spend more for the Listing preclusion on a nationwide basis to That the immediate proposal and timely ensure that the species most in need of Program than the amount of funds promulgation of a final regulation is listing will be addressed first and also within the spending cap without precluded by pending listing proposals; because we allocate our listing budget violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (see 31 and (2) that expeditious progress is on a nationwide basis. Through the U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, since being made to add qualified species to listing cap, the three subcaps, and the FY 2002, the Service’s budget has either of the Lists of Endangered and amount of funds needed to complete included a subcap for critical habitat to Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) court-mandated actions within those ensure that some funds within the and to remove species from the Lists (16 subcaps, Congress and the courts have spending cap for listing are available for U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)(iii)). in effect determined the amount of completing Listing Program actions Preclusion money available for listing activities other than critical habitat designations nationwide. Therefore, the funds in the A listing proposal is precluded if the for already-listed species (‘‘The critical listing cap—other than those within the Service does not have sufficient habitat designation subcap will ensure subcaps needed to comply with court resources available to complete the that some funding is available to orders or court-approved settlement proposal, because there are competing address other listing activities’’ (House agreements requiring critical habitat demands for those resources, and the Report No. 107–103, 107th Congress, 1st actions for already-listed species, listing relative priority of those competing Session. June 19, 2001)). In FY 2002 and actions for foreign species, and petition demands is higher. Thus, in any given each year until FY 2006, the Service had findings—set the framework within fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate to use virtually all of the funds within which we make our determinations of whether it will be possible to undertake the critical habitat subcap to address preclusion and expeditious progress. work on a proposed listing regulation or court-mandated designations of critical For FY 2016, on December 18, 2015, whether promulgation of such a habitat, and consequently none of the Congress passed a Consolidated proposal is precluded by higher-priority funds within the critical habitat subcap Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 114–113), listing actions: (1) The amount of were available for other listing which provides funding through resources available for completing the activities. In some FYs since 2006, we September 30, 2016. In particular, it proposed listing; (2) the estimated cost have not needed to use all of the funds includes an overall spending cap of of completing the proposed listing; and within the critical habitat subcap to $20,515,000 for the listing program. Of (3) the Service’s workload and comply with court orders, and we that, no more than $4,605,000 can be prioritization of the proposed listing in therefore could use the remaining funds used for critical habitat determinations; relation to other actions. within the subcap towards additional no more than $1,504,000 can be used for proposed listing determinations for listing actions for foreign species; and Available Resources high-priority candidate species. In other no more than $1,501,000 can be used to The resources available for listing FYs, while we did not need to use all make 90-day or 12-month findings on actions are determined through the of the funds within the critical habitat petitions. The Service thus has annual Congressional appropriations subcap to comply with court orders, we $12,905,000 available to work on process. In FY 1998 and for each fiscal did not use the remaining funds towards proposed and final listing year since then, Congress has placed a additional proposed listing determinations for domestic species. In statutory cap on funds that may be determinations, and instead used the addition, if the Service has funding expended for the Listing Program. This remaining funds towards completing available within the critical habitat, spending cap was designed to prevent critical habitat determinations foreign species, or petition subcaps after the listing function from depleting concurrently with proposed listing those workloads have been completed, funds needed for other functions under determinations; this allowed us to it can use those funds to work on listing the Act (for example, recovery combine the proposed listing actions other than critical habitat functions, such as removing species determination and proposed critical designations or foreign species. from the Lists), or for other Service habitat designation into one rule, Costs of Listing Actions. The work programs (see House Report 105–163, thereby being more efficient in our involved in preparing various listing 105th Congress, 1st Session, July 1, work. In FY 2014, based on the Service’s documents can be extensive, and may 1997). The funds within the spending workload, we were able to use some of include, but is not limited to: Gathering cap are available to support work the funds within the critical habitat and assessing the best scientific and involving the following listing actions: subcap to fund proposed listing commercial data available and Proposed and final listing rules; 90-day determinations. conducting analyses used as the basis

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:17 Apr 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 19532 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules

for our decisions; writing and work on a proposed rule for other high- settlement agreement, combined with publishing documents; and obtaining, priority species. This is not the case for the work plan attached to the agreement reviewing, and evaluating public the island marble butterfly. Thus, in as Exhibit B, reflected the Service’s comments and peer review comments addition to being precluded by the lack Allocation Tables for FY 2011 and FY on proposed rules and incorporating of available resources, the island marble 2012. In addition, paragraphs 2 through relevant information from those butterfly, with an LPN of 3, is also 7 of the agreement require the Service comments into final rules. The number precluded by work on proposed listing to take numerous other actions through of listing actions that we can undertake determinations for those candidate FY 2017—in particular, complete either in a given year also is influenced by the species with a higher listing priority. a proposed listing rule or a not- complexity of those listing actions; that Finally, proposed rules for warranted finding for all 251 species is, more complex actions generally are reclassification of threatened species to designated as ‘‘candidates’’ in the 2010 more costly. The median cost for endangered species are lower priority, candidate notice of review (‘‘CNOR’’) preparing and publishing a 90-day because as listed species, they are before the end of FY 2016, and complete finding is $39,276; for a 12-month already afforded the protections of the final listing determinations within one finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule Act and implementing regulations. year of proposing to list any of those with proposed critical habitat, $345,000; However, for efficiency reasons, we may species. Paragraph 10 of that settlement and for a final listing rule with final choose to work on a proposed rule to agreement sets forth the Service’s critical habitat, $305,000. reclassify a species to endangered if we conclusion that ‘‘fulfilling the Prioritizing Listing Actions. The can combine this with work that is commitments set forth in this Service’s Listing Program workload is subject to a court-determined deadline. Agreement, along with other broadly composed of four types of Since before Congress first established commitments required by court orders actions, which the Service prioritizes as the spending cap for the Listing Program or court-approved settlement follows: (1) Compliance with court in 1998, the Listing Program workload agreements already in existence at the orders and court-approved settlement has required considerably more signing of this Settlement Agreement agreements requiring that petition resources than the amount of funds (listed in Exhibit A), will require findings or listing or critical habitat Congress has allowed for the Listing substantially all of the resources in the determinations be completed by a Program. It is therefore important that Listing Program.’’ As part of the same specific date; (2) section 4 (of the Act) we be as efficient as possible in our lawsuit, the court also approved a listing and critical habitat actions with listing process. Therefore, as we separate settlement agreement with the absolute statutory deadlines; (3) implement our listing work plan and other plaintiff in the case; that essential litigation-related, work on proposed rules for the highest- settlement agreement requires the administrative, and listing program- priority species in the next several Service to complete additional actions years, we are preparing multi-species management functions; and (4) section 4 in specific fiscal years—including 12- proposals when appropriate, and these listing actions that do not have absolute month petition findings for 11 species, may include species with lower priority statutory deadlines. In FY 2010, the 90-day petition findings for 477 species, if they overlap geographically or have Service received many new petitions and proposed listing determinations or the same threats as one of the highest and a single petition to list 404 species, not-warranted findings for 39 species. significantly increasing the number of priority species. In addition, we take actions within the second category of into consideration the availability of These settlement agreements have led our workload—actions that have staff resources when we determine to a number of results that affect our absolute statutory deadlines. As a result which high-priority species will receive preclusion analysis. First, the Service of the petitions to list hundreds of funding to minimize the amount of time has been, and will continue to be, species, we currently have over 460 12- and resources required to complete each limited in the extent to which it can month petition findings yet to be listing action. undertake additional actions within the initiated and completed. Listing Program Workload. Each FY Listing Program through FY 2017, To prioritize within each of the four we determine, based on the amount of beyond what is required by the MDL types of actions, we developed funding Congress has made available settlement agreements. Second, because guidelines for assigning a listing priority within the Listing Program spending the settlement is court-approved, two number (LPN) for each candidate cap, specifically which actions we will broad categories of actions now fall species (48 FR 43098, September 21, have the resources to work on in that within the Service’s highest priority 1983). Under these guidelines, we FY. We then prepare Allocation Tables (compliance with a court order): (1) The assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, that identify the actions that we are Service’s entire prioritized workload for depending on the magnitude of threats funding for that FY, and how much we FY 2012, as reflected in its Allocation (high or moderate to low), immediacy of estimate it will cost to complete each Table; and (2) completion, before the threats (imminent or nonimminent), and action; these Allocation Tables are part end of FY 2016, of proposed listings or taxonomic status of the species (in order of our record for this notice document not-warranted findings for the candidate of priority: Monotypic genus (a species and the listing program. Our Allocation species identified in the 2010 CNOR for that is the sole member of a genus); a Table for FY 2012, which incorporated which we have not yet proposed listing species; or a part of a species the Service’s approach to prioritizing its or made a not-warranted finding. (subspecies or distinct population workload, was adopted as part of a Therefore, each year, one of the segment)). The lower the listing priority settlement agreement in a case before Service’s highest priorities is to make number, the higher the listing priority the U.S. District Court for the District of steady progress towards completing by (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 Columbia (Endangered Species Act the end of 2017 proposed and final would have the highest listing priority). Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 10– listing determinations for the 2010 A species with a higher LPN would 377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (‘‘MDL candidate species—based on its LPN generally be precluded from listing by Litigation’’), Document 31–1 (D. DC May prioritization system, preparing multi- species with lower LPNs, unless work 10, 2011) (‘‘MDL Settlement species actions when appropriate, and on a proposed rule for the species with Agreement’’)). The requirements of taking into consideration the availability the higher LPN can be combined with paragraphs 1 through 7 of that of staff resources.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:17 Apr 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 19533

The island marble butterfly was not making expeditious progress in context of our commitment to reduce listed as a candidate in the 2010 CNOR, removing species from the list under the the number of candidate species in the nor was the proposed listing for the Recovery program in light of the 2010 CNOR for which we have not island marble butterfly included in the resources available for delisting, which made final determinations whether or Allocation Tables that were reflected in is funded by a separate line item in the not to list. The MDL Settlement the MDL settlement agreement. As we budget of the Endangered Species Agreement, which the court approved have discussed above, we have assigned Program. Thus far, during FY 2016, we on May 10, 2011, required, among other an LPN of 3 to the island marble have completed four delisting rules.) As things, that for all 251 species that were butterfly. Therefore, even if the Service discussed below, given the limited included as candidates in the 2010 has some additional funding after resources available for listing, we find CNOR, the Service submit to the completing all of the work required by that we are making expeditious progress Federal Register proposed listing rules court orders and court-approved in adding qualified species to the Lists or not-warranted findings by the end of settlement agreements, we would first in FY 2016. FY 2016, and that for any proposed fund actions with absolute statutory We provide below tables cataloguing listing rules, the Service complete final deadlines for species that have LPNs of the work of the Service’s Listing listing determinations within the 1 or 2. In light of all of these factors, Program in FY 2016. Making progress statutory time frame. Paragraph 6 of the funding a proposed listing for the island towards adding qualified species to the agreement provided indicators that the marble butterfly is precluded by court- lists includes all three of the steps Service is making adequate progress ordered and court-approved settlement necessary for adding species to the Lists: towards meeting that requirement. To agreements, listing actions with absolute (1) Identifying species that warrant date, the Service has completed statutory deadlines, and work on listing; (2) undertaking the evaluation of proposed listing rules or not-warranted proposed listing determinations for the best available scientific information findings for 200 of the 2010 candidate those candidate species with a lower about those species and the threats they species, as well as final listing rules for LPN. face, and preparing proposed and final 143 of those proposed rules, and is listing rules; and (3) adding species to therefore is making adequate progress Expeditious Progress the Lists by publishing proposed and towards meeting all of the requirements As explained above, a determination final listing rules that include a of the MDL settlement agreement. Both that listing is warranted but precluded summary of the data on which the rule by entering into the settlement must also demonstrate that expeditious is based and show the relationship of agreement and by implementing the progress is being made to add and that data to the rule. After taking into settlement agreement—including remove qualified species to and from consideration the limited resources making adequate progress towards the Lists. As with our ‘‘precluded’’ available for listing, the competing making final listing determinations for finding, the evaluation of whether demands for those funds, and the the 251 species on the 2010 candidate progress in adding qualified species to completed work catalogued in the tables list—the Service is making expeditious the Lists has been expeditious is a below, we find that we are making progress to add qualified species to the function of the resources available for expeditious progress to add qualified lists. listing and the competing demands for species to the Lists in FY 2016. The Service’s progress in FY 2016 those funds. (Although we do not Our accomplishments this year included completing and publishing the discuss it in detail here, we are also should also be considered in the broader following determinations:

FY 2016 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS

Publication date Title Actions FR Pages

12/22/2015 ...... 90-day and 12-month Findings on a Petition to 90-day and 12-month petition findings—substan- 80 FR 79533– List the Miami Tiger Beetle as an Endangered tial and warranted. 79554. or Threatened Species; Proposed Endangered Proposed listing Species Status for the Miami Tiger Beetle. Endangered 1/6/2016 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Alex- 12 month petition finding ...... 81 FR 435–458. ander Archipelago Wolf as an Endangered or Not warranted Threatened Species. 1/12/2016 ...... 90-Day Findings on 17 Petitions ...... 90-day petition findings ...... 81 FR 1368–1375. Substantial and not substantial 3/16/2016 ...... 90-Day Findings on 29 Petitions ...... 90-day petition findings ...... 81 FR 14058– Substantial and not substantial 14072.

Our expeditious progress also completed to date. For these species, we These actions are listed below. Actions included work on listing actions that we have completed the first step, and have in the table are being conducted under funded in previous fiscal years, and in been working on the second step, a deadline set by a court through a court FY 2016, but have not yet been necessary for adding species to the Lists. order or settlement agreement.

ACTIONS FUNDED IN PREVIOUS FYS AND FY 2016 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED

Species Action

Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement:. Fisher (West Coast DPS) ...... Final listing. Washington ground squirrel ...... Proposed listing.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:17 Apr 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 19534 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules

ACTIONS FUNDED IN PREVIOUS FYS AND FY 2016 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued

Species Action

Xantus’s murrelet ...... Proposed listing. 4 Florida plants (Florida pineland crabgrass, Florida prairie clover, pineland sandmat, and Everglades Proposed listing. bully). Black warrior waterdog ...... Proposed listing. Black mudalia ...... Proposed listing. Highlands tiger beetle ...... Proposed listing. Sicklefin redhorse ...... Proposed listing. Texas hornshell ...... Proposed listing. Guadalupe fescue ...... Proposed listing. Stephan’s riffle beetle ...... Proposed listing. Huachuca springsnail ...... Proposed listing. Actions Subject to Statutory Deadline:. 11 DPSs of green sea turtle ...... Final listing. Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes ...... Final listing. Virgin Islands coqui ...... 12-month petition finding.

Another way that we have been could be made. In the February 28, settlement with CBD (Center for expeditious in making progress to add 1996, notice of review (61 FR 7596), we Biological Diversity v. Jewell et al., No. qualified species to the Lists is that we discontinued the designation of C2 1:14-cv-01021–EGS). The settlement have endeavored to make our listing species. Most C2 species were removed stipulated that we would submit our 12- actions as efficient and timely as from the candidate list, including the month finding to the Federal Register possible, given the requirements of the San Bernardino flying squirrel. by April 29, 2016. This document relevant law and regulations, and On August 25, 2010, we received a constitutes the 12-month finding on the constraints relating to workload and petition dated August 24, 2010, from the August 24, 2010, petition to list the San personnel. We are continually Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Bernardino flying squirrel as an considering ways to streamline requesting that we list the San endangered or threatened species and processes or achieve economies of scale, Bernardino flying squirrel as fulfills our settlement obligation. such as by batching related actions endangered or threatened and designate This finding is based upon the together. Given our limited budget for critical habitat concurrent with listing Species Status Assessment titled ‘‘Final implementing section 4 of the Act, these under the Act. The petition clearly Species Status Assessment for San efforts also contribute towards finding identified itself as a petition, was dated, Bernardino Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys that we are making expeditious progress and included the requisite identification sabrinus californicus)’’ (Service 2016) to add qualified species to the Lists. information required at 50 CFR (Species Status Assessment), a scientific 424.14(a). On October 5, 2010, we sent analysis of available information San Bernardino Flying Squirrel the petitioner a letter acknowledging prepared by a team of Service biologists (Glaucomys sabrinus californicus) our receipt of the petition, and from the Service’s Carlsbad Fish and Previous Federal Actions responded that we had reviewed the Wildlife Office, Pacific Southwest information presented in the petition Regional Office, and National We recognized in four notices of and had not identified any emergency Headquarters Office. The purpose of the review published in the Federal posing a significant risk to the well- Species Status Assessment is to provide Register that listing the San Bernardino being of the species that would make the best available scientific and flying squirrel was potentially immediate listing of the species under commercial information about San warranted. On September 18, 1985, the section 4(b)(7) of the Act necessary. We Bernardino flying squirrel so that we Service issued the first notice also stated that, due to court orders and can evaluate whether or not the identifying vertebrate animal taxa native court-approved settlement agreements subspecies warrants protection under to the United States being considered for other listing and critical habitat the Act. In the Species Status for possible addition to the List of determinations under the Act, our Assessment, we present the best Endangered and Threatened Wildlife listing and critical habitat funding for scientific and commercial data available (List), including the San Bernardino Fiscal Year 2011 was committed to concerning the status of the subspecies, flying squirrel (50 FR 37958). other projects. We said that we would including past, present, and future Subsequently, we issued three be unable to make an initial finding on stressors. As such, the Species Status additional notices, dated January 6, the petition at that time, but would Assessment provides the scientific basis 1989 (54 FR 554), November 21, 1991 complete the action when workload and that informs our regulatory decision in (56 FR 58804), and November 15, 1994 funding allowed. On February 1, 2012, this document. In this 12-month (59 FR 58982), that presented an we published in the Federal Register a finding, we apply the standards of the updated compilation of vertebrate and 90-day finding (77 FR 4973) that the Act and its regulations and policies. The invertebrate animal taxa native to the petition presented substantial Species Status Assessment can be found United States, including the San information indicating that listing may on the Internet at http:// Bernardino flying squirrel, that we were be warranted and initiated a status www.regulations.gov, under Docket No. reviewing for possible addition to the review. FWS–R8–ES–2016–0046. List. This subspecies was categorized in On June 17, 2014, CBD sent a notice these reviews as a category 2 (C2) taxon, of intent to sue on our failure to Summary of Status Review meaning that listing was possibly complete a 12-month finding on the San In making our 12-month finding on appropriate but more information was Bernardino flying squirrel. On the petition, we consider and evaluate needed before a final decision to list September 22, 2014, we reached a the best available scientific and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:17 Apr 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 19535

commercial information. This overall, across the subspecies’ range (see least 2 individuals per 2.47 ac (2 evaluation includes information from all Service 2016, pp. 36–39). individuals per ha) in the San Jacinto sources, including State, Federal, tribal, Where possible, we analyzed whether Mountains; and, in the San Bernardino academic, and private entities and the potential stressors are acting upon the Mountains, confirm occupation of public. subspecies for both the San Bernardino 247.11 ac (100 ha) within the Western The San Bernardino flying squirrel is Mountains and the San Jacinto Riverside County MSHCP Conservation 1 of 25 recognized subspecies of the Mountains, though the occupancy status Area (Service 2016, pp. 73–74). northern flying squirrel. It is currently of the San Jacinto Mountains is The Coachella Valley MSHCP is a only known from the San Bernardino unconfirmed at this time. Given that large-scale, multijurisdictional, 75-year Mountains region. It was previously detailed occupancy and life history data habitat conservation plan approved in known to occur in the San Jacinto for the San Bernardino flying squirrel 2008 encompassing about 1.1 million ac Mountains. The San Bernardino flying are unavailable, we estimated or (445,156 ha) in the Coachella Valley of squirrel has not been observed in the modeled the extent of habitat suitable to central Riverside County, California. San Jacinto Mountain since the 1990s; support the San Bernardino flying The Coachella Valley MSHCP is also a however, extensive surveys have not squirrel using positive detections, Subregional Plan under the State of been conducted in this area. The habits vegetation data layers, elevation range, California’s Natural Community and population biology of the San and potential home range size (Service Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act, as Bernardino flying squirrel have not been 2016, pp. 27–28). A complete amended. The Coachella Valley extensively studied throughout its description of the analysis and our MSHCP/NCCP addresses 27 listed and presumed range. methodology is available in the Species unlisted covered species; however, The San Bernardino flying squirrel is Status Assessment (Service 2016, pp. these species do not include the San an arboreal (lives in trees) rodent, active 27–28) and in our GIS procedures Bernardino flying squirrel. The Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP year-round, and primarily nocturnal. summary document (Service 2015a), was designed to establish a multiple- Individual characteristics of mature or which are available on http:// www.regulations.gov under docket species habitat conservation program older forested habitat indicate that large- number FWS–R8–ES–2016–0046. that minimizes and mitigates the diameter trees, large snags, coarse Within our estimated suitable San expected loss of habitat and incidental woody debris, and truffle abundance Bernardino flying squirrel habitat in the take of covered species. The associated have been found to be directly related San Bernardino Mountains we analyzed permit covers incidental take resulting to population densities of the northern the effects of habitat loss and from habitat loss and disturbance flying squirrel. The San Bernardino fragmentation. We found that 77 percent associated with urban development and flying squirrel has been observed in of land in the San Bernardino other proposed covered activities. These many residential settings and appears to Mountains and 65 percent of land in the activities include public and private be adaptable to lower density San Jacinto Mountains is owned by the development within the plan area that development and residential-forest U.S. Forest Service (USFS). In the San requires discretionary and ministerial habitats, as reported in other flying Jacinto Mountains region, actions by permittees subject to squirrel populations, as long as habitat approximately 22 percent of San consistency with the Coachella Valley features such as den sites and canopy Bernardino flying squirrel suitable MSHCP/NCCP policies. Though the San cover are available. habitat is under private ownership, but Bernardino flying squirrel is not a The potential threats (identified in the all but a very small portion of those covered species, it will likely receive Species Status Assessment as lands are encompassed within the ancillary benefits from habitat ‘‘stressors’’ or ‘‘potential stressors’’) that boundaries of two habitat conservation protection measures included in the may be acting upon the San Bernardino plans: the Western Riverside County plan. flying squirrel currently or in the future Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan A review of applications for (and consistent with the five listing (MSHCP) and the Coachella Valley development projects in the San factors identified in section 4(a)(1) of MSHCP. Bernardino Mountains found six the Act) were described in the Species The Western Riverside County planned activities; the total area for Status Assessment (Service 2016, pp. MSHCP is a large-scale, multi- these projects covers only a small 27–66) (available at http:// jurisdictional, 75-year habitat fraction of San Bernardino flying www.regulations.gov under Docket No. conservation plan approved in 2004 that squirrel suitable habitat in this FWS–R8–ES–2016–0046). Our 2016 addresses 146 listed and unlisted mountain region. Similar project data Species Status Assessment included ‘‘Covered Species’’ including the San were not available for the San Jacinto summary evaluations of six potential Bernardino flying squirrel within a Mountains. In order to analyze the stressors to the San Bernardino flying 1,260,000 ac (599,904 ha) Plan Area in potential impacts of fragmentation, we squirrel that may have low or medium- western Riverside County, California. conducted a spatial analysis using life- level impacts on the subspecies or its Conservation objectives identified in the history and the most important habitat habitat, including habitat loss from Western Riverside County MSHCP for features associated with northern flying urban development (Factor A), habitat the San Bernardino flying squirrel squirrels. We found only 1.3 percent of fragmentation (Factor A), wildland fire include the following: (1) Include our estimated suitable habitat in the San fuel treatment (Factor A), wildland fire within the Western Riverside County Bernardino Mountains and only 5 (Factor A and Factor E), urban air MSHCP Conservation Area at least percent of our estimated suitable habitat pollution (Factor A), and climate change 19,476 ac (7,882 ha) (67 percent) of in the San Jacinto Mountains to be (Factor A). We evaluated potential suitable montane coniferous forest and fragmented due to residential impacts associated with overutilization deciduous woodland and forest habitats development or other activities (Service (Factor B), disease (Factor C), and within the San Jacinto Mountains 2015a, entire). predation (Factor C), but found that the Bioregion for breeding, foraging, The San Bernardino flying squirrel subspecies has not been exposed to wintering, and dispersal movement, and relies on features in the landscape that these stressors at a level sufficient to (2) confirm occupation of 2,470 ac may be modified or removed by fuel result in more than low or no impacts, (1,000 ha) with a mean density of at treatment activities; these activities may

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:17 Apr 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 19536 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules

result in loss or modification of habitat the projections of increased temperature We evaluated in the Species Status structure and removal of nest trees. and decreased precipitation, drought Assessment (Service 2016, pp. 27–66) However, fuel treatment can provide may in the future continue to be whether each of the potential stressors desirable results to understory plant exacerbated by climate change. The is acting upon the subspecies, and we diversity in forests where fire has been effects of climate change may result in determined that the following are suppressed. We evaluated data from the decrease of the forested habitat that stressors that have acted upon the USFS summarizing their thinning supports the San Bernardino flying subspecies and have minimally or practices and found that the total area squirrel and of food resources utilized moderately affected, or in the future subject to this activity over the past 10 by the subspecies. may potentially affect, individuals or years represents only 6 percent of all We reviewed all Federal, State, and portions of suitable habitat: Habitat loss USFS lands within the San Bernardino local laws, regulations, and other from urban development (Factor A), Mountains (or about 1,045 ac (423 ha) regulatory mechanisms intended to habitat fragmentation (Factor A), per year); we are unaware of any minimize the threats to the subspecies wildland fire fuel treatment (Factor A), thinning activities by the USFS in the and found that existing regulatory wildland fire (Factor A and Factor E), San Jacinto Mountains area. mechanisms are being implemented urban air pollution (Factor A), and San Bernardino flying squirrel habitat within their scope and provide some climate change (Factor A). In our is downwind from California’s densely benefit to the San Bernardino flying Species Status Assessment, we populated South Coast Air Basin. squirrel. We conclude that the best evaluated potential impacts associated Impacts from air pollution, such as available scientific and commercial with overutilization (Factor B), disease nitrogen deposition and increased information overall indicates that the (Factor C), and predation (Factor C). We ozone, may result in habitat effects existing regulatory mechanisms are found that these potential stressors including soil acidification, loss of adequate to address impacts to the San impacted individual San Bernardino understory diversity, accelerated leaf Bernardino flying squirrel from the flying squirrels, but that the subspecies turnover, and decreased allocation stressors for which governments may has not been exposed to these stressors belowground and fine root biomass. have regulatory control (habitat loss, at a level sufficient to result in more Local air quality monitoring has habitat fragmentation, wildland fire fuel than low or no impacts, overall, across recorded declines in ozone levels in the treatment, and urban air pollution). the subspecies’ range (see Service 2016, past 30 years, and local and State Cumulative impacts are currently pp. 36–39); thus, we did not discuss regulations on urban air pollution are occurring from the combined effects them in this document. expected to further reduce ozone levels from wildland fire and climate-related Effects from urban development and nitrogen deposition. However, changes. Studies have found that that (Factor A) and habitat fragmentation additional analyses are needed to assess the likelihood and frequency of large (Factor A) are considered low at this the effects of nitrogen and the wildfires are expected to increase in time and are not expected to change in combination of nitrogen emissions in southwestern California due to rising the future based on our assessment of combination with ozone level to San surface temperatures. The mixed conifer the limited scope of proposed Bernardino flying squirrel habitat, as forests ecosystems in the San developments in the region, the large well as to the extent to which the Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains percentage of habitat that is owned and subspecies will respond to any effects. are likely currently experiencing the managed by the USFS, and our analysis As a result of fire suppression cumulative effects of wildland fire and of the small amount of fragmentation of activities since the early 20th century, the warming effects of climate change. current suitable habitat. Urban air forested habitat in the San Bernardino Finding pollution (Factor A) presents a low-level and San Jacinto Mountains is at stressor to San Bernardino flying moderate to high risk of wildland fire. As required by the Act, we considered squirrel habitat, and existing regulatory However, this stressor is being reduced the five factors in assessing whether the mechanisms such as the California by ongoing fuel reduction management San Bernardino flying squirrel is an Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 techniques. Furthermore, results from a endangered or threatened species and the California Clean Air Act are study of habitat use of the San throughout all of its range. We helping to ameliorate any impacts and Bernardino flying squirrel following fire examined the best scientific and decrease the overall levels of nitrogen has found that they return to moderately commercial information available and ozone deposition within the San burned areas within 7 years after a regarding the past, present, and future Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains. wildland fire. The subspecies has stressors faced by the San Bernardino Though impacts from these three persisted in the region since its first flying squirrel. We reviewed the stressors—urban development, habitat detection in 1897, despite numerous, petition, information available in our fragmentation, and urban air pollution— periodic, and often large fires. files, and other available published and are ongoing and expected to continue, Downscaled climate projections unpublished information, and we they pose only low-level impacts that forecast an overall increase in coordinated with recognized species are not likely to drive or contribute to temperature for the Southern California and habitat experts and other Federal, the risk of extinction now or in the mountains region, which includes the State, tribal, and local agencies. Listing foreseeable future, and therefore do not San Bernardino and San Jacinto is warranted if, based on our review of rise to the level of a threat. mountain ranges. Climate models for the best available scientific and Wildland fire (Factor A and Factor E) southern California also project a small commercial data, we find that the presents a moderate, but periodic, annual mean decrease in precipitation stressors to the San Bernardino flying stressor to the San Bernardino flying for southern California; however, these squirrel are so severe or broad in scope squirrel and its habitat. Analysis of fire models do not show consistent results that the subspecies is in danger of data indicates that forested areas within for future precipitation patterns. Recent extinction (endangered), or likely to San Bernardino flying squirrel habitat studies have shown that ongoing become endangered within the are burning less frequently than changes in precipitation and foreseeable future (threatened), reference conditions, and several fires temperature have exacerbated the effects throughout all or a significant portion of (reported since the 1980s) in this habitat of the recent California drought. Given its range. have burned at moderate to high burn

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:17 Apr 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 19537

severity. However, despite these do not rise to the level of a threat now scientific and commercial information conditions, results from an ongoing or in the foreseeable future. indicates that these stressors are not study to evaluate habitat use by the San We also evaluated existing regulatory singly or cumulatively sufficient to Bernardino flying squirrel after a 2007 mechanisms (Factor D) and did not cause the San Bernardino flying squirrel fire have shown that 35 percent of all determine an inadequacy of existing to be in danger of extinction, nor are the detected individuals were found in regulatory mechanisms for the San stressors likely to cause the subspecies areas that had been moderately burned Bernardino flying squirrel. Specifically, to be in danger of extinction in the 7 years prior to the study, indicating we found that management actions foreseeable future. that San Bernardino flying squirrels are currently being implemented by the Significant Portion of the Range resilient to impacts from wildland fire USFS within the San Bernardino and are able to repopulate burned areas National Forest will continue to provide Under the Act and our implementing in a short timeframe. Furthermore, important conservation benefits to the regulations, a species may warrant resource management actions, such as San Bernardino flying squirrel. listing if it is in danger of extinction or fuel reduction practices and thinning, Additional important Federal likely to become so throughout all or a that are being implemented by the USFS mechanisms include protections significant portion of its range. The Act within the San Bernardino National provided under the Wilderness Act of defines ‘‘endangered species’’ as any Forest provide a benefit to the San 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.); USFS species which is ‘‘in danger of Bernardino flying squirrel and its Organic Administration Act of 1897, as extinction throughout all or a significant habitat by reducing potential wildland amended (16 U.S.C. 473–478, 479–482, portion of its range,’’ and ‘‘threatened fire fuel loads. The San Bernardino and 551); and other USFS management species’’ as any species which is ‘‘likely Land Management Plan contains policies, practices, and procedures that to become an endangered species within specific design criteria and conservation guide management within San the foreseeable future throughout all or strategies to benefit the San Bernardino Bernardino National Forest. State a significant portion of its range.’’ The flying squirrel and its habitat. These and review of projects through the California term ‘‘species’’ includes ‘‘any other management actions currently Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, being implemented by the USFS within provides an additional layer of and any distinct population segment the San Bernardino National Forest will protection for the San Bernardino flying [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish or continue to provide important squirrel through restrictions on take and wildlife which interbreeds when conservation benefits to the San through the inclusion of its designation mature.’’ We published a final policy Bernardino flying squirrel. Therefore, as a ‘‘Species of Special Concern’’ interpreting the phrase ‘‘significant we conclude that wildland fire is not a within State (CEQA) planning portion of its range’’ (SPR) (79 FR threat to the species, because it poses processes. Additional protections and 37578; July 1, 2014). The final policy only a low-level stressor that we do not conservation measures that benefit San states that (1) if a species is found to be expect to drive or contribute to the risk Bernardino flying squirrel habitat in the endangered or threatened throughout a of extinction of the subspecies now or San Jacinto Mountains are provided by significant portion of its range, the in the foreseeable future. the Western Riverside County MSHCP. entire species is listed as an endangered Wildland fire fuel treatment (Factor The USFS manages approximately 76 or a threatened species, respectively, A) may remove habitat structure used by percent of the suitable habitat within and the Act’s protections apply to all nesting San Bernardino flying squirrels; the San Bernardino Mountains region individuals of the species wherever however, habitat modification and and 65 percent in the San Jacinto found; (2) a portion of the range of a thinning from fuel treatment activities Mountains, and these lands are species is ‘‘significant’’ if the species is provide a net benefit by reducing the therefore protected from large-scale not currently endangered or threatened overall risk of wildfire. Furthermore, urban development and rangewide throughout all of its range, but the San Bernardino flying squirrels and habitat fragmentation. Furthermore, 33 portion’s contribution to the viability of other northern flying squirrel subspecies percent of suitable San Bernardino the species is so important that, without are known to persist in fragmented and flying squirrel habitat within the San the members in that portion, the species edge habitat. Therefore, we find that Jacinto Mountains region is designated would be in danger of extinction, or wildland fire fuel treatment is a low- as either Federal or State Parks and likely to become so in the foreseeable level stressor that we do not expect to State Wilderness, which provides an future, throughout all of its range; (3) rise to the level of a threat now or in the important conservation benefit to the the range of a species is considered to foreseeable future. subspecies and its habitat. The be the general geographical area within Based on computer model projections, subspecies is locally abundant; it has which that species can be found at the potential effects to the habitat occupied been observed in many residential time the Service or the National Marine by the San Bernardino flying squirrel settings and appears to be adaptable to Fisheries Service (NMFS) makes any from climate change (Factor A) appear lower density development and particular status determination; and (4) to be minimal; however, cumulative residential-forest habitats, as reported in if a vertebrate species is endangered or impacts from climate change and other flying squirrel populations, as threatened throughout an SPR, and the wildland fire may have an effect on the long as habitat features such as available population in that significant portion is subspecies and its habitat (Factor A and den sites (large trees and snags) and a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather Factor E). However, we expect these canopy cover are available. than the entire taxonomic species or impacts will be mitigated by wildland None of the stressors, as summarized subspecies. fire fuel treatment activities. Therefore, above was found to individually or The SPR policy is applied to all status we find that climate change and the cumulatively affect the San Bernardino determinations, including analyses for cumulative effects of climate change flying squirrel to such a degree that the purposes of making listing, and wildland fires together pose a low listing is warranted at this time. delisting, and reclassification to moderate stressor to the San Therefore, based on the analysis determinations. The procedure for Bernardino flying squirrel and its contained within the Species Status analyzing whether any portion is an habitat. Though these stressors are Assessment (Service 2016, pp. 27–66), SPR is similar, regardless of the type of ongoing and expected to continue, they we conclude that the best available status determination we are making.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:17 Apr 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 19538 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules

The first step in our analysis of the whether the species is endangered or endangered or threatened species under status of a species is to determine its threatened in the SPR. To determine the Act is not warranted at this time. status throughout all of its range. If we whether a species is endangered or Spotless Crake (Porzana tabuensis) determine that the species is in danger threatened throughout an SPR, we will of extinction, or likely to become so in use the same standards and Previous Federal Actions the foreseeable future, throughout all of methodology that we use to determine In our CNOR published on November its range, we list the species as an if a species is endangered or threatened 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982), we recognized endangered or a threatened species, throughout its range. the American Samoa population of the respectively, and no SPR analysis will Depending on the biology of the spotless crake as a candidate for which be required. If the species is neither in species, its range, and the threats it the Service had sufficient information danger of extinction nor likely to faces, it may be more efficient to address on the biological vulnerability of, and become so throughout all of its range, the ‘‘significant’’ question first, or the threats to, the species to determine that we determine whether the species is in status question first. Thus, if we listing as endangered or threatened was danger of extinction or likely to become determine that a portion of the range is warranted, but development of a so throughout a significant portion of its not ‘‘significant,’’ we do not need to proposal was precluded by other listing range. If it is, we list the species as an determine whether the species is actions. Subsequently, we published endangered or a threatened species, endangered or threatened there; if we similar findings on the American Samoa respectively; if it is not, we conclude determine that the species is not population of the spotless crake in our that listing the species is not warranted. endangered or threatened in a portion of When we conduct an SPR analysis, CNOR on February 28, 1996 (61 FR its range, we do not need to determine 7596), September 19, 1997 (62 FR we first identify any portions of the if that portion is ‘‘significant.’’ species’ range that warrant further 49398), October 25, 1999 (64 FR 57534), We evaluated the current range of the consideration. The range of a species October 30, 2001 (66 FR 54808), and San Bernardino flying squirrel to can theoretically be divided into June 13, 2002 (67 FR 40657). In the 2002 determine if there is any apparent portions in an infinite number of ways. CNOR, we identified the American geographic concentration of potential However, there is no purpose to Samoa population of the spotless crake threats. In this document, we discussed analyzing portions of the range that are as a distinct population segment (DPS) suitable habitat in two geographically not reasonably likely to be significant for the first time, in accordance with our separated mountain ranges. We and endangered or threatened. To Policy Regarding the Recognition of identify only those portions that warrant examined potential threats from habitat Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments further consideration, we determine loss or fragmentation, wildland fire fuel Under the Endangered Species Act (DPS whether there is substantial information treatment activities, urban air pollution, Policy), which published in the Federal indicating that (1) the portions may be wildland fire, climate change, the Register on February 7, 1996 (61 FR significant and (2) the species may be in inadequacy of existing regulatory 4722). Throughout this period, the danger of extinction in those portions or mechanisms, and any cumulative effects American Samoa population of the likely to become so within the from wildland fire and climate-related spotless crake retained the same status foreseeable future. We emphasize that changes. We found no concentration of (the Service’s label for that status answering these questions in the threats that suggests that the San changed from ‘‘1’’ to ‘‘C,’’ but the status affirmative is not a determination that Bernardino flying squirrel may be in remained the same). the species is endangered or threatened danger of extinction in a portion of its Through 2004, the spotless crake had throughout a significant portion of its range. We found no portions of its range an LPN of 6, reflecting the taxonomic range—rather, it is a step in determining where potential threats are significantly identity of the listable entity as a whether a more detailed analysis of the concentrated or substantially greater population, with threats that we did not issue is required. In practice, a key part than in other portions of its range, and consider to be imminent, in accordance of this analysis is whether the threats that there was no higher concentration with our 1983 guidance on establishing are geographically concentrated in some of threats in the San Bernardino or San listing priorities (48 FR 43103; way. If the threats to the species are Jacinto Mountains. Therefore, we find September 21, 1983). In the 2005 CNOR, affecting it uniformly throughout its that factors affecting the San Bernardino we changed the LPN from 6 to 3, range, no portion is likely to warrant flying squirrel are essentially uniform indicating that, based on new further consideration. Moreover, if any throughout its range, indicating no information about the occurrence of concentration of threats apply only to portion of its range is likely to be in nonnative predators in the only known portions of the range that clearly do not danger of extinction or likely to become location of the spotless crake in meet the biologically based definition of so. Therefore, no portion warrants American Samoa, we now considered ‘‘significant’’ (i.e., the loss of that further consideration to determine the threats to this population to be portion clearly would not be expected to whether the species may be endangered imminent (70 FR 24870; May 11, 2005). increase the vulnerability to extinction or threatened in a significant portion of Listing the American Samoa population of the entire species), those portions its range. of the spotless crake continued to be will not warrant further consideration. Conclusion precluded by higher-priority listing If we identify any portions that may actions. be both (1) significant and (2) Our review of the best available On May 4, 2004, the Center for endangered or threatened, we engage in scientific and commercial information Biological Diversity petitioned the a more detailed analysis to determine indicates that the San Bernardino flying Secretary of the Interior to list 225 whether these standards are indeed met. squirrel is neither in danger of species of plants and animals, including The identification of an SPR does not extinction (endangered) nor likely to the American Samoa population of the create a presumption, prejudgment, or become endangered within the spotless crake, as an endangered or other determination as to whether the foreseeable future (threatened), threatened species under the provisions species in that identified SPR is throughout all or a significant portion of of the Act. Since then, we have endangered or threatened. We must go its range. Therefore, we find that listing published our annual findings on this through a separate analysis to determine the San Bernardino flying squirrel as an population, with the LPN of 3, in the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:17 Apr 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 19539

CNORs dated May 11, 2005 (70 FR 2004, 2007; Tulafono 2011, in litt.). flight and widely distributed, the 24870), September 12, 2006 (71 FR Based on 2013 surveys and presumed spotless crake has been described either 53756), December 6, 2007 (72 FR potential for birds to occur in suitable as ‘‘rarely flying’’ or a ‘‘reluctant flier’’ 69034), December 10, 2008 (73 FR habitat areas not surveyed, Badia (Muse and Muse 1982, p. 83; Watling 75176), November 9, 2009 (74 FR (2014b, in litt.) estimated a population 2001, p. 113). The distance between the 57804), November 10, 2010 (75 FR size of 130 individuals on Tau. In American Samoa population of the 69222), October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), addition to American Samoa, the global spotless crake and the nearest November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994), range of the spotless crake includes populations of the species makes the November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), Australia and island nations throughout probability of accidental immigration December 5, 2014 (79 FR 72450), and the tropical Pacific and Southeast Asia: low: Samoa lies 100 miles (mi) (160 December 24, 2015 (80 FR 80584). Cook Islands, Federated States of kilometers (km)) to the west, Tonga As a result of the Service’s 2011 Micronesia, Fiji, French Polynesia, approximately 300 to 560 mi (500 to 900 multidistrict litigation settlement with Indonesia, New Caledonia, New km) to the southwest, and Niue 333 mi petitioners, the Service is required to Zealand, Niue, Papua New Guinea, the (536 km) to the southeast. For the submit a proposed listing rule or a not- Philippines Pitcairn Islands, Samoa, reasons described above, we conclude warranted 12-month finding to the Solomon Islands, and Tonga (BirdLife that long-distance ocean crossings and Federal Register by September 30, 2016 International 2016). mixing among populations of the (In re: Endangered Species Act Section We evaluated the American Samoa spotless crake and other island rails is 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 10–377 (EGS), population of the spotless crake under extremely rare or highly improbable on MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, our DPS Policy, which published in the an ecological timescale (i.e., decades to 2011)). This 12-month finding satisfies Federal Register on February 7, 1996 centuries). Therefore, we have the requirements of that settlement (61 FR 4722). Under this policy, we determined that the American Samoa agreement for the American Samoa evaluate two elements of a vertebrate population of the spotless crake is population of the spotless crake, and population segment, its discreteness and markedly separate from other constitutes the 12-month finding on the its significance to the taxon as a whole, populations of the species due to its May 4, 2004, petition to list this to assess whether the population geographic isolation, and meets the population as an endangered or segment may be recognized as a DPS. If requirements criteria for discreteness threatened species. we determine that a population segment under our DPS Policy. being considered for listing is a DPS, Summary of Status Review then the population segment’s Under our DPS Policy, once we have In making our 12-month finding on conservation status is evaluated based determined that a population segment is the petition, we consider and evaluate on the five listing factors established by discrete, we consider its biological and the best available scientific and the Act to determine if listing the DPS ecological significance to the larger commercial information. This as either an endangered or threatened taxon to which it belongs, in light of evaluation includes information from all species is warranted. congressional guidance that the sources, including State, Federal, tribal, To meet the discreteness element, a authority to list DPSs be used academic, and private entities and the population segment of a vertebrate ‘‘sparingly’’ while encouraging the public. taxon must be either (1) markedly conservation of genetic diversity (see The spotless crake (Porzana separated from other populations of the U.S. Congress 1979, Senate Report 151, tabuensis) is a very small (length: 6 same taxon as a consequence of 96th Congress, 1st Session). This inches (15 centimeters)), blackish rail, physical, physiological, ecological, or consideration may include, but is not with a gray head, neck, and underparts; behavioral factors, or (2) it is delimited limited to: (1) Evidence of the dark brown wings and back; black bill; by international governmental persistence of the discrete population and red iris (Watling 2001, p. 113). In boundaries within which differences in segment in an ecological setting that is American Samoa, the fossil record control of exploitation, management of unusual or unique for the taxon; (2) indicates the prehistoric occurrence of habitat, conservation status, or evidence that loss of the population the spotless crake on the island of regulatory mechanisms exist that are segment would result in a significant Tutuila (Steadman and Pregill 2004, p. significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) gap in the range of the taxon; (3) 620). In modern times, the spotless of the Act. The available scientific evidence that the population segment crake was first known from a series of information indicates that the American represents the only surviving natural 10 specimens that were collected from Samoa population of the spotless crake occurrence of a taxon that may be more Tau in 1923, during the Whitney South is markedly separate from other abundant elsewhere as an introduced Sea Expedition (Murphy 1924, p. 124; populations of the species due to population outside its historical range; Banks 1984, p. 156). The population of geographic (physical) isolation from or (4) evidence that the discrete the species in American Samoa today is spotless crake populations on other population segment differs markedly presumed to be very small and islands in the oceanic Pacific, the from other populations of the species in restricted to the mid-elevation forest Philippines, and Australia. Although its genetic characteristics. In this case, and the summit of Tau Island, but a the spotless crake (and other rails) are we considered available information population estimate does not exist distributed widely in the Pacific (del about the biological and ecological because of challenges in monitoring this Hoyo 1996, p. 134; Steadman 2006, pp. significance of the spotless crake in species, which is extremely shy and 134, 458), exhibit long-distance American Samoa relative to the spotless occurs in dense vegetation in very vagrancy, and are apparently excellent crake throughout the remainder of its remote areas (Badia 2014a, in litt.). Prior colonizers of islands on an evolutionary range in Oceania, Australia, the to the establishment of survey transects timescale (Ripley 1977, p. 17; Steadman Philippines, and Southeast Asia. We and audio playback surveys conducted 2006, p. 458), the spotless crake is have not found evidence that the loss of in 2013 on Tau, recent observations of currently not known for regular the American Samoa population of the the crake were few, primarily migration or frequent long-distance spotless crake would be biologically or opportunistic, and infrequent (Rauzon dispersal on an ecological timescale ecologically significant to the taxon as a and Fialua 2003, p. 490; Seamon, in litt. (Taylor 2016). Despite being capable of whole, and thus this population does

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:17 Apr 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 19540 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules

not meet our criteria for significance timescale (e.g., events that lead to (Rauzon and Fialua 2003, p. 491; under our DPS Policy. colonization of new islands; Ripley (O’Connor and Rauzon 2004, pp. 57–59; Unique ecological setting. This 1977, p. 17). Because American Samoa Adler et al. 2011, pp. 216–217; Badia population does not occur in an unusual lies roughly in the center of the species’ 2014a, in litt.). Populations that undergo or unique ecological setting. In range in the Pacific Basin, the loss of the significant decline in numbers and American Samoa, the spotless crake American Samoa population would not range reduction are inherently highly occurs in dense, sometimes rank result in a truncation or shift in the vulnerable to extinction from chance vegetation, similar to habitats used in species’ distribution, another environmental or demographic events other parts of the species’ range (Pratt et consideration we did not include in our (Shaffer 1981, p. 131; Gilpin and Soule´ al. 1987, p. 126; del Hoyo 1996, p. 189; original analysis. Therefore, loss of the 1986, pp. 24–34; Pimm et al. 1988, p. Watling et al. 2001, p. 113; Badia in litt. American Samoa population would not 757; Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 607; 2014a, 2014b, 2015; BirdLife result in a significant gap in the species’ Lacey 2000, pp. 40, 44–46). Owing to its International 2016). range. low total number of individuals, Gap in the range. In our original DPS Only surviving natural occurrence. restricted distribution, and distribution analysis for the American Samoa This criterion does not apply to the on a single island, the American Samoa population of the spotless crake, we American Samoa population of the population of the spotless crake is stated that the loss of the population spotless crake because it is one of many susceptible to natural catastrophes such could reduce connectivity within the natural occurrences of the species. as hurricanes, demographic range of the spotless crake in Oceania Differs markedly from other fluctuations, or inbreeding depression. and thus would constitute a gap in the populations. Our review of the best Existing regulatory mechanisms may range of species as a whole (71 FR available information does not indicate provide some conservation benefit to 53756, September 12, 2006, on p. that the American Samoa population of the American Samoa population of the 53779). Upon review of the available the spotless crake is markedly different spotless crake, but they do not address information, we have concluded that from populations of the species the ongoing threats of habitat loss and our original analysis was in error. The elsewhere in its behavior, morphology, degradation or predation by nonnative spotless crake is widespread throughout or genetic characteristics. However, predators. Oceania, Southeast Asia, and Australia. detailed study of the species’ behavior Some populations across the Pacific and morphology across its range is Finding Islands occur at distances from each lacking, and no genetic research exists. The American Samoa population of other similar to or greater than the Other considerations. Finally, given the spotless crake was originally placed distance between populations that the very wide distribution of the on the candidate list because of the would be created if the American Samoa spotless crake, the loss of the American threats to the species in American population were lost. Moreover, as Samoa population would not Samoa and its apparently very low noted above, another population is substantively affect the species’ numbers. Those threats still exist. After thought to occur in Samoa (Watling conservation status rangewide. review of all available scientific and The American Samoa population is 2001, p. 114; Avibase 2016), about 100 commercial information and upon geographically isolated from other mi (160 km) from Tau Island, where the closer consideration of the significance populations of the species and thus spotless crake occurs in American of this population to the species as a meets discreteness criteria under the Samoa. Our original evaluation of the whole, we find that the American DPS policy. It does not, however, meet significance of the American Samoa Samoa population of the spotless crake the criteria for significance to the taxon population to the species as a whole did does not meet the significance criteria as a whole. Therefore, the American not properly take into consideration the under our DPS policy, and thus does not Samoa population of the spotless crake nearby population in Samoa or the constitute a listable entity under the relative distribution of other is not a valid DPS as defined by our DPS Policy, and thus is not a listable entity Act. Consequently we are removing the populations. American Samoa population of the As described above, the species’ under the Act. spotless crake from candidate status. distribution today most likely reflects This determination about the This determination about the regulatory historical connectivity over time scales regulatory status of the spotless crake status of the spotless crake under the of thousands of years or longer, as a under the Act does not negate the Act and our DPS Policy does not alter result of chance dispersal rather than considerable threats faced by the contemporary migration or frequent population of this species in American the threats faced by the population of intermixing among populations. In our Samoa. Invasive, nonnative plants, such this species in American Samoa or its original analysis we did not consider as Clidemia hirta, and ungulates, such conservation needs there. Therefore, we the differing influence between as feral pigs (Sus scrofa) and cattle (Bos ask the public to continue to submit to migration or frequent dispersal in taurus), damage and degrade the us any new information that becomes ecological time, and chance dispersal in spotless crake’s habitat on Tau (Whistler available concerning the taxonomy, evolutionary time on a species’ 1992, p. 22; O’Connor and Rauzon 2004, biology, ecology, and status of the distribution. Given the poor flight pp. 10–11; Togia pers. comm. in Loope spotless crake, and we encourage local ability of rails generally and the spotless et al. 2013, p. 321; Badia 2014a, 2015, agencies and stakeholders to continue crake’s probable low rate of dispersal in litt.). Nonnative predators such as cooperative monitoring and between islands on an ecological rats (Rattus spp.) and feral cats (Felis conservation efforts for this rare member timescale (Ripley 1977, pp. 17–18; Muse catus) have caused the extinction and of American Samoa’s avifauna. and Muse 1982, p. 83; Watling 2001, p. extirpation of numerous island bird Sprague’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) 113), the loss of this population would species and populations, especially of neither interrupt movement among ground-nesting species such as rails Previous Federal Actions adjacent populations in ecological time (Steadman 1995, pp. 1,123, 1,127; On October 10, 2008, we received a (which is unlikely to occur in any case), Medina et al. 2011, p. 6). These petition dated October 9, 2008, from nor interfere with the chance or waif predators are common and widespread WildEarth Guardians, requesting that dispersal events on an evolutionary on Tau, including on Tau summit we list the Sprague’s pipit as

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:17 Apr 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 19541

endangered or threatened under the Act northwestern Minnesota. In Canada, rate appear unlikely. In addition, with and designate critical habitat. We Sprague’s pipits breed in southeastern decreasing commodity prices and published a 90-day finding that the Alberta, the southern half of changes to crop insurance for petition presented substantial scientific Saskatchewan, and in southwest conversion of native grassland, we or commercial information indicating Manitoba. The Sprague’s pipit’s anticipate conversion rates will decrease that listing the Sprague’s pipit may be wintering range includes south-central in the future, rather than continue at the warranted in the Federal Register on and southeast Arizona, Texas, southern 10-year trend rate. Finally, as noted December 3, 2009 (74 FR 63337). On Oklahoma, southern Arkansas, above, the extent of exposure to threats May 19, 2010, the Service and northwest Mississippi, southern within the core appears to be less than WildEarth Guardians entered into a Louisiana, and northern Mexico. for exposure to threats outside the core settlement agreement. According to the In 2010, the Sprague’s pipit was listed area. For all these reasons, the overall agreement, the Service was to submit a as a candidate species. The major population trends are likely to be more 12-month finding to the Federal threats to the species identified at that stable in the future than over the last 10 Register on or before September 10, time were native prairie conversion of years. 2010. On September 15, 2010, we breeding grounds and energy We note that little is known about this published the 12-month petition finding development, primarily from oil and gas species’ distribution and habitat use on (75 FR 56028). We found that listing the and associated infrastructure. A recent the wintering grounds in Mexico, where Sprague’s pipit as endangered or model evaluating habitat use on the grassland conversion and woody threatened was warranted. However, breeding grounds allowed us to evaluate vegetation encroachment into grasslands listing the Sprague’s pipit was the threats facing the species more are occurring. However, the available precluded by higher-priority actions to specifically for this finding and focus on evidence suggests that the Sprague’s amend the Lists of Endangered and that part of the range where the pipit is more flexible in its habitat use Threatened Wildlife and Plants, and the Sprague’s pipit is concentrated on the wintering grounds in comparison Sprague’s pipit was added to our (hereafter the core area). Available to breeding rounds. For example, a candidate species list. We have since models indicate that most of the core study in the Chihuahuan Desert found addressed the status of the candidate area is unlikely to be converted because that the Sprague’s pipit is broadly taxon through our annual CNOR it is relatively low-value land for row- distributed and apparently mobile in (November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222), crop agriculture. The most likely future response to annual habitat conditions. October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), scenario predicts that only about 13 Additionally, in the United States, November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994), percent of the population will be experts report that Sprague’s pipits use November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), affected by future habitat conversion on a wide variety of native and nonnative December 5, 2014 (79 FR 72450), and the breeding grounds. In addition, the grassland types. response to oil and gas development December 24, 2015 (80 FR 80584)). As Finding a result of the Service’s 2011 appears to be more nuanced than we multidistrict litigation settlement, the previously thought, with less avoidance Based on our review of the best Service is required to submit a proposed behavior reported in Canada, where available scientific and commercial listing rule or a withdrawal of the 12- infrastructure is already in place, than information pertaining to the five month finding to the Federal Register had been expected. This suggests the factors, we find that the stressors acting by September 30, 2016 (In re: overall disturbance impacts from oil and on the species and its habitat, either Endangered Species Act Section 4 gas development are lower than we singly or in combination, are not of Deadline Litigation, No. 10—377 (EGS), anticipated in our 2010 finding. sufficient imminence, intensity, or MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, We evaluated the Sprague’s pipit magnitude to indicate that the Sprague’s 2011)). population trend both within and pipit is in danger of extinction (an outside of the core area in the breeding endangered species), or likely to become Summary of Status Review range, as well as for the population endangered within the foreseeable In making our 12-month finding on overall. Inside the breeding range core future (a threatened species), throughout the petition, we consider and evaluate area, population estimates from 2005– all of its range. Threats identified in the best available scientific and 2014 have a range of uncertainty that 2010 are now believed to have lower commercial information. This means numbers may have slightly impacts on the Sprague’s pipit than evaluation includes information from all increased or decreased, with a understood at that time; recent sources, including State, Federal, tribal, somewhat more likely possibility that downward population trends are academic, and private entities and the they decreased. Outside of the breeding unlikely to continue at the same rate, public. range core area, the analysis more and even if they do, they would not The Sprague’s pipit (Anthus clearly indicated a decline from 2005– indicate the species is likely to become spragueii) is a small passerine first 2014. As noted above, however, current an endangered species in the foreseeable described by John James Audubon that Sprague’s pipit populations are future; and while unknowns remain, breeds exclusively in the Northern Great concentrated within the core area of the especially regarding wintering grounds, Plains. Sprague’s pipits have an affinity breeding range, and therefore evaluation the species’ adaptability appears greater for grasslands throughout their range; of the overall population trends from than previously understood. Because however they can show flexibility in 2005–2014 suggests a more slight the distribution of the species is their use of habitat types in different population decline than the rates solely relatively stable across its range and portions of their range. outside the core area. stressors are similar throughout the The Sprague’s pipit breeding range is Because recent population declines species’ range, we found no throughout North Dakota, except for the appear to have been largely outside of concentration of stressors that suggests easternmost counties; northern and the breeding range core area, while the that the Sprague’s pipit may be in central Montana east of the Rocky current population is concentrated danger of extinction in any portion of its Mountains; northern portions of South within the core area where population range. Therefore, we find that listing the Dakota; north central and northeastern trends have been more stable, continued Sprague’s pipit as an endangered or a portions of Wyoming; and occasionally overall population decreases at the same threatened species is not warranted

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:17 Apr 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 19542 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules

throughout all or a significant portion of SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to designate status review to determine whether a its range at this time, and consequently the Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur species or stock of marine mammals we are removing this species from River Stock of beluga whales should be designated as depleted. On candidate status. (Delphinapterus leucas) as a depleted April 23, 2014, NMFS received a stock of marine mammals pursuant to New Information petition from the Animal Welfare the Marine Mammal Protection Act Institute, Whale and Dolphin We request that you submit any new (MMPA). This action is being taken as Conservation, Cetacean Society information concerning the status of, or a result of a status review conducted by International, and Earth Island Institute stressors to, the San Bernardino flying NMFS in response to a petition to (petitioners) to ‘‘designate the Sakhalin squirrel, the American Samoa designate a group of beluga whales in Bay-Amur River stock of beluga whales population of the spotless crake or the the western Sea of Okhotsk as depleted. as depleted under the MMPA.’’ NMFS Sprague’s pipit to the appropriate The biological evidence indicates that published a notice that the petition was person, as specified under FOR FURTHER the group is a population stock as available (79 FR 28879, May 20, 2014). INFORMATION CONTACT, whenever it defined by the MMPA, and the stock is After evaluating the petition, NMFS becomes available. New information depleted as defined by the MMPA. determined that the petition contained will help us monitor these species and DATES: Comments must be received by substantial information indicating that encourage their conservation. If an June 6, 2016. emergency situation develops for any of the petitioned action may be warranted ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (79 FR 44733, August 1, 2014). these species, we will act to provide on this proposed rule, identified by immediate protection. Following its determination that the NOAA–NMFS–2015–0154, by either of petitioned action may be warranted, References Cited the following methods: NMFS convened a status review team Electronic Submissions: Submit all and conducted a status review to Lists of the references cited in the electronic public comments via the petition findings are available on the evaluate whether the Sakhalin Bay- Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// Amur River group of beluga whales is a Internet at http://www.regulations.gov www.regulations.gov. population stock and, if so, whether that and upon request from the appropriate Mail: Send comments or requests for FOR FURTHER stock is depleted. This proposed rule is person, as specified under copies of reports to: Chief, Marine INFORMATION CONTACT. Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation based upon that status review. Authors Division, Office of Protected Resources, Section 3(1)(A) of the MMPA (16 National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 U.S.C. 1362(1)(A)) defines the term The primary authors of this document East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD ‘‘depletion’’ or ‘‘depleted’’ to include are the staff members of the Branch of 20910–3226. ‘‘any case in which. . . the Secretary, Listing, Ecological Services Program. Instructions: All comments received after consultation with the Marine Authority are a part of the public record and will Mammal Commission and the generally be posted to http:// The authority for this section is Committee of Scientific Advisors on www.regulations.gov without change. section 4 of the Endangered Species Act Marine Mammals . . .determines that a All Personal Identifying Information (for of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et species or a population stock is below example, name, address, etc.) seq.). its optimum sustainable population.’’ voluntarily submitted by the commenter NMFS’ authority to designate a stock as Dated: March 29, 2016. may be publicly accessible. Do not depleted is not limited to stocks that Stephen Guertin, submit Confidential Business occur in U.S. jurisdictional waters. Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Information or otherwise sensitive or Although the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River Service. protected information. group of beluga whales does not occur [FR Doc. 2016–07809 Filed 4–4–16; 8:45 am] NMFS will accept anonymous in U.S. jurisdictional waters, NMFS has BILLING CODE 4333–15–P comments (enter N/A in the required authority to designate the stock as fields, if you wish to remain depleted if it finds that the stock is anonymous). You may submit below its optimum sustainable DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE attachments to electronic comments in population. Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adobe PDF file formats only. Status Review Administration A list of references cited in this proposed rule and the status review A status review for the population 50 CFR Part 216 report are available at stock of beluga whales addressed in this proposed rule was conducted by a status [Docket No. 151113999–6206–01] www.regulations.gov (search for docket NOAA–NMFS–2015–0154) or http:// review team (Bettridge et al. 2016). The RIN 0648–BF55 www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/species/ status review compiled and analyzed mammals/whales/beluga-whale.html or information on the stock’s distribution, Designating the Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya upon request. abundance, threats, and historic take Bay-Amur River Stock of Beluga FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: from information contained in the Whales as a Depleted Stock Under the Shannon Bettridge, Office of Protected petition, our files, a comprehensive Marine Mammal Protection Act Resources, 301–427–8402, literature search, and consultation with experts. The draft status review report AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries [email protected]. Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: was submitted to independent peer reviewers, and comments and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Background Commerce. information received from peer Section 115(a) of the MMPA (16 reviewers were addressed and ACTION: Proposed rule; request for U.S.C. 1383b(a)) allows interested incorporated as appropriate before comments. parties to petition NMFS to initiate a finalizing the report.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:17 Apr 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS