28582 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 120 / Friday, June 23, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

* * * * * 0210. Persons who use a Hualapai Mexican vole populations Dated: June 13, 2017. telecommunications device for the deaf (Service 1991, pp. iv-6). The recovery Virginia H. Johnson, (TDD) may call the Federal Relay plan outlined recovery objectives and Service at 800–877–8339. dictated management and research Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and priorities, but did not contain recovery Wildlife and Parks. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S. criteria for changing the subspecies’ [FR Doc. 2017–13163 Filed 6–22–17; 8:45 am] status from endangered to threatened BILLING CODE 4333–15–P Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Field Office (see (i.e., downlisting) or for removing the ADDRESSES), telephone 602–242–0210. subspecies from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (i.e., delisting) DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Individuals who are hearing impaired or speech-impaired may call the Federal because of lack of biological information Fish and Wildlife Service Relay Service at 800–877–8339 for TTY in order to develop objective, assistance. measurable criteria (Service 1991, p. iv). 50 CFR Part 17 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Petition History [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2015–0028; Background On August 23, 2004, we received a FXES11130900000–178–FF09E42000] petition dated August 18, 2004, from the Under the Endangered Species Act of Arizona Game and Fish Department RIN 1018–AX99 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 (AGFD) requesting that the Hualapai et seq.), we administer the Federal Lists Mexican vole be removed from the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the Hualapai Federal List of Endangered and and Plants, which are set forth in title Threatened Wildlife (List) under the Mexican Vole From the Federal List of 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Act. The petition clearly identified itself part 17 (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12). The as such and included the requisite AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, factors for listing, delisting, or identification information for the Interior. reclassifying species are described at 50 petitioners, as required at 50 CFR CFR 424.11. According to section 3(16) ACTION: Final rule. 424.14(a). Included in the petition was of the Act, we may list any of three information in support of delisting the SUMMARY: Under the authority of the categories of vertebrate animals: A Hualapai Mexican vole based on an Endangered Species Act of 1973, as species, subspecies, or a distinct error in original classification due to amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and population segment of a vertebrate evidence that the Hualapai Mexican Wildlife Service (Service), are removing species of wildlife. We refer to each of vole is not a valid subspecies. the Hualapai Mexican vole (Microtus these categories as a ‘‘listable entity.’’ If The petition asserts that the original mexicanus hualpaiensis) from the we determine that there is a species, or scientific data used at the time the Federal List of Endangered and ‘‘listable entity,’’ for the purposes of the subspecies was classified were in error Threatened Wildlife due to recent data Act, our status review next evaluates and that the best available scientific indicating that the original classification whether the species meets the data do not support the taxonomic is now erroneous. This action is based definitions of an ‘‘endangered species’’ recognition of the Hualapai Mexican on a thorough review of the best or a ‘‘threatened species’’ because of any vole as a distinguishable subspecies available scientific and commercial of the five listing factors established (AGFD 2004, p. 4). The petition’s information, which indicates that the under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. assertions are primarily based on the currently listed subspecies is not a valid Delisting may be warranted as a result results of an unpublished genetic taxonomic entity. Therefore, we are of: (1) Extinction; (2) recovery; or (3) a analysis (Busch et al. 2001) and on removing the entry for the Hualapai determination that the original scientific taxonomic and genetic reviews of Busch Mexican vole from the Federal List of data used at the time the species was et al.’s 2001 report. The petition did not Endangered and Threatened Wildlife listed, or interpretation of that data, claim that the Hualapai Mexican vole is because subsequent investigations have were in error. We examine whether the extinct or has been recovered (no longer shown that the best scientific or Hualapai Mexican vole is a valid an endangered or threatened species), commercial data available when the subspecies, and thus a ‘‘species’’ (or nor do we have information in our files subspecies was listed were in error. listable entity) as defined in section 3 of indicating such. However, the petition the Act. did indicate that ‘‘fieldwork and genetic DATES: This rule is effective July 24, analyses have documented at least 2017. Previous Federal Actions seven, but likely 14, populations ADDRESSES: This final rule is available We listed the Hualapai Mexican vole (including one in Utah) of M. m. on the Internet at http:// as an endangered subspecies on October hualpaiensis.’’ Only one population was www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 1, 1987, without critical habitat (52 FR known at the time of listing. FWS–R2–ES–2015–0028 and at the 36776). At the time of listing, the On May 15, 2008, we announced a 90- Service’s Web sites at http:// primary threats to the Hualapai Mexican day finding in the Federal Register (73 www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona and vole were degraded habitat due to FR 28094) that the petition presented http://www.fws.gov/endangered. drought, elimination of ground cover substantial information to indicate that Comments and materials received, as from grazing by livestock and elk the petitioned action may be warranted. well as supporting documentation used (Cervus elaphus), and human recreation. On June 4, 2015, we published a in the preparation of this rule, are A recovery plan for the Hualapai warranted 12-month finding on the available for public inspection, by Mexican vole was completed in August petition and a proposed rule to remove appointment, during normal business 1991 (Service 1991, pp. 1–28). At that the Hualapai Mexican vole from the List hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, time, grazing, mining, road because the original scientific Arizona Ecological Services Field construction, recreational uses, erosion, classification is no longer the Office, 9828 North 31st Avenue, and nonnative wildlife were attributed appropriate determination for the Phoenix, AZ 85051; telephone 602–242– as the reasons for the decline in subspecies (80 FR 31875), meaning that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:26 Jun 22, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR1.SGM 23JNR1 Pmangrum on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 120 / Friday, June 23, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 28583

current data indicate that the original future taxonomic evaluation of voles Also, in a study of montane voles, Frey classification is now erroneous. On from the Music Mountains and Prospect (2009, p. 219) supported the earlier December 22, 2016, we reopened the Valley should confirm that they are study conducted by Frey and LaRue comment period on the proposed rule to indeed the Hualapai Mexican vole (1993, pp. 176–177), which separated remove the Hualapai Mexican vole from subspecies, then they would be the vole species Microtus mogollonensis the List (81 FR 93879). We published a considered part of the federally listed and Microtus mexicanus. The Integrated summary of the proposed rule in the entity. However, we never recognized Taxonomic Information System 1 (ITIS) Kingman Daily Miner newspaper on Hualapai Mexican voles outside of the indicates that Microtus mexicanus January 29, 2017. . Mountains due to hualpaiensis (Goldman, 1938) is an insufficient data to support recognition invalid taxon and indicates that the Species Description of additional populations. valid taxon is Microtus mexicanus for Taxonomy In May 1998, we reviewed Frey and the Hualapai Mexican vole (http:// Yates’ 1995 unpublished report, Goldman (1938, pp. 493–494) www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/ ‘‘Hualapai Vole (Microtus mexicanus SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_ described and named the Hualapai hualapaiensis) Genetic Study,’’ to value=202377). For consistency with all Mexican vole as Microtus mexicanus determine if Hualapai Mexican voles previous Federal actions, including the hualapaiensis in 1938 based on four occur in additional areas outside of the scientific name that appears on the specimens. Cockrum (1960, p. 210), Hall Hualapai Mountains. We found that the Federal List of Endangered and (1981, p. 481), and Hoffmeister (1986, report did not provide sufficient data for Threatened Wildlife, we refer to the pp. 444–445) all recognized Goldman’s us to conclude that populations outside Hualapai Mexican vole subspecies as description of the subspecies, and the Hualapai Mountains were Hualapai Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis in this Hoffmeister (1986, pp. 444–445) further Mexican voles. On May 29, 1998, the rule because that is the entity we listed recognized the Microtus mexicanus Southwest Regional Director’s Office in 1987. However, many of the hualapaiensis subspecies based on an issued a memo to the Arizona Ecological reviewers and documents that are examination of morphological Services Field Office stating that the referenced refer to voles in Arizona as characteristics from seven additional Service would only consult on voles in Microtus mogollonensis. The ITIS specimens collected in two areas (i.e., the Hualapai Mountains until further indicates that Microtus mogollonensis Hualapai Mountains and the lower end investigations result in data definitive (Frey and LaRue 1993, pp. 176–177) is of Prospect Valley). enough to establish that the Hualapai an invalid taxon; and indicates that the Based on morphological Mexican vole has a wider distribution valid taxon is Microtus mexicanus for measurements, the Hualapai Mexican than recognized at the time of listing. the Hualapai Mexican vole (http:// vole was previously considered one of Thus, we referenced the memo in all www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/ three subspecies of Mexican voles requests for consultations on Federal SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_ (Microtus mexicanus) in Arizona (Kime projects outside the Hualapai value=202377). et al. 1995, p. 1). The three subspecies Mountains. For these reasons, we have In a 1989 unpublished Master’s thesis, of Mexican voles were the Hualapai only considered the Hualapai Mexican Frey conducted an extensive study of Mexican vole (M. m. hualapaiensis), vole’s range to be the Hualapai geographic variation of specimens from Navajo Mexican vole (M. m. navaho), Mountains. throughout the range of the Microtus and Mogollon Mexican vole (M. m. Since the Hualapai Mexican vole was mexicanus group, which included mogollonensis). The Hualapai Mexican listed in 1987 (52 FR 36776; October 1, populations in the United States and vole differed from the Navajo Mexican 1987), several focused surveys of the Mexico. Frey (1989) analyzed 44 vole subspecies by a slightly longer subspecies’ distribution, habitat external and 19 cranial characters from body, longer tail, and longer and requirements, and genetic relationships 1,775 vole specimens. Based on broader skull (Hoffmeister 1986, p. 443). to other Mexican vole subspecies were morphological analysis, Frey (1989, p. Additionally, the Navajo Mexican vole’s undertaken. We briefly describe these 50) recommended that specimens from range was farther to the northeast. The studies below. Researchers did not the (Coconino Hualapai Mexican vole was also collect or analyze samples from the County, AZ), which was formerly differentiated from the Mogollon same locations, so locations and considered the Mogollon Mexican vole Mexican vole subspecies, located farther analyses across studies do not subspecies, be reassigned to the to the east, by a longer body, shorter tail, necessarily correlate fully. These studies Hualapai Mexican vole subspecies. Frey and longer and narrower skull represent the best scientific information (1989, p. 50) concluded that two (Hoffmeister 1986, p. 443). available for the Service to analyze the specimens that had been discovered The final rule listing the Hualapai Hualapai Mexican vole’s distribution from the Music Mountains (Mohave Mexican vole as an endangered species and taxonomic classification. County, AZ) were morphologically (52 FR 36776; October 1, 1987) stated At the time of listing, we recognized distinct from other recognized that this subspecies occupied the the Hualapai Mexican vole as one of subspecies, and these two specimens Hualapai Mountains, but also three subspecies of Mexican voles in represented a previously unrecognized acknowledged that Spicer et al. (1985, Arizona based on Goldman (1938, pp. taxonomy. Frey’s (1989) study did not p. 10) had found similar voles from the 493–494), Hall (1981, p. 481), and include specimens from Prospect Music Mountains, which are located Hoffmeister (1986, p. 443). Since that Valley. farther to the north in Arizona. The final time, Frey and LaRue (1993, pp. 176– Frey and Yates (1993, pp. 1–23) listing rule (52 FR 36776; October 1, 177) referred to voles in Arizona, New conducted a genetic analyses of 1987) also stated that Hoffmeister (1986, Mexico, and Texas as Microtus p. 445) had tentatively assigned mogollonensis rather than Microtus 1 ITIS is the result of a partnership of Federal specimens from Prospect Valley to the mexicanus. In an unpublished genetic agencies formed to satisfy their mutual needs for Hualapai Mexican vole subspecies, analysis study on the Hualapai Mexican scientifically credible taxonomic information. An overriding goal of the ITIS project is to provide pending a larger sample size. In vole, Frey and Yates (1995) referred to accurate, scientifically credible, and current addition, the final listing rule (52 FR the Hualapai Mexican vole subspecies taxonomic data that meet the needs of the ITIS 36776; October 1, 1987) stated that if as Microtus mogollonensis hualpaiensis. partners and the user public.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:26 Jun 22, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR1.SGM 23JNR1 Pmangrum on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES 28584 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 120 / Friday, June 23, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

Hualapai Mexican vole tissue samples et al. (2001, p. 4) examined nuclear (2001) single subspecies as Microtus taken from 83 specimens across 13 genetic markers from 42 specimens mexicanus hualpaiensis. populations using electrophoresis and across 6 populations in northwestern In 2003, AGFD sent the Busch et al. mitochondrial DNA. The 13 populations Arizona (Hualapai Mountains, Prospect (2001) report to five genetic experts represented all 3 subspecies in Arizona Valley, Bradshaw Mountains, Sierra representing the U.S. Geological and 1 population from Mexico (Frey and Prieta, Prescott, and Mingus Mountains) Survey’s Arizona Cooperative Fish and Yates 1993, p. 20). Their results showed using Amplified Fragment Length Wildlife Research Unit, the that three populations (i.e., Hualapai Polymorphis (AFLP). Additionally, they Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Mountains, Hualapai Indian examined mitochondrial (D-Loop) DNA the University of Colorado at Boulder, Reservation, and Music Mountains) from 83 specimens across 13 Oklahoma State University, and New form a closely related group distinct populations in Arizona (Hualapai Mexico State University for peer review. from other populations in Arizona (Frey Mountains, Prospect Valley, Bradshaw Four of the five reviewers concurred and Yates 1993, p. 10). According to Mountains, Sierra Prieta, Prescott, with the conclusions of Busch et al. (2001) that all populations in Arizona their analysis, populations in the Mingus Mountains, South Rim Grand could be referred to as M. m. Hualapai Mountains, Hualapai Indian Canyon, San Francisco Mountain, hualpaiensis. One of the five reviewers Reservation, and Music Mountains , White Mountains, could be regarded as the Hualapai concluded that populations from the , Aubrey Cliffs, and Mexican vole subspecies. Further, Frey Hualapai Mountains, Music Mountains, ). Results from their and Yates (1993, p. 10) found that the and Hualapai Reservation form a closely study did not support the separation of Navajo Mexican vole subspecies related group distinct from other populations for and Mexican voles into three distinct populations in Arizona based on the the Grand Canyon occurred in a clade subspecies based on nuclear and reviewer’s work in 1993 and 1995. This (i.e., related by a common ancestor) mitochondrial genetic analyses (Busch reviewer further stated that M. m. with the Mogollon Mexican vole et al. 2001, p. 12). Populations referred hualpaiensis is a valid subspecies based subspecies populations along the to as the Navajo Mexican vole on morphologic, genetic, and Mogollon Rim. Frey and Yates (1993, p. subspecies from Navajo Mountain, biogeographical data. 10) suggested that this grouping , San Francisco Peaks, Busch et al.’s (2001) genetic report questions the validity of Navajo and the Grand Canyon South Rim and and reviews by the genetic experts were Mexican vole as a separate subspecies. populations referred to as the Mogollon then sent to two mammalian taxonomy However, in order to verify this Mexican vole subspecies from the experts familiar with the research suggestion, specimens would need to be Mogollon Rim, Chuska Mountains, and surrounding voles for additional review. examined from the type locality of the White Mountains were genetically One of the taxonomic reviewers agreed Navajo Mexican vole subspecies, which similar to Mexican voles in the Hualapai with the one dissenting genetic reviewer is Navajo Mountain, Utah (Frey and Mountains, Hualapai Indian from 2003, who believed the data Yates 1993, p. 10). The authors Reservation, Aubrey Cliffs, Bradshaw supported M. m. hualpaiensis in five recommended additional analyses, Mountains, Watson Woods, and Sierra locations. The other taxonomic reviewer including larger sample sizes, to clarify Prieta (Busch et al. 2001, p. 12). In concluded that there is no basis to the arrangement in three separate summary, the analyses conducted by consider the three subspecies of subspecies (Frey and Yates 1993, p. 10). Busch et al. (2001, p. 12) did not Mexican voles (Hualapai, Navajo, and At that time, we continued to recognize support the separation of Arizona Mogollon) separately. This second the Hualapai Mexican vole subspecies populations of M. mogollonensis into taxonomic reviewer stated that data as occurring in the Hualapai Mountains. three subspecies (i.e., M. m. used by Hoffmeister (1986) were Frey and Yates (1995) continued their mogollonensis, M. m. navajo, and M. m. insufficient to recognize three genetic work on Mexican vole hualapaiensis) as recognized by Frey subspecies based on morphology, and subspecies and analyzed 173 specimens and Yates (1993, 1995). According to that the genetic analyses conducted by from 28 populations (16 from Arizona, Busch et al. (2001), populations of M. Frey and Yates (1993; 1995) and Busch 10 from New Mexico, 1 from Utah, and mogollonensis and M. m. navajo were et al. (2001) were subject to 1 from Mexico) using protein not clearly differentiated from M. m. methodological problems (AGFD 2004, electrophoresis and mitochondrial DNA. hualapaiensis (i.e., the Hualapai p. 4). The second taxonomic reviewer They found that six populations Mexican vole). asserted that all three subspecies should (Hualapai Mountains, Hualapai Indian be considered as one subspecies, Reservation, Music Mountains, Aubrey Busch et al. (2001, p. 12) suggested Microtus mogollonensis mogollonensis Cliffs/Chino Wash, Santa Maria that only one subspecies of Mexican (common name not suggested). Mountains, and Bradshaw Mountains) vole occurs in Arizona, but they did not According to AGFD, the field and could be the Hualapai Mexican vole suggest a new subspecies name to which laboratory studies concluded that M. m. subspecies (Frey and Yates 1995, p. 9). the currently named subspecies of hualaiensis exists in at least seven The authors found unique alleles at two Mexican voles should be reclassified as. populations and perhaps as many as 14 loci in these six populations, which Further, Busch et al. (2001, p. 12) populations (one is in Utah), whereas identified them as being closely related suggested that voles from the White only one population was known prior to (Frey and Yates 1995, p. 9). Based on Mountains and Chuska Mountains listing. Field surveys demonstrated that geographic proximity, Frey and Yates could be a different subspecies or may the Hualapai Mexican vole is not as rare (1995, p. 8) suspected that two other simply show some genetic as it was once thought to be. Prior to populations (Round Mountain and differentiation due to geographic listing, only 15 specimens from seven Sierra Prieta) could also be the Hualapai separation; however, their analysis was locations (all within the Hualapai Mexican vole subspecies, but they did inconclusive. Even though Busch et al. Mountains) were known. The genetic not have adequate samples for genetic (2001, p. 12) did not suggest a name to studies mentioned above, in verification. assign to the only subspecies of Mexican conjunction with trapping success, Additional genetic analyses were voles in Arizona, the AGFD’s petition demonstrate that M. m. hualpaiensis conducted by Busch et al. (2001). Busch (2004, p. 4) referred to Busch et al.’s populations are widespread and not

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:26 Jun 22, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR1.SGM 23JNR1 Pmangrum on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 120 / Friday, June 23, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 28585

restricted to a single mountain range areas, and because it is unlikely to be using a current genome-side marker like (AGFD 2004, p. 9). declining at nearly the rate required to single nucleotide polymorphisms (or The AGFD provided a summary of qualify for listing in a threatened SNPs) would be preferable. The same factors affecting the Hualapai Mexican category (A´ lvarez-Castan˜ eda, S.T. & researcher stated that there is a strong vole in their 2004 status assessment and Reid, F. 2016). The Mexican vole reliance on mitochondrial DNA and lack petition. AGFD stated that the species is species occurs from the southern Rocky of a thorough study of morphology, found in more xeric and mesic habitats Mountains southward in the Sierra behavior, and ecology of this than other vole species, so trampling of Madre of Mexico to central Oaxaca subspecies. The other peer reviewer seeps and spring areas by cattle is no Mexico (Tamarin 1985 p. 99). The noted that in the case of M. m. longer considered a threat to Hualapai existence of several populations hualpaiensis, there is little morphologic Mexican voles as previously thought improves the ability of the species to and genetic evidence to distinguish it when the subspecies was listed (AGFD withstand environmental and from its nearby conspecifics (i.e., other 2004, pp. 5–6). Further, AGFD stated demographic stochasticity (for example, vole subspecies). This reviewer that because the Hualapai Mexican wet or dry, warm or cold years); the concluded that the current data are not voles’ range is not as restricted as once ability of the species to adapt over time sufficient to support the subspecific thought, grazing and recreational uses to long-term changes in the environment recognition of M. m. hualpaiensis. Both are no longer threats to the subspecies (for example, climate changes); and the reviewers recommended continued (AGFD 2004, p 7). Finally, based on five ability of the species to withstand studies. genetic and two taxonomic reviews, the catastrophic events (for example, We reviewed all comments we AGFD stated that all 14 populations droughts, hurricanes). In general, the received from the peer reviewers and analyzed by Busch et al. (2001) could be more populations there are, the more the public for substantive issues and considered a single species, rather than likely the species is to sustain new informative regarding the proposed three subspecies (AGFD 2004; p. 4). populations over time, even under delisting of the Hualapai Mexican vole. In summary, the various analyses and changing environmental conditions. The We received four comments on the reviews present multiple interpretations distribution of the Mexican vole proposed rule. Two were in favor of of the taxonomy and distribution of populations allows for sustained delisting the Hualapai Mexican vole. Hualapai Mexican voles in Arizona, populations into the future. Based on One commenter provided a none of which correlates to that of our the best available scientific and conservation status review to support original listing. The 1987 final listing commercial data at this time, we find the proposed delisting by documenting rule for the Hualapai Mexican vole (52 that the original data for classification the current conservation status of the FR 36776; October 1, 1987) relied on the were in error, and we are removing the Hualapai Mexican vole and its likely best available information at the time, Hualapai Mexican vole (Microtus synonymous populations, as well as an and only included Hualapai Mexican mexicanus hualpaiensis) from the List evaluation of potential threats to the voles found in the Hualapai Mountains. under the Act. larger, taxonomically valid subspecies. The various published and unpublished One commenter opposed the delisting of reports all offer different conclusions Summary of Comments and the Hualapai Mexican vole. Substantive about which populations may or may Recommendations comments we received during the not be Hualapai Mexican voles. At this In our June 4, 2015, combined 12- comment period are addressed below. time, the best available scientific month finding and proposed rule (80 FR (1) Comment: There is a concern that information presents conflicting 31875), we requested that all interested delisting the vole is based on conflicting information on the taxonomy of parties submit comments or information scientific information instead of a peer Mexican voles in general. The majority concerning the proposed delisting of the review based on the five delisting (i.e., five out of seven) of scientists who Hualapai Mexican vole. We provided factors (see section 4(a)(1) of the Act). In reviewed the ‘‘Hualapai vole (Microtus notification of this document through order to delist the subspecies, the mogollonensis hualapaiensis) Genetic email, letters, and news releases to the Service must evaluate this erroneous Analysis’’ report by Busch et al. (2001) appropriate Federal, State, and local classification by seeking a peer review determined that Hualapai Mexican voles agencies; county governments; elected pursuant to the five factors. (Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis) are officials; media outlets; local Our Response: The removal of the not genetically distinct from other vole jurisdictions; scientific organizations; vole from the Federal List of subspecies in Arizona. The best interested groups; and other interested Endangered and Threatened Wildlife is available science no longer supports the parties. We also posted the document on based on recent peer reviewed data recognition of a separate Hualapai our Web site (https://www.fws.gov/ indicating the original data for Mexican vole subspecies. Although the news/ShowNews.cfm?ref=service- classification were in error. Our June 4, Hualapai Mexican vole subspecies is no proposes-delisting-the-hualapai- 2015, proposed rule (80 FR 31875) was longer considered a valid taxonomic mexcian-vole&_ID=35074). based on peer reviewed studies and has entity, the scientific community agrees In accordance with our peer review separately undergone peer review, as that the populations that were policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR explained below. The regulations at 50 previously identified as the Hualapai 34270), we solicited expert opinions CFR 424.11(d) state that a species may Mexican vole subspecies are part of the from five knowledgeable individuals be delisted if (1) it becomes extinct, (2) larger Mexican vole species (Microtus with scientific expertise that included it recovers, or (3) the original mexicanus). genetics, conservation biology, and classification data were in error. Our The Mexican vole is recognized by the ecology of voles and the ecosystems finding is that the original classification scientific community as a species, upon which they depend. We received data were in error. Further, it is the including the International Union for comments from two peer reviewers policy of the Service to incorporate Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and ITIS. associated with academic research independent peer review in listing (and The Mexican vole is listed as least institutions. One researcher noted that recovery) activities by soliciting the concern by IUCN in view of its wide the data gathered and analyzed to date expert opinions relating to taxonomy, distribution, presumed large population, do not appear to support an integrative population models, and supportive occurrence in a number of protected approach to taxonomy. For example, biological and ecological information for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:26 Jun 22, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR1.SGM 23JNR1 Pmangrum on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES 28586 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 120 / Friday, June 23, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

species or subspecies under loop sequences are appropriate genetic listed entity for the Hualapai Mexican consideration of a listing decision (59 markers for the level of taxonomy in vole is no longer a valid taxonomic FR 34270; July 1, 1994). We sought the question, and both markers lack support subspecies. However, the populations expert opinions of five appropriate for individuals from the Hualapai that were previously identified as the independent specialists regarding the Mountains forming an independent, Hualapai Mexican vole subspecies are science in the June 4, 2015, proposed genetic lineage. Further, the peer recognized by the majority of the rule to delist the Hualapai Mexican reviewer also stated that the current scientific community, including IUCN vole. The purpose of peer review was to data are not sufficient to support the and ITIS, as part of a larger taxonomic ensure that our delisting decision is subspecific recognition of voles from the species level of Mexican voles (Microtus based on scientifically sound data, Hualapai Mountains, M. m. mexicanus). Therefore, the original assumptions, and analyses. We sent hualpaiensis. While both peer reviewers scientific data used at the time the copies of the proposed rule and suggested that more genetic studies be subspecies was classified as an supporting documents to the peer conducted, the Service has relied on the endangered subspecies were in error. reviewers immediately following best available scientific and commercial Listable Entity Determination publication in the Federal Register. data at this time, as required under the We received reviews from two peer Act. The petition asserts that the Hualapai reviewers. One of the peer reviewers (3) Comment: The Service is unable to Mexican vole should be delisted. stated that although it is still unclear show by the best scientific or Working within the framework of the exactly what the numbers are, it is clear commercial data available that regulations for making delisting that the numbers of these voles in the classifying the Hualapai Mexican vole determinations, as discussed above, the mountains of western Arizona are larger as an endangered subspecies of the petition asserts that the original data we than was earlier suspected. Kime et al. greater Mexican vole species was in used in our recognition of the Hualapai (1995) found 21 locations harboring error. Mexican vole as a subspecies, and thus voles. The species is not tied to rare, Our Response: According to our a listable entity under the Act, were in moist habitats the way other species of regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d), we may error. In determining whether to Microtus are, and thus gene flow may be delist a species if the best available recognize the Hualapai Mexican vole as greater than expected earlier. The other scientific and commercial data indicate a valid (distinguishable) subspecies, we peer reviewer stated that in the case of that the species is neither endangered or must base our decision on the best M. m. hualpaiensis, there is little threatened for the following reasons: (1) available scientific and commercial morphologic and genetic evidence to The species is extinct; (2) the species data. Additionally, we must provide distinguish it from its nearby has recovered and is no longer transparency in application of the Act’s conspecifics (i.e., other species of voles). endangered or threatened; and/or (3) the definition of a species through careful Also, the 12-month finding found no original scientific data used at the time review and analyses of all the relevant natural history or biologically the species was classified were in error. data. significant information on M. m. We determine that the original Under section 3 of the Act and our hualpaiensis to distinguish individuals classification is in error because there is implementing regulations at 50 CFR from the Hualapai Mountains from other sufficient evidence that the currently 424.02, a ‘‘species’’ includes any populations in the region. Although listed entity for the Hualapai Mexican subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, voles from the Hualapai Mountains may vole is not a valid taxonomic and any distinct population segment of be on an evolutionary trajectory in the subspecies. This evidence was not any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife direction of a ‘‘subspecies,’’ this available to the Service at the time we which interbreeds when mature. As trajectory is mostly likely very recent listed the subspecies in 1987. The such, a ‘‘species’’ under the Act may and insufficient to warrant description various analyses and reviews present include any taxonomically defined as an independent subspecies at this multiple interpretations of the species of fish, wildlife, or plant; any time. Given our review of the scientific taxonomy and distribution of Mexican taxonomically defined subspecies of and commercial data available for the voles in Arizona, none of which fish, wildlife, or plant; or any distinct Hualapai Mexican vole subspecies (M. correlates to that of our original listing. population segment of any vertebrate m. hualpaiensis), we conclude that it is The final listing rule for the Hualapai species as determined by us per our not a valid taxonomic entity for listing. Mexican vole (52 FR 36776; October 1, Policy Regarding the Recognition of (2) Comment: The Service should 1987) relied on the best available District Vertebrate Population Segments conduct a detailed study and analysis information at the time, and only [DPSs] Under the Endangered Species on the vole’s genetics prior to taking any included Mexican voles found in the Act (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). We action to reclassify the subspecies. Hualapai Mountains. The various note that Congress has instructed the Conflicting data on genetics should be published and unpublished reports we Secretary to exercise this authority with resolved prior to agency action and have used to make this decision all offer regard to DPS’s ‘‘* * * sparingly and should not be used as a justification to different conclusions about which only when the biological evidence delist. Further the Service must populations may or may not be indicates that such action is warranted.’’ rationally explain why the uncertainty Hualapai Mexican voles. At this time, Our implementing regulations counsels in favor of delisting now, the best available scientific information provide further guidance on rather than, for example, more study. presents conflicting information on the determining whether a particular taxon Our Response: While we recognize taxonomy of Mexican voles in general, or population is a species or subspecies that more studies are always beneficial, and no longer supports the recognition for the purposes of the Act: ‘‘the our action is based on a thorough review of a separate Hualapai Mexican vole Secretary shall rely on standard of the best available scientific and subspecies. Although reviews of the taxonomic distinctions and the commercial data, which indicates that published and unpublished reports have biological expertise of the Department the currently listed subspecies was inconsistent conclusions because of and the scientific community listed in error as it is not a valid differences in data sets and genetic concerning the relevant taxonomic taxonomic entity. One of the peer analyses, the Service and each of the group’’ (50 CFR 424.11(a)). For each reviewers stated that both AFLP and D- peer reviewers agreed that the currently species, section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:26 Jun 22, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR1.SGM 23JNR1 Pmangrum on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 120 / Friday, June 23, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 28587

mandates that we use the best scientific is not a distinguishable subspecies, and listable entity under the Act. In and commercial data available for each we, therefore, do not recognize it as a conclusion, we find that the Hualapai individual species under consideration. listable entity under the Act. (A Mexican vole (Microtus mexicanus Given the wide range of taxa and the ‘‘listable entity’’ is one that qualifies as hualpaiensis) must be removed as a multitude of situations and types of data a ‘‘species’’ under the definition in listed subspecies under the Act because that apply to species under review, the section 3 of the Act and is thus eligible the original scientific data used at the application of a single set of criteria that to be listed as an endangered species or time the subspecies was classified were would be applicable to all taxa is not a threatened species.) Because we found in error. practical or useful. In addition, because that the Hualapai Mexican vole is not a Effects of the Rule of the wide variation in kinds of valid listable entity, conducting a available data for a given circumstance, distinct population segment (DPS) This final rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) we do not assign a priority or weight to analysis would be inappropriate. to remove the Hualapai Mexican vole any particular type of data, but must from the Federal List of Endangered and Delisting Analysis consider it in the context of all the Threatened Wildlife. Because no critical available data for a given species. After a review of all information habitat was ever designated for this For purposes of being able to available, we are removing the Hualapai subspecies, this rule will not affect 50 determine what is a listable entity under Mexican vole from the List of CFR 17.95. the Act, we must necessarily follow a Endangered and Threatened Wildlife On the effective date of this rule (see more operational approach and evaluate (List). Section 4(a)(1) of the Act and DATES, above), the prohibitions and and consider all available types of data, regulations (50 CFR part 424) issued to conservation measures provided by the which may or may not include genetic implement the listing provisions of the Act, particularly through sections 7 and information, to determine whether a Act set forth the procedures for adding 9, no longer apply to this subspecies. taxon is a distinguishable species or species to or removing them from the Federal agencies are no longer required subspecies. As a matter of practice, and List. The regulations at 50 CFR to consult with the Service under in accordance with our regulations, in 424.11(d) state that a species may be section 7 of the Act in the event that deciding which alternative taxonomic delisted if (1) it becomes extinct, (2) it activities they authorize, fund, or carry interpretations to recognize, the Service recovers, or (3) the original out may affect the Hualapai Mexican will rely on the professional judgment classification data were in error. vole. At this time, the best available available within the Service and the Required Determinations scientific community to evaluate the scientific information presents most recent taxonomic studies and other conflicting information on the taxonomy National Environmental Policy Act relevant information available for the of Mexican voles in general, and no We have determined that subject species. Therefore, we continue longer supports the recognition of a environmental assessments and to make listing decisions based solely separate Hualapai Mexican vole environmental impact statements, as on the basis of the best scientific and subspecies. Reviews of the published defined under the authority of the commercial data available for each and unpublished reports have National Environmental Policy Act of species under consideration on a case- inconsistent conclusions because of 1969, need not be prepared in specific basis. different genetic analyses and data sets. connection with regulations adopted In making our determination whether However, there is sufficient evidence to pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We we recognize the Hualapai Mexican vole indicate that the currently listed entity published a notice outlining our reasons as a distinguishable subspecies and, for the Hualapai Mexican vole is no for this determination in the Federal thus, whether the petitioned action is longer a valid taxonomic subspecies. Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR warranted, we considered all available Additionally, the Mexican vole is listed 49244). data that may inform the taxonomy of as least concern by IUCN in view of its the Hualapai Mexican vole, such as wide distribution, presumed large Government-to-Government ecology, morphology, and genetics. population, occurrence in a number of Relationship With Tribes In determining whether to recognize protected areas, and because it is In accordance with the President’s the Hualapai Mexican vole as a unlikely to be declining at nearly the memorandum of April 29, 1994, distinguishable subspecies, we must rate required to qualify for listing in a ‘‘Government-to-Government Relations first define the criteria used to make this threatened category (A´ lvarez-Castan˜ eda, with Native American Tribal decision given the available S.T. & Reid, F. 2016). We consider the Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive information. Within the taxonomic entity that was previously described as Order 13175, and the Department of literature, there are no universally Hualapai Mexican vole (Microtus Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we agreed-upon criteria for delineating, mexicanus hualpaiensis) to be part of readily acknowledge our responsibility defining, or diagnosing subspecies the Mexican vole species (Microtus to communicate meaningfully with boundaries. Each possible subspecies mexicanus). The Mexican vole species recognized Federal Tribes on a has been subject to unique evolutionary ranges from the southern Rocky government-to-government basis. forces, different methods of selection Mountains in southern Utah and Therefore, we solicited information will act on each subspecies (genetic drift Colorado, through central Arizona and from Native American Tribes during the versus allopatric speciation), and the New Mexico, and throughout the proposed rule’s comment periods to potential divergence time (recent versus interior of north and central Me´xico in determine potential effects on them or more distant) will, therefore, lead to the Sierra Madre Mountains, as far their resources that may result from the different signals, particularly south as central Oaxaca, Mexico delisting of the Hualapai Mexican vole. genetically; as such, the methods for (Tamarin 1985, p. 99). No comments were received from detecting each will be different (Amec Based on the best available scientific Native American Tribes. 2015, pp. 101–102). Therefore, we and commercial data, we have conclude that the best scientific and determined that the Hualapai Mexican References Cited commercial information available vole is not a valid taxonomic A complete list of all references cited indicate that the Hualapai Mexican vole subspecies, and therefore, is not a in this rule is available on http://

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:26 Jun 22, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR1.SGM 23JNR1 Pmangrum on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES 28588 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 120 / Friday, June 23, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

www.regulations.gov, or upon request recordkeeping requirements, Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– from the Field Supervisor, Arizona Transportation. 1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR noted. Regulation Promulgation FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). § 17.11 [Amended] Accordingly, we amend part 17, Authors ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by removing the The primary authors of this rule are subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the entry for ‘‘Vole, Hualapai Mexican’’ the staff members of the Arizona Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth from the List of Endangered and Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. below: Threatened Wildlife. Fish and Wildlife Service (see PART 17—ENDANGERED AND Dated: May 25, 2017. ADDRESSES). THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS James W. Kurth, List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and threatened species, ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 [FR Doc. 2017–13162 Filed 6–22–17; 8:45 am] Exports, Imports, Reporting and continues to read as follows: BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:26 Jun 22, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\23JNR1.SGM 23JNR1 Pmangrum on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES