<<

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 15919

before the test, per the regulation. provided by the roof crush standard. safety argument. Instead, its arguments Furthermore, it is not apparent how the NTEA stated that its statistics show that are based primarily on overstated modifications generally made by a final- the vast majority of multi-stage vehicles certification risk. As such, we believe stage manufacturer will create are rated above 6,000 pounds. NTEA that this rule should continue to include compliance difficulties with FMVSS No. noted that FMVSS No. 216a excludes those vehicles with an intact, compliant 216a. Moreover, as we explained in the trucks other than ones built on chassis- roof structure, whether they are multi-stage certification rulemaking, if cabs (and incomplete vehicles with a delivered to the dealership or the final- final-stage manufacturers identify full exterior van body), meaning that the stage manufacturer. particular areas where compliance with agency excluded approximately one- FMVSS No. 216a is a problem, they, or third of multi-stage vehicles with a IV. Conclusion NTEA on behalf of its members, can GVWR of 6001 pounds to 10,000 For the reasons discussed above, we petition for a temporary exemption pounds. NTEA also said that chassis deny the petition for reconsideration under 49 CFR part 555.78 with a GVWR of over 10,000 pounds submitted by NTEA. In our Further Response, we stated constitute 94.5 percent of the entire Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, that in analyzing the 2006 GMT–355 market of chassis rated above 6,000 30166 and 30177; delegation of authority at IVD, which is for a body-on-frame pounds. Thus, the vast majority of 49 CFR 1.50. vehicle, pass-through certification multi-stage vehicles above 6,000 pounds Issued: March 16, 2011. would be available to final-stage GVWR are already excluded from manufacturers if no modifications were FMVSS No. 216a, and its position Daniel C. Smith, made to the roof or its structural support would not have any appreciable effect Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle members. We still believe that to be on the multi-stage vehicle population Safety. true. NTEA has not presented NHTSA that will be subject to the rule. [FR Doc. 2011–6595 Filed 3–21–11; 8:45 am] with descriptions or evidence of any NTEA’s argument ignores the fact that BILLING CODE 4910–59–P modifications that are made to a chassis- Congress, in SAFETEA–LU, required cab or its support structure. If such NHTSA to establish rules or standards modifications do occur, they could that will reduce vehicle rollover crashes DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR affect the vehicle’s compliance with and mitigate deaths and injuries FMVSS No. 216a if the roof or its associated with such crashes for motor Fish and Wildlife Service support structure is weakened. vehicles with a GVWR of not more than However, we have no evidence that 10,000 pounds. We recognized in the 50 CFR Part 17 such modifications occur. As we final rule that there are benefits for [Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2010–0011; MO presented earlier in this document, vehicles with a GVWR above 6,000 92210–0–0008] NHTSA is unaware of equipment pounds up to 10,000 pounds, although manufacturers that require they are relatively small compared to Endangered and Threatened Wildlife modifications to the chassis-cab or its those associated with lighter vehicles. and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a support structure. However, the benefits are not trivial. We Petition To List the Berry Cave The only modifications mentioned by noted that if a multi-stage vehicle is as Endangered NTEA in it comments or petition is involved in a rollover, the vehicle’s roof where a final-stage manufacturer drills strength will be an important factor in AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, holes in the frame rails behind the providing occupant protection. Interior. chassis-cab and attaches a box onto In the final rule, as discussed above, ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition those frame rails. FMVSS No. 216a will NHTSA included those multi-stage finding. only test the roof strength of the chassis- trucks that have an intact, compliant cab independent of the vehicle’s frame. roof structure when it leaves the SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and The chassis-cab is manufactured by an incomplete vehicle manufacturer and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a incomplete vehicle manufacturer who excluded those trucks for which the 12-month finding on a petition to list will provide the final-stage final-stage manufacturer would be the manufacturer with a compliant roof. responsible for designing and ( gulolineatus) as Therefore, provided modifications are manufacturing the roof structure. While endangered under the Endangered not made to the vehicle’s chassis-cab or the number of included vehicles is a Act of 1973, as amended (Act). its support structure, subsequent small number of the total multi-stage After review of all available scientific modifications to the vehicle’s frame vehicles built and certified every day, and commercial information, we find rails will not affect the vehicle’s adequate justification as to why the that listing the Berry Cave salamander is performance in the FMVSS No. 216a drivers of chassis-cabs should be less warranted. Currently, however, listing is test. For those reasons, NHTSA believes safe than the driver of a nearly identical precluded by higher priority actions to there was no reason for the agency to pickup truck has not been provided. amend the Lists of Endangered and specifically test a completed multi-stage This is especially so when the later- Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Upon truck in support of its evaluation. stage manufacturing does not affect the publication of this 12-month petition strength of the chassis-cab’s roof. finding, we will add the Berry Cave H. All Multi-Stage Vehicles Should Not While there may not be an salamander to our candidate species list. Be Excluded appreciable effect on the entire multi- We will develop a proposed rule to list NTEA argued that excluding all multi- stage population, as NTEA argues, that the Berry Cave salamander as our stage vehicles would not unacceptably was not the intent. Instead, the intent priorities allow. We will make any deprive those users of the safety benefits was to implement the provisions of determination on critical during SAFETEA–LU and, where practicable, development of the proposed listing 78 NTEA stated to its members that it could to give drivers of vehicles with a GVWR rule. During any interim period, we will submit a petition and individual companies would only need to submit limited information to opt-in. of 10,000 pounds or less increased address the status of the candidate taxon See National Truck Equipment Association, safety in case of a rollover. We note that through our annual Candidate Notice of Certification Guide, Appendix 5l (2007). NTEA has not presented a persuasive Review (CNOR).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 21, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM 22MRP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS 15920 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

DATES: The finding announced in this the requisite identification information larger size (Brandon 1965, p. 347). document was made on March 22, 2011. for the petitioner, as required in 50 CFR Despite these differences, the taxonomic ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 424.14(a). In a February 24, 2003, letter status of the Berry Cave salamander has the Internet at http:// to the petitioner, we responded that we been debated for some time. The Berry www.regulations.gov at Docket Number had received the petition but that, due Cave salamander was recognized as a FWS–R4–ES–2010–0011. Supporting to court orders and settlement distinct aquatic, cave-dependant taxon documentation we used in preparing agreements for other listing and critical of the Tennessee cave salamander this finding is available for public habitat actions that required nearly all complex by Brandon (1965, pp. 346– inspection, by appointment, during of our listing and critical habitat 352), who described it as a subspecies normal business hours at the U.S. Fish funding, we would not be able to further (G. p. gulolineatus). The Tennessee and Wildlife Service, Tennessee address the petition at that time. Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) Ecological Services Field Office, 446 The 90-day petition finding was (2005, p. 50) still uses this subspecific Neal Street, Cookeville, TN 38501. published in the Federal Register on designation. Brandon et al. (1986, pp. 1– Please submit any new information, March 18, 2010 (75 FR 13068). The 2) suggested the Berry Cave salamander materials, comments, or questions Service found that the information be considered separate from the concerning this finding to the above provided in the petition, supporting Tennessee cave salamander based on street address. information submitted with the petition, nonadjacent ranges (it is geographically FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: and information otherwise available in isolated from other members of the Mary E. Jennings, Field Supervisor, our files did provide substantial complex), dissimilarity in bone Tennessee Ecological Services Field scientific or commercial information structures of transformed adults, and Office, 446 Neal Street, Cookeville, TN indicating that listing the Berry Cave morphology of neotenic adults. 38501; by telephone 931–528–6481; or salamander may be warranted. In the Furthermore, Niemiller et al. (2010b, by facsimile at 931–528–7075. If you use finding, we stated that we were p. 5) found that Berry Cave salamander a telecommunications device for the initiating a status review to determine populations they sampled have three deaf (TDD), please call the Federal whether listing the species was unique alleles when compared to the Information Relay Service (FIRS) at warranted, and would issue a 12-month Tennessee cave salamander. According 800–877–8339. finding accordingly. This document to Niemiller et al. (2008, p. 2), current constitutes the 12-month finding on the recognizes the Tennessee SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: January 15, 2003, petition to list the cave salamander (G. palleucus) and the Background Berry Cave salamander. Berry Cave salamander (G. gulolineatus) as two independent species. Because Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 Species Information U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for most authorities now assign the Berry any petition to revise the Federal Lists Taxonomy and Species Description Cave salamander species-level status of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Three taxonomic entities have been (Brandon 1965, p. 347; Brandon 1986, and Plants that contains substantial formally described within the pp. 1–2; Collins 1991, p. 43; Simmons scientific or commercial information Tennessee cave salamander species 1976, p. 276; IUCN 2010; ITIS 2010), we that listing a species may be warranted, complex. The pale salamander consider the Berry Cave salamander to we make a finding within 12 months of (Gyrinophilus palleucus palleucus) is be a distinct species, G. gulolineatus, for the date of receipt of the petition. In this the most widely distributed member of the purposes of this finding. finding, we determine whether the the group and is found in middle Distribution petitioned action is: (a) Not warranted, Tennessee, northern , and (b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but northwestern Georgia. The Big Mouth Until recently, only eight populations immediate proposal of a regulation Cave salamander (G. p. necturoides) is of the Berry Cave salamander were implementing the petitioned action is restricted to one cave in middle documented: Seven from caves and one precluded by other pending proposals to Tennessee, and the Berry Cave from a roadside ditch in McMinn determine whether species are salamander (G. gulolineatus) (formerly County, Tennessee, where three endangered or threatened, and recognized as the subspecies G. p. individuals were collected (presumably expeditious progress is being made to gulolineatus) has been recorded from washed into the ditch from a cave). add or remove qualified species from nine locations in eastern Tennessee. in Cruze Cave, formerly the Federal Lists of Endangered and Members of the Tennessee cave considered to be Berry Cave Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section salamander complex are related to the salamanders, are now thought to be 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we (G. porphyriticus); spring salamanders (Miller and treat a petition for which the requested however, unlike the spring salamander, Niemiller 2008, p. 14). A closer analysis action is found to be warranted but they usually are found in caves and are of Cruze Cave revealed the precluded as though resubmitted on the neotenic, meaning that they normally presence of an iris (absent in the Berry date of such finding, that is, requiring a retain larval characteristics as adults. Cave salamander), a high propensity to subsequent finding to be made within Individuals occasionally metamorphose metamorphose (23 percent of 12 months. We must publish these 12- and lose their larval characters individuals collected), and relatively month findings in the Federal Register. (Simmons 1976, p. 256; Yeatman and large eye size when compared to Berry Miller 1985, pp. 305–306), and Cave salamanders (Miller and Niemiller Previous Federal Actions metamorphosis can be induced by 2008, p. 14). Furthermore, genetics On January 22, 2003, we received a subjecting them to hormones (Dent and indicated that Cruze Cave individuals petition dated January 15, 2003, from Kirby-Smith 1963, p. 123). shared the spring salamander’s Dr. John Nolt, University of Tennessee— The Berry Cave salamander is haplotype (closely linked genetic Knoxville, requesting that we list the differentiated from other members of the markers present on a single Berry Cave salamander as endangered group by a distinctive dark stripe on the chromosome) and group (having a under the Act. The petition clearly upper portion of the throat, a wider common ancestor) (Niemiller 2006, p. identified itself as such and included head, a flatter snout, and possibly a 41). Therefore Cruze Cave is no longer

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 21, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM 22MRP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 15921

thought to contain a population of Berry constraints did not allow for mark- p. 39). Gyrinophilus species are Cave salamanders. recapture studies to be performed in generalist feeders and cannibalization of However, recent population surveys each cave and that population estimates other conspecifics (belonging to the (April 2004 through June 2007) resulted were based on the number of same species) may cause females of in the discovery of Berry Cave salamanders found during the surveys. some species to seek isolation from salamanders in two new Knox County These surveys concluded that Berry main cave streams for oviposition caves (Aycock Spring and Christian Cave salamander populations are robust (laying eggs) (Niemiller et al. 2010a, pp. caves). According to Miller and at Berry and Mudflats caves where 38–39). To date, neither eggs nor Niemiller (2008, p. 10), the Berry Cave population declines had been embryos have been described (Niemiller salamander is recorded from nine previously reported (Miller and and Miller 2010, p. 1). localities within the Appalachian Valley Niemiller 2008, p. 1; Miller and and Ridge Province in East Tennessee. Niemiller 2006, p. 44). According to Summary of Information Pertaining to These include eight caves within the Miller and Niemiller (2008, pp. 1, 17– the Five Factors Upper Tennessee River and Clinch 20), a total of 113 caves in Middle and Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), River drainages (Niemiller et al. 2009, p. East Tennessee were surveyed from the and implementing regulations (50 CFR 243) and one unknown cave in McMinn time period of April 2004 through June 424), set forth procedures for adding County, Tennessee (Brandon 1965, p. 2007, resulting in observations of 63 species to the Federal Lists of 348). The Berry Cave salamander is Berry Cave salamanders. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife currently known from Berry Cave, and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Habitat which is located south of Knoxville, Act, a species may be determined to be Tennessee (in Roane County) (Niemiller Limited information is available endangered or threatened based on any 2006, p. 96); from Mud Flats, Aycock concerning the habitat requirements of of the following five factors: Spring, Christian, Meades Quarry, the Berry Cave salamander. According (A) The present or threatened Meades River, and Fifth caves in Knox to Miller and Niemiller (2008, pp. destruction, modification, or County (Niemiller and Miller 2010, p. 10–11), the Berry Cave salamander is curtailment of its habitat or range; 2), the latter three being part of the associated with subterranean waters (B) Overutilization for commercial, larger Meades Quarry Cave System within the Appalachian Valley and recreational, scientific, or educational (Brian Miller, Middle Tennessee State Ridge Province in East Tennessee. In purposes; University, pers. comm., 2010); from general, cave-obligate salamanders (C) Disease or predation; Blythe Ferry Cave (in Meigs County) require an inflow of organic detritus, (D) The inadequacy of existing (Niemiller and Miller 2010, p. 2); and aquatic organisms on which to feed, and regulatory mechanisms; or from an unknown cave in Athens, sufficient cover in the form of rocks and (E) Other natural or manmade factors McMinn County, Tennessee. The ledges. Studies indicate that the affecting its continued existence. Athens record is based solely on the tendency to utilize cover varies between In considering what factors might three specimens collected in a roadside caves, but the Berry Cave salamander constitute threats to a species, we must ditch during a flooding of Oostanaula often seeks refuge in crevices, cover look beyond the mere exposure of the (Eastanollee) Creek (Brandon 1965, pp. areas, and overhanging ledges when species to the factor to evaluate whether 348–349). The species has not been disturbed (Niemiller et al. 2010b, p. 10; the species may respond to the factor in observed in the Athens area since 1953. Miller and Niemiller 2006, p. 11). a way that causes actual impacts to the Miller and Niemiller (2008, p. 11) species. If there is exposure to a factor Biology suggested that populations of the Berry and the species responds negatively, the Cave salamander could occur Life requirements of the Tennessee factor may be a threat and we attempt throughout the Valley and Ridge cave salamander complex are poorly to determine how significant a threat it Province in interconnected subterranean documented due to their reclusive is. The threat is significant if it drives, waters associated with the Tennessee nature and the obscurity of subterranean or contributes to, the risk of extinction River. Distribution studies are limited environments (Niemiller 2006, p. 9). of the species such that the species due to inaccessibility of smaller cave Animals found in the same location warrants listing as endangered or systems, but Miller and Niemiller (2006, during mark-recapture studies indicate threatened as those terms are defined in p. 15) suggest that cave salamander that Berry Cave salamander territories the Act. populations are likely small. Western are diminutive (Miller and Niemiller In making this finding, information dispersal appears to be prohibited by a 2008, p. 11). pertaining to the Berry Cave salamander fault zone located west of the East Little is known in general about in relation to the five factors provided Tennessee Aquifer System (Miller and breeding habits, life spans, or numbers in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed Niemiller 2008, p. 10). comprising individual populations below. Historical estimates of Berry Cave within the Tennessee cave salamander salamander densities and population complex (Miller and Niemiller 2005, p. Factor A. The Present or Threatened trends are lacking. Miller and Niemiller 92). Transition time from larval stage to Destruction, Modification, or (2006, p. 44) provided numbers of Berry reproductive adult is currently Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range Cave salamanders observed in Berry and undocumented. Members of the According to Caldwell and Copeland Mudflats caves by decade, but the Tennessee cave salamander complex are (1992, pp. 3–4), the greatest threats to information has gaps and is insufficient paedomorphic (retain juvenile the Tennessee cave salamander complex for analysis. Miller and Niemiller (2005, characteristics as an adult) and become are derived from agricultural runoff, p. 93) planned to implant salamanders sexually mature without pesticide use in residential and with tags for population estimates on metamorphosing into an adult form agricultural settings, over-collection, return cave visits, comparing marked to (Brandon 1966, in Niemiller et al. 2008, increased water flow into and through unmarked individuals captured. p. 2). Female salamanders in the cave systems following timber However, in an unpublished report to Tennessee cave salamander complex are operations, and siltation caused by the TWRA (Miller and Niemiller 2006, p. believed to be gravid from late autumn removal of trees from riparian zones. 15), the authors state that time to early winter (Niemiller et al. 2010a, Although standard best management

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 21, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM 22MRP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS 15922 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

practices (BMPs) for timber harvesting Meades Quarry Cave continues to be and excavating activities which could require intact riparian buffers and greatly impacted by past quarrying affect organic input into the system, and prohibit instream operation of heavy activities. Niemiller et al. (2010b, p. 11) an increase in impervious surface runoff equipment, these BMPs are not always indicate that cave passages were that may contain various environmental followed and may not fully prevent destroyed by quarrying and that lye contaminants (e.g., oil, herbicides, salt). sediment from entering streams. leaching continues to alkalize the Meades Quarry Cave contains the largest Siltation may adversely affect system near the main entrance to the population of Berry Cave salamanders reproduction by filling crevices used for cave. Water pH tests reveal fluctuations documented and is currently impacted egg deposition or covering the eggs in pH levels from 8.4 to 12.7 by hybridization with the spring themselves (Miller and Niemiller 2006, downstream of the cave entrance, and salamander and lye leaching associated p. 22). Niemiller and Miller (2006, p. 10) Berry Cave salamanders have been with past quarrying activities (Niemiller believe that Berry Cave salamander observed with chemical burns and Miller 2010, p. 3; M. Niemiller, populations, specifically, are most (Niemiller et al. 2010b, p. 11). Matthew pers. comm., July 2010). vulnerable to habitat degradation Niemiller (University of Tennessee, Due to the proximity of the Meades associated with urbanization, over- pers. comm., 2010) suggested that Quarry Cave system to the proposed collecting, and poor silvicultural and removal of larger lye deposits would James White Parkway, the Service agricultural practices. reduce alkalinity input if the main point requested, during a March 4, 2003, Boone and Bridges (2003) (in Miller source could be located. meeting with the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT), that a study and Niemiller (2006, p. 22)) found that There are substantial concerns for the water contamination caused by be prepared to determine whether the six documented Knox County caves pesticide and roadway runoff poses a potential alignments would impact the where Berry Cave salamanders are considerable threat to cave systems. surface area that recharges the Meades known to occur (Mud Flats, Aycock Hayes et al. (2006, p. 40) suggest that Quarry Cave system. As a result, TDOT Spring, Christian, Meades Quarry, are particularly vulnerable contracted ARCADIS to perform a dye Meades River, and Fifth caves) due to to pesticides due to their highly trace study of the affected watershed. growth of metropolitan Knoxville permeable skin combined with the fact ARCADIS (2009, p. 1–2) conducted a (Miller and Niemiller 2008, p. 1). that their critical reproductive and hydrogeologic dye trace study from Construction activities, such as developmental stages occur while they April through June 2009 to determine residential and business developments, are in aquatic environments. Some which karst features within the Toll persistent pesticides are active at low land clearing, and highway projects, Subwatershed (i.e., a surface watershed environmental concentrations and act as frequently result in stream siltation, overlying Meades Quarry and Cruze endocrine disrupters in amphibians, toxic runoff (e.g., solvents, chemical caves) are connected to the Meades causing delayed metamorphosis, spills, road salt oil and grease), and Quarry Cave system. A positive trace developmental retardation, and stunted urban pollution. Stream temperatures from a large sinkhole, just north of larval growth (Hayes et al. 2006, p. 40). are elevated by removal of trees from Sevierville Pike, indicates that it According to Miller and Niemiller riparian zones (forested land along directly recharges the Meades Quarry (2008, p. 13), there are few water quality streams and rivers), and hydrologic Cave system, and it is likely that four data available for caves where the Berry fluctuations result from increased silt smaller sinkholes, in proximity to this Cave salamander is documented, and load; elevated stream temperatures and one, also drain into the Meades Quarry the source of the streams is not well hydrologic fluctuations both potentially Cave (ARCADIS 2009, pp. 5–1, 5–2). understood. Niemiller (2006, p. 96) affect the quantity and quality of organic Dye trace results demonstrated a general observed three individuals in Meades matter available to cave systems. Data southwest to northeast orientation of Quarry Cave and three in Mudflats are currently lacking on long-term groundwater flow (ARCADIS 2009, Cave, caves that are heavily silted and effects of hydrologic fluctuations on p. 5–1) and appeared to substantiate the prone to flooding (Miller and Niemiller salamander population size, but it is hypothesis (based on surface flow) that 2006, p. 22). The Mudflats Cave system thought that an increase in siltation Cruze Cave and Meades Quarry Cave is thought to be affected by residential affects reproduction (Miller and systems were not hydrologically pollution (e.g., herbicides, pesticides, Niemiller 2006, pp. 22–23). While Berry connected. exhaust runoff, and silt load) from a Cave salamander populations have TDOT, in cooperation with the nearby housing development (Miller persisted, development is known to be Federal Highway Administration, is and Niemiller 2008, p. 13), although no occurring and affecting the salamander preparing an EIS for the James White studies have been done to substantiate in all six Knox County caves. Heavy Parkway project (John Hunter, TDOT this (Miller, pers. comm., 2005). siltation is present in Mudflats Cave, Project Manager, pers. comm., June Caldwell and Copeland (1992, p. 3) believed to be associated with the 2009; Luke Eggering, Parsons suggest that increased ‘‘through flow’’ Gettysvue housing development Consulting, pers. comm. October 2010). (water passing through the cave) can (Niemiller et al. 2010b, p. 11). Miller The concerns for potential impacts to flush salamanders and their aquatic and Niemiller (2008, p. 13) indicate that the Meades Quarry Cave system and the food base from caves as residential housing developments and Berry Cave salamander are being well as introduce contaminants into roads are being constructed near Aycock addressed by substantial changes in them at a quicker rate. Miller and Spring and Christian caves. project design. In an effort to satisfy the Niemiller (2006, pp. 22–23) cite Boone Development of a major roadway known purpose and need of the project while and Bridges (2003) as evidence of as the James White Parkway (South minimizing environmental impacts, adverse effects to species Knoxville Boulevard) has potential to TDOT is now proposing to construct a from pesticide contamination, but note impact Berry Cave salamander fully access-controlled facility (South that regular flooding of caves appears to populations in the Meades Quarry Cave Knoxville Boulevard EIS 2010, p. 10). wash silt from the systems and that data system (Meades Quarry, Meades River, Furthermore, the alignments under on the long-term effects to the species and Fifth caves) by increased siltation consideration have been purposefully from ‘‘through flow’’ fluctuations are from construction, the creation or designed to avoid or minimize impacts lacking. closures of cave openings by blasting to the recharge area for the Meades

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 21, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM 22MRP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 15923

Quarry Cave system (South Knoxville are designed to protect water quality, are unsupervised (Miller and Niemiller Boulevard EIS 2010, p. 43). If direct impacts from projects are seldom 2006, p. 24; Niemiller et al. 2010b, p. impacts are unavoidable, TDOT is viewed cumulatively, and compensatory 12), making the Berry Cave salamander proposing to install filtration systems at mitigation might not involve reparation vulnerable to recreational harvest. The sinkholes that recharge the Meades activities within the affected watershed. most robust Berry Cave salamander Quarry Cave system and to suggest that Therefore, degradation of habitat for this populations occur in caves that are local planners control growth by species is ongoing, and these laws have either gated or owned by conscientious implementing development buffers not been adequate to fully protect this landowners who monitor access, but the around environmentally sensitive areas species from water quality impacts threat of harvesting individuals for the (South Knoxville Boulevard EIS 2010, associated with increasing development pet trade exists in unmonitored caves pp. 43–44). and urbanization. (M. Niemiller, pers. comm., 2010). Ogden (2005) conducted a dye trace In summary, Knox County Because populations are considered to study on the watershed contributing populations are believed to be highly be small (Miller and Niemiller 2006, groundwater to the Berry Cave system in susceptible to habitat degradation from p. 15) and reproductive rates are low, Roane County, Tennessee. As surrounding development (Miller and unregulated take of individuals could determined by Ogden (2005, p. 4), five Niemiller 2008, p. 13). Residential severely deplete breeding populations of first-order streams contribute to surface pollutants, increased silt load from Berry Cave salamanders (Niemiller et al. recharge of the Berry Cave system. The construction activities, and runoff of 2010b, p. 12). However, we currently recharge area was delineated following impervious surfaces associated with have no evidence to suggest that two dye traces and is comprised of first- urban development are ongoing threats recreational harvesting of Berry Cave order streams that join the main sinking to Berry Cave salamander populations salamander populations is occurring. stream at the cave entrance (Ogden in six caves within metropolitan The Tennessee Cave salamander is 2005, p. 19). The cave stream is believed Knoxville. Three of these populations listed as Threatened by the State of to receive year-round input from (Meades Quarry, Meades River, and Tennessee. This listing provides Lawhon and Schommen springs and Fifth caves) are part of the larger Meades protection for the Berry Cave empties into a spring on the bank of the Quarry Cave system (Miller, pers. salamander as a State-classified Watts Bar Lake (Ogden 2005, p. 4). comm., 2010) and could be impacted by subspecies of the Tennessee cave Water quality results indicated normal development of the proposed James salamander under the Tennessee conductivity levels and low nitrate White Parkway Project. Past quarrying Nongame and Endangered or levels despite extensive cattle grazing activities have resulted in high water pH Threatened Wildlife Species within the recharge area. Sulfate, iron, levels within the Meades Quarry Cave Conservation Act of 1974 (Tennessee and phosphate levels were also and observations of Berry Cave Code Annotated sections 70–8–101– determined to be low, and pH measured salamanders with chemical burns. 112). Take of a listed species, as defined at approximately 7.0 at the time of Residential housing developments and by this State legislation, is unlawful, sampling (Ogden 2005, p. 14). road construction are occurring in and potential collectors are required to According to The Nature Conservancy proximity to Aycock Spring and possess a State permit. However, many (2006, Table 2), current threats to Berry Christian caves (Miller and Niemiller cave visitors and recreational cavers are Cave include bacteriological loading in 2008, p. 13). The Mudflats Cave likely unaware of the protected status of the form of fecal coliform from population is believed to be impacted the Berry Cave salamander. Moreover, agricultural runoff, disruption of organic by a nearby housing development and Miller and Niemiller (2005, p. 93) find flow due to a lack of cattle exclusion, associated water quality impacts (Miller that most recreational cavers are unable and erosion/sedimentation caused by and Niemiller 2008, p. 13). Water to properly identify salamander species, cattle access to streams that feed into samples indicate that Berry Cave is and even biologists misidentify larval Berry Cave. However, water quality tests uncontaminated, and cattle access to spring salamanders as Tennessee cave conducted in conjunction with the dye streams that recharge the system is salamanders. Thus, the State listing of trace study indicate that the system is evidently not impacting the cave system the Berry Cave salamander as a uncontaminated (Ogden 2005, p. 14), at this time. However, because of the subspecies of the Threatened Tennessee and we have no evidence to suggest that overall vulnerability of the Berry Cave cave salamander may not alone provide any of these impacts are occurring. salamander to impacts associated with adequate protection for this species. The Federal Government’s Clean urbanization and the extent of overlap In summary, although the potential Water Act (CWA) of 1972 (33 U.S.C. between current and projected for harvesting of individuals exists in 1251 et seq.) sets standards for releasing urbanization and Berry Cave salamander unmonitored caves, we have no pollutants into waters of the United populations, we find the present or information to indicate that collection States and regulates water quality threatened destruction, modification, or for the pet trade or other purposes is standards for surface water. Projects that curtailment of its habitat or range to be occurring. Furthermore, the Tennessee could impact waters having a a significant threat of moderate State law discussed above is designed to ‘‘significant nexus’’ to ‘‘navigable waters’’ magnitude. Further, the information provide State protection to the Berry are required under this law to apply for available to us at this time does not Cave salamander as a classified a National Pollutant Discharge indicate that the magnitude or subspecies of the Tennessee cave Elimination System (NPDES) permit imminence of this threat is likely to be salamander, although a general lack of prior to construction. The Tennessee appreciably reduced in the foreseeable public knowledge with regard to State Department of Environment and future. wildlife laws and common species Conservation’s Division of Water misidentification may limit the State Pollution Control under the Tennessee Factor B. Overutilization for law’s protectiveness. Because we have Water Quality Control Act requires that Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or no evidence to believe otherwise, we the applicant perform compensatory Educational Purposes find that overutilization for commercial, mitigation for loss of linear feet of Most caves containing Berry Cave recreational, scientific, or educational stream or pay into the Tennessee Stream salamander populations are privately purposes is a low and nonimminent Mitigation Program. While these laws owned, and visits to some of these caves threat.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 21, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM 22MRP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS 15924 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Factor C. Disease or Predation Proclamation 00–15 Endangered or Niemiller, pers. comm., July 2010). In a June 20, 2005, e-mail to the Threatened Species state the following: Research indicates that there is low gene Service, Dr. Brian Miller of Middle ‘‘Except as provided for in Tennessee flow between the two species (Niemiller Tennessee State University Code Annotated, Section 70–8–106(d) et al. 2008, p. 2), and Berry Cave communicated concerns for parasitic and (e), it shall be unlawful for any salamanders and spring salamanders are infections in Gyrinophilus species in person to take, harass, or destroy infrequently observed in the same cave two caves. Miller and Niemiller (2006, wildlife listed as threatened or systems (Niemiller et al. 2010b, p. 13). The Intergovernmental Panel on p. 24) observed pervasive, raised endangered or otherwise to violate terms of Section 70–8–105(c) or to Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that nodules on the skin of all Berry Cave destroy knowingly the habitat of such evidence of warming of the climate salamanders collected within the Berry species without due consideration of system is unequivocal (IPCC 2007a, p. Cave system. The population appeared alternatives for the welfare of the 30). Numerous long-term climate otherwise healthy, and no individuals species listed in (1) of this changes have been observed, including were taken for analysis (Miller and proclamation, or (2) the United States changes in arctic temperatures and ice, Niemiller 2006, p. 15). Crayfish are list of Endangered fauna.’’ Under these and widespread changes in believed to be predators of the regulations, potential collectors of this precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, Tennessee cave salamander complex species are required to have a State wind patterns, and aspects of extreme and were numerous in caves where collection permit, although the weather including droughts, heavy injured individuals were found, but effectiveness of this permit is uncertain precipitation, heat waves, and the Miller and Niemiller (2006, p. 23) did (see Factor B analysis above). intensity of tropical cyclones (IPCC not consider crayfish predation to be a In summary, degradation of Berry 2007b, p. 7). While continued change is serious threat to cave salamanders. Cave salamander habitat is ongoing certain, the magnitude and rate of In summary, we are uncertain as to despite the protection afforded by State change is unknown in many cases. whether disease or predation constitutes and Federal laws and corresponding Species that are dependent on a demonstrable threat to Berry Cave regulations. Despite these laws, specialized habitat types, that are salamander populations at this time. development and associated pollution limited in distribution, or that have Because of the otherwise healthy continue to adversely affect the species. become restricted to the extreme appearance of individuals, we find Because of the vulnerability of Knox periphery of their range will be most disease or predation to be a minimal County populations of the Berry Cave susceptible to the impacts of climate threat of low magnitude. salamander and the imminence of these change. As previously mentioned, the Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing threats, we find the inadequacy of Berry Cave salamander is known only Regulatory Mechanisms existing regulatory mechanisms to be a from the Appalachian Valley and Ridge significant threat of high magnitude. Province in East Tennessee within the The Berry Cave salamander and its Further, the information available to us Upper Tennessee River and Clinch are afforded some protection at this time does not indicate that the River drainages in Knox, Roane, Meigs, from water quality and habitat magnitude or imminence of this threat and McMinn Counties, Tennessee. The degradation under the Federal Clean is likely to be appreciably reduced in species is believed to be confined to Water Act and the Tennessee the foreseeable future. subterranean aquatic environments Department of Environment and (Niemiller et al. 2010, p. 5), and has Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Conservation’s Division of Water been documented in only eight caves Factors Affecting the Species’ Continued Pollution Control under the Tennessee and a roadside observation where Existence Water Quality Control Act. However, as individuals were presumably washed demonstrated under Factor A, According to M. Niemiller (pers. from a cave. Western dispersal is degradation of habitat for this species is comm., July 2010), molecular and prohibited by a fault that occurs along ongoing despite the protection afforded morphological evidence exists of the west of the East Tennessee Aquifer by these laws. These laws alone have hybridization between the Berry Cave System (Miller and Niemiller 2008, p. not been adequate to fully protect this salamander and the spring salamander 10). Data on recent trends and predicted species from water quality impacts in Meades Quarry Cave. Hybridization changes for the Southeast United States associated with increasing development between the two species may be a (Karl et al. 2009, pp. 111–116) provide and urbanization. natural threat to pure Berry Cave some insight for evaluating the threat of The Tennessee Cave salamander was salamander populations as it affects the climate change to the species. Since listed as Threatened by the State of genetic integrity of the species. Studies 1970, the average annual temperature of Tennessee in 1994. This listing are underway by Ben Fitzpatrick the region has increased by about 2 provided protection for the Berry Cave (Assistant Professor, Department of degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (1.1° Celsius salamander as a classified subspecies of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, (°C)), with the greatest increases the Tennessee cave salamander. Under University of Tennessee) and Niemiller occurring during winter months. The the Tennessee Nongame and to determine the extent of hybridization geographic extent of areas in the Endangered or Threatened Wildlife that is occurring between taxa in this Southeast region affected by moderate to Species Conservation Act of 1974 system. It is debatable as to whether this severe drought has increased by 12 (Tennessee Code Annotated sections phenomenon is anthropogenically percent in the spring and 14 percent in 70–8–101–112), ‘‘[I]t is unlawful for any induced or a natural process (M. the summer over the past three decades person to take, attempt to take, possess, Niemiller, pers. comm., July 2010). (Karl et al. 2009, p. 111). These trends transport, export, process, sell or offer Currently, the Berry Cave salamander are expected to increase. for sale or ship nongame wildlife, or for maintains its species distinctiveness in Rates of warming are predicted to any common or contract carrier spite of ongoing interbreeding and range more than double in comparison to knowingly to transport or receive for overlap with spring salamanders what the Southeast has experienced shipment nongame wildlife.’’ Further, (Niemiller et al. 2010b, p. 5), and since 1975, with the greatest increases regulations included in the Tennessee hybridization is only known to be projected for summer months. Wildlife Resources Commission occurring in Meades Quarry Cave (M. Depending on the emissions scenario

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 21, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM 22MRP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 15925

used for modeling change, average uncertainty remains regarding whether danger of extinction or likely to become temperatures are expected to increase by cave systems would maintain current so within the foreseeable future 4.5 °F to 9 °F (2.5 °C to 5 °C) by the ambient temperatures and how climate throughout all or a significant portion of 2080s (Karl et al. 2009, p. 111). While changes might affect inflow of organic its range. We examined the best there is considerable variability in detritus and availability of invertebrate scientific and commercial information rainfall predictions throughout the food sources; we are therefore unable to available regarding the past, present, region, increases in evaporation of confidently identify climate change and future threats faced by the Berry moisture from soils and loss of water by threats (or their magnitude) to the Berry Cave salamander. We reviewed the plants in response to warmer Cave salamander. We have no evidence petition, information available in our temperatures are expected to contribute that climatic changes observed to date files, and other available published and to increased frequency, duration, and have had any adverse impact on the unpublished information, and we intensity of droughts (Karl et al. 2009, species or its habitat. consulted with species and habitat p. 112). If these rainfall predictions are In summary, hybridization is experts and other Federal and State accurate, streams that feed karst systems occurring between the Berry Cave agencies. could experience significant decreases salamander and the spring salamander This status review identified threats in flow volumes, lower dissolved in Meades Quarry Cave (Niemiller et al. to the Berry Cave salamander oxygen content, and warmer 2010b, p. 5), although there appears to attributable to Factors A, B, C, D, and E temperatures. These variables could be low gene flow between the two (see Table 1 below). However, ongoing influence the amount and quality of species (Niemiller et al. 2008, p. 2). threats are from habitat modification, organic input to cave systems essential Because Meades Quarry Cave is still inadequacy of existing regulatory in sustaining healthy prey populations believed to house the healthiest mechanisms, and other natural and for the Berry Cave salamander. population (Niemiller and Miller 2010, manmade factors (Factors A, D, and E). Application of continental-scale p. 3) and hybridization is not known to These are in the form of lye leaching in climate change models to regional be impacting Berry Cave salamander the Meades Quarry Cave as a result of landscapes and even more local or populations in other caves, we find this past quarrying activities, a proposed ‘‘step-down’’ models projecting habitat natural or manmade factor affecting the roadway with potential to impact the potential based on climatic factors, is species’ continued existence to be a recharge area for the Meades Quarry informative but contains a high level of threat of low magnitude. Although Cave system, urban development in uncertainty when predicting future climate change may affect the species in Knox County, water quality impacts effects to individual species and their the future, we lack adequate information despite existing State and Federal laws, habitats. This is due to a variety of to make reasonable predictions and hybridization between spring factors including regional weather regarding the extent of the impact at this salamanders and Berry Cave patterns, local physiographic time. The available information does not salamanders in Meades Quarry Cave. conditions, life stages of individual indicate that climate change is a Because the available evidence would species, generation time of species, and significant threat to the Berry Cave suggest that the Berry Cave salamander species’ reactions to changing carbon salamander, or that it is likely to become exists in relatively low population dioxide levels. Therefore, the usefulness a significant threat in the foreseeable densities (Miller and Niemiller 2006, p. of models in assessing the threat of future. 15) and distribution is confined to climate change on the Berry Cave subterranean waters within the Finding salamander within its range is also Tennessee River and Clinch River limited. Due to a variety of factors, e.g., As required by the Act, we conducted watersheds (Miller and Niemiller 2008, variability surrounding regional rainfall a review of the status of the species and p. 10), the species cannot readily predictions and how these precipitation considered the five factors in assessing tolerate losses of populations or even events would affect the species, whether the Berry Cave salamander is in many individuals.

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF BERRY CAVE SALAMANDER STATUS AND THREATS BY DOCUMENTED POPULATION

Population locality Current status Regional/local threats

Aycock Spring Cave (Knox County, TN) ...... Extant ...... Factors A, B, and D: Urban development, potential for un- regulated take, and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (ongoing threat). Berry Cave (Roane County, TN) ...... Extant ...... Factor C: Parasites (perceived threat). Blythe Ferry Cave (Meigs County, TN) ...... Unknown (last Unknown. obs. 1975). Christian Cave (Knox County, TN) ...... Extant ...... Factors A, B, and D: Urban development, potential for un- regulated take, and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (ongoing threat). Fifth Cave (Knox County, TN) ...... Extant ...... Factors A and D: Proposed roadway, urban development, and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (ongo- ing threat). Meades River Cave (Knox County, TN) ...... Extant ...... Factors A and D: Proposed roadway, urban development, and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (ongo- ing threat). Meades Quarry Cave (Knox County, TN) ...... Extant ...... Factors A, D, and E: Proposed roadway, urban develop- ment, inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, lye leaching, and other natural and manmade factors (ongo- ing threat). Mudflats Cave (Knox County, TN) ...... Extant ...... Factors A, B, and D: Urban development, potential for un- regulated take, and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (ongoing threat).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:58 Mar 21, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM 22MRP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS 15926 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF BERRY CAVE SALAMANDER STATUS AND THREATS BY DOCUMENTED POPULATION—Continued

Population locality Current status Regional/local threats

Roadside ditch (McMinn County, TN) ...... Unknown (last Factors A and D: Urban development and inadequacy of obs. 1953). existing regulatory mechanisms (ongoing threat if the population exists).

Development is largely responsible for populations of Berry Cave salamanders the inadequacy of existing regulatory pollution entering cave systems where (Aycock Spring and Christian caves) mechanisms. Our rationale for assigning Berry Cave salamanders occur and and have resulted in observations of the Berry Cave salamander a LPN of 8 could additionally cause fluctuations in robust populations at historical sites is outlined below. organic matter input and hydrologic previously reported to be in decline Under the Service’s LPN guidelines, levels as a result of sediment deposition, (Miller and Niemiller 2008, p. 1). the magnitude of threat is the first higher temperatures in streams that Furthermore, the threat to Berry Cave criterion we look at when establishing a recharge systems when trees are salamander populations from listing priority. The guidelines indicate removed from riparian zones (forested construction of the James White that species with the highest magnitude land along streams and rivers), and an Parkway is being partially addressed by of threat are those species facing the increase in toxic runoff. The proposed TDOT’s proposal for a fully access- greatest threats to their continued James White Parkway project has the controlled facility and the design of existence. These species receive the potential to directly impact Berry Cave alignment alternatives to purposefully highest listing priority. We consider the salamander populations within the avoid or minimize impacts to sinkholes threats facing the Berry Cave Meades Quarry Cave system (Meades that recharge the Meades Quarry Cave salamander to be moderate in Quarry, Meades River, and Fifth caves) system (South Knoxville Boulevard EIS magnitude. Several of the threats to the by increased siltation from construction, 2010, pp. 10, 43). However, if at any species (roadway construction, creation or closures of cave openings by time we determine that issuing an development in proximity to blasting activities that would affect emergency regulation temporarily populations, and impacts to water organic input into the system, and toxic listing the Berry Cave salamander is quality) occur across the majority of the roadway runoff into sinkholes that warranted, we will initiate the action at species’ range. Due to its limited recharge the Meades Quarry Cave that time. geographic range within subterranean system. We have determined that these waters of the Tennessee and Clinch Listing Priority Number factors could lead to a decline in Berry River systems, impacts to these systems Cave salamander abundance because the The Service adopted guidelines on could have a detrimental effect on Berry majority of documented populations are September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098) to Cave salamander populations. Habitat located within the urban growth establish a rational system for utilizing degradation associated with residential, boundary of metropolitan Knoxville, available resources for the highest business, and commercial development and Meades Quarry Cave houses the priority species when adding species to has high potential to adversely affect largest population known. the Lists of Endangered or Threatened Berry Cave salamander populations by On the basis of the best scientific and Wildlife and Plants or eclassifying impacting water quality. While water commercial information available, we species listed as threatened to quality regulations such as the Clean find that the petitioned action, to list the endangered status. These guidelines, Water Act and the Tennessee Water Berry Cave salamander under the Act is titled ‘‘Endangered and Threatened Quality Control Act are designed to warranted. We will make a Species Listing and Recovery Priority protect aquatic systems, stream determination on the status of the Guidelines,’’ address the immediacy and mitigation practices only provide for species as endangered or threatened magnitude of threats, and the level of loss of linear feet of stream and do not when we prepare a proposed listing taxonomic distinctiveness by assigning consider water quality concerns or determination. However, as explained priority in descending order to impacts to affected species. Six of the in more detail below, an immediate monotypic genera ( with one eight caves where the species has been proposal of a regulation implementing species), full species, and subspecies (or documented are within Knoxville’s this action is precluded by higher equivalently, distinct population urban boundary (Niemiller and Miller priority listing actions, and progress is segments of vertebrates). Using these 2010, p. 2) and are highly susceptible to being made to add or remove qualified guidelines, we assign each candidate a future development activities. While the species from the Lists of Endangered listing priority number (LPN) of 1 to 12, threats facing the species are numerous and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. depending on the magnitude of the and in some cases widespread, we threats (high or moderate to low), decided they were of moderate, rather Emergency Listing immediacy of threats (imminent or than high, magnitude because the We reviewed the available nonimminent), and taxonomic status of salamander still occurs in several information to determine if the existing the species. The lower the LPN, the different cave systems, and existing and foreseeable threats render the higher the listing priority (that is, a populations appear stable. Nonetheless, species at risk of extinction now such species with an LPN of 1 would have intensification of these threats could that issuing an emergency regulation the highest listing priority). We assigned threaten the long-term viability of the temporarily listing the species in the Berry Cave salamander an LPN of 8 species. accordance with section 4(b)(7) of the based on our finding that the species Under our LPN guidelines, the second Act is warranted. We determined that faces threats that are of moderate criterion we consider in assigning a issuing an emergency regulation magnitude and are imminent. These listing priority is the immediacy of temporarily listing the species is not threats include the present or threatened threats. This criterion is intended to warranted at this time because recent destruction, modification, or ensure that the species that face actual, studies have documented two new curtailment of its habitat or range, and identifiable threats are given priority

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:58 Mar 21, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM 22MRP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 15927

over those for which threats are only The resources available for listing ensure that some funds are available for potential or for those that are actions are determined through the other work in the Listing Program (‘‘The intrinsically vulnerable but are not annual Congressional appropriations critical habitat designation subcap will known to be presently facing such process. The appropriation for the ensure that some funding is available to threats. The threats are imminent Listing Program is available to support address other listing activities’’ (House because we have factual information work involving the following listing Report No. 107–103, 107th Congress, 1st that the threats are identifiable and on- actions: Proposed and final listing rules; Session, June 19, 2001)). In FY 2002 and going, and that they often overlap or 90-day and 12-month findings on each year until FY 2006, the Service has occur throughout most of the species’ petitions to add species to the Lists of had to use virtually the entire critical range. These actual, identifiable threats Endangered and Threatened Wildlife habitat subcap to address court- are covered in detail under the and Plants (Lists) or to change the status mandated designations of critical discussion of Factors A and D of this of a species from threatened to habitat, and consequently none of the finding and currently include chronic endangered; annual ‘‘resubmitted’’ critical habitat subcap funds have been lye leaching in the Meades Quarry Cave petition findings on prior warranted- available for other listing activities. In due to past quarrying activities, but-precluded petition findings as some FYs since 2006, we have been able highway development and urban growth required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of to use some of the critical habitat in Knox County, and water quality the Act; critical habitat petition subcap funds to fund proposed listing impacts despite existing State and findings; proposed and final rules determinations for high-priority Federal laws. designating critical habitat; and candidate species. In other FYs, while The third criterion in our LPN litigation-related, administrative, and we were unable to use any of the critical guidelines is intended to devote program-management functions habitat subcap funds to fund proposed resources to those species representing (including preparing and allocating listing determinations, we did use some highly distinctive or isolated gene pools budgets, responding to Congressional of this money to fund the critical habitat as reflected by taxonomy. The Berry and public inquiries, and conducting portion of some proposed listing Cave salamander is a valid taxon at the public outreach regarding listing and determinations so that the proposed species level, and therefore receives a critical habitat). The work involved in listing determination and proposed higher priority than subspecies, but a preparing various listing documents can critical habitat designation could be lower priority than species in a be extensive and may include, but is not combined into one rule, thereby being monotypic genus. limited to: Gathering and assessing the more efficient in our work. At this time, In summary, the Berry Cave best scientific and commercial data for FY 2011, we do not know if we will salamander faces imminent threats of available and conducting analyses used be able to use some of the critical moderate magnitude, and is a valid as the basis for our decisions; writing habitat subcap funds to fund proposed taxon at the species level. Thus, in and publishing documents; and listing determinations. obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating We make our determinations of accordance with our LPN guidelines, we public comments and peer review preclusion on a nationwide basis to have assigned the Berry Cave comments on proposed rules and ensure that the species most in need of salamander an LPN of 8. incorporating relevant information into listing will be addressed first and also We will continue to monitor the final rules. The number of listing because we allocate our listing budget threats to, and status of, the Berry Cave actions that we can undertake in a given on a nationwide basis. Through the salamander on an annual basis, and year also is influenced by the listing cap, the critical habitat subcap, should the magnitude or the imminence complexity of those listing actions; that and the amount of funds needed to of the threats change, we will revisit our is, more complex actions generally are address court-mandated critical habitat assessment of the LPN. more costly. The median cost for designations, Congress and the courts Work on a proposed listing preparing and publishing a 90-day have in effect determined the amount of determination for the Berry Cave finding is $39,276; for a 12-month money available for other listing salamander is precluded by work on finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule activities nationwide. Therefore, the higher priority listing actions with with critical habitat, $345,000; and for funds in the listing cap, other than those absolute statutory, court-ordered, or a final listing rule with critical habitat, needed to address court-mandated court-approved deadlines and on final $305,000. critical habitat for already listed species, listing determinations for those species We cannot spend more than is set the limits on our determinations of that were proposed for listing with appropriated for the Listing Program preclusion and expeditious progress. funds from Fiscal Year 2011. This work without violating the Anti-Deficiency Congress identified the availability of includes all the actions listed in the Act (see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In resources as the only basis for deferring tables below under expeditious addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal the initiation of a rulemaking that is progress. year since then, Congress has placed a warranted. The Conference Report Preclusion and Expeditious Progress statutory cap on funds that may be accompanying Pub. L. 97–304 expended for the Listing Program, equal ( Act Amendments Preclusion is a function of the listing to the amount expressly appropriated of 1982), which established the current priority of a species in relation to the for that purpose in that fiscal year. This statutory deadlines and the warranted- resources that are available and the cost cap was designed to prevent funds but-precluded finding, states that the and relative priority of competing appropriated for other functions under amendments were ‘‘not intended to demands for those resources. Thus, in the Act (for example, recovery funds for allow the Secretary to delay any given fiscal year (FY), multiple removing species from the Lists), or for commencing the rulemaking process for factors dictate whether it will be other Service programs, from being used any reason other than that the existence possible to undertake work on a listing for Listing Program actions (see House of pending or imminent proposals to list proposal regulation or whether Report 105–163, 105th Congress, 1st species subject to a greater degree of promulgation of such a proposal is Session, July 1, 1997). threat would make allocation of precluded by higher-priority listing Since FY 2002, the Service’s budget resources to such a petition [that is, for actions. has included a critical habitat subcap to a lower-ranking species] unwise.’’

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 21, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM 22MRP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS 15928 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Although that statement appeared to related to foreign species. In FY 2011, species (‘‘Top 40’’). These 40 candidate refer specifically to the ‘‘to the we anticipate using $1,500,000 for work species have had the highest priority to maximum extent practicable’’ limitation on listing actions for foreign species receive funding to work on a proposed on the 90-day deadline for making a which reduces funding available for listing determination. As we work on ‘‘substantial information’’ finding, that domestic listing actions; however, proposed and final listing rules for those finding is made at the point when the currently only $500,000 has been 40 candidates, we apply the ranking Service is deciding whether or not to allocated for this function. Although criteria to the next group of candidates commence a status review that will there are no foreign species issues with an LPN of 2 and 3 to determine the determine the degree of threats facing included in our high-priority listing next set of highest priority candidate the species, and therefore the analysis actions at this time, many actions have species. Finally, proposed rules for underlying the statement is more statutory or court-approved settlement reclassification of threatened species to relevant to the use of the warranted-but- deadlines, thus increasing their priority. endangered are lower priority, because precluded finding, which is made when The budget allocations for each specific as listed species, they are already the Service has already determined the listing action are identified in the afforded the protection of the Act and degree of threats facing the species and Service’s FY 2011 Allocation Table (part implementing regulations. However, for is deciding whether or not to commence of our record). efficiency reasons, we may choose to a rulemaking. For the above reasons, funding a work on a proposed rule to reclassify a In FY 2011, on March 2, 2011, proposed listing determination for the species to endangered if we can Congress passed a continuing resolution Berry Cave Salamander, which has an combine this with work that is subject which provides funding at the FY 2010 LPN of 8, is precluded by court-ordered to a court-determined deadline. enacted level through March 18, 2011. and court-approved settlement With our workload so much bigger Until Congress appropriates funds for agreements, listing actions with absolute than the amount of funds we have to FY 2011 at a different level, we will statutory deadlines, and work on accomplish it, it is important that we be fund listing work based on the FY 2010 proposed listing determinations for as efficient as possible in our listing amount. Thus, at this time in FY 2011, those candidate species with a higher process. Therefore, as we work on the Service anticipates an appropriation listing priority (i.e., candidate species proposed rules for the highest priority of $22,103,000 for the listing program with LPNs of 1 to 7). species in the next several years, we are based on FY 2010 appropriations. Of Based on our September 21, 1983, preparing multi-species proposals when that, the Service anticipates needing to guidelines for assigning an LPN for each appropriate, and these may include dedicate $11,632,000 for determinations candidate species (48 FR 43098), we species with lower priority if they of critical habitat for already listed have a significant number of species overlap geographically or have the same species. Also $500,000 is appropriated with a LPN of 2. Using these guidelines, threats as a species with an LPN of 2. for foreign species listings under the we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 In addition, we take into consideration Act. The Service thus has $9,971,000 to 12, depending on the magnitude of the availability of staff resources when available to fund work in the following threats (high or moderate to low), we determine which high-priority categories: compliance with court orders immediacy of threats (imminent or species will receive funding to and court-approved settlement nonimminent), and taxonomic status of minimize the amount of time and agreements requiring that petition the species (in order of priority: resources required to complete each findings or listing determinations be monotypic genus (a species that is the listing action. completed by a specific date; section 4 sole member of a genus); species; or part As explained above, a determination (of the Act) listing actions with absolute of a species (subspecies, distinct that listing is warranted but precluded statutory deadlines; essential litigation- population segment, or significant must also demonstrate that expeditious related, administrative, and listing portion of the range)). The lower the progress is being made to add and program-management functions; and listing priority number, the higher the remove qualified species to and from high-priority listing actions for some of listing priority (that is, a species with an the Lists of Endangered and Threatened our candidate species. In FY 2010, the LPN of 1 would have the highest listing Wildlife and Plants. As with our Service received many new petitions priority). ‘‘precluded’’ finding, the evaluation of and a single petition to list 404 species. Because of the large number of high- whether progress in adding qualified The receipt of petitions for a large priority species, we have further ranked species to the Lists has been expeditious number of species is consuming the the candidate species with an LPN of 2 is a function of the resources available Service’s listing funding that is not by using the following extinction-risk for listing and the competing demands dedicated to meeting court-ordered type criteria: International Union for the for those funds. (Although we do not commitments. Absent some ability to Conservation of Nature and Natural discuss it in detail here, we are also balance effort among listing duties Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank, making expeditious progress in under existing funding levels, it is Heritage rank (provided by removing species from the list under the unlikely that the Service will be able to NatureServe), Heritage threat rank Recovery program in light of the initiate any new listing determination (provided by NatureServe), and species resource available for delisting, which is for candidate species in FY 2011. currently with fewer than 50 funded by a separate line item in the In 2009, the responsibility for listing individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. budget of the Endangered Species foreign species under the Act was Those species with the highest IUCN Program. So far during FY 2011, we transferred from the Division of rank (critically endangered), the highest have completed one delisting rule.) Scientific Authority, International Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage Given the limited resources available for Affairs Program, to the Endangered threat rank (substantial, imminent listing, we find that we are making Species Program. Therefore, starting in threats), and currently with fewer than expeditious progress in FY 2011 in the FY 2010, we used a portion of our 50 individuals, or fewer than 4 Listing Program. This progress included funding to work on the actions populations, originally comprised a preparing and publishing the following described above for listing actions group of approximately 40 candidate determinations:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 21, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM 22MRP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 15929

FY 2011 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS

Publication date Title Actions FR pages

10/6/2010 ...... Endangered Status for the Altamaha Spinymussel and Proposed Listing, Endangered ...... 75 FR 61664–61690 Designation of Critical Habitat. 10/7/2010 ...... 12-month Finding on a Petition to list the Sacramento Notice of 12-month petition finding, 75 FR 62070–62095 Splittail as Endangered or Threatened. Not warranted. 10/28/2010 ...... Endangered Status and Designation of Critical Habitat Proposed Listing, Endangered 75 FR 66481–66552 for Spikedace and Loach Minnow. (uplisting). 11/2/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Bay Springs Sal- Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not 75 FR 67341–67343 amander as Endangered. substantial. 11/2/2010 ...... Determination of Endangered Status for the Georgia Final Listing, Endangered ...... 75 FR 67511–67550 Pigtoe Mussel, Interrupted Rocksnail, and Rough Hornsnail and Designation of Critical Habitat. 11/2/2010 ...... Listing the Rayed Bean and Snuffbox as Endangered .... Proposed Listing, Endangered ...... 75 FR 67551–67583 11/4/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Cirsium wrightii Notice of 12-month petition finding, 75 FR 67925–67944 (Wright’s Marsh Thistle) as Endangered or Threatened. Warranted but precluded. 12/14/2010 ...... Endangered Status for Dunes Sagebrush Lizard ...... Proposed Listing, Endangered ...... 75 FR77801–77817 12/14/2010 ...... 12-month Finding on a Petition to List the North Amer- Notice of 12-month petition finding, 75 FR 78029–78061 ican Wolverine as Endangered or Threatened. Warranted but precluded. 12/14/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Sonoran Pop- Notice of 12-month petition finding, 75 FR 78093–78146 ulation of the Desert Tortoise as Endangered or Warranted but precluded. Threatened. 12/15/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Astragalus Notice of 12-month petition finding, 75 FR 78513–78556 microcymbus and Astragalus schmolliae as Endan- Warranted but precluded. gered or Threatened. 12/28/2010 ...... Listing Seven Brazilian Bird Species as Endangered Final Listing, Endangered ...... 75 FR 81793–81815 Throughout Their Range. 1/4/2011 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Red Knot sub- Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not 76 FR 304–311 species Calidris canutus roselaari as Endangered. substantial. 1/19/2011 ...... Endangered Status for the Sheepnose and Proposed Listing, Endangered ...... 76 FR 3392–3420 Spectaclecase Mussels. 2/10/2011 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Pacific Walrus Notice of 12-month petition finding, 76 FR 7634–7679 as Endangered or Threatened. Warranted but precluded. 2/17/2011 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Sand Verbena Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 76 FR 9309–9318 Moth as Endangered or Threatened. Substantial. 2/22/2011 ...... Determination of Threatened Status for the New Zea- Final Listing, Threatened ...... 76 FR 9681–9692 land-Australia Distinct Population Segment of the Southern Rockhopper Penguin. 2/22/2011 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Solanum Notice of 12-month petition finding, 76 FR 9722–9733 conocarpum (marron bacora) as Endangered. Warranted but precluded. 2/23/2011 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Thorne’s Notice of 12-month petition finding, 76 FR 991–10003 Hairstreak Butterfly as Endangered. Not warranted. 2/23/2011 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Astragalus Notice of 12-month petition finding, 76 FR 10166–10203 hamiltonii, Penstemon flowersii, Eriogonum soredium, Warranted but precluded & Not Lepidium ostleri, and Trifolium friscanum as Endan- Warranted. gered or Threatened. 2/24/2011 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Wild Plains Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not 76 FR 10299–10310 Bison or Each of Four Distinct Population Segments substantial. as Threatened. 2/24/2011 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Unsilvered Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not 76 FR 10310–10319 Fritillary Butterfly as Threatened or Endangered. substantial. 3/8/2011 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Mt. Charleston Notice of 12-month petition finding, 76 FR 12667–12683 Blue Butterfly as Endangered or Threatened. Warranted but precluded. 3/8/2011 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Texas Kangaroo Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 76 FR 12683–12690 Rat as Endangered or Threatened. Substantial. 3/10/2011 ...... Initiation of Status Review for Longfin Smelt ...... Notice of Status Review ...... 76 FR 13121–31322

Our expeditious progress also statutory timelines, that is, timelines a lower priority if they overlap includes work on listing actions that we required under the Act. Actions in the geographically or have the same threats funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 but bottom section of the table are high- as the species with the high priority. have not yet been completed to date. priority listing actions. These actions Including these species together in the These actions are listed below. Actions include work primarily on species with same proposed rule results in in the top section of the table are being an LPN of 2, and, as discussed above, considerable savings in time and conducted under a deadline set by a selection of these species is partially funding, when compared to preparing court. Actions in the middle section of based on available staff resources, and separate proposed rules for each of them the table are being conducted to meet when appropriate, include species with in the future.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 21, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM 22MRP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS 15930 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 AND FY 2011 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED

Species Action

Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement

Mountain plover 4 ...... Final listing determination. Hermes copper butterfly 3 ...... 12-month petition finding. 4 parrot species (military macaw, yellow-billed parrot, red-crowned parrot, scarlet macaw) 5 ...... 12-month petition finding. 4 parrot species (blue-headed macaw, great green macaw, grey-cheeked parakeet, hyacinth macaw) 5 ...... 12-month petition finding. 4 parrot species (crimson shining parrot, white cockatoo, Philippine cockatoo, yellow-crested cockatoo) 5 ...... 12-month petition finding. Utah prairie dog (uplisting) ...... 90-day petition finding.

Actions with Statutory Deadlines

Casey’s june beetle ...... Final listing determination. 6 Birds from Eurasia ...... Final listing determination. 5 Bird species from Colombia and Ecuador ...... Final listing determination. Queen Charlotte goshawk ...... Final listing determination. 5 species southeast fish (Cumberland darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, and laurel Final listing determination. dace) 4. Ozark hellbender 4 ...... Final listing determination. Altamaha spinymussel 3 ...... Final listing determination. 3 Colorado plants (Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket), Penstemon debilis (Parachute Beardtongue), Final listing determination. and Phacelia submutica (DeBeque Phacelia)) 4. Salmon crested cockatoo ...... Final listing determination. 6 Birds from Peru & Bolivia ...... Final listing determination. Loggerhead sea turtle (assist National Marine Fisheries Service) 5 ...... Final listing determination. 2 mussels (rayed bean (LPN = 2), snuffbox No LPN) 5 ...... Final listing determination. CA golden trout 4 ...... 12-month petition finding. Black-footed albatross ...... 12-month petition finding. Mojave fringe-toed lizard 1 ...... 12-month petition finding. Kokanee—Lake Sammamish population 1 ...... 12-month petition finding. Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl 1 ...... 12-month petition finding. Northern leopard frog ...... 12-month petition finding. Tehachapi slender salamander ...... 12-month petition finding. Coqui Llanero ...... 12-month petition finding./ Proposed listing. Dusky tree vole ...... 12-month petition finding. 3 MT (meltwater lednian stonefly (Lednia tumana), Oreohelix sp. 3, Oreohelix sp. 31) from 206 12-month petition finding. species petition. 5 WY plants (Abronia ammophila, Agrostis rossiae, Astragalus proimanthus, Boechere (Arabis) pusilla, 12-month petition finding. Penstemon gibbensii) from 206 species petition. Leatherside chub (from 206 species petition) ...... 12-month petition finding. Frigid ambersnail (from 206 species petition) 3 ...... 12-month petition finding. Platte River caddisfly (from 206 species petition) 5 ...... 12-month petition finding. Gopher tortoise—eastern population ...... 12-month petition finding. Grand Canyon scorpion (from 475 species petition) ...... 12-month petition finding. Anacroneuria wipukupa (a stonefly from 475 species petition) 4 ...... 12-month petition finding. 3 Texas moths (Ursia furtiva, Sphingicampa blanchardi, Agapema galbina) (from 475 species petition) ...... 12-month petition finding. 2 Texas shiners (Cyprinella sp., Cyprinella lepida) (from 475 species petition) ...... 12-month petition finding. 3 South Arizona plants (Erigeron piscaticus, Astragalus hypoxylus, Amoreuxia gonzalezii) (from 475 species 12-month petition finding. petition). 5 Central Texas mussel species (3 from 475 species petition) ...... 12-month petition finding. 14 parrots (foreign species) ...... 12-month petition finding. Berry Cave salamander 1 ...... 12-month petition finding. Striped Newt 1 ...... 12-month petition finding. Fisher—Northern Rocky Mountain Range 1 ...... 12-month petition finding. Mohave Ground Squirrel 1 ...... 12-month petition finding. Puerto Rico Harlequin Butterfly 3 ...... 12-month petition finding. Western gull-billed tern ...... 12-month petition finding. Ozark chinquapin (Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis) 4 ...... 12-month petition finding. HI yellow-faced bees ...... 12-month petition finding. Giant Palouse earthworm ...... 12-month petition finding. Whitebark pine ...... 12-month petition finding. OK grass pink (Calopogon oklahomensis) 1 ...... 12-month petition finding. Ashy storm-petrel 5 ...... 12-month petition finding. Honduran emerald ...... 12-month petition finding. Southeastern pop snowy plover & wintering pop. of piping plover 1 ...... 90-day petition finding. Eagle Lake trout 1 ...... 90-day petition finding. Smooth-billed ani 1 ...... 90-day petition finding. 32 Pacific Northwest mollusks species (snails and slugs) 1 ...... 90-day petition finding. 42 snail species (Nevada & Utah) ...... 90-day petition finding. Peary caribou ...... 90-day petition finding. Spring Mountains checkerspot butterfly ...... 90-day petition finding. Spring pygmy sunfish ...... 90-day petition finding.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 21, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM 22MRP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 15931

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 AND FY 2011 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued

Species Action

Bay skipper ...... 90-day petition finding. Spot-tailed earless lizard ...... 90-day petition finding. Eastern small-footed bat ...... 90-day petition finding. Northern long-eared bat ...... 90-day petition finding. Prairie chub ...... 90-day petition finding. 10 species of Great Basin butterfly ...... 90-day petition finding. 6 sand dune (scarab) beetles ...... 90-day petition finding. Golden-winged warbler 4 ...... 90-day petition finding. 404 Southeast species ...... 90-day petition finding. Franklin’s bumble bee 4 ...... 90-day petition finding. 2 Idaho snowflies (straight snowfly & Idaho snowfly) 4 ...... 90-day petition finding. American eel 4 ...... 90-day petition finding. Gila monster (Utah population) 4 ...... 90-day petition finding. Arapahoe snowfly 4 ...... 90-day petition finding. Leona’s little blue 4 ...... 90-day petition finding. Aztec gilia 5 ...... 90-day petition finding. White-tailed ptarmigan 5 ...... 90-day petition finding. San Bernardino flying squirrel 5 ...... 90-day petition finding. Bicknell’s thrush 5 ...... 90-day petition finding. Chimpanzee ...... 90-day petition finding. Sonoran talussnail 5 ...... 90-day petition finding. 2 AZ Sky Island plants (Graptopetalum bartrami & Pectis imberbis) 5 ...... 90-day petition finding. I’iwi 5 ...... 90-day petition finding.

High-Priority Listing Actions

19 Oahu candidate species 2 (16 plants, 3 damselflies) (15 with LPN = 2, 3 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN =9) ..... Proposed listing. 19 Maui-Nui candidate species 2 (16 plants, 3 tree snails) (14 with LPN = 2, 2 with LPN = 3, 3 with LPN = 8) Proposed listing. 2 Arizona springsnails 2 (Pyrgulopsis bernadina (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis trivialis (LPN = 2)) ...... Proposed listing. Chupadera springsnail 2 (Pyrgulopsis chupaderae (LPN = 2)) ...... Proposed listing. 8 Gulf Coast mussels (southern kidneyshell (LPN = 2), round ebonyshell (LPN = 2), Alabama pearlshell (LPN Proposed listing. = 2), southern sandshell (LPN = 5), fuzzy pigtoe (LPN = 5), Choctaw bean (LPN = 5), narrow pigtoe (LPN = 5), and tapered pigtoe (LPN = 11)) 4. Umtanum buckwheat (LPN = 2) and white bluffs bladderpod (LPN = 9) 4 ...... Proposed listing. Grotto sculpin (LPN = 2) 4 ...... Proposed listing. 2 Arkansas mussels (Neosho mucket (LPN = 2) & Rabbitsfoot (LPN = 9)) 4 ...... Proposed listing. Diamond darter (LPN = 2) 4 ...... Proposed listing. Gunnison sage-grouse (LPN = 2) 4 ...... Proposed listing. Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Beetle (LPN = 2) 5 ...... Proposed listing. Miami blue (LPN = 3) 3 ...... Proposed listing. Lesser prairie chicken (LPN = 2) ...... Proposed listing. 4 Texas salamanders (Austin blind salamander (LPN = 2), Salado salamander (LPN = 2), Georgetown sala- Proposed listing. mander (LPN = 8), Jollyville Plateau (LPN = 8)) 3. 5 SW aquatics (Gonzales Spring Snail (LPN = 2), Diamond Y springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom springsnail Proposed listing. (LPN = 2), Phantom Cave snail (LPN = 2), Diminutive amphipod (LPN = 2)) 3. 2 Texas plants (Texas golden gladecress (Leavenworthia texana) (LPN = 2), Neches River rose-mallow Proposed listing. (Hibiscus dasycalyx) (LPN = 2)) 3. 4 AZ plants (Acuna cactus (Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis) (LPN = 3), Fickeisen plains cactus Proposed listing. (Pediocactus peeblesianus fickeiseniae) (LPN = 3), Lemmon fleabane (Erigeron lemmonii) (LPN = 8), Gierisch mallow (Sphaeralcea gierischii) (LPN = 2)) 5. FL bonneted bat (LPN = 2) 3 ...... Proposed listing. 3 Southern FL plants (Florida semaphore cactus (Consolea corallicola) (LPN = 2), shellmound applecactus Proposed listing. (Harrisia (=Cereus) aboriginum (=gracilis)) (LPN = 2), Cape Sable thoroughwort (Chromolaena frustrata) (LPN = 2)) 5. 21 Big Island (HI) species 5 (includes 8 candidate species—5 plants & 3 animals; 4 with LPN = 2, 1 with LPN Proposed listing. = 3, 1 with LPN = 4, 2 with LPN = 8). 12 Puget Sound prairie species (9 subspecies of pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama ssp.) (LPN = 3), Proposed listing. streaked horned lark (LPN = 3), Taylor’s checkerspot (LPN = 3), Mardon skipper (LPN = 8)) 3. 2 TN River mussels (fluted kidneyshell (LPN = 2), slabside pearlymussel (LPN = 2) 5 ...... Proposed listing. Jemez Mountain salamander (LPN = 2) 5 ...... Proposed listing. 1 Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in previous FYs. 2 Although funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided in FY 2008 or 2009, due to the complexity of these actions and competing priorities, these actions are still being developed. 3 Partially funded with FY 2010 funds and FY 2011 funds. 4 Funded with FY 2010 funds. 5 Funded with FY 2011 funds.

We have endeavored to make our relevant law and regulations, and considering ways to streamline listing actions as efficient and timely as constraints relating to workload and processes or achieve economies of scale, possible, given the requirements of the personnel. We are continually such as by batching related actions

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 21, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM 22MRP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS 15932 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

together. Given our limited budget for DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR determination on this listing action will implementing section 4 of the Act, these be made no later than September 16, actions described above collectively Fish and Wildlife Service 2011. constitute expeditious progress. 50 CFR Part 17 ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, The Berry Cave salamander will be identified by the RIN 0648–AY49, by added to the list of candidate species DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE any of the following methods: upon publication of this 12-month • Electronic Submissions: Submit all finding. We will continue to monitor the National Oceanic and Atmospheric electronic public comments via the status of this species as new information Administration Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// becomes available. This review will www.regulations.gov. determine if a change in status is 50 CFR Part 224 • Mail: NMFS National Sea Turtle warranted, including the need to make [Docket No. 100104003–1195–02] Coordinator, Attn: Loggerhead Proposed prompt use of emergency listing Listing Rule, Office of Protected procedures. RIN 0648–AY49 Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Room We intend that any proposed listing Endangered and Threatened Species; action for the Berry Cave salamander 13657, Silver Spring, MD 20910 or Proposed Listing of Nine Distinct USFWS National Sea Turtle will be as accurate as possible. Population Segments of Loggerhead Therefore, we will continue to accept Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sea Turtles as Endangered or Service, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite additional information and comments Threatened from all concerned governmental 200, Jacksonville, FL 32256. • agencies, the scientific community, AGENCIES: National Marine Fisheries Fax: To the attention of NMFS industry, or any other interested party Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and National Sea Turtle Coordinator at 301– concerning this finding. Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 713–0376 or USFWS National Sea Commerce; United States Fish and Turtle Coordinator at 904–731–3045. References Cited Wildlife Service (USFWS), Interior. Instructions: All comments received ACTION: are a part of the public record and will A complete list of references cited is Proposed rule; 6-month extension of the deadline for a final generally be posted to http:// available on the Internet at http:// listing decision. www.regulations.gov without change. www.regulations.gov and upon request All Personal Identifying Information (for from the Tennessee Ecological Services SUMMARY: We (NMFS and USFWS; also example, name, address, etc.) Field Office (see ADDRESSES section). collectively referred to as the Services) voluntarily submitted by the commenter are extending the date by which a final Authors may be publicly accessible. Do not determination will be made regarding submit Confidential Business The primary authors of this notice are the March 16, 2010, proposed rule to list Information or otherwise sensitive or the staff members of the Tennessee nine Distinct Population Segments protected information. Ecological Services Field Office. (DPS) of loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta NMFS and USFWS will accept caretta, as endangered or threatened Authority anonymous comments (enter N/A in the under the Endangered Species Act of required fields, if you wish to remain 1973, as amended (ESA). We are taking anonymous). Attachments to electronic The authority for this section is this action because substantial section 4 of the Endangered Species Act comments will be accepted in Microsoft disagreement exists regarding the Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et interpretation of the existing data on seq.). PDF file formats only. The proposed status and trends and its relevance to rule and other materials relating to this Dated: March 8, 2011. the assessment of risk of extinction to proposal can be found on the NMFS Rowan W. Gould, the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS of Office of Protected Resources Web site the loggerhead turtle. Additionally, Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ considerable disagreement exists species/turtles/loggerhead.htm. [FR Doc. 2011–6347 Filed 3–21–11; 8:45 am] regarding the magnitude and immediacy BILLING CODE 4310–55–P of the fisheries bycatch threat and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: measures to reduce this threat to the Barbara Schroeder, NMFS (ph. 301– Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS of the 713–1401, fax 301–713–4060, e-mail loggerhead turtle. We are soliciting new [email protected]), Sandy information or analyses that will help MacPherson, USFWS (ph. 904–731– clarify these issues. Comments 3336, fax 904–731–3045, e-mail previously submitted need not be [email protected]), Marta resubmitted as they already have been Nammack, NMFS (ph. 301–713–1401, incorporated into the public record and fax 301–713–4060, e-mail will be fully considered in the final rule. [email protected]), or Lorna The Services believe that allowing an Patrick, USFWS (ph. 850–215–7438, fax additional 6 months to evaluate and 850–763–2177, e-mail assess the best scientific and [email protected]). Persons who commercial data available would better use a telecommunications device for the inform our final determination on the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal listing status of the nine proposed DPSs Information Relay Service (FIRS) at of the loggerhead turtle. 1–800–877–8339, 24 hours a day, DATES: All public comments must be 7 days a week. received by April 11, 2011. A final SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 21, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM 22MRP1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS