Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 69425

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we References Cited Regulation Promulgation readily acknowledge our responsibility Accordingly, we amend part 17, to communicate meaningfully with A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the recognized Federal Tribes on a Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: government-to-government basis. In Internet at http://www.regulations.gov accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 and upon request from the Panama City PART 17—ENDANGERED AND of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR THREATENED WILDLIFE AND Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 Responsibilities, and the Endangered Authors Species Act), we readily acknowledge continues to read as follows: our responsibilities to work directly The primary authors of this final rule Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– with tribes in developing programs for are the staff members of the Panama 1544; 4201–4245; unless otherwise noted. healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that City Ecological Services Field Office. ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding an tribal lands are not subject to the same List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 entry for ‘‘Moccasinshell, Suwannee’’ to controls as Federal public lands, to the List of Endangered and Threatened remain sensitive to Indian culture, and Endangered and threatened species, Wildlife in alphabetical order under to make information available to tribes. Exports, Imports, Reporting and CLAMS to read as set forth below: The Suwannee moccasinshell is not recordkeeping requirements, § 17.11 Endangered and threatened known to occur within any tribal lands Transportation. wildlife. or waters. * * * * * (h) * * *

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and applicable rules

******* CLAMS

******* Moccasinshell, Suwan- Medionidus walkeri ...... Wherever found ...... T 81 FR [Insert Federal Register page where the nee. document begins]; October 6, 2016.

*******

Dated: September 26, 2016. ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition However, we ask the public to submit to Stephen Guertin, findings. us at any time any new information that Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife becomes available concerning the Service. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and stressors to any of the 10 species listed [FR Doc. 2016–24138 Filed 10–5–16; 8:45 am] Wildlife Service (Service), announce 12- above or their habitats. BILLING CODE 4333–15–P month findings on petitions to list 10 DATES: The findings announced in this species as endangered or threatened document were made on October 6, species under the Endangered Species 2016. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After a Fish and Wildlife Service review of the best available scientific ADDRESSES: Detailed descriptions of the and commercial information, we find basis for each of these findings are 50 CFR Part 17 that listing the Huachuca-Canelo available on the Internet at http:// population of the Arizona treefrog, the www.regulations.gov at the following [4500090022] darter, black mudalia, docket numbers: Highlands tiger beetle, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (=panicum) hirstii (Hirst Brothers’ panic and Plants; 12-Month Findings on grass), two cave beetles Petitions To List 10 Species as (Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave Endangered or Threatened Species beetle), relict leopard frog, sicklefin AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, redhorse sucker, and Stephan’s riffle Interior. beetle is not warranted at this time.

Species Docket No.

Arizona treefrog (Huachuca-Canelo population) ...... FWS–R2–ES–2016–0111. Arkansas darter ...... FWS–R6–ES–2016–0113. Black mudalia ...... FWS–R4–ES–2016–0112. Highlands tiger beetle ...... FWS–R4–ES–2016–0114. Dichanthelium (=panicum) hirstii (Hirst Brothers’ panic grass) ...... FWS–R5–ES–2016–0105. Kentucky cave beetles (Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave beetle) ...... FWS–R4–ES–2016–0115. Relict leopard frog ...... FWS–R8–ES–2016–0116. Sicklefin redhorse sucker ...... FWS–R4–ES–2016–0117. Stephan’s riffle beetle ...... FWS–R2 ES–2016–0118.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES 69426 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

Supporting information used to specified under FOR FURTHER under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION prepare 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

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

If you use a telecommunications device subsequent finding to be made within Huachuca-Canelo population of the for the deaf (TDD), please call the 12 months. We must publish these 12- Arizona treefrog, the Arkansas darter, Federal Information Relay Service month findings in the Federal Register. black mudalia, Highlands tiger beetle, (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. Dichanthelium (=panicum) hirstii, two Summary of Information Pertaining to Kentucky cave beetles (Louisville cave SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the Five Factors beetle and Tatum Cave beetle), relict Background Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) leopard frog, sicklefin redhorse sucker, Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 and the implementing regulations in and Stephan’s riffle beetle meet the U.S.C. 1533) requires that, within 12 part 424 of title 50 of the Code of definition of an endangered or months after receiving any petition to Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) threatened species. More detailed revise the Federal Lists of Endangered set forth procedures for adding species information about these species is and Threatened Wildlife and Plants that to, removing species from, or presented in the species-specific contains substantial scientific or reclassifying species on the Federal assessment forms found on http:// commercial information indicating that Lists of Endangered and Threatened www.regulations.gov under the listing an or species may Wildlife and Plants. The Act defines appropriate docket number (see be warranted, we make a finding (‘‘12- ‘‘endangered species’’ as any species ADDRESSES, above). month finding’’). In this finding, we that is in danger of In considering what stressors under determine whether listing the throughout all or a significant portion of the Act’s five factors might constitute Huachuca-Canelo population of the its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)), and threats, we must look beyond the mere Arizona treefrog, the Arkansas darter, ‘‘threatened species’’ as any species that exposure of the species to the factor to black mudalia, Highlands tiger beetle, is likely to become an endangered determine whether the species responds Dichanthelium (=panicum) hirstii (Hirst species within the foreseeable future to the factor in a way that causes actual Brothers’ panic grass), two Kentucky throughout all or a significant portion of impacts to the species. If there is cave beetles (Louisville cave beetle and its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Under exposure to a factor, but no response, or Tatum Cave beetle), relict leopard frog, section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may only a positive response, that factor is sicklefin redhorse sucker, and Stephan’s be determined to be an endangered or a not a threat. If there is exposure and the riffle beetle is: (1) Not warranted; (2) threatened species because of any of the species responds negatively, the factor warranted; or (3) warranted, but the following five factors: may be a threat. In that case, we immediate proposal of a regulation (A) The present or threatened determine if that stressor rises to the implementing the petitioned action is destruction, modification, or level of a threat, meaning that it may precluded by other pending proposals to curtailment of its habitat or range; drive or contribute to the risk of determine whether species are (B) Overutilization for commercial, extinction of the species such that the endangered or threatened species, and recreational, scientific, or educational species warrants listing as an expeditious progress is being made to purposes; endangered or threatened species as add or remove qualified species from (C) Disease or predation; those terms are defined by the Act. This the Federal Lists of Endangered and (D) The inadequacy of existing does not necessarily require empirical Threatened Wildlife and Plants regulatory mechanisms; or proof of a threat. The combination of (‘‘warranted but precluded’’). Section (E) Other natural or manmade factors exposure and some corroborating 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we affecting its continued existence. evidence of how the species is likely treat a petition for which the requested We summarize below the information affected could suffice. The mere action is found to be warranted but on which we based our evaluation of the identification of stressors that could precluded as though resubmitted on the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of affect a species negatively is not date of such finding, that is, requiring a the Act to determine whether the sufficient to compel a finding that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 69427

listing is appropriate; we require Mexico. In Arizona and New Mexico, Population Segments (DPS Policy) evidence that these stressors are the Arizona treefrog occurs along the published in the Federal Register on operative threats to the species and its Mogollon Rim (central Arizona and February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). The DPS habitat, either singly or in combination, western New Mexico), in the Huachuca Policy sets forth three elements for the to the point that the species meets the Mountains and Canelo Hills area (a Service to consider in determining definition of an endangered or a disjunct mountain range on the whether a vertebrate population is a threatened species under the Act. Arizona/Sonora, Mexico border), and DPS that warrants listing: Whether the In making our 12-month findings, we farther south in Mexico (in the Sierra population is discrete and whether the considered and evaluated the best Madre Occidental and sky island population is significant. If the available scientific and commercial mountain ranges). We refer to these population is determined to be both information regarding the past, present, three areas as the Mogollon Rim, discrete and significant, then the DPS and future stressors and threats. We Huachuca-Canelo, and Mexico Policy requires the Service to evaluate reviewed the petition, information populations. the conservation status of the available in our files, and other Within the Huachuca-Canelo population to determine whether the available published and unpublished population, historical information has population falls within the Act’s information. This evaluation may documented Arizona treefrogs from definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or include information from recognized three general localities at Rancho Los of a ‘‘threatened species.’’ experts; Federal, State, and tribal Fresnos, Sonora, Mexico, and from 13 to On the basis of the best available governments; academic institutions; 15 verified localities in the Huachuca scientific and commercial information, foreign governments; private entities, Mountains and Canelo Hills, Arizona. and in accordance with our DPS Policy, and other members of the public. The Huachuca-Canelo population of we conclude that the Huachuca-Canelo Arizona treefrog has continued to population of the Arizona treefrog is Arizona Treefrog, Huachuca-Canelo persist in Arizona sky island mountain discrete but it is not significant (i.e., it Population (Hyla wrightorum) range and Plains grassland habitats, and is not biologically or ecologically Previous Federal Actions the treefrog has recently been found in important) to the taxon as a whole. new locations within grasslands and Regarding discreteness, we have In our annual candidate notice of cie´negas (a swamp or marsh, especially reviewed the best available scientific review (CNOR) published on December one formed and fed by springs) in and commercial information and the 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034), we recognized Arizona. These new locations in varied evidence relative to potential the Huachuca-Canelo population of the habitats indicate that the Arizona differences in physical, behavioral, Arizona treefrog as a candidate for treefrogs may be less selective in morphological, and genetic attributes. listing as a distinct population segment choosing breeding habitat than We conclude that the Huachuca-Canelo (DPS). Subsequently, we published previously thought. In addition, the population of the Arizona treefrog is similar findings in our CNORs on species likely occurs in other wet discrete based on its geographical December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75176), canyons with suitable breeding habitat separation from the other two November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), in the Huachuca Mountains, and populations on the Mogollon Rim and November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222), perhaps in cie´negas in the vicinity of in Mexico. October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), Rancho Los Fresnos. Regarding significance, we considered November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994), The Huachuca-Canelo DPS of the the four classes of information listed in November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), Arizona treefrog was originally defined the DPS Policy as possible December 5, 2014 (79 FR 72450), and based on the historical locations. considerations in making a December 24, 2015 (80 FR 80584). In However, recently the Service has determination, as well as all other 2007, the Huachuca-Canelo population received information on Arizona information that might be relevant to of the Arizona treefrog was assigned a treefrog locations nearby, but outside of, making this determination for the listing priority number (LPN) of 3, the DPS area. This new information, Huachuca-Canelo population. The reflecting the taxonomic identity of the along with many new location Huachuca-Canelo population of the listable entity as a subspecies/ detections in the Huachuca Mountains Arizona treefrog does not appear to population with threats that we and Canelo Hills, indicates that the exhibit any direct or indirect habitat considered to be imminent and high in Arizona treefrog is not only more adaptation or behavioral advantage that magnitude. The LPN numbers range numerous, but is much more would indicate that their persistence in from 1 to 11, with 1 being the highest widespread than we knew when the the Huachuca Mountains and Canelo priority. Service made this Arizona treefrog a Hills area is biologically or ecologically important to the taxon as a whole. Background candidate species as a DPS. There are now approximately more than 30 Moreover, we considered the other three The Arizona treefrog (Hyla known localities in Arizona in the considerations that the DPS Policy sets wrightorum) is a small (4.6 centimeters Huachuca Mountains and Canelo Hills, out for evaluating significance, and (cm) (1.8 inches (in)) green frog with a and the Arizona treefrog also occurs in none of them provides evidence that the dark eyestripe that extends past the areas outside of the DPS boundary, but Huachuca-Canelo population is shoulder onto the side of the body, and within the vicinity of the Huachuca significant to the Arizona treefrog as a sometimes to the groin area. It occurs in Mountains and Canelo Hills. whole: (1) Loss of the Huachuca-Canelo Madrean oak woodland and savannah, population would not result in a pine-oak woodland, mixed conifer Summary of Status Review significant gap in the range; (2) the forest, and Plains grasslands at Based on new information and review Huachuca-Canelo population does not elevations of approximately 1,525 to of previously referenced studies, we represent the only surviving natural 2,590 meters (m) (5,000 to 8,500 feet find that the Huachuca-Canelo occurrence of the Arizona treefrog; and (ft)), and requires ponds for successful population of the Arizona treefrog does (3) the Huachuca-Canelo population’s reproduction. not meet the requirements of the genetic characteristics do not differ The Arizona treefrog is known to Service’s Policy Regarding the markedly from those of other Arizona occur within Arizona, New Mexico, and Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate treefrog populations.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES 69428 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

Finding changed the LPN from 5 to 11 (67 FR development, confined-animal feeding 40657; June 13, 2002). operations, dams and reservoirs, salt Based on our review of the best On May 11, 2004, the Service received cedar invasion, disease, and predation. available scientific and commercial a petition dated May 4, 2004, from the Although localized negative effects have information pertaining to the Act’s five Center for Biological Diversity and been observed, all of these stressors threat factors, we conclude that the others to list 225 species, including the (other than water depletion) occur at a Huachuca-Canelo population of the Arkansas darter. The Service published limited scale and scope, and the overall Arizona treefrog does not meet the a 12-month finding in the Federal impact at the population and species significance criterion of the DPS Policy, Register on May 11, 2005, with a level is minimal. as detailed above and, therefore, is not reaffirmed determination that listing Water depletion is the stressor with a valid DPS under our DPS Policy. As was warranted but precluded and that the largest potential impact to the a result, we find that the Huachuca- the taxon had an LPN of 11 (70 FR Arkansas darter’s viability, affecting Canelo population of the Arizona 24870). We have continued to evaluate approximately 25 percent of the treefrog is not a listable entity under the status of the candidate taxon geographic range, resulting mainly from section 3(16) of the Act. Therefore, we through our annual CNOR and groundwater withdrawals for find that listing the Huachuca-Canelo maintained the LPN of 11 for this agriculture. Seasonal low flows and population of Arizona treefrog as an species (see September 12, 2006 (71 FR intermittency of streams are common endangered or a threatened species is 53756), December 6, 2007 (72 FR within the Great Plains portion of its not warranted throughout all or a 69034), December 10, 2008 (73 FR range, and it appears the species is significant portion of its range at this 75176), November 9, 2009 (74 FR adapted to this phenomenon. However, time, and consequently, we are 57804), November 10, 2010 (75 FR the continued existence of the species in removing it from candidate status. 69222), October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), these areas is dependent on localized As a result of the Service’s 2011 November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994), areas of refugia. Typically refugia exist multidistrict litigation settlement with November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), where groundwater flows come to the the Center for Biological Diversity and December 5, 2014 (79 FR 72450), and surface and create permanent pools or WildEarth Guardians, the Service is December 24, 2015 (80 FR 80584)). small wetland areas along the stream required to submit a proposed listing course. When seasonal precipitation Background rule or a not-warranted 12-month occurs and the streams become flowing finding to the Federal Register by The Arkansas darter ( systems, typically in the spring, the September 30, 2016 (In re: Endangered cragini) is a small fish in the stream then provides habitat for Species Act Section 4 Deadline family native to the Arkansas River spawning, rearing, and dispersal of Litigation, No. 10–377 (EGS), MDL basin. The species occurs most often in young and adult individuals throughout Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)), sand- or pebble-bottomed pools of the watershed. Climate change for all 251 species that were included as small, spring-fed streams and marshes, projections forecast minimal change in candidate species in the Service’s with cool water, and broad-leaved average annual precipitation in the November 10, 2010, CNOR. This aquatic vegetation. Arkansas darters Arkansas River basin and do not document satisfies the requirements of prefer flowing, spring-fed streams and forecast reduced or diminished that settlement agreement for the pools in contact with groundwater streamflow as a result of future changes Huachuca-Canelo population of the sources. However, the species is very in precipitation patterns. Therefore, we Arizona treefrog. A detailed discussion tolerant to periods of very poor water do not expect to see climate-change- of the basis for this finding can be found quality, including high water driven decreased trends in precipitation in the species-specific assessment form temperatures, low dissolved oxygen, and related stream flows. for the Huachuca-Canelo population of high turbidity, and hyper- Water depletion results in decreased the Arizona treefrog and other eutrophication. resiliency of populations affected in the supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, The Arkansas darter’s range includes portions of the range in southwestern above). eastern , southwest and central Kansas, northwestern , and Kansas, northwest and northeast parts of Colorado, approximately 25 Arkansas Darter (Etheostoma Oklahoma, southwest , and percent of the range. However, the cragini) northwest Arkansas. Recent surveys species has endured over 40 years of Previous Federal Actions have expanded our knowledge of groundwater withdrawals in these areas, occupied Arkansas darter populations. indicating continued resiliency of these The Arkansas darter was first We currently consider to be extant a populations. The large number of identified as a candidate for listing total of 80 populations within 15 populations (80) spread across the under the Act in 1989 (54 FR 554; metapopulations rangewide. This is multi-State range provides the Arkansas January 6, 1989), as a Category 2 more than we knew of for previous darter species with a high level of candidate species. Category 2 candidate assessments of this species. redundancy should a catastrophic event species were identified as those taxa for occur somewhere within its occupied which the Service possessed Summary of Status Review range. Multiple populations and information indicating proposing to list In completing our status review for metapopulations currently occupying the taxa was possibly appropriate, but the Arkansas darter, we reviewed the the unique ecological settings of the for which conclusive data on biological best available scientific and commercial three unique physiogeographic areas, vulnerability and threats sufficient to information and compiled this the same physiogeographic areas that support a proposed listing rule was information in the Species Status this species was known to occupy lacking. On February 28, 1996, the Assessment Report (SSA Report) for the historically, allow the species to CNOR (61 FR 7596) discontinued Arkansas darter. In previous candidate maintain adaptive potential and the recognition of Categories 1–3. Because assessments and findings for this underlying genetic makeup to adapt to listing the Arkansas darter was species, the identified threats we changing environmental conditions. warranted but precluded, we assigned considered were water depletion, water Over the next 30 years, under our the species an LPN of 5. In 2002, we quality degradation, urbanization and expected scenario, we are likely to see

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 69429

a continuation of similar levels of an endangered or a threatened species were at the time moderate in magnitude impact from the stressors affecting this and that the best available scientific and and changed the LPN to 8 (72 FR species as we have in the past. We commercial information indicates this 69034). We retained the LPN of 8 in all believe a continued rate of groundwater species is no longer in danger of subsequent CNORs (see December 10, usage and continued rates of impact extinction (endangered) or likely to 2008 (73 FR 75176), November 9, 2009 from other stressors over the next 30 become endangered within the (74 FR 57804), November 10, 2010 (75 years would not likely result in foreseeable future (threatened) FR 69222), October 26, 2011 (76 FR significant effects to the occupied range throughout all or a significant portion of 66370), November 21, 2012 (77 FR of the Arkansas darter. Although we its range. 69994), November 22, 2013 (78 FR expect little change on a rangewide Arkansas darter populations appear to 70104), December 5, 2014 (79 FR basis, we could see some range be resilient to threats identified in 72450), and December 24, 2015 (80 FR contraction in the western Cimarron and previous status assessments; these 80584)). upper Rattlesnake Creek basin in Kansas threats are now believed to have fewer On April 20, 2010, we received a and Oklahoma due to water depletion, impacts on the Arkansas darter than petition from the Center for Biological as well as small portions of the Colorado previously understood; the species is Diversity requesting that the Service list range. Additionally, we could see range expected to maintain a high level of 404 species, including black mudalia, as contraction in the eastern portion of the redundancy and representation into the endangered or threatened. No new range (Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and future; we know of more currently- information regarding black mudalia Oklahoma) due to development effects. occupied populations then we have in was presented in the petition, and on However, we do not expect to see a previous assessments; and while September 27, 2011, we published a 90- reduction in redundancy of the species groundwater withdrawals affecting day finding (76 FR 59836). overall (e.g., no the loss of entire water depletion are expected to Background populations). continue in approximately 25 percent of The species formerly described as the Finding the range, we do not expect to see a reduction in redundancy of the species black mudalia is a small species of Based on our review of the best overall (e.g., no loss of Arkansas darter aquatic snail growing to 13 millimeters available scientific and commercial populations). Therefore, we find that (mm) (0.5 inches (in)) in length and information pertaining to the Act’s five listing the Arkansas darter as an belongs to the aquatic snail family of threat factors, we find that the stressors endangered or threatened species is not . The species formerly described as the black mudalia was acting on the species and its habitat, warranted at this time, and found clinging to clean gravel, cobble, either singly or in combination, are not consequently we are removing it from boulders, and/or logs in flowing water of sufficient imminence, intensity, or candidate status. magnitude to indicate that the Arkansas As a result of the Service’s 2011 on shoals and riffles within five streams darter is currently in danger of multidistrict litigation settlement with in the Locust Fork drainage in Jefferson extinction (an endangered species), or the Center for Biological Diversity and and Blount Counties, Alabama. likely to become endangered within the WildEarth Guardians, the Service is Summary of Status Review foreseeable future (a threatened species). required to submit a proposed listing The following summary is based on In conclusion, we find that this species rule or a not-warranted 12-month no longer warrants listing throughout its our review of the best available finding to the Federal Register by scientific and commercial information. range. September 30, 2016 (In re: Endangered We evaluated the current range of the No new information was provided in Species Act Section 4 Deadline Arkansas darter to determine if there is the petition we received on April 20, Litigation, No. 10–377 (EGS), MDL any apparent geographic concentration 2010. The species was described from Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)), of potential threats for the species. ‘‘rivers in North Alabama’’ by T.A. for all 251 species that were included as Groundwater withdrawals are currently Conrad as Anculosotus melanoides, but candidate species in the Service’s impacting portions of the upper, central, he failed to provide a specific type of and lower Arkansas River basins in November 10, 2010, CNOR. This locality. For the second half of the 20th Kansas, Oklahoma, and Colorado, an document satisfies the requirements of century, the black mudalia was area representing approximately 25 that settlement agreement for the considered to be extinct. However, in percent of geographic range of the Arkansas darter, and constitutes the 2003, Dr. Russell Minton published a Arkansas darter. Additional stressors Service’s 12-month finding on the May paper on the apparent rediscovery of the outside of this area are generally low 4, 2004, petition to list the Arkansas species, with a re-description of what he level, localized impacts not affecting darter as an endangered or threatened believed was Conrad’s black mudalia. entire populations. The 25 percent of species. A detailed discussion of the He designated an individual from the the range affected by groundwater basis for this finding can be found in the upper Black Warrior Basin as the withdrawal does not meet the Arkansas darter’s species-specific neotype—a biological specimen that is biologically based definition of assessment form, SSA Report, and other selected as the type specimen when the ‘‘significant’’ (i.e., the loss of that supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, holotype (a single specimen chosen for portion clearly would not be expected to above). designation of a new species), lectotype increase the vulnerability to extinction Black Mudalia ( melanoides) (a specimen chosen from syntypes to of the entire species). If that 25 percent designate types of species), or any of the range were lost, the species would Previous Federal Actions syntypes (any one specimen of a series still have approximately 75 percent of The Service first identified black used to designate a species when the its geographic range in areas that are not mudalia as a candidate for listing in the holotype has not been selected) have expected to be subject to the negative September 12, 2006, CNOR and been lost or destroyed—and restricted effects of water depletion. Therefore, we assigned an LPN of 2 based on the type locality to one site on the Little determined that there are no significant imminent, high-magnitude threats (71 Warrior River in Blount County, portions of the species’ range where the FR 53756). In the December 6, 2007, Alabama; however, the neotype is Arkansas darter meets the definition of CNOR, we concluded that the threats currently unavailable for study.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES 69430 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

Recently, the Service’s Alabama November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804), when High-quality habitat for the species is Ecological Services Field Office learned we assigned the species an LPN of 2. In primarily scrub or sandhill having that a specimen at the Museum of the October 30, 2001, CNOR (66 FR natural or management-created interior Comparative Zoology in Boston, 54808), we changed the LPN for the patches with a high percent of open Massachusetts, identified by T.A. Highlands tiger beetle from 2 to 5, sand (greater than 50 percent) that is Conrad as A. melanoides is not the same because the immediacy of threats to the continuous or connected to adjacent species that was described by Minton et species’ scrub habitat had decreased open patches by lightly disturbed trails al. (2003). Therefore, we cannot with with the acquisition of scrub habitat by or paths. The known extant range of the any certainty determine the status of the State of Florida and conservation Highlands tiger beetle exists in the core either the entity that Conrad (1834) first groups. On May 11, 2004, the Service of the suitable (scrub) habitat in the described as A. melanoides, or the received a petition dated May 4, 2004, central and south-central portion of the entity that Minton et al. (2003) re- from the Center for Biological Diversity Lake Wales Ridge, approximately 90 km described as E. melanoides. Additional and others to list 225 species as (56 mi) in length and about 10 km (6 mi) taxonomic review, led by the endangered or threatened, including the in width). Smithsonian Institution, is underway as Highlands tiger beetle. The species was Summary of Status Review of early 2016. The results of this review maintained as a candidate with an LPN will require additional efforts to define of 5 through the 2015 CNOR (see June The following summary is based on Elimia spp. boundaries, status, and 13, 2002 (67 FR 40657); May 4, 2004 (69 information contained in our files. The distribution within the Black Warrior FR 24876); May 11, 2005 (70 FR 24870); Highlands tiger beetle is narrowly River Basin. September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53756), distributed and restricted to areas of December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034), Finding bare sand within scrub and sandhill on December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75176), ancient sand dunes of the Lake Wales The Act only allows listing of November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), Ridge in Polk and Highlands Counties, ‘‘species’’ as defined under Section November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222), Florida. Adult tiger beetles have been 3(16)—that is, recognized species, October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), found in 56 of the total 71 sites subspecies, or distinct population November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994), surveyed at the core of the Lake Wales November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), segments of vertebrates. Based on our Ridge. In 2004–2005 surveys, a total of December 5, 2014 (79 FR 72450), and review of the best available scientific 1,574 adults were found at four sites. A December 24, 2015 (80 FR 80584)). and commercial information, and in total of 643 adults at 31 sites were found light of the best available scientific Background in 1996, 928 adults at 31 sites in 1995, information regarding taxonomic and 742 adults at 21 sites in 1993. A uncertainty described above, we The Highlands tiger beetle is elongate with an oval shape and bulging eyes, visual reference count of 2,231 adults conclude that the black mudalia is not was found from 46 sites in 2014. This currently a recognized ‘‘species.’’ We and is one of the smallest (7.0–9.5 mm) (0.28–0.37 in) tiger beetles in the United increase in index counts over time can are therefore removing the black be attributed to new survey sites and mudalia from candidate status pending States. As is typical of other tiger beetles, adult Highlands tiger beetles are finding a large number of beetles at further study. these sites. Estimates from the visual As a result of the Service’s 2011 active diurnal predators that use their keen vision to detect movement of small reference (index) counts are used to multidistrict litigation settlement with provide an estimate of the populations. the Center for Biological Diversity and arthropods and run quickly to capture prey with their well-developed Results from a limited removal study WildEarth Guardians, the Service is suggest that the actual population size at required to submit a proposed listing mandibles (jaws). Tiger beetle larvae have an elongate white grub-like body some survey sites can be as much as two rule or a not-warranted 12-month to three times as high as the visual finding to the Federal Register by and a dark or metallic head with large mandibles. Larvae are sedentary sit-and- reference. In addition, surveys for September 30, 2016 (In re: Endangered Highland tiger beetles were not Species Act Section 4 Deadline wait predators occurring in permanent burrows flush with the ground surface. exhaustive, and there are additional Litigation, No. 10–377 (EGS), MDL When feeding, larvae position potential suitable habitats. An estimate Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)), themselves at the burrow mouth and of beetle numbers likely present in these for all 251 species that were included as quickly strike at and seize small additional potential habitats added to candidate species in the Service’s arthropods that pass within a few the modified index count produces an November 10, 2010, CNOR. This centimeters of the burrow mouth. estimated minimum total abundance of document satisfies the requirements of Larvae prey on small arthropods, similar 10,438 adults in at least 16 populations. that settlement agreement for the black to adults. Based on these expanded surveys and mudalia, and constitutes the Service’s The Highlands tiger beetle occurs the findings of additional large beetle 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, primarily in open sandy patches of populations at these sites, it is petition to list the black mudalia as an Florida scrub habitat on the Lake Wales determined that the Highland tiger endangered or threatened species. A Ridge in Highlands and Polk Counties. beetle is more abundant than previously detailed discussion of the basis for this The Lake Wales Ridge is one of the documented, and its habitat is of much finding can be found in the black largest and oldest Florida scrub better quality than previously mudalia’s species-specific assessment ecosystems. The harsh environment on documented. Of the 15 sites with the form and other supporting documents the Lake Wales Ridge is characterized largest populations, 7 sites show an (see ADDRESSES, above). by hot weather, nutrient-poor sandy increase in number of individuals. The Highlands Tiger Beetle (Cicindela soils, and (historically) frequent number of occupied sites identified as highlandensis) wildfires. The Highlands tiger beetle is high or good quality also increased from often associated with evergreen scrub 13 in 2005, to 21 in 2014, and of the Previous Federal Actions oaks, as well as high pineland with currently known sites nearly half of The Highlands tiger beetle was first deciduous turkey oak (Quercus laevis) them (21 of 46) are of high or good recognized as a candidate species on and longleaf pine (Pinus palustris). quality.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 69431

We evaluated all known potential sites across its range than previously extinction (endangered) or likely to impacts to the Highlands tiger beetle, documented; (2) the populations occur become endangered within the including the Act’s five threat factors. primarily on protected conservation foreseeable future (threatened) While these impacts were previously lands; (3) more than half of the potential throughout all of its range or any believed to pose imminent or significant suitable habitat for the species consists portion of its range. Therefore, we find threats to the species, and some may of protected lands under conservation that listing the Highlands tiger beetle as have caused losses to individuals or management, with new conservation an endangered or a threatened species is habitat, the updated information we lands and conservation banks acquired not warranted throughout all or a received regarding species’ occurrence in 2014; (4) the species occurs in 16 significant portion of its range at this and population size has improved our populations across 225,920 acres time, and consequently we are removing understanding on how the stressors (91,426 hectares) or 353 square miles this species from candidate status. affect the status of species. In our (920 square kilometers), and existing As a result of the Service’s 2011 current candidate assessment, we unsurveyed suitable habitat occurs in multidistrict litigation settlement with evaluated the best available scientific the species’ range; (5) new survey the Center for Biological Diversity and and commercial information, and information has identified an increased WildEarth Guardians, the Service is concluded that the species is resilient to number of sites graded as ‘‘high’’ and required to submit a proposed listing these stressors and that current impacts ‘‘good’’ quality habitat for the Highlands rule or a not-warranted 12-month to the species are not as strong as tiger beetle; (6) the analysis reveals finding to the Federal Register by previously believed. Approximately annual prescribed burning schedules are September 30, 2016 (In re: Endangered 43.4 percent of the existing potential being implemented across the range of Species Act Section 4 Deadline suitable habitat for the species is the Highlands tiger beetle on Litigation, No. 10–377 (EGS), MDL protected conservation lands. While government and private conservation Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)), fragmentation of the Lake Wales Ridge lands; and (7) the stressors identified in for all 251 species that were included as scrub and sandhill habitats exists, 63 the 2015 candidate assessment, candidate species in the Service’s percent of the Highlands tiger beetle including collections, occur at the November 10, 2010, CNOR. This populations occur on these protected individual level but are not rising to the document satisfies the requirements of conservation lands, including three of level of population or species impacts. that settlement agreement for the the largest known populations. These Overall, current information from Highlands tiger beetle, and constitutes lands are managed for the scrub habitat additional surveys indicates an increase the Service’s 12-month finding on the and species, including the Highlands in occupied sites with a large increase May 11, 2004, petition to list the tiger beetle, through government and in the number of beetles. Most threats Highlands tiger beetle as an endangered private partnership prescribed burn are being addressed through the or threatened species. A detailed programs, invasive species control, best presence of large populations of the discussion of the basis for this finding management practices, and enforcement species occurring on protected lands can be found in the Highland tiger and protection of the resources. and through the management actions beetle’s species-specific assessment Fragmentation of the habitat was that occur on these lands. Any actual form and other supporting documents identified as a stressor compromising impact from threats occurs at the (see ADDRESSES, above). the dispersal capabilities of Highlands individual, not population or species, level, and no impact, individually or Dichanthelium (=panicum) hirstii tiger beetle populations. However, the cumulatively, rises to the level that it (Hirst Brothers’ Panic Grass) new information on the number and contributes to making the species meet distribution of occupied sites and Previous Federal Actions the definition of ‘‘threatened species’’ or population size indicates that the threat ‘‘endangered species.’’ In 1975, Panicum hirstii (i.e., to the dispersal capabilities of the Dichanthelium hirstii’s former scientific species is not as high as previously Finding name; see Summary of Status Review, reported. New sites have been identified Based on our review of the best below) was 1 of more than 3,000 in four populations across the north to available scientific and commercial vascular plants included in a south range of the species, and the Lake information pertaining to the Act’s five Smithsonian Institution report entitled Wales Ridge as a whole has areas of threat factors, we find that the current ‘‘Report on Endangered and Threatened open lands, remnant scrub and sandhill, stressors acting on the species and its Plants of the United States’’ (Report) and patchworks of scrub roadside habitat are not of sufficient imminence, that the Service subsequently treated as habitat that can act as corridors or intensity, or magnitude to make the a petition under the Act (40 FR 27824; ‘‘stepping stones’’ for Highlands tiger Highlands tiger beetle warrant listing July 1, 1975). The Federal Register beetle movement and flight, making throughout the species’ range at this notice indicated that P. hirstii and the active migration to new sites or the time. Because the distribution of the other plants were under consideration exchange of individuals between sites species is relatively stable across its for listing, and the notes of endangered feasible for this species. In addition, range and stressors are similar or threatened after each species’ name storm winds, water flow, rafting throughout the species’ range, we found solely represented the views of the transport, and are possible no concentration of stressors that authors of the Report. The Report means of stochastic dispersal of suggests that the Highlands tiger beetle indicated that P. hirstii occurred in individual beetles. may be in danger of extinction or likely and placed it in the endangered As a result of the new information to become so in any portion of its range. category. The Service did not publish and analysis, we no longer consider the With the documentation of 16 newly another species notice of review until threats originally identified in our identified occupied sites, the 1980. previous 12-month finding for the identification of improved habitat In 1980, Panicum hirstii was Highlands tiger beetle to be current or quality, and the existing estimated adult considered a Category 2 candidate foreseeable threats for the following beetle count of over 10,000 individuals species (45 FR 82480; December 15, reasons: (1) The species is larger in in 56 sites, we find that Highlands tiger 1980). Category 2 candidate species individual numbers and occurs in more beetle is no longer in danger of were identified as those taxa for which

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES 69432 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

the Service possessed information was elevated from 5 to 2, indicating a species. While the 2015 published and indicating proposing to list the taxa was species with a high magnitude of draft documents of McAvoy et al. and possibly appropriate, but for which imminent threats (80 FR 80584, Weakley, respectively, and the ITIS conclusive data on biological December 24, 2015). database information are more recent vulnerability and threats sufficient to than the 2003 FNA’s published Background support a proposed listing rule was treatment, those documents and lacking. Panicum hirstii remained a Dichanthelium hirstii, as referenced database do not individually or Category 2 candidate species in the in some literature, is a perennial, collectively represent a more subsequent plant notices of review in wetland-obligate grass that is currently comprehensive systematic analysis of 1983, 1985, 1990, and 1993 (48 FR estimated to occur in eight locations the plant’s taxonomic status because 53640, November 28, 1983; 50 FR distributed across four States: New they are not full taxonomic treatments 39526, September 27, 1985; 55 FR 6184, Jersey (Barkwoods Pond, Labounsky of Panicum and Dichanthelium. February 21, 1990; 58 FR 51144, Pond, and Berlin Avenue Bogs North in Therefore, the Service considers the September 30, 1993). The Service did Atlantic County, and Hampton Furnace FNA’s 2003 treatment of Panicum and not publish any other notices of review Pond in Burlington County); Dichanthelium as representing the best for plants during this time period. (Assawoman Pond in Sussex County); available scientific and commercial The Service revised candidate North Carolina (Starretts Meadow and information regarding the plant’s categories in 1996, and Panicum hirstii Lyman Road in Onslow County); and taxonomic status. The FNA’s treatment was not included as a candidate species Georgia (Leslie Pond in Sumter County). indicates that neither P. hirstii nor D. under the updated categorization (61 FR A ninth location, in Calhoun County, hirstii is considered a species, 7596; February 28, 1996). The revised Georgia, is considered historical. subspecies, or variety. Therefore, the categories further defined a candidate Summary of Status Review best available scientific and commercial species as a species for which we have information indicates that P. hirstii/D. on file sufficient information on The plant that the Service has been referring to as either P. hirstii or D. hirstii does not meet the Act’s definition biological vulnerability and threats to of a species. support preparation of a listing hirstii has always had a complex proposal, but for which development of taxonomic history, and has undergone Finding a listing regulation is precluded by other several changes to its scientific name as understanding about its distribution and Based on the best available scientific higher-priority listing activities. and commercial information, we find In 1999, the Service included morphology has evolved. The Flora of that Dichanthelium hirstii does not meet Panicum hirstii as a new candidate North America (FNA) is one source of the Act’s definition of ‘‘species’’ and is, species, using the updated definition, information available to the Service and therefore, not a listable entity under the through its own internal assessment is considered the taxonomic authority Act. Dichanthelium hirstii was process (i.e., not via a petition), and for plants in North America because it subsumed into D. dichotomum ssp. assigned it an LPN of 5, meaning it was is a comprehensive, systematic roanokense (Ashe), which ‘‘grows on a species with a high magnitude of taxonomic account of the plants of the coastal plain from Delaware to nonimminent threats (64 FR 57534, North America. While several authors October 25, 1999). Panicum hirstii was have published regional flora and southeastern Texas and in the West included in the subsequent annual descriptions that recognize Panicum Indies.’’ As a result, we are removing CNORs with an LPN of 5 in 2001, 2002, hirstii/Dichanthelium hirstii as a Dichanthelium hirstii from the and 2004 (66 FR 54808, October 30, separate entity, few have published candidate list. 2001; 67 FR 40657, June 13, 2002; 69 FR taxonomic treatments. The last As a result of the Service’s 2011 24876, May 4, 2004). The Service did taxonomic treatment was the 2003 FNA, multidistrict litigation settlement with not publish a CNOR in 2003. which is a complete taxonomic the Center for Biological Diversity and On May 11, 2004, we received a treatment of the Dichanthelium genus WildEarth Guardians, the Service is petition dated May 4, 2004, from the and the species therein, that explicitly required to submit a proposed listing Center for Biological Diversity and other relegates P. hirstii/D. hirstii to a rule or a not-warranted 12-month groups and individuals requesting that synonym of D. dichotomum ssp. finding to the Federal Register by the Service list Panicum hirstii and 225 roanokense (Ashe). This indicates that September 30, 2016 (In re: Endangered other candidate species as endangered the plant the Service had considered a Species Act Section 4 Deadline species or threatened species under the candidate species is not a valid taxon Litigation, No. 10–377 (EGS), MDL Act. In 2005, the Service again made a and is a component of a larger, more Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)), warranted-but-precluded finding for the widespread species that appears to grow for all 251 species that were included as plant, with an LPN of 5, but noted a on the coastal plain from Delaware to candidate species in the Service’s change in its scientific name to southeastern Texas and in the West November 10, 2010, CNOR. This Dichanthelium hirstii (70 FR 24870, Indies. Although the Integrated document satisfies the requirements of May 11, 2005). In 2006 through 2014, D. Taxonomic Information System (ITIS; that settlement agreement for the Hirst hirstii remained a candidate with an http://www.itis.gov/) reports that Brothers’ panic grass, and constitutes LPN of 5 (see September 12, 2006 (71 FR Dichanthelium hirstii is an accepted the Service’s 12-month finding on the 53756), December 6, 2007 (72 FR species and the Service often relies on May 4, 2004, petition to list the Hirst 69034), December 10, 2008 (73 FR ITIS as a reliable database source of Brothers’ panic grass as an endangered 75176), November 9, 2009 (74 FR taxonomic information, in this instance or threatened species. A detailed 57804), November 10, 2010 (75 FR ITIS is incorrect. Given this closer discussion of the basis for this finding, 69222), October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), review of the taxonomic history of P. including a complete review of the November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994), hirstii/D. hirstii, the Service recognizes taxonomic history, can be found in the November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), and that we overlooked the significance of Hirst Brothers’ panic grass’s species- December 5, 2014 (79 FR 72450)). In the synonymy information, and in specific assessment form and other 2015, D. hirstii was included as a retrospect should not have included P. supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, candidate in the CNOR, but the LPN hirstii or D. hirstii as a candidate above).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 69433

Two Kentucky Cave Beetles (Louisville habitats. The Louisville cave beetle is reduced energy inputs, sedimentation, Cave Beetle (Pseudanophthalmus restricted to four caves in Jefferson pollution, and human visitation. troglodytes) and Tatum Cave Beetle County, Kentucky, while the Tatum However, we have no evidence that (Pseudanophthalmus parvus) Cave beetle is known from one cave these stressors are operative threats that (Tatum Cave) in Marion County, are adversely affecting P. troglodytes at Previous Federal Actions Kentucky. a population level. The Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave beetle were added to the Federal Summary of Status Review Tatum Cave Beetle list of candidate species in the When the Louisville cave beetle and With respect to the Tatum Cave November 15, 1994, CNOR (59 FR Tatum Cave beetle were identified as beetle, we have no evidence suggesting 58982) as Category 2 species. Category candidates for protection under the Act that the species is still extant in Tatum 2 candidate species were identified as in the October 30, 2001, CNOR (66 FR Cave. The species was relatively those taxa for which the Service 54808), the Service considered both abundant (20 individuals) in Tatum possessed information indicating species to be vulnerable to toxic Cave when first observed by C. H. proposing to list the taxa was possibly chemical spills, discharges of large Krekeler in 1957, but the species appropriate, but for which conclusive amounts of polluted water, closure or appeared to be less common in 1965, data on biological vulnerability and alterations of cave entrances, and the when T. C. Barr observed only two threats sufficient to support a proposed disruption of cave energy processes by individuals. Since 1965, extensive listing rule was lacking. The February highway construction and industrial, surveys of Tatum Cave have been 28, 1996, CNOR (61 FR 7596) residential, and commercial completed on eight separate occasions, discontinued recognition of categories, development. Our general perception using search techniques similar to those so both species were no longer was that both species were vulnerable to used by C. H. Krekeler and T. C. Barr considered candidate species and were these habitat stressors, and we (i.e., methodical visual searches of all therefore removed from the candidate suspected that these stressors were available habitats). Three of these list. significant and the species’ overall survey efforts also involved the use of In the October 30, 2001, CNOR, the population trends were likely baited pitfall traps (small cups buried in Service re-evaluated both cave beetle decreasing. We also noted the lack of the substrate and baited with limburger species, and placed them back on the State or Federal regulations to cheese) placed in several locations candidate list through the Service’s own ameliorate those threats. In the May 11, within Tatum Cave for a period of one internal process with an LPN of 5 (66 FR 2005, CNOR (70 FR 24870), we noted week. Despite all of these searches, no 54808). The Service received a petition both species’ limited distribution and Tatum Cave beetles have been observed from the Center for Biological Diversity how that would increase their in Tatum Cave since the last observation and others, dated May 11, 2004, to list vulnerability to isolated events that by Barr in 1965 (a period of 51 years). eight cave beetles, including the would have only a minimal effect on Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave more wide-ranging members of the The Tatum Cave beetle is small in size beetle, as endangered or threatened genus Pseudanophthalmus. Both and may be more difficult to locate than species. In the May 11, 2005, CNOR (70 species were assigned an LPN of 5. some cave organisms; however, both FR 24870), the Service determined that Krekeler and Barr were able to find the Louisville Cave Beetle listing the Louisville cave beetle and species using methodical, visual Tatum Cave beetle was warranted but Over the last 2 years, field surveys for searches of suitable habitats in Tatum precluded by higher priority listing the Louisville cave beetle have provided Cave. Subsequent researchers have used decisions. Further, we have included new information on the species’ identical search methods on eight both species addressed in this finding in distribution and stressors. Based on this separate occasions in the exact same every CNOR since 2001 (see October 30, new information, we have re-examined habitats within Tatum Cave, but no 2001 (66 FR 54808); June 13, 2002 (67 the species’ status and re-evaluated the Tatum Cave beetles have been observed. FR 40657); May 4, 2004 (69 FR 24876); magnitude and imminence of its threats. Therefore, based on our review of the May 11, 2005 (70 FR 24870); September Lewis and Lewis confirmed the best available scientific and commercial 12, 2006 (71 FR 53756), December 6, continued presence of P. troglodytes in information, the Service believes the 2007 (72 FR 69034), December 10, 2008 Eleven Jones Cave (a period of 20 years) Tatum Cave beetle to be extinct. We (73 FR 75176), November 9, 2009 (74 FR and observed the species in three new acknowledge that it is difficult, if not 57804), November 10, 2010 (75 FR caves (Sauerkraut Cave, Cave Hill Cave, impossible, to verify a species’ 69222), October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), and Cave Creek Cave), demonstrating extinction. There is considerable November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994), that the species is more abundant and uncertainty about the actual status of November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), widespread than previously believed. the species, and we acknowledge that, December 5, 2014 (79 FR 72450), and The species was difficult to find in each as suggested by Lewis and Lewis, there December 24, 2015 (80 FR 80584)). of these caves (one to four individuals is some chance that the species remains observed), but this is not unusual for the extant but occurs in low numbers and Background genus Pseudanophthalmus, which is is simply undetectable using traditional These two species are small (about 4 often difficult to find and is frequently search methods. However, considering mm (0.16 in) in length), predatory cave observed in low numbers. Population the best available scientific and beetles that occupy moist habitats estimates or discernable trends for these commercial information, we believe that containing organic matter transported populations have not been possible due it is reasonable to conclude that the from sources outside the cave to the low number of individuals species is extinct. The Service environment. Members of the observed and the difficulty in finding encourages continued surveys for the Pseudanophthalmus genus vary in specimens during repeat visits. We Tatum Cave beetle in Tatum Cave, as rarity from fairly widespread species acknowledge that caves within the time and funding allow. If the species is that are found in many caves to species species’ range likely continue to be subsequently found to be extant, we can that are extremely rare and commonly affected by many of the same stressors reevaluate its legal status under the Act restricted to one or only a few cave identified by previous investigators: in the future.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES 69434 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

Finding Species Act Section 4 Deadline LPN of 8 for the species through the Litigation, No. 10–377 (EGS), MDL 2015 CNOR (see November 21, 2012 (77 Louisville Cave Beetle Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)), FR 69994), November 22, 2013 (78 FR Based our review of the best available for all 251 species that were included as 70104), December 5, 2014 (79 FR scientific and commercial information candidate species in the Service’s 72450), and December 24, 2015 (80 FR pertaining to the Act’s five threat factors November 10, 2010, CNOR. This 80584)). In 2010, we recognized the and our review of the species’ status, we document satisfies the requirements of scientific name of the relict leopard frog conclude that the Louisville cave beetle that settlement agreement for the as Lithobates onca (see November 10, is not subject to the degree of threats Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave 2010 (75 FR 69222)). sufficient to indicate that it is in danger beetle, and constitutes the Service’s 12- Background of extinction (an endangered species), or month finding on the May 11, 2004, likely to become endangered within the petition to list the Louisville cave beetle Relict leopard frogs are endemic to foreseeable future (a threatened species), and Tatum Cave beetles as endangered the Colorado, Virgin, Santa Clara, and throughout all of its range. or threatened species under the Act. A Muddy Rivers and associated springs in We evaluated the current range of the detailed discussion of the basis for this Nevada, Arizona, and Utah. Relict Louisville cave beetle to determine if finding can be found in the Louisville leopard frogs appear to require habitat there is any apparent geographic cave beetle’s and Tatum Cave beetle’s heterogeneity (consisting of diverse concentration of potential threats for species-specific assessment form and habitat types) in the aquatic and this species. It has a relatively small other supporting documents (see terrestrial environments. Relict leopard range that is limited to four caves. We ADDRESSES, above). frogs historically occupied a variety of examined potential stressors including habitats including springs, streams, and human visitation and disturbance, Relict Leopard Frog (Lithobates onca) wetlands characterized by clean, clear commercial and residential Previous Federal Actions water with various depths, and cover development, sources of water quality such as submerged, emergent, and impairment, and small population size. On May 9, 2002, the Service received perimeter vegetation. Nonnative We found no concentration of stressors a petition from the Center for Biological predators such as Louisiana red swamp that suggests that the species may be in Diversity and Southern Utah Wilderness crayfish (Procambarus clarki), American danger of extinction in any portion of its Alliance (SUWA) seeking to list the bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeiana), and range. Therefore, we find that listing the relict leopard frog and designate critical nonnative fish are associated with Louisville cave beetle as an endangered habitat, under the authority of the Act. extirpation of relict leopard frogs. species or a threatened species under The petition identified information The relict leopard frog currently the Act throughout all or a significant regarding the species’ ecology, historical occurs at 8 natural sites—three in the portion of its range is not warranted at and current distribution, present status, Northshore Springs Complex (along the this time, and consequently we are and actual and potential causes of base of the Muddy Mountains near the removing it from candidate status. decline. Overton Arm area of Lake Mead) and Prior to receipt of the May 2002 five in the Black Canyon (below Lake Tatum Cave Beetle petition, the Service was involved in Mead). Natural sites are those sites that A review of the best available coordinated conservation efforts for the support wild populations of relict scientific and commercial information, relict leopard frog among multiple leopard frogs that were not established leads us to believe that the Tatum Cave partners and was aware of the species’ through translocation effort. beetle is extinct, and, as such, it is not status. On June 13, 2002, the Service’s The Northshore Springs Complex and eligible for listing as an endangered CNOR determined the species (as Rana Black Canyon populations represent species or a threatened species under onca) warranted listing but that listing distinct relict leopard frog the Act. Therefore, we did not further was precluded by higher priorities; metapopulations, wherein each evaluate whether the Tatum Cave beetle therefore, it became a candidate species metapopulation consists of smaller, is in danger of extinction throughout its with an LPN of 5 (67 FR 40657). spatially separated populations that range (an endangered species), likely to In 2006, the species’ LPN was lowered occasionally interact through the become in danger of extinction to 11, and remained at that LPN through movement of individuals between them, throughout its range in the foreseeable the 2010 CNOR (see September 12, 2006 but do not interact with the other future (a threatened species), or whether (71 FR 53756), December 6, 2007 (72 FR metapopuation. Within the Northshore the species is an endangered or 69034), December 10, 2008 (73 FR Springs Complex, dispersal of relict threatened species in a significant 75176), November 9, 2009 (74 FR leopard frogs may be possible between portion of its range. 57804), and November 10, 2010 (75 FR Blue Point and Rogers Springs. Therefore, we find that listing the 69222)). The lower priority ranking Migration and dispersal among sites Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave resulted from the development of the also appears likely in Black Canyon but beetle as endangered or threatened 2005 Relict Leopard Frog Conservation not between the two metapopulations. species under the Act throughout all or Agreement and Strategy (Conservation In addition to natural sites, relict a significant portion of their respective Agreement) and implementation of leopard frogs were introduced to 15 ranges is not warranted at this time, and conservation actions by the relict sites, 11 of which are extant. consequently we are removing both leopard frog Conservation Team Introduction sites are those estimated by species from candidate status. (Conservation Team), which led to an deliberately translocating relict leopard As a result of the Service’s 2011 overall reduction in most threats and an frogs to suitable habitat within the multidistrict litigation settlement with overall improvement in the species’ assumed historical range. All extant the Center for Biological Diversity and status. On October 26, 2011 (76 FR natural and introduction sites occur on WildEarth Guardians, the Service is 66370), we changed the species’ LPN to lands managed by the National Park required to submit a proposed listing 8, due in part to the discovery of chytrid Service (NPS), Bureau of Land rule or a not-warranted 12-month fungus (Batrachochytrium Management (BLM), Bureau of finding to the Federal Register by dendrobatidis (Bd)) in relict leopard Reclamation (BR), and the Service. September 30, 2016 (In re: Endangered frogs in 2010, and we maintained an There is low genetic variation within

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 69435

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES 69436 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 69437

control crayfish, maintain habitat presence of nonnative plants can make that the species in that portion would be conditions by removing excess the effects of excess vegetation worse. endangered or threatened, and that vegetation, and inform the public about Overgrowth of vegetation may reduce losing that portion of the range would the species. habitat for breeding, potentially making cause the remainder of the species to be NPS and BLM authorities and small populations smaller. Disease and endangered or threatened. Once we regulatory mechanisms have nonnative predators such as bullfrogs, determined that there was no successfully provided or facilitated crayfish, and fishes may also exacerbate geographic concentration of threats that conservation of the species (see the effects of small populations by would cause any portion of the species’ ‘‘Conservation Actions Implemented,’’ removing frogs. We determined that range to be at greater risk of extinction, above). NPS, BLM, BR, and the Service synergistic effects may occur, although then we could conclude that no portion are signatories on the Conservation they are expected to be low in warranted further consideration. Agreement and actively involved in all magnitude. Most individual stressors Therefore, we find that listing the relict actions of the Conservation Team. Each adversely affect the relict leopard frog in leopard frog as an endangered or a agency coordinates development of a single geographic area, due to the threatened species throughout all of or annual work plans and utilizes their isolated distribution of most sites. a significant portion of its range under authority to implement conservation Although individuals may be affected the Act is not warranted at this time, actions that benefit the species. Federal by synergistic effects in a single and, consequently, we are removing it authorities and regulatory mechanisms geographic area, there would not likely from candidate status. have successfully provided or facilitated be population-level effects to the As a result of the Service’s 2011 conservation of the species. species. multidistrict litigation settlement with We did not find any stressors To minimize or mitigate effects from the Center for Biological Diversity and examined under the Act’s threat factors stressors affecting the relict leopard frog, WildEarth Guardians, the Service is A, B, C, and E to rise to the level of a the Conservation Team will continue required to submit a proposed listing threat that would cause us to determine monitoring populations and rule or a not-warranted 12-month listing of the relict leopard frog is reintroducing frogs to sites should they finding to the Federal Register by warranted. Based on our review of the become greatly reduced in numbers or September 30, 2016 (In re: Endangered stressors combined with the beneficial extirpated due to the effects of one or Species Act Section 4 Deadline effects that the various conservation more stressors. Litigation, No. 10–377 (EGS), MDL efforts and regulatory mechanisms Finding Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)), provided to the species, we find that the for all 251 species that were included as Based on our review of the best existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor candidate species in the Service’s available scientific and commercial D) are adequate to address the stressors November 10, 2010, CNOR. This information pertaining to the Act’s five currently impacting the relict leopard document satisfies the requirements of threat factors, we find that the stressors frog and its habitat. that settlement agreement for the relict Regarding cumulative effects, there acting on the species and its habitat, leopard frog, and constitutes the are potential stressors that may act either singly or in combination, are not Service’s 12-month finding on the May together to affect relict leopard frogs at of sufficient imminence, intensity, or 8, 2002, petition to list the relict leopard certain sites. Overgrowth of vegetation, magnitude to indicate that the relict frog as an endangered or threatened nonnative plants and predators, and leopard frog is in danger of extinction species. A detailed discussion of the disease acting on small populations may (an endangered species) throughout all basis for this finding, including the adversely affect certain populations of its range, or likely to become many effective conservation measures concurrently. Flash floods or wildfire endangered within the foreseeable completed by the Conservation Team, may adversely affect a site at the same future (a threatened species) throughout time as nonnative plants and predators. all of its range. can be found in the relict leopard frog’s Reduced habitat connectivity adversely Populations of relict leopard frogs are species-specific assessment form, SSA affects sites with small populations at improving due to past conservation Report, and other supporting documents the same time as overgrowth of actions and current efforts to re- (see ADDRESSES, above). vegetation, and nonnative plants and establish and increase naturally- Sicklefin Redhorse Sucker predators. Climate change may affect a occurring and reintroduced populations. (Moxostoma sp.) site at the same time as grazing, Current and ongoing habitat wildfire, and flash floods. However, management, establishment of new Previous Federal Actions after evaluating the cumulative effects, sites, and restoration activities have The sicklefin redhorse sucker was we conclude that the magnitude of made substantial progress since their originally made a candidate species in cumulative effects to the relict leopard inception and are continuing into the the May 11, 2005, CNOR (70 FR 24870), frog is low to moderate. Most stressors future. We have determined that the and it was included in the subsequent adversely affect the relict leopard frog in number of frogs and habitat conditions CNORs through 2015 (see September 12, a single geographic area due to the at individual sites change from year to 2006 (71 FR 53756), December 6, 2007 isolated distribution of most sites. year and may vary widely, but the (72 FR 69034), December 10, 2008 (73 Although individuals may be affected rangewide status of the species is stable FR 75176), November 9, 2009 (74 FR by cumulative effects in a single or increasing. 57804), November 10, 2010 (75 FR geographic area, there would not be After determining the species is not 69222), October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), population level effects to the species. endangered or threatened throughout all November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994), Multiple stressors on relict leopard of its range, we then conducted an November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), and frogs may act synergistically, analysis to determine if it was December 5, 2014 (79 FR 72450)). exacerbating effects greater than what endangered or threatened throughout a On April 20, 2010, we received a may be observed by individual stressors. significant portion of the species’ range. petition from the Center for Biological The effects of climate change may To do this, we evaluated whether there Diversity, requesting that the Service list increase the number and frequency of was any portion of the species’ range 404 aquatic species as endangered or wildfires and flash flood events. The where threats were concentrated such threatened species under the Act,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES 69438 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

including the sicklefin redhorse sucker. over gravel, cobble, boulder, and Summary of Status Review The petition included supporting bedrock substrates with no, or very In completing our status review, we information regarding the species’ little, silt overlay. reviewed the best available scientific taxonomy and ecology, historical and Past and recent collection records of and commercial information and current distribution, present status, and the sicklefin redhorse sucker, together compiled this information in the SSA actual and potential causes of decline. with what is known about the habitat Report for the sicklefin redhorse sucker. In a partial 90-day finding on the utilization of the species, indicate that For our finding, we evaluated potential petition to list 404 species, published on the sicklefin redhorse sucker once stressors related to the sicklefin September 27, 2011 (76 FR 59836), the inhabited the majority, if not all, of the redhorse sucker and its habitat. The Service reaffirmed the existing rivers and large creeks in the Blue Ridge stressors we analyzed were: (1) candidate status of the sicklefin portion of the Hiwassee and Little Hydroelectric operations, inadequate redhorse sucker. River systems in North erosion/sedimentation control during Background Carolina, Tennessee, and Georgia. agricultural, timbering, and construction Currently, there are only two activities; (2) runoff and discharge of The sicklefin redhorse sucker metapopulations of the sicklefin (Moxostoma sp.), a freshwater fish organic and inorganic pollutants from redhorse sucker known to remain: One industrial, municipal, agricultural, and species, can grow to a length of in the Hiwassee River system and one approximately 650 mm (roughly 25.6 other point and nonpoint sources; (3) in the Little Tennessee River system. habitat alterations associated with in). It has an elongate, somewhat Estimated occupied stream habitat in compressed body and a highly falcate channelization and instream dredging/ the Hiwassee river systems totals about (sickle shaped) dorsal fin (back fin). Its mining activities; (4) predation and 53.0 river miles (rm). However, use of body is olive-colored, with a coppery or habitat suitability impacts by nonnative various streams/stream reaches within brassy sheen; its lower fins (pectoral, species; (5) fragmentation and isolation this total appears to be seasonal. pelvic, and anal fins) are primarily of surviving populations; and (6) other Available information indicates that the dusky to dark, often tinted yellow or natural and human-related factors that sicklefin redhorse sucker uses orange and pale edged; the caudal fin adversely modify the aquatic Brasstown Creek, Hanging Dog Creek, (tail fin) is mostly red; and its dorsal fin environment. Associated with the status Beaverdam Creek, Nottely River, and the is olive in color, sometimes partly red. review for this 12-month finding, we Although the sicklefin redhorse mid and upper reaches of the Valley conducted an analysis of the Candidate sucker is now known to have been River, primarily for spawning. No Conservation Agreement (CCA) for the collected in 1937 (based upon preserved spawning or courting behavior was Sicklefin Redhorse Sucker under the specimens collected at the then- observed within the mainstem of the Service’s Policy for Evaluation of unimpounded mouth of Forney Creek Hiwassee River; the mid and lower Conservation Efforts When Making near its confluence with the Tuckasegee Hiwassee River or lower reaches of the Listing Decisions (PECE policy), River), it was not recognized as a spawning tributaries primarily from the published in the Federal Register on potentially distinct species until 1992, post-spawning period through the fall March 28, 2003 (68 FR 15100), and when Dr. Robert Jenkins obtained and and early winter; or the lower un- found that the CCA does meet the PECE examined two specimens that had been impounded reaches of the Hiwassee policy criteria for certainty of collected in 1981 and 1982 from the River, and to a lesser extent, the lower implementation and certainty of Little Tennessee River by Dr. Edward Valley River, during the winter months. effectiveness. Menhinick (University of North The Little Tennessee River system A number of factors likely contributed Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, North metapopulation of the sicklefin redhorse to a reduction in the species’ historical Carolina). Based on the characteristics sucker includes a total of approximately range and may have affected population of the specimens’ lower lips, dorsal fins, 59.15 rm of creek and river reaches plus dynamics within the existing occupied and pharyngeal teeth, Jenkins near-shore areas of Fontana Reservoir, stream reaches. The construction of recognized the species as possibly a including: (1) The main stem of the hydroelectric dams fragmented previously unidentified species or a Little Tennessee River in Macon and populations, confining spawning hybrid of the smallmouth redhorse (M. Swain Counties, North Carolina, activity only to river reaches accessible breviceps) and the river redhorse (M. between the Franklin Dam and Fontana from the two reservoirs where this carinatum). Subsequent detailed Reservoir (approximately 23.2 rm), and species is thought to reside during the morphological and behavioral studies its tributaries, Burningtown Creek juvenile stage of its life cycle. The and genetic studies have concluded that (approximately 5.5 rm) and Iotla Creek sicklefin redhorse sucker also appears to the sicklefin redhorse sucker is, in fact, (approximately 0.1 rm) in Macon be absent from several reaches of a distinct species. The Service has County, North Carolina; (2) the main unimpounded river habitat where it was reviewed the available taxonomic stem of the Tuckasegee River in Swain likely extirpated by degradation of the literature, and is not aware of any and Jackson Counties, North Carolina, habitat or by cold water from challenges to the validity of this from approximately rm 27.5, hypolimnetic (deepwater that remains conclusion. downstream to Fontana Reservoir perpetually cold) discharges or The species is currently known to (approximately 27.5 rm), and its hydropeaking (releasing frequent, large occupy cool to warm, moderate-gradient tributaries, Forney Creek (mouth of the discharge pulses of water) for creeks and rivers and, during at least creek), Deep Creek (approximately 2.35 hydropower production. The parts of its early life, large reservoirs. In rm), and the Oconaluftee River below introduction of blueback herring (Alosa streams, adults of the species are the Bryson Dam (also sometimes aestivalis) into the habitat occupied by generally associated with moderate to referred to as the Ela Dam) the sicklefin redhorse sucker was also fast currents, in riffles, runs, and well- (approximately 0.5 rm), in Swain considered a potential threat to future flowing pools, while juveniles show a County, North Carolina; and (3) sub- population stability in past candidate preference for moderate to deep pools adults in the near shore portions of assessments. with slow currents and large boulder Fontana Reservoir, Swain County, North Upon further review of the crevice cover. Adults feed and spawn Carolina. information related to the factors

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 69439

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES 69440 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

Resources Commission, Duke Energy that ensures the continued participation constitutes the Service’s 12-month Carolinas, Eastern Band of Cherokee by all stakeholders in a focused effort to finding on the April 20, 2010, petition Indians, Tennessee Valley Authority, address and mitigate potential threats to list the sicklefin redhorse sucker as and Georgia Department of Natural while expanding the range and an endangered or threatened species. A Resources. A primary goal of the CCA is population health of the species. detailed discussion of the basis for this to expand the range of this species Additionally, we evaluated the current finding, including the PECE policy upstream of barrier dams to repopulate range of the sicklefin redhorse sucker to analysis of the CCA, can be found in the stream reaches that were formerly determine if there is any apparent sicklefin redhorse sucker’s species- degraded, but currently appear suitable. geographic concentration of potential specific assessment form, SSA Report, Expanding the range of the sicklefin threats for the species. The current and other supporting documents (see redhorse sucker into the upper sections range of the species is relatively small ADDRESSES, above). of these watersheds will provide a and limited to two river systems in Stephan’s Riffle Beetle (Heterelmis greater variety of available habitat, western North Carolina and stephani) allowing the species to more easily northwestern Georgia. We examined adjust to temporary effects of potential threats from: (1) Hydroelectric Previous Federal Actions construction and landscape alteration, operations, inadequate erosion/ Stephan’s riffle beetle (Heterelmis and providing more opportunities to use sedimentation control during stephani) was designated as a Category areas of refuge during periods of adverse agricultural, timbering, and construction 2 candidate in the notice published in conditions, such as periods of high activities; (2) runoff and discharge of the Federal Register on May 22, 1984, temperature or increased flow. organic and inorganic pollutants from Accessibility to more suitable habitat at 49 FR 21664. Category 2 candidate industrial, municipal, agricultural, and species were identified as those taxa for will increase the number of available other point and nonpoint sources; (3) spawning sites, increasing the which the Service possessed habitat alterations associated with information indicating proposing to list opportunities for successful channelization and instream dredging/ recruitment, and will provide the taxa was possibly appropriate, but mining activities; (4) predation and for which conclusive data on biological alternative spawning areas should some habitat suitability impacts by nonnative spawning sites become unsuitable. vulnerability and threats sufficient to species; (5) fragmentation and isolation support a proposed listing rule was Successful reintroduction will increase of surviving populations; and (6) other the carrying capacity of the sicklefin lacking. The February 28, 1996, CNOR natural and human-related factors that (61 FR 7596) discontinued recognition redhorse sucker by providing the adversely modify the aquatic species with additional riverine habitat of categories, so this species was no environment. We found no portions of longer considered a candidate species. as well as access to additional reservoirs the species’ range where potential to serve as juvenile rearing habitat. The In the June 13, 2002, CNOR (67 FR threats are significantly concentrated or 40657), Stephan’s riffle beetle was SSA Report for the sicklefin redhorse substantially greater than in other sucker noted that threats (i.e., factors designated as a candidate species as portion of its range so as to suggest that currently defined, with an LPN of 5. On affecting the species) could be the species may be in danger of exacerbated by climate change or May 11, 2004, we received a petition extinction in a portion of its range. dated May 4, 2004, from the Center for interaction among the threats. However, Therefore, we find that factors affecting the SSA Report’s evaluation of all of the Biological Diversity, requesting that 225 the sicklefin redhorse sucker are plants and animals, including Stephan’s threats facing this species indicates that essentially uniform throughout its the existing populations are stable and riffle beetle, be listed as endangered range, indicating no portion of the range species under the Act and critical are likely to remain stable in most of the warrants further consideration of plausible future scenarios. In addition, habitat be designated. In response to the possible endangered or threatened May 4, 2004, petition to list Stephan’s while populations are currently stable status under the Act. Therefore, we find and likely to remain so, under the CCA’s riffle beetle as an endangered species, that listing the sicklefin redhorse sucker we published a warranted-but- management framework, the parties will as an endangered or a threatened work collaboratively to address threats precluded 12-month finding in the species under the Act is not warranted in a way that reduces the likelihood that Federal Register on May 11, 2005 (70 throughout all or a significant portion of they will negatively affect the future FR 24870). Subsequent warranted-but- its range at this time, and consequently viability of the species. precluded 12-month findings were we are removing it from candidate published on September 12, 2006 (71 FR Finding status. 53756), December 6, 2007 (72 FR Based on our review of the best As a result of the Service’s 2011 69034), December 10, 2008 (73 FR available scientific and commercial multidistrict litigation settlement with 75176), November 9, 2009 (74 FR information pertaining to the Act’s five the Center for Biological Diversity and 57804), November 10, 2010 (75 FR threat factors, we find that the stressors WildEarth Guardians, the Service is 69222), October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), acting on the species and its habitat, required to submit a proposed listing November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994), either singly or in combination, are not rule or a not-warranted 12-month November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), of sufficient imminence, intensity, or finding to the Federal Register by December 5, 2014 (79 FR 72450), and magnitude to indicate that the sicklefin September 30, 2016 (In re: Endangered December 24, 2015 (80 FR 80584). redhorse sucker is in danger of Species Act Section 4 Deadline extinction (an endangered species), or Litigation, No. 10–377 (EGS), MDL Background likely to become endangered within the Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)), Stephan’s riffle beetle is one of five foreseeable future (a threatened species), for all 251 species that were included as known species in the genus Heterelmis throughout all of its range. This finding candidate species in the Service’s found in the United States. Historically, is based on stability of existing November 10, 2010, CNOR. This Stephan’s riffle beetle occurred in Santa populations, re-evaluation of threats document satisfies the requirements of Cruz and Pima Counties, Arizona, at that are likely to affect the populations that settlement agreement for the two known locations: Bog Springs in the future, and development of a CCA sicklefin redhorse sucker, and Campground and Sylvester Spring in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 69441

Madera Canyon. Stephan’s riffle beetle Summary of Status Review endangered or threatened species in a is no longer found at the Bog Springs The SSA Report for Stephan’s riffle significant portion of its range. We find Campground location, as the habitat beetle is a summary of the information that listing Stephan’s riffle beetle as an there no longer exists. Stephan’s riffle assembled and reviewed by the Service endangered or a threatened species beetle has not been collected or and incorporates the best available under the Act is not warranted documented since 1993, despite the scientific and commercial information throughout all or a significant portion of Service’s surveying for the species at the for this species. Our analysis leads us to its range, and consequently we are one remaining known location, believe Stephan’s riffle beetle is extinct. removing it from candidate status. Sylvester Spring, and at numerous other Species extinction is difficult, if not As a result of the Service’s 2011 nearby locations with potential habitat. impossible, to prove, and the Service multidistrict litigation settlement with Based on our review of the best has no policy specifically defining the the Center for Biological Diversity and available scientific and commercial level of information necessary to WildEarth Guardians, the Service is information, we believe that the conclude that a species should be required to submit a proposed listing Stephan’s riffle beetle is extinct. considered extinct. For any species rule or a not-warranted 12-month The preponderance of Stephan’s riffle finding to the Federal Register by beetle specimens have been there is uncertainty in drawing a conclusion of extinction. For the September 30, 2016 (In re: Endangered documented in artificial habitat created Species Act Section 4 Deadline by a water tank’s leaking pipeline and Stephan’s riffle beetle, we have carefully assessed the best scientific and Litigation, No. 10–377 (EGS), MDL overflow at the Bog Springs Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)), Campground. Only two specimens have commercial information available regarding the current status of the for all 251 species that were included as ever been documented from Sylvester candidate species in the Service’s Spring, the only relatively intact spring species. The biological information we reviewed and analyzed as the basis for November 10, 2010, CNOR. This habitat remaining where the species was document satisfies the requirements of known to exist. Historically, Stephan’s our findings is documented in the SSA Report. Our analysis of this information that settlement agreement for the riffle beetle may have only occupied Stephan’s riffle beetle and constitutes Sylvester and Bog Springs, and found that there has been no the Service’s 12-month finding on the populations may have started declining confirmation of the existence of the May 4, 2004, petition to list the when water from springs in Madera Stephan’s riffle beetle in more than 23 Stephan’s riffle beetle as an endangered Canyon was first captured in concrete years, despite multiple survey efforts or threatened species. A detailed boxes and piped to divert water for since 2012 in known and potential discussion of the basis for this finding domestic and recreational water habitat where other riffle beetles were can be found in the Stephan’s riffle supplies. Up until 1993, when documented, across multiple seasons, beetle’s species-specific assessment Stephan’s riffle beetle was last detected, and using a variety of survey methods. form, SSA Report, and other supporting the species appears to have existed only The type locality consisting of a leaking documents (see ADDRESSES in extremely low numbers within pipeline to a water storage tank, where , above). Sylvester Spring, making it very the largest number of Stephan’s riffle New Information difficult to detect, in contrast to the beetle was collected, no longer exists. relatively large numbers collected in The Service surveyed the only We request that you submit any new 1979 at the Bog Springs Campground remaining site at which Stephan’s riffle information concerning the taxonomy, site. The species has not been beetle had been documented, Sylvester biology, ecology, status of, or stressors documented as extant since 1993, 23 Spring, on numerous occasions with to the Huachuca-Canelo population of years ago, when one individual was different survey methods. Despite these the Arizona treefrog, the Arkansas found at Sylvester Spring as part of a efforts, we have been unable to confirm darter, black mudalia, Highlands tiger specific effort to survey for Stephan’s the existence of the species. beetle, Dichanthelium (=panicum) hirstii (Hirst Brothers’ panic grass), two riffle beetle in Madera Canyon. Finding Beginning in 2012, the Service Kentucky cave beetles (Louisville cave surveyed Sylvester Spring, the one Our review of the best available beetle and Tatum Cave beetle), relict remaining known population location scientific and commercial information leopard frog, sicklefin redhorse sucker, for Stephan’s riffle beetle, and seven leads us to believe that the Stephan’s and Stephan’s riffle beetle to the other locations with potential habitat on riffle beetle is extinct, and, as such, it is appropriate person, as specified under multiple occasions. The most intensive not eligible for listing as an endangered FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, survey efforts occurred at Sylvester or threatened species under the Act. whenever it becomes available. New Spring and Bog Springs, the water Although the Act does not directly information will help us monitor these source for the extirpated Bog Springs address the situation of considering a species and encourage their Campground population. Three species for listing where the best conservation. We encourage local different survey methods were used in available information indicates that the agencies and stakeholders to continue an effort to find the species, and no species is likely already extinct, the cooperative monitoring and Stephan’s riffle beetles were found. purpose of the Act is to prevent species conservation efforts for these species. If While Stephan’s riffle beetle is small in from becoming extinct. If we believe the an emergency situation develops for any size (and therefore difficult to find), species is already extinct, by definition, of these species, we will act to provide adult beetles, if present, should be the species cannot be in danger of, or immediate protection. likely to become in danger of, detected regardless of the time of year References Cited surveyed based on their life history extinction. Therefore, we did not further (multi-year metamorphosis and evaluate whether Stephan’s riffle beetle Lists of the references cited in the relatively long life span). Therefore, is in danger of extinction throughout its petition findings are available on the based on the best available scientific range (an endangered species), is likely Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and commercial information, the to become in danger of extinction and upon request from the appropriate Service believes Stephan’s riffle beetle throughout its range in the foreseeable person, as specified under FOR FURTHER to be extinct. future (a threatened species), or is an INFORMATION CONTACT.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES 69442 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

Authors Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), are 1,617 metric tons (mt), and 16,933 The primary authors of this document Commerce. mt as established by the final 2016 and are the staff members of the Unified ACTION: Temporary rule; reallocation. 2017 harvest specifications for Listing Team, Ecological Services groundfish in the BSAI (81 FR 14773, Program. SUMMARY: NMFS is exchanging unused March 18, 2016) and following revision flathead sole Community Development (81 FR 64782, September 21, 2016). The Authority Quota (CDQ) for yellowfin sole CDQ 2016 flathead sole and yellowfin sole The authority for this action is section acceptable biological catch (ABC) CDQ ABC reserves are 5,472 mt and 4 of the Endangered Species Act of reserves in the Bering Sea and Aleutian 5,719 mt as established by the final 2016 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et Islands management area. This action is and 2017 harvest specifications for seq.). necessary to allow the 2016 total groundfish in the BSAI (81 FR 14773, allowable catch of yellowfin sole in the Dated: September 26, 2016. March 18, 2016) and following revision Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Stephen Guertin, (81 FR 64782, September 21, 2016). management area to be harvested. Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife The Aleutian Pribilof Island Service. DATES: Effective October 6, 2016 through December 31, 2016. Community Development Association [FR Doc. 2016–24142 Filed 10–5–16; 8:45 am] has requested that NMFS exchange 80 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: BILLING CODE 4333–15–P mt of flathead sole CDQ reserves for 80 Steve Whitney, 907–586–7228. mt of yellowfin sole CDQ ABC reserves SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS under § 679.31(d). Therefore, in DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE manages the groundfish fishery in the accordance with § 679.31(d), NMFS Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands exchanges 80 mt of flathead sole CDQ National Oceanic and Atmospheric management area (BSAI) according to reserves for 80 mt of yellowfin sole CDQ Administration the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and ABC reserves in the BSAI. This action 50 CFR Part 679 Aleutian Islands Management Area also decreases and increases the TACs and CDQ ABC reserves by the [Docket No. 150916863–6211–02] (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under corresponding amounts. Tables 11 and RIN 0648–XE935 authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 13 of the final 2016 and 2017 harvest Fishery Conservation and Management specifications for groundfish in the Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Act. Regulations governing fishing by BSAI (81 FR 14773, March 18, 2016), Zone Off Alaska; Exchange of Flatfish U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP and following revision (81 FR 64782, in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 September 21, 2016), are revised as Management Area and 50 CFR part 679. follows: AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries The 2016 flathead sole and yellowfin Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and sole CDQ reserves specified in the BSAI

TABLE 11—FINAL 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT QUOTA (CDQ) RESERVES, INCIDENTAL CATCH AMOUNTS (ICAS), AND AMENDMENT 80 ALLOCATIONS OF THE ALEUTIAN ISLANDS PACIFIC OCEAN PERCH, AND BSAI FLATHEAD SOLE, ROCK SOLE, AND YELLOWFIN SOLE TACS [Amounts are in metric tons]

Pacific ocean perch Flathead sole Rock sole Yellowfin sole Sector Eastern Central Western Aleutian Aleutian Aleutian BSAI BSAI BSAI district district district

TAC ...... 7,900 7,000 9,000 16,390 55,180 150,530 CDQ ...... 845 749 963 1,537 5,215 17,013 ICA ...... 200 75 10 5,000 6,000 3,500 BSAI trawl limited access ...... 685 618 161 0 0 14,979 Amendment 80 ...... 6,169 5,558 7,866 9,853 43,965 115,038 Alaska Groundfish Cooperative ...... 3,271 2,947 4,171 1,411 11,129 43,748 Alaska Seafood Cooperative ...... 2,898 2,611 3,695 8,442 32,836 71,290 Note: Sector apportionments may not total precisely due to rounding.

TABLE 13—FINAL 2016 AND 2017 ABC SURPLUS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT QUOTA (CDQ) ABC RESERVES, AND AMENDMENT 80 ABC RESERVES IN THE BSAI FOR FLATHEAD SOLE, ROCK SOLE, AND YELLOWFIN SOLE [Amounts are in metric tons]

2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 Sector Flathead sole Rock sole Yellowfin sole Flathead sole Rock sole Yellowfin sole

ABC ...... 66,250 161,100 211,700 64,580 145,000 203,500 TAC ...... 16,390 55,180 150,530 21,000 57,100 144,000 ABC surplus ...... 49,860 105,920 61,170 43,580 87,900 59,500 ABC reserve...... 49,860 105,920 61,170 43,580 87,900 59,500 CDQ ABC reserve ...... 5,552 12,023 5,639 4,663 9,405 6,367 Amendment 80 ABC reserve ...... 44,308 93,897 55,531 38,917 78,495 53,134

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES