87246 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR period October 1, 2015, through to the notice of review. We also request September 30, 2016. information on additional species to Fish and Wildlife Service Moreover, we request any additional consider including as candidates as we status information that may be available prepare future updates of this notice. 50 CFR Part 17 for the candidate species identified in this CNOR. Candidate Notice of Review [Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2016–0095; FF09E21000 FXES11190900000 167] DATES: We will accept information on Background any of the species in this Candidate The Endangered Species Act of 1973, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Notice of Review at any time. as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; and Plants; Review of Native Species ADDRESSES: This notification is ESA), requires that we identify species That Are Candidates for Listing as available on the Internet at http:// of wildlife and plants that are Endangered or Threatened; Annual www.regulations.gov and http:// endangered or threatened based solely Notification of Findings on www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/ on the best scientific and commercial Resubmitted Petitions; Annual cnor.html. Species assessment forms data available. As defined in section 3 Description of Progress on Listing with information and references on a of the ESA, an endangered species is Actions particular candidate species’ range, any species that is in danger of status, habitat needs, and listing priority AGENCY: extinction throughout all or a significant Fish and Wildlife Service, assignment are available for review at Interior. portion of its range, and a threatened the appropriate Regional Office listed species is any species that is likely to ACTION: Notification of review. below in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION or become an endangered species within SUMMARY: In this Candidate Notice of at the Branch of Conservation and the foreseeable future throughout all or Review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish and Communications, Falls Church, VA (see a significant portion of its range. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Wildlife Service (Service), present an address under Through the Federal rulemaking CONTACT), or on our Web site (http:// process, we add species that meet these updated list of plant and animal species _ native to the United States that we ecos.fws.gov/tess public/reports/ definitions to the List of Endangered regard as candidates for or, have candidate-species-report). Please submit and Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR proposed for addition to the Lists of any new information, materials, 17.11 or the List of Endangered and comments, or questions of a general Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Threatened Plants at 50 CFR 17.12. As nature on this notice to the Falls and Plants under the Endangered part of this program, we maintain a list Church, VA, address listed under FOR Species Act of 1973, as amended. of species that we regard as candidates FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Please Identification of candidate species can for listing. A candidate species is one submit any new information, materials, assist environmental planning efforts by for which we have on file sufficient comments, or questions pertaining to a providing advance notice of potential information on biological vulnerability particular species to the address of the listings, and by allowing landowners and threats to support a proposal for Endangered Species Coordinator in the and resource managers to alleviate listing as endangered or threatened, but appropriate Regional Office listed in threats and thereby possibly remove the for which preparation and publication SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Species- need to list species as endangered or of a proposal is precluded by higher- specific information and materials we priority listing actions. We may identify threatened. Even if we subsequently list receive will be available for public a candidate species, the early notice a species as a candidate for listing after inspection by appointment, during we have conducted an evaluation of its provided here could result in more normal business hours, at the status—either on our own initiative, or options for species management and appropriate Regional Office listed below in response to a petition we have recovery by prompting earlier candidate under Request for Information in received. If we have made a finding on conservation measures to alleviate SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. General a petition to list a species, and have threats to the species. information we receive will be available found that listing is warranted but This CNOR summarizes the status and at the Branch of Conservation and precluded by other higher priority threats that we evaluated in order to Communications, Falls Church, VA (see determine whether species qualify as listing actions, we will add the species address under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION candidates, to assign a listing priority to our list of candidates. CONTACT). number (LPN) to each candidate We maintain this list of candidates for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: species, and to determine whether a a variety of reasons: (1) To notify the species should be removed from Chief, Branch of Conservation and public that these species are facing candidate status. Additional material Communications, U.S. Fish and Wildlife threats to their survival; (2) to provide that we relied on is available in the Service Headquarters, MS: ES, 5275 advance knowledge of potential listings Species Assessment and Listing Priority Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– that could affect decisions of Assignment Forms (species assessment 3803 (telephone 703–358–2171). environmental planners and developers; forms) for each candidate species. Persons who use a telecommunications (3) to provide information that may This CNOR changes the LPN for one device for the deaf may call the Federal stimulate and guide conservation efforts candidate. Combined with other Information Relay Service at 800–877– that will remove or reduce threats to decisions for individual species that 8339. these species and possibly make listing were published separately from this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We unnecessary; (4) to request input from CNOR in the past year, the current request additional status information interested parties to help us identify number of species that are candidates that may be available for any of the those candidate species that may not for listing is 30. candidate species identified in this require protection under the ESA, as This document also includes our CNOR. We will consider this well as additional species that may findings on resubmitted petitions and information to monitor changes in the require the ESA’s protections; and (5) to describes our progress in revising the status or LPN of candidate species and request necessary information for setting Lists of Endangered and Threatened to manage candidates as we prepare priorities for preparing listing proposals. Wildlife and Plants (Lists) during the listing documents and future revisions We encourage collaborative

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 87247

conservation efforts for candidate of range of the species affected by the a copy of the 1983 guidance is available species, and offer technical and threat(s), or both; (2) the biological on our Web site at: http://www.fws.gov/ financial assistance to facilitate such significance of the affected endangered/esa-library/pdf/1983_LPN_ efforts. For additional information population(s), taking into consideration Policy_FR_pub.pdf. Information on the regarding such assistance, please the life-history characteristics of the LPN assigned to a particular species is contact the appropriate Regional Office species and its current abundance and summarized in this CNOR, and the listed under Request for Information or distribution; (3) whether the threats species assessment for each candidate visit our Web site, http://www.fws.gov/ affect the species in only a portion of its contains the LPN chart and a more- endangered/what-we-do/cca.html. range, and, if so, the likelihood of detailed explanation for our persistence of the species in the determination of the magnitude and Previous Notices of Review unaffected portions; (4) the severity of immediacy of threat(s) and assignment We have been publishing CNORs the effects and the rapidity with which of the LPN. since 1975. The most recent was they have caused or are likely to cause To the extent this revised notice published on December 24, 2015 (80 FR mortality to individuals and differs from any previous animal, plant, 80584). CNORs published since 1994 accompanying declines in population and combined candidate notices of are available on our Web site, http:// levels; (5) whether the effects are likely review for native species or previous 12- www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/ to be permanent; and (6) the extent to month warranted-but-precluded petition cnor.html. For copies of CNORs which any ongoing conservation efforts findings for those candidate species that published prior to 1994, please contact reduce the severity of the threat(s). were petitioned for listing, this notice the Branch of Conservation and As used in our priority-ranking supercedes them. Communications (see FOR FURTHER system, immediacy of threat is Summary of This CNOR INFORMATION CONTACT, above). categorized as either ‘‘imminent’’ or On September 21, 1983, we published ‘‘nonimminent,’’ and is based on when Since publication of the previous guidance for assigning an LPN for each the threats will begin. If a threat is CNOR on December 24, 2015 (80 FR candidate species (48 FR 43098). Using currently occurring or likely to occur in 80584), we reviewed the available this guidance, we assign each candidate the very near future, we classify the information on candidate species to an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the threat as imminent. Determining the ensure that a proposed listing is magnitude of threats, immediacy of immediacy of threats helps ensure that justified for each species, and threats, and taxonomic status; the lower species facing actual, identifiable threats reevaluated the relative LPN assigned to the LPN, the higher the listing priority are given priority for listing proposals each species. We also evaluated the (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 over species for which threats are only need to emergency list any of these would have the highest listing priority). potential or species that are intrinsically species, particularly species with higher Section 4(h)(3) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. vulnerable to certain types of threats but priorities (i.e., species with LPNs of 1, 1533(h)(3)) requires the Secretary to are not known to be presently facing 2, or 3). This review and reevaluation establish guidelines for such a priority- such threats. ensures that we focus conservation ranking system. As explained below, in Our priority-ranking system has three efforts on those species at greatest risk. using this system, we first categorize categories for taxonomic status: Species In addition to reviewing candidate based on the magnitude of the threat(s), that are the sole members of a genus; species since publication of the last then by the immediacy of the threat(s), full species (in genera that have more CNOR, we have worked on findings in and finally by taxonomic status. than one species); and subspecies and response to petitions to list species, and Under this priority-ranking system, distinct population segments of on proposed rules to list species under magnitude of threat can be either ‘‘high’’ vertebrate species (DPS). the ESA and on final listing or ‘‘moderate to low.’’ This criterion The result of the ranking system is determinations. Some of these findings helps ensure that the species facing the that we assign each candidate a listing and determinations have been greatest threats to their continued priority number of 1 to 12. For example, completed and published in the Federal existence receive the highest listing if the threats are of high magnitude, Register, while work on others is still priority. It is important to recognize that with immediacy classified as imminent, under way (see Preclusion and all candidate species face threats to their the listable entity is assigned an LPN of Expeditious Progress, below, for details). continued existence, so the magnitude 1, 2, or 3 based on its taxonomic status Based on our review of the best of threats is in relative terms. For all (i.e., a species that is the only member available scientific and commercial candidate species, the threats are of of its genus would be assigned to the information, with this CNOR, we change sufficiently high magnitude to put them LPN 1 category, a full species to LPN 2, the LPN for one candidate. Combined in danger of extinction, or make them and a subspecies or DPS would be with other findings and determinations likely to become in danger of extinction assigned to LPN 3). In summary, the published separately from this CNOR, a in the foreseeable future. But for species LPN ranking system provides a basis for total of 30 species (10 plant and 20 with higher-magnitude threats, the making decisions about the relative animal species) are now candidates threats have a greater likelihood of priority for preparing a proposed rule to awaiting preparation of rules proposing bringing about extinction or are list a given species. No matter which their listing. Table 1 identifies these 30 expected to bring about extinction on a LPN we assign to a species, each species species, along with the 20 species shorter timescale (once the threats are included in this notice as a candidate is currently proposed for listing (including imminent) than for species with lower- one for which we have concluded that 1 species proposed for listing due to magnitude threats. Because we do not we have sufficient information to similarity in appearance). routinely quantify how likely or how prepare a proposed rule for listing Table 2 lists the changes for species soon extinction would be expected to because it is in danger of extinction or identified in the previous CNOR, and occur absent listing, we must evaluate likely to become endangered within the includes 97 species identified in the factors that contribute to the likelihood foreseeable future throughout all or a previous CNOR as either proposed for and time scale for extinction. We significant portion of its range. listing or classified as candidates that therefore consider information such as: For more information on the process are no longer in those categories. This (1) The number of populations or extent and standards used in assigning LPNs, includes 78 species for which we

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 87248 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules

published a final listing rule (includes years and declining during dry years, monitor the status of species for which 11 DPSs of green sea turtle), 18 but within a normal range of variation listing is warranted but precluded, and candidate species for which we that may not be a threat to the species. to ascertain if they need emergency published separate not-warranted Therefore, drought is likely the listing. findings and removed them from previously unidentified threat, which First, the CNOR serves as an initial candidate status, and 1 species for reduces the size of the population. petition finding in some instances. which we published a withdrawal of a Although the effects of climate change Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA, proposed rule. may result in drier summers, the when we receive a petition to list a Fremont County rockcress may benefit species, we must determine within 90 New Candidates from longer growing seasons and more days, to the maximum extent We have not identified any new precipitation at the start of the growing practicable, whether the petition candidate species through this notice season. Further, asexual reproduction presents substantial information but identified one species—island helps reduce risks associated with a indicating that listing may be warranted marble butterfly—as a candidate on small population size. However, (a ‘‘90-day finding’’). If we make a April 5, 2016, as a result of a separate stochastic events could negatively affect positive 90-day finding, we must petition finding published in the the population, so drought and small promptly commence a status review of Federal Register (81 FR 19527). population size are threats to the the species under section 4(b)(3)(A); we Listing Priority Changes in Candidates species. Although the population has must then make, within 12 months of declined in the past and could fluctuate the receipt of the petition, one of the We reviewed the LPNs for all in the future due to precipitation, the following three possible findings (a ‘‘12- candidate species and are changing the entire species’ habitat is protected by month finding’’): number for the following species the BLM’s fully implemented and (1) The petitioned action is not discussed below. effective regulatory mechanisms, and no warranted, and promptly publish the Flowering plants other impacts rise to the level of a finding in the Federal Register; threat. With drought implicated as the (2) The petitioned action is warranted Boechera pusilla (Fremont County previously unidentified threat and an (in which case we are required to rockcress)—The following summary is improved understanding of population promptly publish a proposed regulation based on information in our files and in fluctuations, we now determine that the to implement the petitioned action; the petition received on July 24, 2007. magnitude of the threat to the species once we publish a proposed rule for a Fremont County rockcress is a perennial from drought is low. This is because the species, sections 4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) of herb consisting of a single population species may be adapted to drought and the ESA govern further procedures, made of eight subpopulations found on stochastic events. No other threat is regardless of whether or not we issued sparsely vegetated granite-pegmatite ongoing, so we determine that the the proposal in response to a petition); outcrops at an elevation between 2,438 threats are now nonimminent. or and 2,469 meters (m) (8,000 and 8,100 Additional surveys in 2016 will help (3) The petitioned action is warranted, feet (ft)) in Fremont County, Wyoming. clarify population trends, fluctuations, but (a) the immediate proposal of a The entire species’ range is located on and the effects of drought and small regulation and final promulgation of a lands managed by the Bureau of Land population size on the species. Because regulation implementing the petitioned Management (BLM), and is protected by the threats are low in magnitude and are action is precluded by pending their regulatory mechanisms as well as nonimminent, we are changing the LPN proposals to determine whether any by a 1998 Secretarial Order that from an 8 to an 11. species is endangered or threatened, and withdraws the species’ habitat from (b) expeditious progress is being made mineral development for 50 years. The Petition Findings to add qualified species to the Lists. We species’ range is likely limited by the The ESA provides two mechanisms refer to this third option as a presence of granite-pegmatite outcrops; for considering species for listing. One ‘‘warranted-but-precluded finding,’’ and however, the species has likely method allows the Secretary, on the after making such a finding, we must persisted without competition from Secretary’s own initiative, to identify promptly publish it in the Federal other herbaceous plant or sagebrush- species for listing under the standards of Register. grassland species present in the section 4(a)(1). We implement this We define ‘‘candidate species’’ to surrounding landscape due to this authority through the candidate mean those species for which the dependence on a very specific, yet program, discussed above. The second Service has on file sufficient limited, substrate. method for listing a species provides a information on biological vulnerability Overutilization and predation are not mechanism for the public to petition us and threat(s) to support issuance of a threats to the species, and regulatory to add a species to the Lists. As proposed rule to list, but for which mechanisms have removed threats described further in the paragraphs that issuance of the proposed rule is associated with habitat loss and follow, the CNOR serves several precluded (61 FR 64481; December 5, fragmentation. We previously purposes as part of the petition process: 1996). The standard for making a determined that threats to the Fremont (1) In some instances (in particular, for species a candidate through our own County rockcress were moderate in petitions to list species that the Service initiative is identical to the standard for magnitude and imminent, due largely to has already identified as candidates on making a warranted-but-precluded 12- uncertainty regarding a small and its own initiative), it serves as the initial month petition finding on a petition to declining population size attributed to petition finding; (2) for candidate list, and we add all petitioned species an unknown threat. Although the species for which the Service has made for which we have made a warranted- population likely declined in the past, a warranted-but-precluded petition but-precluded 12-month finding to the new information since our last review finding, it serves as a ‘‘resubmitted’’ candidate list. has helped clarify that the population petition finding that the ESA requires Therefore, all candidate species likely fluctuates around a stable, average the Service to make each year; and (3) identified through our own initiative size in response to precipitation, with it documents the Service’s compliance already have received the equivalent of the population increasing during wet with the statutory requirement to substantial 90-day and warranted-but-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 87249

precluded 12-month findings. appropriate. If we determine that candidate or listed species for which we Nevertheless, if we receive a petition to emergency listing is appropriate for any published findings, under section list a species that we have already candidate, we will make prompt use of 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA, in the previous identified as a candidate, we review the the emergency listing authority under CNOR. We have incorporated new status of the newly petitioned candidate section 4(b)(7) of the ESA. For example, information we gathered since the prior species and through this CNOR publish on August 10, 2011, we emergency finding and, as a result of this review, specific section 4(b)(3) findings (i.e., listed the Miami blue butterfly (76 FR we are making continued warranted- substantial 90-day and warranted-but- 49542). We have been reviewing and but-precluded 12-month findings on the precluded 12-month findings) in will continue to review, at least petitions for these species. However, for response to the petitions to list these annually, the status of every candidate, some of these species, we are currently candidate species. We publish these whether or not we have received a engaged in a thorough review of all findings as part of the first CNOR petition to list it. Thus, the CNOR and available data to determine whether to following receipt of the petition. We accompanying species assessment forms proceed with a proposed listing rule; as have identified the candidate species for constitute the Service’s system for a result of this review we may conclude which we received petitions and made monitoring and making annual findings that listing is no longer warranted. a continued warranted-but-precluded on the status of petitioned species under The immediate publication of finding on a resubmitted petition by the sections 4(b)(3)(C)(i) and 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) proposed rules to list these species was code ‘‘C*’’ in the category column on of the ESA. precluded by our work on higher- the left side of Table 1, below. A number of court decisions have priority listing actions, listed below, Second, the CNOR serves as a elaborated on the nature and specificity during the period from October 1, 2015, ‘‘resubmitted’’ petition finding. Section of information that we must consider in through September 30, 2016. Below we 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the ESA requires that making and describing the petition describe the actions that continue to when we make a warranted-but- findings in the CNOR. The CNOR that preclude the immediate proposal and precluded finding on a petition, we treat published on November 9, 2009 (74 FR final promulgation of a regulation the petition as one that is resubmitted 57804), describes these court decisions implementing each of the petitioned on the date of the finding. Thus, we in further detail. As with previous actions for which we have made a must make a 12-month petition finding CNORs, we continue to incorporate warranted-but-precluded finding, and for each such species at least once a year information of the nature and specificity we describe the expeditious progress we in compliance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of required by the courts. For example, we are making to add qualified species to, the ESA, until we publish a proposal to include a description of the reasons why and remove species from, the Lists. We list the species or make a final not- the listing of every petitioned candidate will continue to monitor the status of all warranted finding. We make these species is both warranted and precluded candidate species, including petitioned annual resubmitted petition findings at this time. We make our species, as new information becomes through the CNOR. To the extent these determinations of preclusion on a available to determine if a change in annual findings differ from the initial nationwide basis to ensure that the status is warranted, including the need 12-month warranted-but-precluded species most in need of listing will be to emergency list a species under finding or any of the resubmitted addressed first and also because we section 4(b)(7) of the ESA. petition findings in previous CNORs, allocate our listing budget on a In addition to identifying petitioned they supercede the earlier findings, nationwide basis (see below). Regional candidate species in Table 1 below, we although all previous findings are part priorities can also be discerned from also present brief summaries of why of the administrative record for the new Table 1, below, which includes the lead each of these candidates warrants finding, and we may rely upon them or region and the LPN for each species. listing. More complete information, incorporate them by reference in the Our preclusion determinations are including references, is found in the new finding as appropriate. further based upon our budget for listing species assessment forms. You may Third, through undertaking the activities for unlisted species only, and obtain a copy of these forms from the analysis required to complete the we explain the priority system and why Regional Office having the lead for the CNOR, the Service determines if any the work we have accomplished has species, or from the Fish and Wildlife candidate species needs emergency precluded action on listing candidate Service’s Internet Web site: http:// listing. Section 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the ESA species. ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/ requires us to ‘‘implement a system to In preparing this CNOR, we reviewed candidate-species-report. As described monitor effectively the status of all the current status of, and threats to, the above, under section 4 of the ESA, we species’’ for which we have made a 29 candidates for which we have identify and propose species for listing warranted-but-precluded 12-month received a petition to list and the 3 based on the factors identified in section finding, and to ‘‘make prompt use of the listed species for which we have 4(a)(1)—either on our own initiative or [emergency listing] authority [under received a petition to reclassify from through the mechanism that section 4 section 4(b)(7)] to prevent a significant threatened to endangered, where we provides for the public to petition us to risk to the well being of any such found the petitioned action to be add species to the Lists of Endangered species.’’ The CNOR plays a crucial role warranted but precluded. We find that or Threatened Wildlife and Plants. in the monitoring system that we have the immediate issuance of a proposed implemented for all candidate species rule and timely promulgation of a final Preclusion and Expeditious Progress by providing notice that we are actively rule for each of these species, has been, To make a finding that a particular seeking information regarding the status for the preceding months, and continues action is warranted but precluded, the of those species. We review all new to be, precluded by higher-priority Service must make two determinations: information on candidate species as it listing actions. Additional information (1) That the immediate proposal and becomes available, prepare an annual that is the basis for this finding is found timely promulgation of a final species assessment form that reflects in the species assessments and our regulation is precluded by pending monitoring results and other new administrative record for each species. proposals to determine whether any information, and identify any species Our review included updating the species is threatened or endangered; and for which emergency listing may be status of, and threats to, petitioned (2) that expeditious progress is being

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 87250 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules

made to add qualified species to either U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, since listing cap, the three subcaps, and the of the lists and to remove species from FY 2002, the Service’s listing budget has amount of funds needed to complete the lists (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)(iii)). included a subcap for critical habitat court-mandated actions within the cap designations for already-listed species to and subcaps, Congress and the courts Preclusion ensure that some funds within the have in effect determined the amount of A listing proposal is precluded if the listing cap are available for completing money available for listing activities Service does not have sufficient Listing Program actions other than nationwide. Therefore, the funds that resources available to complete the critical habitat designations for already- remain within the listing cap—after proposal, because there are competing listed species. (‘‘The critical habitat paying for work within the subcaps demands for those resources, and the designation subcap will ensure that needed to comply with court orders or relative priority of those competing some funding is available to address court-approved settlement agreements demands is higher. Thus, in any given other listing activities.’’ House Report requiring critical habitat actions for fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate No. 107–103, 107th Congress, 1st already-listed species, listing actions for whether it will be possible to undertake Session (June 19, 2001)). In FY 2002 and foreign species, and petition findings, work on a proposed listing regulation or each year until FY 2006, the Service had respectively—set the framework within whether promulgation of such a to use virtually all of the funds within which we make our determinations of proposal is precluded by higher-priority the critical habitat subcap to address preclusion and expeditious progress. listing actions—(1) The amount of court-mandated designations of critical For FY 2016, on December 18, 2015, resources available for completing the habitat, and consequently none of the Congress passed a Consolidated listing function, (2) the estimated cost of funds within the critical habitat subcap Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 114–113), completing the proposed listing were available for other listing which provided funding through regulation, and (3) the Service’s activities. In some FYs since 2006, we September 30, 2016. That workload, along with the Service’s have not needed to use all of the funds Appropriations Act included an overall prioritization of the proposed listing within the critical habitat to comply spending cap of $20,515,000 for the regulation in relation to other actions in with court orders, and we therefore listing program. Of that, no more than its workload. could use the remaining funds within $4,605,000 could be used for critical Available Resources the subcap towards additional proposed habitat determinations; no more than listing determinations for high-priority $1,504,000 could be used for listing The resources available for listing candidate species. In other FYs, while actions for foreign species; and no more actions are determined through the we did not need to use all of the funds than $1,501,000 could be used to make annual Congressional appropriations within the critical habitat subcap to 90-day or 12-month findings on process. In FY 1998 and for each fiscal comply with court orders requiring petitions. The Service thus had year since then, Congress has placed a critical habitat actions, we did not apply $12,905,000 available to work on statutory cap on funds that may be any of the remaining funds towards proposed and final listing expended for the Listing Program. This additional proposed listing determinations for domestic species. In spending cap was designed to prevent determinations, and instead applied the addition, if the Service had funding the listing function from depleting remaining funds towards completing available within the critical habitat, funds needed for other functions under critical habitat determinations foreign species, or petition subcaps after the ESA (for example, recovery concurrently with proposed listing those workloads had been completed, it functions, such as removing species determinations. This allowed us to could use those funds to work on listing from the Lists), or for other Service combine the proposed listing actions other than critical habitat programs (see House Report 105–163, determination and proposed critical designations or foreign species. 105th Congress, 1st Session, July 1, habitat designation into one rule, Costs of Listing Actions. The work 1997). The funds within the spending thereby being more efficient in our involved in preparing various listing cap are available to support work work. In FY 2016, based on the Service’s documents can be extensive, and may involving the following listing actions: workload, we were able to use some of include, but is not limited to: Gathering Proposed and final listing rules; 90-day the funds within the critical habitat and assessing the best scientific and and 12-month findings on petitions to subcap to fund proposed listing commercial data available and add species to the Lists or to change the determinations. conducting analyses used as the basis status of a species from threatened to Since FY 2012, Congress has also put for our decisions; writing and endangered; annual ‘‘resubmitted’’ in place two additional subcaps within publishing documents; and obtaining, petition findings on prior warranted- the listing cap: One for listing actions reviewing, and evaluating public but-precluded petition findings as for foreign species and one for petition comments and peer-review comments required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of findings. As with the critical habitat on proposed rules and incorporating the ESA; critical habitat petition subcap, if the Service does not need to relevant information from those findings; proposed rules designating use all of the funds within either comments into final rules. The number critical habitat or final critical habitat subcap, we are able to use the remaining of listing actions that we can undertake determinations; and litigation-related, funds for completing proposed or final in a given year also is influenced by the administrative, and program- listing determinations. In FY 2016, complexity of those listing actions; that management functions (including based on the Service’s workload, we is, more complex actions generally are preparing and allocating budgets, were able to use some of the funds more costly. In the past, we estimated responding to Congressional and public within the petitions subcap to fund that the median cost for preparing and inquiries, and conducting public proposed listing determinations. publishing a 90-day finding was $4,500 outreach regarding listing and critical We make our determinations of and for a 12-month finding, $68,875. We habitat). preclusion on a nationwide basis to have streamlined our processes for We cannot spend more for the Listing ensure that the species most in need of making 12-month petition findings to be Program than the amount of funds listing will be addressed first, and as efficient as possible to reduce these within the spending cap without because we allocate our listing budget costs and we estimate that we have cut violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 on a nationwide basis. Through the this cost in half. We estimate that the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 87251

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 87252 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules

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

FY 2016 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS

Publication date Title Actions FR pages

12/22/2015 ...... 90-Day and 12-month Findings on a Petition to 90-Day and 12-month petition findings—Sub- 80 FR 79533–79554. List the Miami Tiger Beetle as an Endan- stantial and warranted; Proposed listing; En- gered or Threatened Species; Proposed En- dangered. dangered Species Status for the Miami Tiger Beetle. 1/6/2016 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Alex- 12-Month petition finding; Not warranted ...... 81 FR 435–458. ander Archipelago Wolf as an Endangered or Threatened Species. 1/12/2016 ...... 90-Day Findings on 17 Petitions...... 90-Day petition findings; Substantial and not 81 FR 1368–1375. substantial. 3/16/2016 ...... 90-Day Findings on 29 Petitions...... 90-Day petition findings; Substantial and not 81 FR 14058–14072. substantial. 4/5/2016 ...... 12-Month Findings on Petitions To List Island 12-Month petition finding; Warranted but pre- 81 FR 19527–19542. Marble Butterfly, San Bernardino Flying cluded and; Not warranted; Candidate re- Squirrel, Spotless Crake, and Sprague’s Pipit moval. as Endangered or Threatened Species.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 87253

FY 2016 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued

Publication date Title Actions FR pages

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 87254 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules

FY 2016 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued

Publication date Title Actions FR pages

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

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

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

Species Action

Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement

Pacific walrus ...... Proposed listing determination.

Other Actions

Hermes copper butterfly ...... Proposed listing determination. Cirsium wrightii (Wright’s marsh thistle) ...... Proposed listing determination.

We also funded work on resubmitted is shared between the Listing Program Program, which is separately budgeted, petition findings for 29 candidate and the Candidate Conservation focuses on providing technical expertise species (species petitioned prior to the Program. for developing conservation strategies last CNOR). We did not include an During FY 2016, we also funded work and agreements to guide voluntary on- updated assessment form as part of our on resubmitted petition findings for the-ground conservation work for resubmitted petition findings for the petitions to uplist three listed species candidate and other at-risk species. The three candidate species for which we (one grizzly bear population, Delta main goal of this program is to address are preparing either proposed listing smelt, and Sclerocactus brevispinus the threats facing candidate species. determinations or not-warranted (Pariette cactus)), for which we had Through this program, we work with 12-month findings. However, in the previously received a petition and made our partners (other Federal agencies, course of preparing the proposed listing a warranted-but-precluded finding. State agencies, Tribes, local determinations or 12-month not- Another way that we have been governments, private landowners, and warranted findings for those species, we expeditious in making progress to add private conservation organizations) to have continued to monitor new qualified species to the Lists is that we address the threats to candidate species information about their status so that we have endeavored to make our listing and other species at risk. We are can make prompt use of our authority actions as efficient and timely as currently working with our partners to under section 4(b)(7) of the ESA in the possible, given the requirements of the implement voluntary conservation case of an emergency posing a relevant law and regulations and agreements for more than 110 species significant risk to the well-being of any constraints relating to workload and covering 6.1 million acres of habitat. In of these candidate species; see personnel. We are continually some instances, the sustained summaries below regarding publication considering ways to streamline implementation of strategically of these determinations (these species processes or achieve economies of scale, designed conservation efforts has will remain on the candidate list until and have been batching related actions culminated in making listing a proposed listing rule is published). together. Given our limited budget for unnecessary for species that are Because the majority of these petitioned implementing section 4 of the ESA, candidates for listing or for which species were already candidate species these efforts also contribute towards listing has been proposed (see http:// prior to our receipt of a petition to list finding that we are making expeditious ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/non- them, we had already assessed their progress to add qualified species to the listed-species-precluded-from-listing- status using funds from our Candidate Lists. due-to-conservation-report). Conservation Program, so we continue Although we have not resolved the Findings for Petitioned Candidate to monitor the status of these species listing status of all of the species we Species through our Candidate Conservation identified as candidates after 2010, we Program. The cost of updating the continue to contribute to the Below are updated summaries for species assessment forms and conservation of these species through petitioned candidates for which we publishing the joint publication of the several programs in the Service. In published findings under section CNOR and resubmitted petition findings particular, the Candidate Conservation 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA. In accordance

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 87255

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 87256 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 87257

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 87258 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 87259

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 87260 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 87261

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 87262 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 87263

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 87264 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 87265

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 87266 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules

In Table 1, the ‘‘category’’ column on segment), indicated by postal code and historical range include information the left side of the table identifies the abbreviations for States and U.S. as previously described for Table 1. status of each species according to the territories. Many species no longer Request for Information following codes: occur in all of the areas listed. PE—Species proposed for listing as Species in Table 2 of this notice are We request you submit any further endangered. Proposed species are those we included either as proposed information on the species named in those species for which we have species or as candidates in the previous this notice as soon as possible or published a proposed rule to list as CNOR (published December 24, 2015, at whenever it becomes available. We are endangered or threatened in the 80 FR 80584) that are no longer particularly interested in any Federal Register. This category does proposed species or candidates for information: not include species for which we have listing. Since December 24, 2015, we (1) Indicating that we should add a withdrawn or finalized the proposed listed 78 species, withdrew 1 species species to the list of candidate species; (2) Indicating that we should remove rule. from proposed status, and removed 18 a species from candidate status; PT—Species proposed for listing as species from the candidate list. The first (3) Recommending areas that we threatened. column indicates the present status of should designate as critical habitat for a PSAT—Species proposed for listing as each species, using the following codes species, or indicating that designation of threatened due to similarity of (not all of these codes may have been critical habitat would not be prudent for appearance. used in this CNOR): a species; E—Species we listed as endangered. C—Candidates: Species for which we (4) Documenting threats to any of the have on file sufficient information on T—Species we listed as threatened. Rc—Species we removed from the included species; biological vulnerability and threats to (5) Describing the immediacy or candidate list, because currently support proposals to list them as magnitude of threats facing candidate available information does not endangered or threatened. Issuance of species; proposed rules for these species is support a proposed listing. (6) Pointing out taxonomic or Rp—Species we removed from the precluded at present by other higher nomenclature changes for any of the candidate list, because we have priority listing actions. This category species; includes species for which we made withdrawn the proposed listing. (7) Suggesting appropriate common a 12-month warranted-but-precluded The second column indicates why the names; and finding on a petition to list. We made species is no longer a candidate or (8) Noting any mistakes, such as new findings on all petitions for proposed species, using the following errors in the indicated historical ranges. which we previously made codes (not all of these codes may have Submit information, materials, or ‘‘warranted-but-precluded’’ findings. been used in this CNOR): comments regarding a particular species We identify the species for which we A—Species that are more abundant or to the Regional Director of the Region made a continued warranted-but- widespread than previously believed identified as having the lead precluded finding on a resubmitted and species that are not subject to the responsibility for that species. The petition by the code ‘‘C*’’ in the degree of threats sufficient that the regional addresses follow: category column (see Findings for species is a candidate for listing (for Region 1. Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, Petitioned Candidate Species for reasons other than that conservation Washington, American Samoa, Guam, additional information). efforts have removed or reduced the and Commonwealth of the Northern The ‘‘Priority’’ column indicates the threats to the species). Mariana Islands. Regional Director LPN for each candidate species, which F—Species whose range no longer (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, we use to determine the most includes a U.S. territory. Eastside Federal Complex, 911 NE. appropriate use of our available I—Species for which the best available 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232– resources. The lowest numbers have the information on biological 4181 (503/231–6158). highest priority. We assign LPNs based vulnerability and threats is Region 2. Arizona, New Mexico, on the immediacy and magnitude of insufficient to support a conclusion Oklahoma, and Texas. Regional threats, as well as on taxonomic status. that the species is an endangered Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife We published a complete description of species or a threatened species. Service, 500 Gold Avenue SW., Room our listing priority system in the L—Species we added to the Lists of 4012, Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505/ Federal Register (48 FR 43098, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 248–6920). September 21, 1983). and Plants. Region 3. Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, The third column, ‘‘Lead Region,’’ M—Species we mistakenly included as Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, identifies the Regional Office to which candidates or proposed species in the and Wisconsin. Regional Director you should direct information, last notice of review. (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, comments, or questions (see addresses N—Species that are not listable entities 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990, under Request for Information at the based on the ESA’s definition of Bloomington, MN 55437–1458 (612/ end of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ‘‘species’’ and current taxonomic 713–5334). section). understanding. Region 4. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Following the scientific name (fourth U—Species that are not subject to the Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, column) and the family designation degree of threats sufficient to warrant Mississippi, North Carolina, South (fifth column) is the common name issuance of a proposed listing and Carolina, Tennessee, Puerto Rico, and (sixth column). The seventh column therefore are not candidates for the U.S. Virgin Islands. Regional provides the known historical range for listing, due, in part or totally, to Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife the species or vertebrate population (for conservation efforts that remove or Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, vertebrate populations, this is the reduce the threats to the species. Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30345 (404/ historical range for the entire species or X—Species we believe to be extinct. 679–4156). subspecies and not just the historical The columns describing lead region, Region 5. Connecticut, Delaware, range for the distinct population scientific name, family, common name, District of Columbia, Maine,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 87267

Maryland, Massachusetts, New Suite W2606, Sacramento, CA 95825 Public Availability of Comments Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, (916/414–6464). Before including your address, phone Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, HQ (Foreign). Chief, Branch of Foreign number, email address, or other Virginia, and West Virginia. Regional Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife personal identifying information in your Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: ES, 5275 submission, be advised that your entire Service, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA submission—including your personal Hadley, MA 01035–9589 (413/253– 22041–3803 (703/358–2370). identifying information—may be made 8615). We will provide information we publicly available at any time. Although Region 6. Colorado, Kansas, Montana, receive to the Region having lead you can ask us in your submission to Nebraska, North Dakota, South responsibility for each candidate species withhold from public review your Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Regional mentioned in the submission. We will personal identifying information, we Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife likewise consider all information cannot guarantee that we will be able to Service, P.O. Box 25486, Denver provided in response to this CNOR in do so. Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225– deciding whether to propose species for 0486 (303/236–7400). Authority listing and when to undertake necessary This notice is published under the Region 7. Alaska. Regional Director listing actions (including whether authority of the Endangered Species Act (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, emergency listing under section 4(b)(7) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK of the ESA is appropriate). Information seq.). 99503–6199 (907/786–3505). and comments we receive will become Region 8. California and Nevada. part of the administrative record for the Dated: November 14, 2016. Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and species, which we maintain at the Stephen Guertin, Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, appropriate Regional Office. Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

TABLE 1—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS) [Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table]

Status Lead Scientific name Family Common name Historical range Category Priority region

MAMMALS

C * ...... 6 ...... R2 ...... Tamias minimus Sciuridae ...... Chipmunk, Pen˜asco least U.S.A. (NM). atristriatus. C * ...... 3 ...... R8 ...... Vulpes vulpes necator ..... Canidae ...... Fox, Sierra Nevada red U.S.A. (CA, OR). (Sierra Nevada DPS). C * ...... 9 ...... R1 ...... Arborimus longicaudus .... Cricetidae ...... Vole, Red (north Oregon U.S.A. (OR). coast DPS). C * ...... 9 ...... R7 ...... Odobenus rosmarus Odobenidae ...... Walrus, Pacific ...... U.S.A. (AK), Russian divergens. Federation (Kamchatka and Chukotka). PT ...... 6 ...... R6 ...... Gulo gulo luscus ...... Mustelidae ...... Wolverine, North Amer- U.S.A. (CA, CO, ID, MT, ican (Contiguous U.S. OR, UT, WA, WY). DPS).

BIRDS

PT ...... R1 ...... Drepanis coccinea ...... Fringillidae ...... Iiwi (honeycreeper) ...... U.S.A. (HI). C * ...... 2 ...... R2 ...... Amazona viridigenalis ..... Psittacidae ...... Parrot, red-crowned ...... U.S.A. (TX), Mexico.

REPTILES

PT ...... 5 ...... R4 ...... Pituophis ruthveni ...... Colubridae ...... Snake, Louisiana pine ..... U.S.A. (LA, TX). C * ...... 8 ...... R4 ...... Gopherus polyphemus .... Testudinidae ...... Tortoise, gopher (eastern U.S.A. (AL, FL, GA, LA, population). MS, SC). PE ...... 6 ...... R2 ...... Kinosternon sonoriense Kinosternidae ...... Turtle, Sonoyta mud ...... U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico. longifemorale.

AMPHIBIANS

C * ...... 8 ...... R4 ...... Notophthalmus Salamandridae ..... Newt, striped ...... U.S.A. (FL, GA). perstriatus. C * ...... 8 ...... R4 ...... Gyrinophilus gulolineatus Plethodontidae ..... Salamander, Berry Cave U.S.A. (TN). PE ...... 2 ...... R4 ...... Necturus alabamensis ..... Proteidae ...... Waterdog, black warrior ( U.S.A. (AL). = Sipsey Fork).

FISHES

PT ...... 8 ...... R2 ...... Gila nigra ...... Cyprinidae ...... Chub, headwater ...... U.S.A. (AZ, NM). PT ...... 9 ...... R2 ...... Gila robusta ...... Cyprinidae ...... Chub, roundtail (Lower U.S.A. (AZ, CO, NM, UT, Colorado River Basin WY). DPS).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 87268 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued [Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table]

Status Lead Scientific name Family Common name Historical range Category Priority region

PE ...... 2 ...... R5 ...... Crystallaria cincotta ...... Percidae ...... Darter, diamond ...... U.S.A. (KY, OH, TN, WV). PT ...... 8 ...... R4 ...... Percina aurora ...... Percidae ...... Darter, Pearl ...... U.S.A. (LA, MS). C * ...... 3 ...... R8 ...... Spirinchus thaleichthys ... Osmeridae ...... Smelt, longfin (San Fran- U.S.A. (AK, CA, OR, cisco Bay–Delta DPS). WA), Canada. PSAT ...... N/A ...... R1 ...... Salvelinus malma ...... Salmonidae ...... Trout, Dolly Varden ...... U.S.A. (AK, WA), Can- ada, East Asia.

CLAMS

C * ...... 2 ...... R2 ...... Lampsilis bracteata ...... Unionidae ...... Fatmucket, Texas ...... U.S.A. (TX). C * ...... 2 ...... R2 ...... Truncilla macrodon ...... Unionidae ...... Fawnsfoot, Texas ...... U.S.A. (TX). PE ...... 8 ...... R2 ...... Popenaias popei ...... Unionidae ...... Hornshell, Texas ...... U.S.A. (NM, TX), Mexico. C * ...... 8 ...... R2 ...... Quadrula aurea ...... Unionidae ...... Orb, golden ...... U.S.A. (TX). C * ...... 8 ...... R2 ...... Quadrula houstonensis ... Unionidae ...... Pimpleback, smooth ...... U.S.A. (TX). C * ...... 2 ...... R2 ...... Quadrula petrina ...... Unionidae ...... Pimpleback, Texas ...... U.S.A. (TX).

SNAILS

C * ...... 2 ...... R4 ...... Planorbella magnifica ...... Planorbidae ...... Ramshorn, magnificent ... U.S.A. (NC).

INSECTS

PE ...... R3 ...... Bombus affinis ...... Apidae ...... Bee, rusty patched bum- U.S.A. (CT, DE, DC, GA, ble. IL, IN, IA, KY, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MO, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, , PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, VT, VA, WV, WI, Can- ada (Ontario, Quebec). C * ...... 5 ...... R8 ...... Lycaena hermes ...... Lycaenidae ...... Butterfly, Hermes copper U.S.A. (CA). C * ...... 3 ...... R1 ...... Euchloe ausonides Pieridae ...... Butterfly, Island marble ... U.S.A. (WA). insulanus. C * ...... 2 ...... R4 ...... Atlantea tulita ...... Nymphalidae ...... Butterfly, Puerto Rican U.S.A. (PR). harlequin. C * ...... 8 ...... R3 ...... Papaipema eryngii ...... Noctuidae ...... Moth, rattlesnake-master U.S.A. (AR, IL, KY, NC, borer. OK). C * ...... 5 ...... R6 ...... Arsapnia (= Capnia) Capniidae ...... Snowfly, Arapahoe ...... U.S.A. (CO). arapahoe. PT ...... 5 ...... R6 ...... Lednia tumana ...... Nemouridae ...... Stonefly, meltwater U.S.A. (MT). lednian. PT ...... R6 ...... Zapada glacier ...... Nemouridae ...... Stonefly, western glacier U.S.A. (MT).

CRUSTACEANS

PE ...... 8 ...... R5 ...... Stygobromus kenki ...... Crangonyctidae .... Amphipod, Kenk’s ...... U.S.A. (DC).

FLOWERING PLANTS

C * ...... 8 ...... R6 ...... Astragalus microcymbus Fabaceae ...... Milkvetch, skiff ...... U.S.A. (CO). C * ...... 8 ...... R6 ...... Astragalus schmolliae ..... Fabaceae ...... Milkvetch, Chapin Mesa .. U.S.A. (CO). C * ...... 8 ...... R6 ...... Boechera (= Arabis) Brassicaceae ...... Rockcress, Fremont U.S.A. (WY). pusilla. County or small. PT ...... 12 ...... R4 ...... Chamaesyce deltoidea Euphorbiaceae ..... Sandmat, pineland ...... U.S.A. (FL). pinetorum. PT ...... 6 ...... R8 ...... Chorizanthe parryi var. Polygonaceae ...... Spineflower, San Fer- U.S.A. (CA). fernandina. nando Valley. C * ...... 8 ...... R2 ...... Cirsium wrightii ...... Asteraceae ...... Thistle, Wright’s ...... U.S.A. (AZ, NM), Mexico. PT ...... 3 ...... R4 ...... Dalea carthagenensis Fabaceae ...... Prairie-clover, Florida ...... U.S.A. (FL). var. floridana. PT ...... 5 ...... R4 ...... Digitaria pauciflora ...... Poaceae ...... Crabgrass, Florida pine- U.S.A. (FL). land. C * ...... 8 ...... R6 ...... Eriogonum soredium ...... Polygonaceae ...... Buckwheat, Frisco ...... U.S.A. (UT). PE ...... 11 ...... R2 ...... Festuca ligulata ...... Poaceae ...... Fescue, Guadalupe ...... U.S.A. (TX), Mexico. C * ...... 8 ...... R6 ...... Lepidium ostleri ...... Brassicaceae ...... Peppergrass, Ostler’s ...... U.S.A. (UT). C * ...... 8 ...... R6 ...... Pinus albicaulis ...... Pinaceae ...... Pine, whitebark ...... U.S.A. (CA, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA, WY), Canada (AB, BC). PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Sicyos macrophyllus ...... Cucurbitaceae ...... Anunu ...... U.S.A. (HI).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 87269

TABLE 1—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued [Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table]

Status Lead Scientific name Family Common name Historical range Category Priority region

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

TABLE 2—ANIMALS AND PLANTS FORMERLY CANDIDATES OR FORMERLY PROPOSED FOR LISTING [Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table]

Status Lead Scientific name Family Common name Historical range Code Expl. region

MAMMALS

E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Emballonura semicaudata Emballonuridae .... Bat, Pacific sheath-tailed U.S.A. (AS), Fiji, Inde- semicaudata. (American Samoa pendent Samoa, DPS). Tonga, Vanuatu. Rp ...... A ...... R8 ...... Martes pennanti ...... Mustelidae ...... Fisher (west coast DPS) U.S.A. (CA, CT, IA, ID, IL, IN, KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MT, ND, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, TN, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY), Canada. Rc ...... U ...... R1 ...... Urocitellus washingtoni ... Sciuridae ...... Squirrel, Washington U.S.A. (WA, OR). ground.

BIRDS

Rc ...... A ...... R1 ...... Porzana tabuensis ...... Rallidae ...... Crake, spotless (Amer- U.S.A. (AS), Australia, ican Samoa DPS). Fiji, Independent Samoa, Marquesas, Philippines, Society Is- lands, Tonga. E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Gallicolumba stairi ...... Columbidae ...... Ground-dove, friendly U.S.A. (AS), Independent (American Samoa Samoa. DPS). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Oceanodroma castro ...... Hydrobatidae ...... Storm-petrel, band- U.S.A. (HI), Atlantic rumped (Hawaii DPS). Ocean, Ecuador (Gala- pagos Islands), Japan. E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Gymnomyza samoensis .. Meliphagidae ...... Ma’oma’o ...... U.S.A. (AS), Independent Samoa. Rc ...... U ...... R8 ...... Synthliboramphus Alcidae ...... Murrelet, Xantus’s ...... U.S.A. (CA), Mexico. hypoleucus. Rc ...... A ...... R6 ...... Anthus spragueii ...... Motacillidae ...... Pipit, Sprague’s ...... U.S.A. (AR, AZ, CO, KS, LA, MN, MS, MT, ND, NE, NM, OK, SD, TX), Canada, Mexico. T ...... L ...... R4 ...... Dendroica angelae ...... Emberizidae ...... Warbler, elfin-woods ...... U.S.A. (PR).

REPTILES

PT ...... 8 ...... R3 ...... Sistrurus catenatus ...... Viperidae ...... Massasauga (= rattle- U.S.A. (IA, IL, IN, MI, snake), eastern. MN, MO, NY, OH, PA, WI), Canada. T ...... L ...... R1 ...... Chelonia mydas ...... Cheloniidae ...... Sea turtle, green (Central Central North Pacific North Pacific DPS). Ocean. E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Chelonia mydas ...... Cheloniidae ...... Sea turtle, green (Central Central South Pacific South Pacific DPS). Ocean. E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Chelonia mydas ...... Cheloniidae ...... Sea turtle, green (Central Central West Pacific West Pacific DPS). Ocean. T ...... L ...... HQ (Foreign) Chelonia mydas ...... Cheloniidae ...... Sea turtle, green (East In- Eastern Indian and West- dian-West Pacific DPS). ern Pacific Oceans. T ...... L ...... R8 ...... Chelonia mydas ...... Cheloniidae ...... Sea turtle, green (East East Pacific Ocean. Pacific DPS). E ...... L ...... HQ (Foreign) Chelonia mydas ...... Cheloniidae ...... Sea turtle, green (Medi- Mediterranean Sea. terranean DPS).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 87270 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 2—ANIMALS AND PLANTS FORMERLY CANDIDATES OR FORMERLY PROPOSED FOR LISTING—Continued [Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table]

Status Lead Scientific name Family Common name Historical range Code Expl. region

T ...... L ...... R4 ...... Chelonia mydas ...... Cheloniidae ...... Sea turtle, green (North North Atlantic Ocean. Atlantic DPS). T ...... L ...... HQ (Foreign) Chelonia mydas ...... Cheloniidae ...... Sea turtle, green (North North Indian Ocean. Indian DPS). T ...... L ...... R4 ...... Chelonia mydas ...... Cheloniidae ...... Sea turtle, green (South South Atlantic Ocean. Atlantic DPS). T ...... L ...... HQ (Foreign) Chelonia mydas ...... Cheloniidae ...... Sea turtle, green (South- Southwest Indian Ocean. west Indian DPS). T ...... L ...... HQ (Foreign) Chelonia mydas ...... Cheloniidae ...... Sea turtle, green (South- Southwest Pacific Ocean. west Pacific DPS).

AMPHIBIANS

Rc ...... U ...... R8 ...... Lithobates onca ...... Ranidae ...... Frog, relict leopard ...... U.S.A. (AZ, NV, UT). Rc ...... N ...... R2 ...... Hyla wrightorum ...... Hylidae ...... Treefrog, Arizona U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico (So- (Huachuca/Canelo nora). DPS).

FISHES

Rc ...... A ...... R6 ...... Etheostoma cragini ...... Percidae ...... Darter, Arkansas ...... U.S.A. (AR, CO, KS, MO, OK). T ...... L ...... R4 ...... Etheostoma spilotum ...... Percidae ...... Darter, Kentucky arrow ... U.S.A. (KY). Rc ...... U ...... R4 ...... Moxostoma sp...... Catostomidae ...... Redhorse, sicklefin ...... U.S.A. (GA, NC, TN).

CLAMS

T ...... L ...... R4 ...... Medionidus walkeri ...... Unionidae ...... Moccasinshell, Suwannee U.S.A. (FL, GA).

SNAILS

Rc ...... N ...... R4 ...... Elimia melanoides ...... Pleuroceridae ...... Mudalia, black ...... U.S.A. (AL). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Eua zebrina ...... Partulidae ...... Snail, no common name U.S.A. (AS). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Ostodes strigatus ...... Potaridae ...... Snail, no common name U.S.A. (AS). Rc ...... A ...... R2 ...... Pyrgulopsis thompsoni .... Hydrobiidae ...... Springsnail, Huachuca .... U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico.

INSECTS

E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Hylaeus anthracinus ...... Colletidae ...... Bee, Hawaiian yellow- U.S.A. (HI). faced. E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Hylaeus assimulans ...... Colletidae ...... Bee, Hawaiian yellow- U.S.A. (HI). faced. E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Hylaeus facilis ...... Colletidae ...... Bee, Hawaiian yellow- U.S.A. (HI). faced. E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Hylaeus hilaris ...... Colletidae ...... Bee, Hawaiian yellow- U.S.A. (HI). faced. E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Hylaeus kuakea ...... Colletidae ...... Bee, Hawaiian yellow- U.S.A. (HI). faced. E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Hylaeus longiceps ...... Colletidae ...... Bee, Hawaiian yellow- U.S.A. (HI). faced. E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Hylaeus mana ...... Colletidae ...... Bee, Hawaiian yellow- U.S.A. (HI). faced. Rc ...... A ...... R4 ...... Pseudanophthalmus Carabidae ...... Cave beetle, Clifton ...... U.S.A. (KY). caecus. Rc ...... A ...... R4 ...... Pseudanophthalmus Carabidae ...... Cave beetle, icebox ...... U.S.A. (KY). frigidus. Rc ...... A ...... R4 ...... Pseudanophthalmus trog- Carabidae ...... Cave beetle, Louisville .... U.S.A. (KY). lodytes. Rc ...... X ...... R4 ...... Pseudanophthalmus Carabidae ...... Cave beetle, Tatum ...... U.S.A. (KY). parvus. E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Megalagrion xanthomelas Coenagrionidae .... Damselfly, orangeblack U.S.A. (HI). Hawaiian. Rc ...... X ...... R2 ...... Heterelmis stephani ...... Elmidae ...... Riffle beetle, Stephan’s ... U.S.A. (AZ). Rc ...... A ...... R4 ...... Cicindela highlandensis .. Cicindelidae ...... Tiger beetle, highlands .... U.S.A. (FL). E ...... L ...... R4 ...... Cicindelidia floridana ...... Cicindelidae ...... Tiger beetle, Miami ...... U.S.A. (FL).

CRUSTACEANS

T ...... L ...... R5 ...... Cambarus callainus ...... Cambaridae ...... Crayfish, Big Sandy ...... U.S.A. (KY, VA, WV).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules 87271

TABLE 2—ANIMALS AND PLANTS FORMERLY CANDIDATES OR FORMERLY PROPOSED FOR LISTING—Continued [Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table]

Status Lead Scientific name Family Common name Historical range Code Expl. region

E ...... L ...... R5 ...... Cambarus veteranus ...... Cambaridae ...... Crayfish, Guyandotte U.S.A. (WV). River. E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Procaris hawaiana ...... Procarididae ...... Shrimp, anchialine pool ... U.S.A. (HI).

FLOWERING PLANTS

T ...... L ...... R4 ...... Argythamnia blodgettii ..... Euphorbiaceae ..... Silverbush, Blodgett’s ...... U.S.A. (FL). Rc ...... A ...... R1 ...... Artemisia borealis var. Asteraceae ...... Wormwood, northern ...... U.S.A. (OR, WA). wormskioldii. E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Calamagrostis expansa ... Poaceae ...... Reedgrass, Maui ...... U.S.A. (HI). E ...... L ...... R4 ...... Chamaecrista lineata var. Fabaceae ...... Pea, Big Pine partridge ... U.S.A. (FL). keyensis. E ...... L ...... R4 ...... Chamaesyce deltoidea Euphorbiaceae ..... Spurge, wedge ...... U.S.A. (FL). serpyllum. E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Cyanea kauaulaensis ...... Campanulaceae ... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Cyperus neokunthianus .. Cyperaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Cyrtandra hematos ...... Gesneriaceae ...... Haiwale ...... U.S.A. (HI). Rc ...... N ...... R5 ...... Dichanthelium hirstii ...... Poaceae ...... Panic grass, Hirst Broth- U.S.A. (DE, GA, NC, NJ). ers’. E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Exocarpos menziesii ...... Santalaceae ...... Heau ...... U.S.A. (HI). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Festuca hawaiiensis ...... Poaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Gardenia remyi ...... Rubiaceae ...... Nanu ...... U.S.A. (HI). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Joinvillea ascendens Joinvilleaceae ...... Ohe ...... U.S.A. (HI). ascendens. E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Kadua (= Hedyotis) Rubiaceae ...... Kampuaa ...... U.S.A. (HI). fluviatilis. E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Kadua haupuensis ...... Rubiaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Labordia lorenciana ...... Loganiaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Lepidium orbiculare ...... Brassicaceae ...... Anaunau ...... U.S.A. (HI). T ...... L ...... R1 ...... Lepidium papilliferum ...... Brassicaceae ...... Peppergrass, slickspot .... U.S.A. (ID). E ...... L ...... R4 ...... Linum arenicola ...... Linaceae ...... Flax, sand ...... U.S.A. (FL). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Myrsine fosbergii ...... Myrsinaceae ...... Kolea ...... U.S.A. (HI). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Nothocestrum latifolium ... Solanaceae ...... Aiea ...... U.S.A. (HI). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Ochrosia haleakalae ...... Apocynaceae ...... Holei ...... U.S.A. (HI). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Phyllostegia brevidens .... Lamiaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Phyllostegia helleri ...... Lamiaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Phyllostegia stachyoides Lamiaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). T ...... L ...... R4 ...... Platanthera integrilabia ... Orchidaceae ...... Orchid, white fringeless ... U.S.A. (AL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Portulaca villosa ...... Portulacaceae ...... Ihi ...... U.S.A. (HI). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Pritchardia bakeri ...... Arecaceae ...... Loulu (= Loulu lelo) ...... U.S.A. (HI). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Pseudognaphalium (= Asteraceae ...... Enaena ...... U.S.A. (HI). Gnaphalium) sandwicensium var. molokaiense. E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Ranunculus hawaiensis .. Ranunculaceae .... Makou ...... U.S.A. (HI). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Ranunculus mauiensis .... Ranunculaceae .... Makou ...... U.S.A. (HI). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Sanicula sandwicensis .... Apiaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Santalum involutum ...... Santalaceae ...... Iliahi ...... U.S.A. (HI). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Schiedea diffusa ssp. Caryophyllaceae ... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). diffusa. E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Schiedea pubescens ...... Caryophyllaceae ... Maolioli ...... U.S.A. (HI). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Sicyos lanceoloideus ...... Cucurbitaceae ...... Anunu ...... U.S.A. (HI). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Solanum nelsonii ...... Solanaceae ...... Popolo ...... U.S.A. (HI). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Stenogyne kaalae ssp. Lamiaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). sherffii. E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Wikstroemia Thymelaceae ...... Akia ...... U.S.A. (HI). skottsbergiana.

FERNS AND ALLIES

E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Asplenium diellaciniatum Aspleniaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Cyclosorus boydiae ...... Thelypteridaceae .. Kupukupu makalii ...... U.S.A. (HI). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Deparia kaalaana ...... Athyraceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Dryopteris glabra var. Dryopteridaceae ... Hohiu ...... U.S.A. (HI). pusilla. E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Huperzia (= Lycopodiaceae ..... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). Phlegmariurus) stemmermanniae.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 87272 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 2—ANIMALS AND PLANTS FORMERLY CANDIDATES OR FORMERLY PROPOSED FOR LISTING—Continued [Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table]

Status Lead Scientific name Family Common name Historical range Code Expl. region

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

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\02DEP2.SGM 02DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS