Vol. 80 Thursday, No. 247 December 24, 2015

Part III

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and ; Review of Native That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Notice

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\24DEP3.SGM 24DEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 80584 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR period October 1, 2014, through to the notice of review. We also request September 30, 2015. information on additional species to Fish and Wildlife Service Moreover, we request any additional consider including as candidates as we status information that may be available prepare future updates of this notice. 50 CFR Part 17 for the candidate species identified in this CNOR. Candidate Notice of Review [Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2015–0135; FF09E21000 FXES11190900000 156] DATES: We will accept information on Background any of the species in this Candidate The Endangered Species Act of 1973, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Notice of Review at any time. as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; and Plants; Review of Native Species ADDRESSES: This notice is available on ESA), requires that we identify species That Are Candidates for Listing as the Internet at http:// of wildlife and plants that are Endangered or Threatened; Annual www.regulations.gov and http:// endangered or threatened based on the Notice of Findings on Resubmitted www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/ best available scientific and commercial Petitions; Annual Description of cnor.html. Species assessment forms information. As defined in section 3 of Progress on Listing Actions with information and references on a the ESA, an endangered species is any particular candidate species’ range, AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, species that is in danger of status, habitat needs, and listing priority Interior. throughout all or a significant portion of assignment are available for review at its range, and a threatened species is ACTION: Notice of review. the appropriate Regional Office listed any species that is likely to become an SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION SUMMARY: In this Candidate Notice of below in or endangered species within the Review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish and at the Branch of Communications and foreseeable future throughout all or a Wildlife Service (Service), present an Candidate Conservation, Falls Church, significant portion of its range. Through FOR FURTHER updated list of and species VA (see address under the Federal rulemaking process, we add INFORMATION CONTACT), or on our Web native to the United States that we _ species that meet these definitions to regard as candidates for or have site (http://ecos.fws.gov/tess public/ the List of Endangered and Threatened proposed for addition to the Lists of reports/candidate-species-report). Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11 or the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Please submit any new information, Endangered and Threatened Plants at 50 materials, comments, or questions of a and Plants under the Endangered CFR 17.12. As part of this program, we general nature on this notice to the Falls Species Act of 1973, as amended. maintain a list of species that we regard Church, VA, address listed under FOR Identification of candidate species can as candidates for listing. A candidate FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Please assist environmental planning efforts by species is one for which we have on file submit any new information, materials, providing advance notice of potential sufficient information on biological comments, or questions pertaining to a listings, and by allowing landowners vulnerability and threats to support a particular species to the address of the and resource managers to alleviate proposal for listing as endangered or Endangered Species Coordinator in the threats and thereby possibly remove the threatened, but for which preparation appropriate Regional Office listed in need to list species as endangered or and publication of a proposal is SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Species- threatened. Even if we subsequently list precluded by higher priority listing specific information and materials we a candidate species, the early notice actions. We may identify a species as a receive will be available for public provided here could result in more candidate for listing after we have inspection by appointment, during options for species management and conducted an evaluation of its status— normal business hours, at the recovery by prompting candidate either on our own initiative, or in appropriate Regional Office listed below conservation measures to alleviate response to a petition we have received. under Request for Information in threats to the species. If we have made a finding on a petition SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. General This CNOR summarizes the status and to list a species, and have found that information we receive will be available threats that we evaluated in order to listing is warranted but precluded by at the Branch of Communications and determine that species qualify as other higher priority listing actions, we Candidate Conservation, Falls Church, candidates, to assign a listing priority will add the species to our list of VA (see address under FOR FURTHER number (LPN) to each species, and to candidates. INFORMATION CONTACT). determine whether a species should be We maintain this list of candidates for removed from candidate status. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: a variety of reasons: (1) To notify the Additional material that we relied on is Chief, Branch of Communications and public that these species are facing available in the Species Assessment and Candidate Conservation, U.S. Fish and threats to their survival; (2) to provide Listing Priority Assignment Forms Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: ES, advance knowledge of potential listings (species assessment forms) for each 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA that could affect decisions of candidate species. 22041–3803 (telephone 703–358–2171). environmental planners and developers; This CNOR changes the LPN for two Persons who use a telecommunications (3) to provide information that may candidates and removes two species device for the deaf may call the Federal stimulate and guide conservation efforts from candidate status. Combined with Information Relay Service at 800–877– that will remove or reduce threats to other decisions for individual species 8339. these species and possibly make listing that were published separately from this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: unnecessary; (4) to request input from CNOR in the past year, the current We request additional status interested parties to help us identify number of species that are candidates information that may be available for those candidate species that may not for listing is 60. any of the candidate species identified require protection under the ESA, as This document also includes our in this CNOR. We will consider this well as additional species that may findings on resubmitted petitions and information to monitor changes in the require the ESA’s protections; and (5) to describes our progress in revising the status or LPN of candidate species and request necessary information for setting Lists of Endangered and Threatened to manage candidates as we prepare priorities for preparing listing proposals. Wildlife and Plants (Lists) during the listing documents and future revisions We encourage collaborative

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP3.SGM 24DEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Notices 80585

conservation efforts for candidate (1) The number of populations or extent For more information on the process species, and offer technical and of range of the species affected by the and standards used in assigning LPNs, financial assistance to facilitate such threat(s), or both; (2) the biological a copy of the 1983 guidance is available efforts. For additional information significance of the affected on our Web site at: http://www.fws.gov/ regarding such assistance, please population(s), taking into consideration endangered/esa-library/pdf/1983_LPN_ contact the appropriate Regional Office the life-history characteristics of the Policy_FR_pub.pdf. Information on the listed under Request for Information or species and its current abundance and LPN assigned to a particular species is visit our Web site, http://www.fws.gov/ distribution; (3) whether the threats summarized in this CNOR, and the endangered/what-we-do/cca.html. affect the species in only a portion of its species assessment for each candidate contains the LPN chart and a rationale Previous Notices of Review range, and, if so, the likelihood of persistence of the species in the for the determination of the magnitude We have been publishing CNORs unaffected portions; (4) the severity of and immediacy of threat(s) and since 1975. The most recent was the effects and the rapidity with which assignment of the LPN. published on December 5, 2014 (79 FR they have caused or are likely to cause To the extent this revised notice 72450). CNORs published since 1994 mortality to individuals and differs from all previous animal, plant, are available on our Web site, http:// accompanying declines in population and combined candidate notices of www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/ levels; (5) whether the effects are likely review for native species or previous 12- cnor.html. For copies of CNORs to be permanent; and (6) the extent to month warranted-but-precluded petition published prior to 1994, please contact which any ongoing conservation efforts findings for those candidate species that the Branch of Communications and reduce the severity of the threat(s). were petitioned for listing, this notice FOR Candidate Conservation (see As used in our priority-ranking supercedes them. FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, system, immediacy of threat is above). Summary of This CNOR categorized as either ‘‘imminent’’ or On September 21, 1983, we published Since publication of the previous ‘‘nonimminent,’’ and is based on when guidance for assigning an LPN for each CNOR on December 5, 2014 (79 FR candidate species (48 FR 43098). Using the threats will begin. If a threat is 72450), we reviewed the available this guidance, we assign each candidate currently occurring or likely to occur in information on candidate species to an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the the very near future, we classify the ensure that a proposed listing is magnitude of threats, immediacy of threat as imminent. Determining the justified for each species, and threats, and taxonomic status; the lower immediacy of threats helps ensure that reevaluated the relative LPN assigned to the LPN, the higher the listing priority species facing actual, identifiable threats each species. We also evaluated the (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 are given priority for listing proposals need to emergency list any of these would have the highest listing priority). over those for which threats are only species, particularly species with higher Section 4(h)(3) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. potential or species that are intrinsically priorities (i.e., species with LPNs of 1, 1533(h)(3)) requires the Secretary to vulnerable to certain types of threats but 2, or 3). This review and reevaluation establish guidelines for such a priority- are not known to be presently facing ensures that we focus conservation ranking system. As explained below, in such threats. efforts on those species at greatest risk. using this system, we first categorize Our priority-ranking system has three In addition to reviewing candidate based on the magnitude of the threat(s), categories for taxonomic status: Species species since publication of the last then by the immediacy of the threat(s), that are the sole members of a ; CNOR, we have worked on findings in and finally by taxonomic status. full species (in genera that have more response to petitions to list species, and Under this priority-ranking system, than one species); and subspecies and on proposed and final determinations magnitude of threat can be either ‘‘high’’ distinct population segments of for rules to list species under the ESA. or ‘‘moderate to low.’’ This criterion vertebrate species (DPS). Some of these findings and helps ensure that the species facing the The result of the ranking system is determinations have been completed greatest threats to their continued that we assign each candidate a listing and published in the Federal Register, existence receive the highest listing priority number of 1 to 12. For example, while work on others is still under way priority. It is important to recognize that if the threats are of high magnitude, (see Preclusion and Expeditious all candidate species face threats to their with immediacy classified as imminent, Progress, below, for details). continued existence, so the magnitude the listable entity is assigned an LPN of Based on our review of the best of threats is in relative terms. For all 1, 2, or 3 based on its taxonomic status available scientific and commercial candidate species, the threats are of (i.e., a species that is the only member information, with this CNOR, we change sufficiently high magnitude to put them of its genus would be assigned to the the LPN for two candidates and remove in danger of extinction, or make them LPN 1 category, a full species to LPN 2, two species from candidate status. likely to become in danger of extinction and a subspecies or DPS would be Combined with the other decisions in the foreseeable future. But for species assigned to LPN 3). In summary, the published separately from this CNOR, a with higher-magnitude threats, the LPN ranking system provides a basis for total of 60 species (18 plant and 42 threats have a greater likelihood of making decisions about the relative animal species) are now candidates bringing about extinction or are priority for preparing a proposed rule to awaiting preparation of rules proposing expected to bring about extinction on a list a given species. No matter which their listing. These 60 species, along shorter timescale (once the threats are LPN we assign to a species, each species with the 71 species currently proposed imminent) than for species with lower- included in this notice as a candidate is for listing (including 1 species proposed magnitude threats. Because we do not one for which we have sufficient for listing due to similarity in routinely quantify how likely or how information to prepare a proposed rule appearance), are included in Table 1. soon extinction would be expected to for listing because it is in danger of Table 2 lists the changes from the occur absent listing, we must evaluate extinction or likely to become previous CNOR, and includes 55 species factors that contribute to the likelihood endangered within the foreseeable identified in the previous CNOR as and time scale for extinction. We future throughout all or a significant either proposed for listing or classified therefore consider information such as: portion of its range. as candidates that are no longer in those

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP3.SGM 24DEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 80586 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Notices

categories. This includes 31 species for with a precipitous decline in population However, the overall magnitude of which we published a final listing rule, size in New Jersey and first-time threat to whitebark pine is somewhat 20 candidate species for which we absence of the population in Delaware. diminished given the current absence of published separate not-warranted Therefore, we are changing the epidemic levels of mountain pine findings and removed them from immediacy of threats from nonimminent beetle, and because of this, individuals candidate status, 1 species for which we to imminent and, consequently, the LPN with genetic resistance to white pine published a withdrawal of a proposed of the species from a 5 to a 2. blister rust likely have a higher rule, 1 species for which we published Pinus albicaulis (Whitebark pine) — probability of survival. Survival and a separate candidate removal, and the 2 The following summary is based on reproduction of genetically resistant species in this notice that we have information in our files and in the trees are critical to the persistence of the determined do not meet the definition petition received on December 9, 2008. species given the imminent, ubiquitous of an endangered species or threatened Whitebark pine is a hardy conifer found presence of white pine blister rust on species and therefore do not warrant at alpine tree line and subalpine the landscape. Overall, the threats to the listing. We have removed these species elevations in Washington, Oregon, species are ongoing, and therefore from candidate status in this CNOR. Nevada, California, Idaho, Montana, and imminent, and are now moderate in Wyoming, and in British Columbia and magnitude. Thus, we have changed the New Candidates Alberta, Canada. In the United States, LPN for whitebark pine from a 2 to an We have not identified any new approximately 96 percent of land where 8. candidate species through this notice the species occurs is federally owned or but identified one species—the Sierra managed, primarily by the U.S. Forest Candidate Removals Nevada DPS of the red fox—as a Service. Whitebark pine is a slow- As summarized below, we have candidate on October 8, 2015, as a result growing, long-lived tree that often lives evaluated the threats to the following of a separate petition finding published for 500 and sometimes more than 1,000 species and considered factors that, in the Federal Register (80 FR 60989). years. It is considered a keystone, or individually and in combination, foundation, species in western North currently or potentially could pose a Listing Priority Changes in Candidates America, where it increases biodiversity risk to the species and their habitats. We reviewed the LPNs for all and contributes to critical ecosystem After a review of the best available candidate species and are changing the functions. scientific and commercial data, we number for the following species The primary threat to the species is conclude that listing these species discussed below. from disease in the form of the under the Endangered Species Act is not Flowering Plants nonnative white pine blister rust and its warranted because these species are not interaction with other threats. likely to become endangered species Dichanthelium hirstii (Hirst Brothers’ Whitebark pine also is currently within the foreseeable future throughout panic grass) — The following summary experiencing mortality from predation all or a significant portion of their is based on information initially by the native mountain pine beetle respective ranges. Therefore, we no provided in the May 11, 2004, petition (Dendroctonus ponderosae), but the longer consider them to be candidate and updated information contained in current epidemic appears to be species for listing. We will continue to our files. Dichanthelium hirstii is a subsiding. We also anticipate that monitor the status of these species and perennial grass that produces erect, continuing environmental effects to accept additional information and leafy, flowering stems from May to resulting from climate change will result comments concerning this finding. We October. The species occurs in coastal in direct habitat loss for whitebark pine. will reconsider our determination in the plain intermittent ponds, usually in wet Models predict that suitable habitat for event that we gather new information savanna or pine barren habitats, and is whitebark pine will decline that indicates that the threats are of a known to occur at only three sites in precipitously within the next 100 years. considerably greater magnitude or New Jersey, one site in Delaware, two Past and ongoing fire suppression is also imminence than identified through sites in North Carolina, and one site in negatively affecting populations of assessments of information contained in Georgia. Six of the extant D. hirstii whitebark pine through direct habitat our files, as summarized here. populations are located on public land loss. Additionally, environmental and one is on private land. changes resulting from changing At each site the species is threatened climatic conditions are acting alone and Anchialine pool (Metabetaeus by encroachment of woody and in combination with the effects of fire lohena)—Metabetaeus lohena is a herbaceous vegetation, competition suppression to increase the frequency species of shrimp belonging to the from rhizomatous perennials, and severity of wildfires. Lastly, the family Alpheidae. At the time M. lohena fluctuations in hydrology, and threats existing regulatory mechanisms are became a candidate, it was considered associated with small population inadequate to address the threats to be an endemic shrimp to the number and size; sites in New Jersey are presented above. Hawaiian Islands, restricted to small threatened by illegal off-road vehicle As the mountain pine beetle epidemic anchialine habitats that were thought to use. Given the naturally fluctuating appears to be subsiding, we no longer have imminent threats. Though the total number of plants found at each site, and consider this threat to be having the number of occupied pools in Hawaii is the isolated nature of the wetlands high level of impact that was seen in not known, M. lohena has recently been (limiting dispersal opportunities), even recent years. However, given projected observed in at least 35 anchialine pools small changes in the species’ habitat warming trends, we expect that and pool groups on the islands of could result in local extirpation. Loss of conditions will remain favorable for Hawaii, Maui, and Oahu. Many of these any known sites would constitute a epidemic levels of mountain pine beetle pools are located within protected significant contraction of the species’ into the foreseeable future. The habitat on State (e.g., Manuka and range. An increase in regional significant threats from white pine Ahihi-Kinau Natural Area Reserves) and precipitation patterns causing long-term blister rust, fire, and fire suppression, Federal land (e.g., Volcanoes National flooding in the species’ coastal plain and environmental effects of climate Park and Pearl Harbor National Wildlife pond habitat is recent and coincides change remain on the landscape. Refuge).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP3.SGM 24DEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Notices 80587

New information has extended the information, we find that the best proposals to determine whether any range and habitat of Metabetaeus lohena available information indicates that the species is endangered or threatened, and to include Rapa Nui (Easter Island), species is not likely to become in danger (b) expeditious progress is being made Chile, where it is was recently identified of extinction in the foreseeable future to add qualified species to the Lists. We in an anchialine pool and coastal throughout all or a significant portion of refer to this third option as a shallow water wells. A specimen found its range. ‘‘warranted-but-precluded finding.’’ in Ambon Bay (Maluku Islands, We define ‘‘candidate species’’ to Petition Findings Indonesia) was also identified as M. mean those species for which the lohena; however, this determination The ESA provides two mechanisms Service has on file sufficient remains uncertain because the specimen for considering species for listing. One information on biological vulnerability reviewed was highly degraded. The method allows the Secretary, on the and threat(s) to support issuance of a discovery of at least one, and perhaps Secretary’s own initiative, to identify proposed rule to list, but for which two, populations so distant from the species for listing under the standards of issuance of the proposed rule is Hawaiian Islands suggests that M. section 4(a)(1). We implement this precluded (61 FR 64481; December 5, lohena has greater dispersal capabilities authority through the candidate 1996). The standard for making a than previously known and the species program, discussed above. The second species a candidate through our own has recently been observed naturally method for listing a species provides a initiative is identical to the standard for recolonizing restored anchialine mechanism for the public to petition us making a warranted-but-precluded 12- habitats in the Hawaiian Islands. The to add a species to the Lists. The CNOR month petition finding on a petition to survey effort for this species outside of serves several purposes as part of the list, and we add all petitioned species Hawaii and Rapa Nui has not provided petition process: (1) In some instances for which we have made a warranted- information about population levels in (in particular, for petitions to list but-precluded 12-month finding to the those areas. species that the Service has already candidate list. Our review of the best available identified as candidates on its own Therefore, all candidate species scientific information indicates that initiative), it serves as the initial identified through our own initiative Metabetaeus lohena exists across a petition finding; (2) for candidate already have received the equivalent of much greater area than was previously species for which the Service has made substantial 90-day and warranted-but- believed, has greater dispersal ability a warranted-but-precluded petition precluded 12-month findings. than previously known, can naturally finding, it serves as a ‘‘resubmitted’’ Nevertheless, if we receive a petition to recolonize restored habitats, and largely petition finding that the ESA requires list a species that we have already exists in protected areas where it is the Service to make each year; and (3) identified as a candidate, we review the known to occur. Given this recent it documents the Service’s compliance status of the newly petitioned candidate information, we find that the best with the statutory requirement to species and through this CNOR publish available information indicates that the monitor the status of species for which specific section 4(b)(3) findings (i.e., species is not likely to become in danger listing is warranted but precluded, and substantial 90-day and warranted-but- of extinction in the foreseeable future to ascertain if they need emergency precluded 12-month findings) in throughout all or a significant portion of listing. response to the petitions to list these its range. First, the CNOR serves as an initial candidate species. We publish these Anchialine pool shrimp petition finding in some instances. findings as part of the first CNOR ( burnsi)—Palaemonella Under section 4(b)(3)(A), when we following receipt of the petition. In this burnsi is a species of shrimp belonging receive a petition to list a species, we CNOR, we are making a substantial 90- to the family . At the time must determine within 90 days, to the day finding and a warranted but that P. burnsi became a candidate, it was maximum extent practicable, whether precluded 12-month petition finding for considered to be an endemic shrimp to the petition presents substantial Streptanthus bracteatus (bracted the Hawaiian Islands, restricted to small information indicating that listing may twistflower). This species was added to anchialine habitats that were thought to be warranted (a ‘‘90-day finding’’). If we the candidate list on October 26, 2011, have imminent threats. Though the total make a positive 90-day finding, we must and we received a petition to list this number of occupied pools in Hawaii is promptly commence a status review of species on August 5, 2014. We have not known, P. burnsi has recently been the species under section 4(b)(3)(A); we identified the candidate species for observed in anchialine pools and pool must then make, within 12 months of which we received petitions by the code groups on the islands of Hawaii and the receipt of the petition, and publish ‘‘C*’’ in the category column on the left Maui. Many of these pools are located one of three possible findings (a ‘‘12- side of Table 1 below. within protected habitat on State (e.g., month finding’’): Second, the CNOR serves as a Manuka and Ahihi-Kinau Natural Area (1) The petitioned action is not ‘‘resubmitted’’ petition finding. Section Reserves) and Federal land (e.g., Kaloko- warranted; 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the ESA requires that Honokohau National Historic Park). (2) The petitioned action is warranted when we make a warranted-but- New information has revealed that (in which case we are required to precluded finding on a petition, we treat Palaemonella burnsi occurs in Kume- promptly publish a proposed regulation the petition as one that is resubmitted jima in the Ryuku archipelago, Japan, to implement the petitioned action; on the date of the finding. Thus, we where it is was recently identified in once we publish a proposed rule for a must make a 12-month petition finding coral reef flats. The discovery of an species, sections 4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) of in compliance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of additional population in non-anchialine the ESA govern further procedures, the ESA at least once a year, until we habitat so distant from the Hawaiian regardless of whether we issued the publish a proposal to list the species or Islands suggests that Palaemonella proposal in response to a petition); or make a final not-warranted finding. We burnsi exists across a much greater area (3) The petitioned action is warranted, make these annual findings for than was previously believed, is not but (a) the immediate proposal of a petitioned candidate species through restricted to anchialine habitats, and regulation and final promulgation of a the CNOR. These annual findings largely exists in protected areas where it regulation implementing the petitioned supercede any findings from previous is known to occur. Given this recent action is precluded by pending CNORs and the initial 12-month

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP3.SGM 24DEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 80588 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Notices

warranted-but-precluded finding, nationwide basis (see below). Regional In addition to identifying petitioned although all previous findings are part priorities can also be discerned from candidate species in Table 1 below, we of the administrative record for the new Table 1, below, which includes the lead also present brief summaries of why finding, and we may rely upon them or region and the LPN for each species. each of these candidates warrants incorporate them by reference in the Our preclusion determinations are listing. More complete information, new finding as appropriate. further based upon our budget for listing including references, is found in the Third, through undertaking the activities for unlisted species only, and species assessment forms. You may analysis required to complete the we explain the priority system and why obtain a copy of these forms from the CNOR, the Service determines if any the work we have accomplished has Regional Office having the lead for the candidate species needs emergency precluded action on listing candidate species, or from the Fish and Wildlife listing. Section 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the ESA species. Service’s Internet Web site: http:// requires us to ‘‘implement a system to In preparing this CNOR, we reviewed ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/ monitor effectively the status of all the current status of, and threats to, the candidate-species-report. As described species’’ for which we have made a 56 candidates for which we have above, under section 4 of the ESA, we warranted-but-precluded 12-month received a petition to list and the 3 identify and propose species for listing finding, and to ‘‘make prompt use of the listed species for which we have based on the factors identified in section [emergency listing] authority [under received a petition to reclassify from 4(a)(1)—either on our own initiative or section 4(b)(7)] to prevent a significant threatened to endangered, where we through the mechanism that section 4 risk to the well being of any such found the petitioned action to be provides for the public to petition us to species.’’ The CNOR plays a crucial role warranted but precluded. We find that add species to the Lists of Endangered in the monitoring system that we have the immediate issuance of a proposed or Threatened Wildlife and Plants under implemented for all candidate species rule and timely promulgation of a final the ESA. by providing notice that we are actively rule for each of these species, has been, Preclusion and Expeditious Progress seeking information regarding the status for the preceding months, and continues To make a finding that a particular of those species. We review all new to be, precluded by higher-priority action is warranted but precluded, the information on candidate species as it listing actions. Additional information Service must make two determinations: becomes available, prepare an annual that is the basis for this finding is found (1) That the immediate proposal and species assessment form that reflects in the species assessments and our timely promulgation of a final monitoring results and other new administrative record for each species. information, and identify any species regulation is precluded by pending Our review included updating the for which emergency listing may be listing proposals and (2) that status of, and threats to, petitioned appropriate. If we determine that expeditious progress is being made to candidate or listed species for which we emergency listing is appropriate for any add qualified species to either of the published findings, under section candidate, we will make prompt use of lists and to remove species from the lists 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA, in the previous the emergency listing authority under (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)(iii)). section 4(b)(7). For example, on August CNOR. We have incorporated new Preclusion 10, 2011, we emergency listed the information we gathered since the prior Miami blue (76 FR 49542). We finding and, as a result of this review, A listing proposal is precluded if the have been reviewing and will continue we are making continued warranted- Service does not have sufficient to review, at least annually, the status of but-precluded 12-month findings on the resources available to complete the every candidate, whether or not we have petitions for these species. However, for proposal, because there are competing received a petition to list it. Thus, the some of these species, we are currently demands for those resources, and the CNOR and accompanying species engaged in a thorough review of all relative priority of those competing assessment forms constitute the available data to determine whether to demands is higher. Thus, in any given Service’s system for monitoring and proceed with a proposed listing rule; fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate making annual findings on the status of this review may result in us concluding whether it will be possible to undertake petitioned species under sections that listing is no longer warranted. work on a listing proposal regulation or 4(b)(3)(C)(i) and 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the The immediate publication of whether promulgation of such a ESA. proposed rules to list these species was proposal is precluded by higher priority A number of court decisions have precluded by our work on higher- listing actions—(1) The amount of elaborated on the nature and specificity priority listing actions, listed below, resources available for completing the of information that we must consider in during the period from October 1, 2014, listing function, (2) the estimated cost of making and describing the petition through September 30, 2015. Below we completing the proposed listing, and (3) findings in the CNOR. The CNOR that describe the actions that continue to the Service’s workload and published on November 9, 2009 (74 FR preclude the immediate proposal and prioritization of the proposed listing in 57804), describes these court decisions final promulgation of a regulation relation to other actions. in further detail. As with previous implementing each of the petitioned CNORs, we continue to incorporate actions for which we have made a Available Resources information of the nature and specificity warranted-but-precluded finding, and The resources available for listing required by the courts. For example, we we describe the expeditious progress we actions are determined through the include a description of the reasons why are making to add qualified species to, annual Congressional appropriations the listing of every petitioned candidate and remove species from, the Lists. We process. In FY 1998 and for each fiscal species is both warranted and precluded will continue to monitor the status of all year since then, Congress has placed a at this time. We make our candidate species, including petitioned statutory cap on funds that may be determinations of preclusion on a species, as new information becomes expended for the Listing Program. This nationwide basis to ensure that the available to determine if a change in spending cap was designed to prevent species most in need of listing will be status is warranted, including the need the listing function from depleting addressed first and also because we to emergency list a species under funds needed for other functions under allocate our listing budget on a section 4(b)(7) of the ESA. the ESA (for example, recovery

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP3.SGM 24DEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Notices 80589

functions, such as removing species allowed us to combine the proposed Costs of Listing Actions. The work from the Lists), or for other Service listing determination and proposed involved in preparing various listing programs (see House Report 105–163, critical habitat designation into one documents can be extensive, and may 105th Congress, 1st Session, July 1, rule, thereby being more efficient in our include, but is not limited to: Gathering 1997). The funds within the spending work. In FY 2015, based on the Service’s and assessing the best scientific and cap are available to support work workload, we were able to use some of commercial data available and involving the following listing actions: the funds within the critical habitat conducting analyses used as the basis Proposed and final listing rules; 90-day subcap to fund proposed listing for our decisions; writing and and 12-month findings on petitions to determinations. publishing documents; and obtaining, add species to the Lists or to change the For FY 2012, Congress also put in reviewing, and evaluating public status of a species from threatened to place two additional subcaps within the comments and peer review comments endangered; annual ‘‘resubmitted’’ listing cap: One for listing actions for on proposed rules and incorporating petition findings on prior warranted- foreign species and one for petition relevant information from those but-precluded petition findings as findings. As with the critical habitat comments into final rules. The number required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of subcap, if the Service does not need to of listing actions that we can undertake the ESA; critical habitat petition use all of the funds within either in a given year also is influenced by the findings; proposed and final rules subcap, we are able to use the remaining complexity of those listing actions; that designating critical habitat; and funds for completing proposed or final is, more complex actions generally are litigation-related, administrative, and listing determinations. In FY 2015, more costly. The median cost for program-management functions based on the Service’s workload, we preparing and publishing a 90-day (including preparing and allocating were able to use some of the funds finding is $39,276; for a 12-month budgets, responding to Congressional within the foreign species subcap and finding, $100,690; for a proposed listing and public inquiries, and conducting the petitions subcap to fund proposed rule with proposed critical habitat, public outreach regarding listing and listing determinations. $345,000; and for a final listing rule critical habitat). We make our determinations of with final critical habitat, $305,000. preclusion on a nationwide basis to Prioritizing Listing Actions. The We cannot spend more for the Listing ensure that the species most in need of Service’s Listing Program workload is Program than the amount of funds listing will be addressed first, and also broadly composed of four types of within the spending cap without because we allocate our listing budget actions, which the Service prioritizes as violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (see 31 on a nationwide basis. Through the follows: (1) Compliance with court U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, since listing cap, the three subcaps, and the orders and court-approved settlement FY 2002, the Service’s budget has amount of funds needed to complete agreements requiring that petition included a subcap for critical habitat court-mandated actions within those findings or listing or critical habitat designations for already-listed species to subcaps, Congress and the courts have determinations be completed by a ensure that some funds within the in effect determined the amount of specific date; (2) essential litigation- spending cap for listing are available for money available for listing activities related, administrative, and listing completing Listing Program actions nationwide. Therefore, the funds in the program-management functions; (3) other than critical habitat designations listing cap—other than those within the section 4 (of the ESA) listing and critical for already-listed species (‘‘The critical subcaps needed to comply with court habitat actions with absolute statutory habitat designation subcap will ensure orders or court-approved settlement deadlines; and (4) section 4 listing that some funding is available to agreements requiring critical habitat actions that do not have absolute address other listing activities’’ (House actions for already-listed species, listing statutory deadlines. In the last few Report No. 107–103, 107th Congress, 1st actions for foreign species, and petition years, the Service received many new Session. June 19, 2001)). In FY 2002 and findings—set the framework within petitions and a single petition to list 404 each year until FY 2006, the Service had which we make our determinations of species, significantly increasing the to use virtually all of the funds within preclusion and expeditious progress. number of actions within the second the critical habitat subcap to address For FY 2015, on December 16, 2014, category of our workload—actions that court-mandated designations of critical Congress passed a Consolidated and have absolute statutory deadlines. As a habitat, and consequently none of the Further Continuing Appropriations Act, result of the petitions to list hundreds funds within the critical habitat subcap 2015 (Pub. L. 113–235), which provided of species, we currently have over 500 were available for other listing funding through September 30, 2015, at 12-month petition findings yet to be activities. In some FYs since 2006, we the same level as FY 2014. In particular, initiated and completed. have not needed to use all of the funds it included an overall spending cap of An additional way in which we within the critical habitat to comply $20,515,000 for the listing program. Of prioritize work in the section 4 program with court orders, and we therefore that, no more than $1,504,000 could be is application of the listing priority could use the remaining funds within used for listing actions for foreign guidelines (48 FR 43098; September 21, the subcap towards additional proposed species, and no more than $1,501,000 1983). Under those guidelines, we listing determinations for high-priority could be used to make 90-day or 12- assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, candidate species. In other FYs, while month findings on petitions. The depending on the magnitude of threats we did not need to use all of the funds Service thus had $ 12,905,000 available (high or moderate to low), immediacy of within the critical habitat subcap to to work on proposed and final listing threats (imminent or nonimminent), and comply with court orders requiring determinations for domestic species. In taxonomic status of the species (in order critical habitat actions, we did not use addition, if the Service had funding of priority: Monotypic genus (a species the remaining funds towards additional available within the critical habitat, that is the sole member of a genus), a proposed listing determinations, and foreign species, or petition subcaps after species, or a part of a species instead used the remaining funds those workloads had been completed, it (subspecies or distinct population towards completing the critical habitat could use those funds to work on listing segment)). The lower the listing priority determinations concurrently with actions other than critical habitat number, the higher the listing priority proposed listing determinations; this designations or foreign species. (that is, a species with an LPN of 1

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP3.SGM 24DEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 80590 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Notices

would have the highest listing priority). species. In addition, we take into and proposed listing determinations or A species with a higher LPN would consideration the availability of staff not-warranted findings for 40 species. generally be precluded from listing by resources when we determine which These settlement agreements have led species with lower LPNs, unless work high-priority species will receive to a number of results that affect our on a proposed rule for the species with funding to minimize the amount of time preclusion analysis. First, the Service the higher LPN can be combined with and resources required to complete each has been, and will continue to be, work on a proposed rule for other high- listing action. limited in the extent to which it can priority species. In addition to Listing Program Workload. Each FY undertake additional actions within the prioritizing species with our 1983 we determine, based on the amount of Listing Program through FY 2017, guidance, because of the large number funding Congress has made available beyond what is required by the MDL of high-priority species we have had in within the Listing Program spending Settlement Agreements. Second, the recent past, we had further ranked cap, specifically which actions we will because the settlement is court- the candidate species with an LPN of 2 have the resources to work on in that approved, two broad categories of by using the following extinction-risk FY. We then prepare Allocation Tables actions now fall within the Service’s type criteria: International Union for the that identify the actions that we are highest priority (compliance with a Conservation of Nature and Natural funding for that FY, and how much we court order): (1) The actions required to Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank, estimate it will cost to complete each be completed in FY 2015 by the MDL Heritage rank (provided by action; these Allocation Tables are part Settlement Agreements; and (2) completion, before the end of FY 2016, NatureServe), Heritage threat rank of our record for this notice and the of proposed listings or not-warranted (provided by NatureServe), and species listing program. Our Allocation Table findings for most of the candidate currently with fewer than 50 for FY 2012, which incorporated the species identified in this CNOR (in individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. Service’s approach to prioritizing its particular, for those candidate species Those species with the highest IUCN workload, was adopted as part of a that were included in the 2010 CNOR). rank (critically endangered), the highest settlement agreement in a case before Therefore, each year, one of the Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage the U.S. District Court for the District of Service’s highest priorities is to make threat rank (substantial, imminent Columbia (Endangered Species Act threats), and currently with fewer than steady progress towards completing by Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 10– 50 individuals, or fewer than 4 the end of 2017 proposed and final 377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (‘‘MDL populations, originally comprised a listing determinations for the 2010 Litigation’’), Document 31–1 (D.D.C. group of approximately 40 candidate candidate species—based on the May 10, 2011) (‘‘MDL Settlement species (‘‘Top 40’’). These 40 candidate Service’s LPN prioritization system, Agreement’’)). The requirements of species had the highest priority to preparing multi-species actions when paragraphs 1 through 7 of that receive funding to work on a proposed appropriate, and taking into settlement agreement, combined with listing determination and we used this consideration the availability of staff the work plan attached to the agreement to formulate our work plan for FYs 2010 resources. as Exhibit B, reflected the Service’s and 2011 that was included in the MDL Based on these prioritization factors, Settlement Agreement (see below), as Allocation Tables for FY 2011 and FY we continue to find that proposals to list well as for work on proposed and final 2012. In addition, paragraphs 2 through the petitioned candidate species listing rules for the remaining candidate 7 of the agreement require the Service included in Table 1 are all precluded by species with LPNs of 2 and 3. to take numerous other actions through higher priority listing actions, including Finally, proposed rules for FY 2017—in particular, complete either listing actions with deadlines required reclassification of threatened species to a proposed listing rule or a not- by court-orders and court-approved endangered species are lower priority, warranted finding for all 251 species settlement agreements and listing because as listed species, they are designated as ‘‘candidates’’ in the 2010 actions with absolute statutory already afforded the protections of the candidate notice of review (‘‘CNOR’’) deadlines. We provide tables in the ESA and implementing regulations. before the end of FY 2016, and complete Expeditious Progress section, below, However, for efficiency reasons, we may final listing determinations for those identifying the listing actions that we choose to work on a proposed rule to species proposed for listing within the completed in FY 2015, as well as those reclassify a species to endangered if we statutory deadline (usually one year we worked on but did not complete in can combine this with work that is from the proposal). Paragraph 10 of that FY 2015. settlement agreement sets forth the subject to a court order or court- Expeditious Progress approved deadline. Service’s conclusion that ‘‘fulfilling the Since before Congress first established commitments set forth in this As explained above, a determination the spending cap for the Listing Program Agreement, along with other that listing is warranted but precluded in 1998, the Listing Program workload commitments required by court orders must also demonstrate that expeditious has required considerably more or court-approved settlement progress is being made to add and resources than the amount of funds agreements already in existence at the remove qualified species to and from Congress has allowed for the Listing signing of this Settlement Agreement the Lists. As with our ‘‘precluded’’ Program. It is therefore important that (listed in Exhibit A), will require finding, the evaluation of whether we be as efficient as possible in our substantially all of the resources in the progress in adding qualified species to listing process. As we implement our Listing Program.’’ As part of the same the Lists has been expeditious is a listing work plan and work on proposed lawsuit, the court also approved a function of the resources available for rules for the highest priority species in separate settlement agreement with the listing and the competing demands for the next several years, we are preparing other plaintiff in the case; that those funds. (Although we do not multi-species proposals when settlement agreement requires the discuss it in detail here, we are also appropriate, and these may include Service to complete additional actions making expeditious progress in species with lower priority if they in specific fiscal years—including 12- removing species from the list under the overlap geographically or have the same month petition findings for 11 species, Recovery program in light of the threats as one of the highest priority 90-day petition findings for 478 species, resources available for delisting, which

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP3.SGM 24DEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Notices 80591

is funded by a separate line item in the Moreover, for 31 species, the resolution determinations at least through FY budget of the Endangered Species was to add them to the Lists, most with 2016; the court approved that settlement Program. During FY 2015, we completed concurrent designations of critical agreement on September 9, 2011. That a delisting rule for one species.) As habitat, and for 1 species we published agreement required, among other things, discussed below, given the limited a withdrawal of the proposed rule. We that for all 251 species that were resources available for listing, we find also proposed to list an additional 67 included as candidates in the 2010 that we made expeditious progress in qualified species, most with concurrent CNOR, the Service submit to the adding qualified species to the Lists in critical habitat proposals. Federal Register proposed listing rules FY 2015. Second, we are making expeditious or not-warranted findings by the end of We provide below tables cataloguing progress in the second step: working FY 2016, and for any proposed listing the work of the Service’s Listing towards adding qualified species to the rules, the Service complete final listing Program in FY 2015. This work includes Lists. In FY 2015, we worked on determinations within the statutory time all three of the steps necessary for developing proposed listing rules or frame. Paragraph 6 of the agreement adding species to the Lists: (1) not-warranted 12-month petition provided indicators that the Service is Identifying species that warrant listing; findings for 28 species (most of them making adequate progress towards with concurrent critical habitat (2) undertaking the evaluation of the meeting that requirement—which proposals). Although we have not yet best available scientific data about those included: Completing proposed listing completed those actions, we are making species and the threats they face, and rules or not-warranted findings for at expeditious progress towards doing so. least 200 species by the end of FY 2015. preparing proposed and final listing Third, we are making expeditious The Service has completed proposed rules; and (3) adding species to the Lists progress in the first step towards adding listing rules or not-warranted findings by publishing proposed and final listing qualified species to the Lists: Identifying for 220 of the 2010 candidate species, as rules that include a summary of the data additional species that qualify for well as final listing rules for 143 of on which the rule is based and show the listing. In FY 2015, we completed 90- those proposed rules, and is therefore is relationship of that data to the rule. day petition findings for 67 species and making adequate progress towards After taking into consideration the 12-month petition findings for 27 meeting all of the requirements of the limited resources available for listing, species. the competing demands for those funds, Our accomplishments this year MDL settlement agreement. Both by and the completed work catalogued in should also be considered in the broader entering into the settlement agreement the tables below, we find that we made context of our commitment to reduce and by making adequate progress expeditious progress to add qualified the number of candidate species for towards making final listing species to the Lists in FY 2015. which we have not made final determinations for the 251 species on First, we made expeditious progress determinations whether or not to list. the 2010 candidate list, the Service is in the third and final step: Listing On May 10, 2011, the Service filed in making expeditious progress to add qualified species. In FY 2015, we the MDL Litigation a settlement qualified species to the lists. resolved the status of 31 species that we agreement that put in place an The Service’s progress in FY 2015 determined, or had previously ambitious schedule for completing included completing and publishing the determined, qualified for listing. proposed and final listing following determinations:

2015 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS

Publication date Title Actions FR Pages

10/24/2014 ...... Threatened Species Status for Dakota Skip- Final Listing Endangered and Threatened ...... 79 FR 6367–63748. per and Endangered Species Status for Poweshiek Skipperling. 11/20/2014 ...... Threatened Species Status for Gunnison Final Listing Threatened ...... 79 FR 69192–69310. sage-grouse. 12/11/2014 ...... Threatened Species Status for the Rufa Red Final Listing Threatened ...... 79 FR 73706–73748. Knot. 12/31/2014 ...... 90-day finding on Monarch Butterfly and Cali- 90-day petition finding Substantial ...... 79 FR 78775–78778. fornia Gnatcatcher. 4/2/2015 ...... Threatened Species Status for the Northern Final Listing Threatened ...... 80 FR 17974–18033. Long-eared Bat with 4(d) Rule. 4/7/2015 ...... Endangered Species Status for the Big Sandy 12-month petition finding Warranted Proposed 80 FR 18711–18739. and the Guyandotte River Crayfish. Listing Endangered. 4/7/2015 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Hum- 12-month petition finding Not warranted ...... 80 FR 18742–18772. boldt Marten as an Endangered or Threat- ened Species. 4/10/2015 ...... 90-Day Findings on Ten Petitions (Clear Lake 90-day petition finding Substantial ...... 80 FR 19259–19263. hitch, Mojave shoulderband snail, Northern spotted owl, Relict dace, San Joaquin Val- ley giant flower-loving fly, Western pond tur- tle, Yellow-cedar, Egyptian tortoise, Golden conure, Long-tailed chinchilla). 4/23/2015 ...... Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule To List the Proposed Rule Withdrawal ...... 80 FR 22828–22866. Bi-State Distinct Population Segment of Greater Sage-Grouse and Designate Crit- ical Habitat. 6/23/2015 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Leona’s 12-month petition finding Not warranted ...... 80 FR 35916–35931. Little Blue Butterfly as Endangered or Threatened.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP3.SGM 24DEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 80592 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Notices

2015 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued

Publication date Title Actions FR Pages

6/30/2015 ...... 90-day petition findings on 31 species ...... 90-day petition finding Substantial and not 80 FR 37568– 37579 substantial (not substantial for Gray Wolf, Blue Ridge gray-cheeked salamander, Cali- fornia giant salamander, Caddo Mountain salamander, checkered whiptail, the DPS of Wild Horse, Olympic torrent sal- amander, Pigeon Mountain salamander, Weller’s salamander and wingtail crayfish; substantial for alligator snapping turtle, Apa- lachicola kingsnake, Arizona toad, Blanding’s turtle, Cascade Caverns sala- mander, Cascades frog, Cedar Key mole , foothill yellow-legged frog, gopher frog, green salamander, Illinois chorus frog, Kern Canyon slender salamander, Key ringneck snake, Oregon slender sala- mander, Relictual slender salamander, Rim Rock crowned snake, Rio Grande cooter, silvery phacelia, spotted turtle, southern hog-nosed snake, and western spadefoot toad). 9/15/2015 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the 12-month petition finding Not warranted No- 80 FR 55286–55304. New England Cottontail as an Endangered tice candidate removal. or Threatened Species. 9/15/2015 ...... Threatened Species Status for Platanthera Proposed Listing Threatened ...... 80 FR 55304–55321. integrilabia (White Fringeless Orchid). 9/18/2015 ...... 90-Day Findings on 25 Petitions ...... 90-day petition finding Substantial and not 80 FR 56423– substantial (not substantial for Cahaba 56432. pebblesnail and the Stephens’ kangaroo rat; substantial for Blue Calamintha bee, California spotted owl, Cascade torrent sal- amander, Columbia torrent salamander, Florida pine snake, Inyo Mountains sala- mander, Kern Plateau salamander, lesser slender salamander, limestone salamander, northern bog lemming, Panamint alligator , Peaks of Otter salamander, rusty- patched bumblebee, Shasta salamander, short-tailed snake, southern rubber boa, regal fritillary, Tinian monarch, tricolored blackbird, tufted puffin, Virgin River spinedace, wood turtle, and the Yuman desert fringe-toed lizard). 9/29/2015 ...... Endangered Species Status for Chamaecrista Proposed Listing Endangered and Threatened 80 FR 58535–58567. lineata var. keyensis (Big Pine Partridge Pea), Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. serpyllum (Wedge Spurge), and Linum arenicola (Sand Flax), and Threatened Species Sta- tus for Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett’s Silverbush). 9/30/2015 ...... Endangered Status for 49 Species from the Proposed Listing Endangered ...... 80 FR 58820–58909. Hawaiian Islands. 9/30/2015 ...... Threatened Species Status for the Eastern Proposed Listing Threatened ...... 80 FR 58688–58701. Massasauga Rattlesnake. 9/30/2015 ...... Threatened Species Status for the Elfin- Proposed Listing Threatened ...... 80 FR 58674–58688. woods Warbler with 4(d) Rule. 10/1/2015 ...... Endangered Status for 16 Species and Final Listing Endangered and Threatened ...... 80 FR 59423–59497. Threatened Status for 7 Species in Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 10/2/2015 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Greater 12-month petition finding Not warranted No- 80 FR 59857–59942. Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) tice Candidate removal. as an Endangered or Threatened Species. 10/6/2015 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the 12-month petition finding Not warranted No- 80 FR 60321–60335. Sonoran Desert Tortoise as an Endangered tice Candidate removal. or Threatened Species. 10/6/2015 ...... Proposed Threatened Species Status for Su- Proposed Listing Threatened ...... 80 FR 60335–60348. wannee Moccasinshell. 10/6/2015 ...... Endangered Species Status for Trichomanes Final Listing Endangered ...... 80 FR 60439–60465. punctatum ssp. floridanum (Florida Bristle Fern.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP3.SGM 24DEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Notices 80593

2015 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued

Publication date Title Actions FR Pages

10/6/2015 ...... Threatened Species Status for Black Final Listing Threatened ...... 80 FR 60467–60489. Pinesnake With 4(d) Rule. 10/7/2015 ...... Threatened Species Status for the Headwater Proposed Listing Threatened ...... 80 FR 60753–60783. Chub and a Distinct Population Segment of the Roundtail Chub. 10/8/2015 ...... 12-Month Findings on Petitions To List 19 12-month petition finding Not warranted No- 80 FR 60834–60850. Species as Endangered or Threatened tice Candidate removal. Species. 10/8/2015 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Sierra 12-month petition finding Not warranted and 80 FR 60989–61028. Nevada Red Fox as an Endangered or warranted but precluded. Threatened Specie. 10/8/2015 ...... Threatened Species Status for the Kentucky Proposed Listing Threatened ...... 80 FR 60961–60988. Arrow Darter. 10/13/2015 ...... Proposed Endangered Status for Five Spe- Proposed Listing Endangered ...... 80 FR 61567–61607. cies from American Samoa.

Our expeditious progress also completed the first step, and have been a deadline set by a court through a court included work on listing actions that we working on the second step, necessary order or settlement agreement with the funded in previous fiscal years and in for adding species to the Lists. These exception of the 90-day petition finding FY 2015, but did not complete in FY actions are listed below. All the actions for the Miami tiger beetle. 2015. For these species, we have in the table are being conducted under

ACTIONS FUNDED IN PREVIOUS FYS AND FY 2015 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED

Species Action

Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement

Washington ground squirrel ...... Proposed listing. Xantus’s murrelet ...... Proposed listing. Four Florida plants (Florida pineland crabgrass, Florida prairie clover, pineland sandmat, and Everglades bully) ...... Proposed listing. Black warrior waterdog ...... Proposed listing. Black mudalia ...... Proposed listing. Highlands tiger beetle ...... Proposed listing. Sicklefin redhorse ...... Proposed listing. Texas hornshell ...... Proposed listing. Guadalupe fescue ...... Proposed listing.

Actions Subject to Statutory Deadline

Miami Tiger Beetle ...... 90-day petition finding.

We also funded work on resubmitted a proposed listing rule is published). previously received a petition and made petitions findings for 56 candidate Because the majority of these petitioned a warranted-but-precluded finding. species (species petitioned prior to the species were already candidate species Another way that we have been last CNOR). We did not include an prior to our receipt of a petition to list expeditious in making progress to add updated assessment form as part of our them, we had already assessed their qualified species to the Lists is that we resubmitted petition findings for the 56 status using funds from our Candidate have endeavored to make our listing candidate species for which we are Conservation Program, so we continue actions as efficient and timely as preparing either proposed listing to monitor the status of these species possible, given the requirements of the determinations or not warranted 12- through our Candidate Conservation relevant law and regulations and month findings. However, for the Program. The cost of updating the constraints relating to workload and resubmitted petition findings, in the species assessment forms and personnel. We are continually course of preparing proposed listing publishing the joint publication of the considering ways to streamline determinations or 12-month not CNOR and resubmitted petition findings processes or achieve economies of scale, warranted findings, we continue to is shared between the Listing Program such as by batching related actions monitor new information about their and the Candidate Conservation together. Given our limited budget for status so that we can make prompt use Program. implementing section 4 of the ESA, of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in these efforts also contribute towards the case of an emergency posing a During FY 2015, we also funded work finding that we are making expeditious significant risk to the well-being of any on resubmitted petition findings for progress to add qualified species to the of these candidate species; see petitions to uplist three listed species Lists. summaries below regarding publication (one grizzly bear population, Delta Although we have not been able to of these determinations (these species smelt, and Sclerocactus brevispinus resolve the listing status of many of the will remain on the candidate list until (Pariette cactus)), for which we had candidates, we continue to contribute to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP3.SGM 24DEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 80594 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Notices

the conservation of these species chipmunk was in 1966, and the Washington ground squirrel through several programs in the Service. subspecies appears to be extirpated from (Urocitellus washingtoni)—We continue In particular, the Candidate the Sacramento Mountains. The only to find that listing this species is Conservation Program, which is remaining known distribution of the warranted but precluded as of the date separately budgeted, focuses on least chipmunk is restricted to open, of publication of this notice. However, providing technical expertise for high-elevation talus slopes within a we are working on a thorough review of developing conservation strategies and subalpine grassland that is located in all available data and expect to publish agreements to guide voluntary on-the- the Sierra Blanca area of the White either a proposed listing rule or a 12- ground conservation work for candidate Mountains in Lincoln and Otero month not warranted finding prior to and other at-risk species. The main goal Counties, New Mexico. making the next annual resubmitted of this program is to address the threats The Pen˜ asco least chipmunk faces petition 12-month finding. In the course facing candidate species. Through this threats from present or threatened of preparing a proposed listing rule or program, we work with our partners destruction, modification, and not warranted petition finding, we are (other Federal agencies, State agencies, curtailment of its habitat from the continuing to monitor new information Tribes, local governments, private alteration or loss of mature ponderosa about this species’ status so that we can landowners, and private conservation pine forests in one of the two make prompt use of our authority under organizations) to address the threats to historically occupied areas. The section 4(b)(7) in the case of an candidate species and other species at documented decline in occupied emergency posing a significant risk to risk. We are currently working with our localities, in conjunction with the small the species. partners to implement voluntary numbers of individuals captured, is Red tree vole, north Oregon coast DPS conservation agreements for more than linked to widespread habitat alteration. (Arborimus longicaudus)—The 110 species covering 6.1 million acres of Moreover, the highly fragmented nature following summary is based on habitat. In some instances, the sustained of its distribution is a significant information contained in our files and implementation of strategically contributor to the vulnerability of this in our initial warranted-but-precluded designed conservation efforts have subspecies and increases the likelihood finding, published in the Federal culminated in making listing of very small, isolated populations being Register on October 13, 2011 (76 FR unnecessary for species that are extirpated. As a result of this 63720). Red tree voles are small, mouse- candidates for listing or for which fragmentation, even if suitable habitat sized rodents that live in conifer forests listing has been proposed (see http:// exists (or is restored) in the Sacramento and spend almost all of their time in the ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/non- Mountains, the likelihood of natural tree canopy. They are one of the few listed-species-precluded-from-listing- recolonization of historical habitat or that can persist on a diet of due-to-conservation-report). population expansion from the White conifer needles, which is their principal Mountains is extremely remote. food. Red tree voles are endemic to the Findings for Petitioned Candidate Considering the high magnitude and humid, coniferous forests of western Species immediacy of these threats to the Oregon (generally west of the crest of Below are updated summaries for subspecies and its habitat, and the the Cascade Range) and northwestern petitioned candidates for which we vulnerability of the White Mountains California (north of the Klamath River). published findings under section population, we conclude that the least The north Oregon coast DPS of the red 4(b)(3)(B). In accordance with section chipmunk is in danger of extinction tree vole comprises that portion of the 4(b)(3)(C)(i), we treat any petitions for throughout all of its known range now Oregon Coast Range from the Columbia which we made warranted-but- or in the foreseeable future. River south to the Siuslaw River. Red precluded 12-month findings within the The one known remaining extant tree voles demonstrate strong selection past year as having been resubmitted on population of Pen˜ asco least chipmunk for nesting in older conifer forests, the date of the warranted-but-precluded in the White Mountains is particularly which are now relatively rare across the finding. We are making continued susceptible to extinction as a result of range of the DPS; they avoid nesting in warranted-but-precluded 12-month small, reduced population sizes and its younger forests. findings on the petitions for these isolation. Because of the reduced Although data are not available to species (for 12-month findings on population size and lack of contiguous rigorously assess population trends, resubmitted petitions for species that we habitat adjacent to the extant White information from retrospective surveys determined no longer meet the Mountains population, even a small indicates red tree voles have declined in definition of ‘‘endangered species’’ or impact on the White Mountains could the range of the DPS and are largely ‘‘threatened species,’’ see summaries have a very large impact on the status absent in areas where they were once above under Candidate Removals). of the species as a whole. As a result of relatively abundant. Older forests that its restricted range, apparent small provide habitat for red tree voles are Mammals population size, and fragmented limited and highly fragmented, while Pen˜ asco least chipmunk (Tamias historical habitat, the White Mountains ongoing forest practices in much of the minimus atristria)—The following population is inherently vulnerable to population’s range maintain the summary is based on information extinction due to effects of small remnant patches of older forest in a contained in our files. Pen˜ asco least population sizes (e.g., loss of genetic highly fragmented and isolated chipmunk is endemic to the White diversity). These impacts are likely to be condition. Modeling indicates that 11 Mountains, Otero and Lincoln Counties, seen in the population at some point in percent of the range currently contains and the Sacramento Mountains, Otero the foreseeable future, but do not appear tree vole habitat, largely restricted to the County, New Mexico. The Pen˜ asco least to be affecting this population currently, 22 percent of the population’s range that chipmunk historically had a broad as it appears to be stable at this time. is under Federal ownership. distribution throughout the Sacramento Therefore, we conclude that the threats Existing regulatory mechanisms on Mountains within ponderosa pine to this population are of high State and private lands are inadequate forests. The last verification of magnitude, but not imminent. to prevent continued harvest of forest persistence of the Sacramento Therefore, we assign an LPN of 6 to the stands at a scale and extent that would Mountains population of Pen˜ asco least subspecies. be meaningful for conserving red tree

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP3.SGM 24DEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Notices 80595

voles. Biological characteristics of red retreat northward off the Chukchi about this species’ status so that we can tree voles, such as small home ranges, continental shelf for 1 to 5 months every make prompt use of our authority under limited dispersal distances, and low year in the foreseeable future. section 4(b)(7) in the case of an reproductive potential, limit their When ice in the Chukchi Sea melts emergency posing a significant risk to ability to persist in areas of extensive beyond the limits of the continental the species. habitat loss and alteration. These shelf (and the ability of the walrus to Xantus’s murrelet (Synthliboramphus biological characteristics also make it obtain food), thousands of female and hypoleucus)—We continue to find that difficult for the tree voles to recolonize young walruses congregate at coastal listing this species is warranted but isolated habitat patches. Due to the haulouts. Although coastal haulouts precluded as of the date of publication species’ reduced distribution, the red have historically provided a place to of this notice. However, we are working tree vole is vulnerable to random rest, the aggregation of so many animals on a thorough review of all available environmental disturbances that may at this time of year has increased in the data and expect to publish either a remove or further isolate large blocks of last 7 years. Not only are the number of proposed listing rule or a 12-month not already limited habitat, and to animals more concentrated at coastal warranted finding prior to making the extirpation from such factors as lack of haulouts than on widely dispersed sea next annual resubmitted petition 12- genetic variability, inbreeding ice, but also the probability of month finding. In the course of depression, and demographic disturbance from humans and terrestrial preparing a proposed listing rule or not stochasticity. Although the entire animals is much higher. Disturbances at warranted petition finding, we are population is experiencing threats, the coastal haulouts can cause stampedes, continuing to monitor new information impact is less pronounced on Federal leading to mortalities and injuries. In about this species’ status so that we can lands, where much of the red tree vole addition, there is also concern that the make prompt use of our authority under habitat remains. Hence, the magnitude concentration of animals will cause section 4(b)(7) in the case of an of these threats is moderate to low. The local prey depletion, leading to longer emergency posing a significant risk to threats are imminent because habitat foraging trips, increased energy costs, the species. loss and reduced distribution are and potential effects on female Red-crowned parrot (Amazona currently occurring within the range of condition and calf survival. These viridigenalis)—The following summary the DPS. Therefore, we have retained an effects may lead to a population decline. is based on information contained in the LPN of 9 for this DPS. We recognize that Pacific walruses notice of 12-month finding (October 6, Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus face additional stressors from ocean 2011, 76 FR 62016), scientific reports, divergens)—The following information warming, ocean acidification, disease, journal articles, and newspaper articles, is based on information in our files and oil and gas exploration and and also, to a large extent, on our warranted-but-precluded 12-month development, increased shipping, communication with the U.S. Fish and petition finding published on February commercial fishing, and subsistence Wildlife Service (Service), Gulf Coast 10, 2011 (76 FR 7634). The Pacific harvest, but subsistence harvest is the Prairie Landscape Conservation walrus uses sea ice over the continental only threat that could contribute to Cooperative, Texas Parks and Wildlife shelf waters of the northern Bering and finding the species to be in danger of Department, The Nature Conservancy, Chukchi Seas for a number of important extinction throughout all or a significant Rio Grande Joint Venture, World behaviors. Sea ice is optimal habitat for portion of its range, or likely to become Birding Center, University of Texas- females and young animals year round, so in the foreseeable future. We found Brownsville, and Rio Grande Birding but most males remain in the Bering Sea that subsistence harvest will contribute Festival biologists. Currently, there are even when ice is absent. Unlike seals, to putting the species in danger of no changes to the range or distribution which can remain in the water for extinction if the population declines but of the red-crowned parrot. The red- extended periods, walrus must haul out harvest levels remain the same. Because crowned parrot is nonmigratory, and onto ice or land periodically to rest. The the threat of sea ice loss is not having occurs in fragmented isolated habitat in Pacific walrus is a traditional and significant population-level effects the Mexican States of Veracruz, San important source of food and products currently, but is projected to, we Luis Potosi, Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas, to native Alaskans, especially those determined that the magnitude of this and northeast Queretaro. In the United living on Saint Lawrence Island, and to threat is moderate, not high. Because States, it occurs in the State of Texas, in native Russians. both the loss of sea ice habitat and the Mission, McAllen, Pharr, and Edinburg Annually, females and young animals, ongoing practice of subsistence harvest in Hidalgo County, and in Brownsville, as well as some males, migrate up to are presently occurring, these threats are Los Fresnos, San Benito, and Harlingen 1,500 km (932 mi) between winter imminent. Thus, we assigned an LPN of in Cameron County. Feral populations breeding areas in the sub-Arctic 9 to this subspecies. may also exist in southern California, (northern Bering Sea) and summer , Hawaii, and Florida, and foraging areas in the Chukchi Sea. Birds escaped birds have been reported in Historically, the females and calves Spotless crake, American Samoa DPS central Texas. The species is nomadic remained on pack ice over the (Porzana tabuensis)—We continue to during the winter (nonbreeding) season continental shelf of the Chukchi Sea find that listing this species is when large flocks range widely to throughout the summer, using it as a warranted but precluded as of the date forage, moving tens of kilometers during platform for resting after making of publication of this notice. However, a single flight in Mexico. shallow foraging dives for invertebrates we are working on a thorough review of As of 2004, half of the native on the sea floor. Sea ice also provides all available data and expect to publish population is believed to be found in isolation from disturbance and either a proposed listing rule or a 12- the United States. Within Texas, the predators. Since 1979, the extent of month not warranted finding prior to species is thought to move between summer Arctic sea ice has declined. The making the next annual resubmitted urban areas in search of food and other lowest records of minimum sea ice petition 12-month finding. In the course available resources. The results of two extent occurred from 2007 to 2014. of preparing a proposed listing rule or seasons of monitoring the species’ use of Based on the best scientific information not warranted petition finding, we are revegetated habitat, native habitat, and available, we anticipate that sea ice will continuing to monitor new information urban habitats within the Rio Grande

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP3.SGM 24DEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 80596 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Notices

corridor found that the red-crowned established in South Texas prohibiting The gopher tortoise ranges from parrot occurred exclusively in urban malicious acts (injury, mortality) to extreme southern South Carolina south habitats in the Texas Lower Rio Grande birds and their habitat. A new effort in through peninsular Florida, and west Valley during the breeding season. 2015 is under way to gain recognition through southern Georgia, Florida, Systematic annual monitoring of red- for the species as indigenous in Texas; southern Alabama, and Mississippi, into crowned parrot populations in the a classification that would afford State extreme southeastern Louisiana. The Lower Rio Grande Valley, Texas, has not protection. Disease and predation still eastern population of the gopher tortoise been undertaken, although there are do not threaten the species. Pesticide in South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and numerous reported sightings and exposure is not known to affect the red- Alabama (east of the Mobile and anecdotal observations of the bird and crowned parrot. Threats to the species Tombigbee Rivers) is a candidate its behavior, abundance, nesting, or are extensive and are imminent and, species; the western population of threats. An iNaturalist project was therefore, we have determined that a gopher tortoise—which is found in created for the parrot in early 2015, as LPN of 2 remains appropriate for the Alabama (west of the Mobile and an initial step in developing an annual species. Tombigbee Rivers), Mississippi, and monitoring program that will gather Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii)— Louisiana—is federally listed as data on distribution, numbers, nesting, We continue to find that listing this threatened. and foraging habitat from academics, species is warranted but precluded as of The primary threat to the gopher conservation organizations, and citizen the date of publication of this notice. scientists. Monitoring efforts for the red- tortoise is habitat fragmentation, However, we are working on a thorough destruction, and modification (either crowned parrot in Mexico are unknown, review of all available data and expect although a proposal has been developed deliberately or from inattention), to publish either a proposed listing rule including conversion of longleaf pine to create a conservation plan and begin or a 12-month not warranted finding a monitoring program in central forests to incompatible silvicultural or prior to making the next annual agricultural habitats, urbanization, Tamaulipas (if funding is found). resubmitted petition 12-month finding. Conservation efforts include a project shrub and hardwood encroachment In the course of preparing a proposed (mainly from fire exclusion or that was initiated by the Service and the listing rule or not warranted petition insufficient fire management), Rio Grande Joint Venture in the Lower finding, we are continuing to monitor construction of solar farms, and Rio Grande Valley to understand and new information about this species’ establishment and spread of invasive compare how birds are using status so that we can make prompt use revegetated tracts of land versus native species. Other threats include disease, of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in refuge tracts and urban habitats, predation (mainly on nests and young the case of an emergency posing a including the effect of previous flooding tortoises), and inadequate regulatory significant risk to the species. and projections of how climate change mechanisms, specifically those needed may affect the distribution of birds in to protect and enhance relocated the Lower Rio Grande Valley. A final tortoise populations in perpetuity. The Louisiana pine snake (Pituophis report for this project showed red- magnitude of threats to the eastern ruthveni)—We continue to find that crowned parrots using only urban population of gopher tortoise is listing this species is warranted but habitats during the breeding season, but precluded as of the date of publication moderate to low, since the population it is hoped that some of the revegetation extends over a broad geographic area efforts, as well as conservation of of this notice. However, we are working on a thorough review of all available and conservation measures are in place existing native tracts of land, will in some areas. However, since the provide habitat in the future once the data and expect to publish either a proposed listing rule or a 12-month not eastern population is currently being trees have matured. Because loss of affected by a number of threats, nesting habitat is a concern for the warranted finding prior to making the next annual resubmitted petition 12- including destruction and modification species in southern Texas, two projects, of its habitat, disease, predation, exotics, one in Weslaco and one in Harlingen, month finding. In the course of preparing a proposed listing rule or not and inadequate regulatory mechanisms, Texas, were initiated in 2011, to provide these threats are imminent. Thus, we nest boxes in palms for the red-crowned warranted petition finding, we are continuing to monitor new information have continued to assign a LPN of 8 for parrot. As of March 2013, these nest this species. sites had not been used, although red- about this species’ status so that we can crowned parrots had actively traveled make prompt use of our authority under Sonoyta mud turtle (Kinosternon throughout the area during the prior section 4(b)(7) in the case of an sonoriense longifemorale)—We spring, summer, and fall months. emergency posing a significant risk to continue to find that listing this species The primary threats within Mexico the species. is warranted but precluded as of the and Texas remain Gopher tortoise, eastern population date of publication of this notice. and modification from logging, (Gopherus polyphemus)—The following However, we are working on a thorough deforestation, conversion of suitable summary is based on information in our review of all available data and expect habitat, and urbanization, as well as files. The gopher tortoise is a large, to publish either a proposed listing rule trapping and illegal trade of the parrots. terrestrial, herbivorous turtle that or a 12-month not warranted finding Multiple laws and regulations have been reaches a total length up to 15 inches prior to making the next annual passed to control illegal trade, but they (in) (38 centimeters (cm)), and typically resubmitted petition 12-month finding. are not adequately enforced. In addition, inhabits the sandhills, pine/scrub oak In the course of preparing a proposed existing regulations do not adequately uplands, and pine flatwoods associated listing rule or not warranted petition address the habitat threats to the with the longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) finding, we are continuing to monitor species. Thus, the inadequacy of ecosystem. A fossorial animal, the new information about this species’ existing regulations and their gopher tortoise is usually found in areas status so that we can make prompt use enforcement continue to threaten the with well-drained, deep, sandy soils; of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in red-crowned parrot. However, at least open tree canopy; and diverse, abundant the case of an emergency posing a four city ordinances have been herbaceous groundcover. significant risk to the species.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP3.SGM 24DEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Notices 80597

Amphibians regulatory mechanisms. Overall, the about this species’ status so that we can Relict leopard frog (Lithobates magnitude of the threats is moderate make prompt use of our authority under onca)—We continue to find that listing and imminent. Therefore, we assigned a section 4(b)(7) in the case of an this species is warranted but precluded LPN of 8 to the newt. However, due to emergency posing a significant risk to as of the date of publication of this recent information that suggests the the species. striped newt is likely extirpated from notice. However, we are working on a Fishes thorough review of all available data Apalachicola National Forest, the LPN may warrant changing to a lower darter ( and expect to publish either a proposed cragini)—We continue to find that listing rule or a 12-month not warranted number in the future. Berry Cave salamander (Gyrinophilus listing this species is warranted but finding prior to making the next annual gulolineatus)—The following summary precluded as of the date of publication resubmitted petition 12-month finding. is based on information in our files. The of this notice. However, we are working In the course of preparing a proposed Berry Cave salamander is recorded from on a thorough review of all available listing rule or not warranted petition Berry Cave in Roane County; from Mud data and expect to publish either a finding, we are continuing to monitor Flats, Aycock Spring, Christian, Meades proposed listing rule or a 12-month not new information about this species’ Quarry, Meades River, Fifth, and The warranted finding prior to making the status so that we can make prompt use Lost Puddle caves in Knox County; from next annual resubmitted petition 12- of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in Blythe Ferry Cave in Meigs County; and month finding. In the course of the case of an emergency posing a from an unknown cave in Athens, preparing a proposed listing rule or not significant risk to the species. McMinn County, Tennessee. In May of warranted petition finding, we are Striped newt (Notophthalmus 2014, the species was also discovered in continuing to monitor new information perstriatus)—The following summary is an additional cave, Small Cave, in about this species’ status so that we can based on information contained in our McMinn County. These cave systems make prompt use of our authority under files. The striped newt is a small are all located within the Upper section 4(b)(7) in the case of an salamander that inhabits ephemeral Tennessee River and Clinch River emergency posing a significant risk to ponds surrounded by upland habitats of drainages. Viable populations are the species. high pine, scrubby flatwoods, and scrub. known to occur in Berry and Mudflats Pearl darter (Percina aurora)—We Longleaf pine–turkey oak stands with caves. continue to find that listing this species intact ground cover containing Ongoing threats to Berry Cave is warranted but precluded as of the wiregrass are the preferred upland salamanders include lye leaching in the date of publication of this notice. habitat for striped newts, followed by Meades Quarry Cave as a result of past However, we are working on a thorough scrub, then flatwoods. Life-history quarrying activities, the possible review of all available data and expect stages of the striped newt are complex, development of a roadway with to publish either a proposed listing rule and include the use of both aquatic and potential to impact the recharge area for or a 12-month not warranted finding terrestrial habitats throughout their life the Meades Quarry Cave system, urban prior to making the next annual cycle. Striped newts are opportunistic development in Knox County, water resubmitted petition 12-month finding. feeders that prey on a variety of items quality impacts despite existing State In the course of preparing a proposed such as frog eggs, worms, snails, fairy and Federal laws, and hybridization listing rule or not warranted petition shrimp, spiders, and (adult and between spring salamanders and Berry finding, we are continuing to monitor larvae) that are of appropriate size. They Cave salamanders in Meades Quarry new information about this species’ occur in appropriate habitats from the Cave. These threats, coupled with status so that we can make prompt use Atlantic Coastal Plain of southeastern confined distribution of the species and of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in Georgia to the north-central peninsula of apparent low population densities, are the case of an emergency posing a Florida and through the Florida all factors that leave the Berry Cave significant risk to the species. panhandle into portions of southwest salamander vulnerable to extirpation. Sicklefin redhorse (Moxostoma sp.)— Georgia, upward to Taylor County in We have determined that the Berry Cave We continue to find that listing this western Georgia. Prior to 2014, there salamander faces ongoing, and therefore species is warranted but precluded as of was thought to be a 125-km (78-mi) imminent. The threats to the salamander the date of publication of this notice. separation between the western and are moderate in magnitude because, However, we are working on a thorough eastern portions of the striped newt’s although some of the threats to the review of all available data and expect range. However, the discovery of five species are widespread, the salamander to publish either a proposed listing rule adult striped newts in Taylor County, still occurs in several different cave or a 12-month not warranted finding Florida, represents a significant possible systems, and existing populations prior to making the next annual range connection. In addition to the appear stable. We continue to assign resubmitted petition 12-month finding. newts discovered in Taylor County, this species a LPN of 8. In the course of preparing a proposed Florida, researchers also discovered 15 Black Warrior waterdog (Necturus listing rule or not warranted petition striped newts (14 paedomorphs and 1 alabamensis)—We continue to find that finding, we are continuing to monitor non-gilled adult) in a pond in Osceola listing this species is warranted but new information about this species’ County, Florida, which represents a precluded as of the date of publication status so that we can make prompt use significant range extension to the south. of this notice. However, we are working of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in The historical range of the striped on a thorough review of all available the case of an emergency posing a newt was likely similar to the current data and expect to publish either a significant risk to the species. range. However, loss of native longleaf proposed listing rule or a 12-month not Longfin smelt (Spirinchus habitat, fire suppression, and the natural warranted finding prior to making the thaleichthys), Bay-Delta DPS— The patchy distribution of upland habitats next annual resubmitted petition 12- following summary is based on used by striped newts have resulted in month finding. In the course of information contained in our files and fragmentation of existing populations. preparing a proposed listing rule or not the petition we received on August 8, Other threats to the species include warranted petition finding, we are 2007. On April 2, 2012 (77 FR 19756), disease, drought, and inadequate continuing to monitor new information we determined that the longfin smelt

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP3.SGM 24DEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 80598 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Notices

San Francisco Bay–Delta distinct Guadalupe-San Antonio River basins smoky-green with a pattern of broken population segment (Bay-Delta DPS) but is now known to occur only in nine rays or irregular blotches. The internal was warranted for listing as an streams within these basins in very color is bluish-white or white and endangered or threatened species under limited numbers. All existing iridescent posteriorly. This species the ESA. Longfin smelt measure 9–11 populations are represented by only one historically occurred throughout the cm (3.5–4.3 in) standard length. Longfin or two individuals and are not likely to Colorado and Brazos River basins and is smelt are considered pelagic and be stable or recruiting. now known from only five locations. anadromous, although anadromy in The Texas fatmucket is primarily The Texas fawnsfoot has been longfin smelt is poorly understood, and threatened by habitat destruction and extirpated from nearly all of the certain populations in other parts of the modification from impoundments, Colorado River basin and from much of species’ range are not anadromous and which scour river beds, thereby the Brazos River basin. Of the complete their entire life cycle in removing mussel habitat; decrease water populations that remain, only three are freshwater lakes and streams. Longfin quality; modify stream flows; and likely to be stable and recruiting; the smelt usually live for 2 years, spawn, prevent fish host migration and remaining populations are disjunct and and then die, although some individuals distribution of freshwater mussels. This restricted to short stream reaches. may spawn as 1- or 3-year-old fish species is also threatened by The Texas fawnsfoot is primarily before dying. In the Bay-Delta, longfin sedimentation, dewatering, sand and threatened by habitat destruction and smelt are believed to spawn primarily in gravel mining, and chemical modification from impoundments, freshwater in the lower reaches of the contaminants. Additionally, these which scour river beds, thereby Sacramento River and San Joaquin threats may be exacerbated by the removing mussel habitat; decrease water River. current and projected effects of climate quality; modify stream flows; and Longfin smelt numbers in the Bay- change, population fragmentation and prevent fish host migration and Delta have declined significantly since isolation, and the anticipated threat of distribution of freshwater mussels, as the 1980s. Abundance indices derived nonnative species. Threats to the Texas well as by sedimentation, dewatering, from the Fall Midwater Trawl (FMWT), fatmucket and its habitat are not being sand and gravel mining, and chemical Bay Study Midwater Trawl (BSMT), and adequately addressed through existing contaminants. Additionally, these Bay Study Otter Trawl (BSOT) all show regulatory mechanisms. Because of the threats may be exacerbated by the marked declines in Bay-Delta longfin limited distribution of this endemic current and projected effects of climate smelt populations from 2002 to 2012. species and its lack of mobility, these change, population fragmentation and Longfin smelt abundance over the last threats are likely to result in the isolation, and the anticipated threat of decade is the lowest recorded in the 40- extinction of the Texas fatmucket in the nonnative species. Threats to the Texas year history of CDFG’s FMWT foreseeable future. fawnsfoot and its habitat are not being monitoring surveys. The threats to the Texas fatmucket are adequately addressed through existing The primary threat to the DPS is from high in magnitude, because habitat loss regulatory mechanisms. Because of the reduced freshwater flows. Freshwater and degradation from impoundments, limited distribution of this endemic flows, especially winter-spring flows, sedimentation, sand and gravel mining, species and its lack of mobility, these are significantly correlated with longfin and chemical contaminants are threats are likely to result in the smelt abundance —longfin smelt widespread throughout the range of the extinction of the Texas fawnsfoot in the abundance is lower when winter-spring Texas fatmucket and profoundly affect foreseeable future. flows are lower. The long-term decline its survival and recruitment. These The threats to the Texas fawnsfoot are in abundance of longfin smelt in the threats are exacerbated by climate high in magnitude. Habitat loss and Bay-Delta has been partially attributed change, which will increase the degradation from impoundments, to reductions in food availability and frequency and magnitude of droughts. sedimentation, sand and gravel mining, disruptions of the Bay-Delta food web Remaining populations are small, and chemical contaminants are caused by establishment of the isolated, and highly vulnerable to widespread throughout the range of the nonnative overbite clam and likely by stochastic events, which could lead to Texas fawnsfoot and profoundly affect increasing ammonium concentrations. extirpation or extinction. These threats its survival and recruitment. These The threats remain high in magnitude, are imminent because they are ongoing threats are exacerbated by climate since they pose a significant risk to the and will continue in the foreseeable change, which will increase the DPS throughout its range. The threats future. Habitat loss and degradation frequency and magnitude of droughts. are ongoing, and thus are imminent. have already occurred and will continue Remaining populations are small, Thus, we are maintaining an LPN of 3 as the human population continues to isolated, and highly vulnerable to for this population. grow in central Texas. Texas fatmucket stochastic events. These threats are populations are very small and imminent because they are ongoing and Clams vulnerable to extirpation, which will continue in the foreseeable future. Texas fatmucket (Lampsilis increases the species’ vulnerability to Habitat loss and degradation has already bracteata)—The following summary is extinction. Based on imminent, high- occurred and will continue as the based on information contained in our magnitude threats, we maintained an human population continues to grow in files. The Texas fatmucket is a large, LPN of 2 for the Texas fatmucket. central Texas. The small Texas elongated freshwater mussel that is Texas fawnsfoot (Truncilla fawnsfoot populations are at risk of endemic to central Texas. Its shell can macrodon)—The following summary is extirpation, which increases the species’ be moderately thick, smooth, and based on information contained in our vulnerability to extinction. Based on rhomboidal to oval in shape. Its external files. The Texas fawnsfoot is a small, imminent, high-magnitude threats, we coloration varies from tan to brown with relatively thin-shelled freshwater assigned the Texas fawnsfoot an LPN of continuous dark brown, green-brown, or mussel that is endemic to central Texas. 2. black rays, and internally it is pearly Its shell is long and oval, generally free Texas hornshell (Popenaias popei)— white, with some having a light salmon of external sculpturing, with external We continue to find that listing this tint. This species historically occurred coloration that varies from yellowish- or species is warranted but precluded as of throughout the Colorado and orangish-tan, brown, reddish-brown, to the date of publication of this notice.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP3.SGM 24DEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Notices 80599

However, we are working on a thorough climate change, which will increase the pimpleback and may be exacerbated by review of all available data and expect frequency and magnitude of droughts, climate change, which will increase the to publish either a proposed listing rule four large populations remain, including frequency and magnitude of droughts, or a 12-month not warranted finding one that was recently discovered, several large populations remain, prior to making the next annual suggesting that the threats are not high including one that was recently resubmitted petition 12-month finding. in magnitude. The threats from habitat discovered, suggesting that the threats In the course of preparing a proposed loss and degradation are imminent are not high in magnitude. The threats listing rule or not warranted petition because habitat loss and degradation from habitat loss and degradation are finding, we are continuing to monitor have already occurred and will likely imminent because they have already new information about this species’ continue as the human population occurred and will continue as the status so that we can make prompt use continues to grow in central Texas. The human population continues to grow in of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in three smaller golden orb populations are central Texas. Several smooth the case of an emergency posing a vulnerable to extirpation, which pimpleback populations are quite small significant risk to the species. increases the species’ vulnerability to and vulnerable to extirpation, which Golden orb (Quadrula aurea)—The extinction. Based on imminent, increases the species’ vulnerability to following summary is based on moderate threats, we maintain an LPN extinction. Based on imminent, information contained in our files. The of 8 for the golden orb. moderate threats, we maintain an LPN golden orb is a small, round-shaped Smooth pimpleback (Quadrula of 8 for the smooth pimpleback. freshwater mussel that is endemic to houstonensis)—The following summary Texas pimpleback (Quadrula central Texas. This species historically is based on information contained in petrina)—The following summary is occurred throughout the Nueces-Frio our files. The smooth pimpleback is a based on information contained in our and Guadalupe-San Antonio River small, round-shaped freshwater mussel files. The Texas pimpleback is a large basins and is now known from only that is endemic to central Texas. This freshwater mussel that is endemic to nine locations in four rivers. The golden species historically occurred throughout central Texas. This species historically orb has been eliminated from nearly the the Colorado and Brazos River basins occurred throughout the Colorado and entire Nueces-Frio River basin. Four of and is now known from only nine Guadalupe-San Antonio River basins, these populations appear to be stable locations. The smooth pimpleback has but it is now known to only occur in and are reproducing, and the remaining been eliminated from nearly the entire four streams within these basins. Only five populations are small and isolated Colorado River and all but one of its two populations (Concho River and San and show no evidence of recruitment. It tributaries, and has been limited to the Saba River) appear large enough to be appears that the populations in the central and lower Brazos River drainage. stable with recruitment, although middle Guadalupe and lower San Five of the populations are represented evidence of recruitment is limited in the Marcos Rivers are likely connected. The by no more than a few individuals and Concho River population. The remaining extant populations are highly are small and isolated. Six of the remaining two populations are fragmented and restricted to short existing populations appear to be represented by one or two individuals reaches. relatively stable and recruiting. and are highly disjunct. The golden orb is primarily The smooth pimpleback is primarily The Texas pimpleback is primarily threatened by habitat destruction and threatened by habitat destruction and threatened by habitat destruction and modification from impoundments, modification from impoundments, modification from impoundments, which scour river beds, thereby which scour river beds, thereby which scour river beds, thereby removing mussel habitat; decrease water removing mussel habitat; decrease water removing mussel habitat; decrease water quality; modify stream flows; and quality; modify stream flows; and quality; modify stream flows; and prevent fish host migration and prevent fish host migration and prevent fish host migration and distribution of freshwater mussels. The distribution of freshwater mussels. The distribution of freshwater mussels. This species is also threatened by species is also threatened by species is also threatened by sedimentation, dewatering, sand and sedimentation, dewatering, sand and sedimentation, dewatering, sand and gravel mining, and chemical gravel mining, and chemical gravel mining, and chemical contaminants. Additionally, these contaminants. Additionally, these contaminants. Additionally, these threats may be exacerbated by the threats may be exacerbated by the threats may be exacerbated by the current and projected effects of climate current and projected effects of climate current and projected effects of climate change, population fragmentation and change, population fragmentation, and change (which will increase the isolation, and the anticipated threat of isolation, and the anticipated threat of frequency and magnitude of droughts), nonnative species. Threats to the golden nonnative species. Threats to the population fragmentation and isolation, orb and its habitat are not being smooth pimpleback and its habitat are and the anticipated threat of nonnative adequately addressed through existing not being adequately addressed through species. Threats to the Texas regulatory mechanisms. Because of the existing regulatory mechanisms. pimpleback and its habitat are not being limited distribution of this endemic Because of the limited distribution of adequately addressed through existing species and its lack of mobility, these this endemic species and its lack of regulatory mechanisms. Because of the threats are likely to result in the golden mobility, these threats are likely to limited distribution of this endemic orb becoming in danger of extinction in result in the smooth pimpleback species and its lack of mobility, these the foreseeable future. becoming in danger of extinction in the threats are likely to result in the Texas The threats to the golden orb are foreseeable future. pimpleback becoming in danger of moderate in magnitude. Although The threats to the smooth pimpleback extinction in the foreseeable future. habitat loss and degradation from are moderate in magnitude. Although The threats to the Texas pimpleback impoundments, sedimentation, sand habitat loss and degradation from are high in magnitude, because habitat and gravel mining, and chemical impoundments, sedimentation, sand loss and degradation from contaminants are widespread and gravel mining, and chemical impoundments, sedimentation, sand throughout the range of the golden orb contaminants are widespread and gravel mining, and chemical and are likely to be exacerbated by throughout the range of the smooth contaminants are widespread

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP3.SGM 24DEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 80600 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Notices

throughout the entire range of the Texas of the species, or both. Like other emergency posing a significant risk to pimpleback and profoundly affect its members of the Planorbidae family, the the species. survival and recruitment. The only magnificent ramshorn is believed to be Insects remaining populations are small, primarily a vegetarian, feeding on isolated, and highly vulnerable to submerged aquatic plants, algae, and Hermes copper butterfly (Lycaena stochastic events, which could lead to detritus. hermes)—Hermes copper butterfly extirpation or extinction. The threats are While several factors have likely primarily occurs in San Diego County, imminent because habitat loss and contributed to the possible extirpation California, and a few records of the degradation have already occurred and of the magnificent ramshorn in the wild, species have been documented in Baja will continue as the human population the primary factors include loss of California, Mexico. The species inhabits continues to grow in central Texas. habitat associated with the extirpation coastal sage scrub and southern mixed Based on imminent, high-magnitude of beavers (and their impoundments) in chaparral and is dependent on its larval threats, we assigned the Texas the early 20th century, increased host plant, Rhamnus crocea (spiny pimpleback an LPN of 2. salinity and alteration of flow patterns, redberry), to complete its lifecycle. and increased input of nutrients and Adult Hermes copper lay Snails other pollutants. The magnificent single eggs on spiny redberry stems Black mudalia ( melanoides)— ramshorn appears to be extirpated from where they hatch and feed until We continue to find that listing this the wild due to habitat loss and pupation occurs at the base of the plant. species is warranted but precluded as of degradation resulting from a variety of Hermes copper butterflies have one the date of publication of this notice. human-induced and natural factors. The flight period occurring in mid-May to However, we are working on a thorough only known surviving individuals of the early-July, depending on weather review of all available data and expect species are presently being held and conditions and elevation. We estimate to publish either a proposed listing rule propagated at a private residence, a lab there were at least 59 known separate or a 12-month not warranted finding at North Carolina (NC) State historical populations throughout the prior to making the next annual University’s Veterinary School, and the species’ range since the species was first resubmitted petition 12-month finding. NC Wildlife Resources Commission’s described. Of the 59 known Hermes In the course of preparing a proposed Watha State Fish Hatchery. While copper butterfly populations, 21 are listing rule or not warranted petition efforts have been made to restore habitat extant, 27 are believed to have been finding, we are continuing to monitor for the magnificent ramshorn at one of extirpated, and 11 are of unknown new information about this species’ the sites known to have previously status. status so that we can make prompt use supported the species, all of the sites Primary threats to Hermes copper of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in continue to be affected or threatened by butterfly are megafires (large wildfires), the case of an emergency posing a the same factors (i.e., salt water and small and isolated populations. significant risk to the species. intrusion and other water quality Secondary threats include increased Magnificent ramshorn (Planorbella degradation, nuisance aquatic plant wildfire frequency that results in habitat magnifica)—Magnificent ramshorn is control, storms, sea level rise, etc.) loss, and combined impacts of existing the largest North American air-breathing believed to have resulted in extirpation development, possible future (limited) freshwater snail in the family of the species from the wild. Currently, development, existing dispersal barriers, Planorbidae. It has a discoidal (i.e., only three captive populations exist: A and fragmentation of habitat. Hermes coiling in one plane), relatively thin single robust captive population of the copper butterfly occupies scattered shell that reaches a diameter commonly species comprised of approximately areas of sage scrub and chaparral habitat exceeding 35 mm and heights exceeding 900+ adults, one with approximately in an arid region susceptible to wildfires 20 mm. The great width of its shell, in 200+ adults, and one population of 50+ of increasing frequency and size. The relation to the diameter, makes it easily small individuals. Although the robust likelihood that individuals of the identifiable at all ages. The shell is captive population of the species has species will be burned as a result of brown colored (often with leopard like been maintained since 1993, a single catastrophic wildfires, combined with spots) and fragile, thus indicating it is catastrophic event, such as a severe the isolation and small size of extant adapted to still or slow flowing aquatic storm, disease, or predator infestation populations makes Hermes copper habitats. The magnificent ramshorn is affecting this captive population, could butterfly particularly vulnerable to believed to be a southeastern North result in the near extinction of the population extirpation rangewide. Carolina endemic. The species is known species. Therefore, we assigned an LPN Overall, the threats that Hermes copper from only four sites in the lower Cape of 2 to this species. butterfly faces are high in magnitude Fear River Basin in North Carolina. Huachuca springsnail (Pyrgulopsis because the major threats (particularly Although the complete historical range thompsoni)—We continue to find that mortality due to wildfire and increased of the species is unknown, the size of listing this species is warranted but wildfire frequency) occur throughout all the species and the fact that it was not precluded as of the date of publication of the species’ range and are likely to reported until 1903 suggest that the of this notice. However, we are working result in mortality and population-level species may have always been rare and on a thorough review of all available impacts to the species. The threats are localized. data and expect to publish either a nonimminent overall because the Salinity and pH are major factors proposed listing rule or a 12-month not impact of wildfire to Hermes copper limiting the distribution of the warranted finding prior to making the butterfly and its habitat occurs on a magnificent ramshorn, as the snail next annual resubmitted petition 12- sporadic basis and we do not have the prefers freshwater bodies with month finding. In the course of ability to predict when wildfires will circumneutral pH (i.e., pH within the preparing a proposed listing rule or not occur. This species faces high- range of 6.8–7.5). While members of the warranted petition finding, we are magnitude nonimminent threats; family Planorbidae are hermaphroditic, continuing to monitor new information therefore, we assigned this species a it is currently unknown whether about this species’ status so that we can LPN of 5. magnificent ramshorns self-fertilize make prompt use of our authority under Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly their eggs, mate with other individuals section 4(b)(7) in the case of an ( tulita)—The following

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP3.SGM 24DEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Notices 80601

summary is based on information in our However, we are working on a thorough Although the rattlesnake-master plant files and in the petition we received on review of all available data and expect is widely distributed across 26 States February 29, 2009. The Puerto Rican to publish either a proposed listing rule and is a common plant in remnant harlequin butterfly is endemic to Puerto or a 12-month not warranted finding prairies, it is a conservative species, Rico, and one of the four species prior to making the next annual meaning it is not found in disturbed endemic to the Greater Antilles within resubmitted petition 12-month finding. areas, and occurs in low densities. The the genus Atlantea. This species occurs In the course of preparing the proposed habitat range for the rattlesnake-master within the subtropical moist forest life listing rule or not-warranted finding, we borer moth is very narrow and appears zone in the northern karst region (i.e., are continuing to monitor new to be limiting for the species. The the municipality of Quebradillas) of information about this species’ status so ongoing effects of habitat loss, Puerto Rico, and in the subtropical wet that we can make prompt use of our fragmentation, degradation, and forest (i.e., Maricao Commonwealth authority under section 4(b)(7) in the modification from agriculture, Forest, municipality of Maricao). The case of an emergency posing a development, flooding, invasive species, Puerto Rican harlequin butterfly has significant risk to the species. and secondary succession have resulted only been found utilizing Oplonia Louisville Cave beetle in fragmented populations and spinosa (prickly bush) as its host plant (Pseudanophthalmus troglodytes)—We population declines. Rattlesnake-master (i.e., plant used for laying the eggs, also continue to find that listing this species borer moths are affected by habitat serves as a food source for development is warranted but precluded as of the fragmentation and population isolation. of the larvae). date of publication of this notice. Almost all of the sites with extant The primary threats to the Puerto However, we are working on a thorough populations of the rattlesnake-master Rican harlequin butterfly are review of all available data and expect borer moth are isolated from one development, habitat fragmentation, and to publish either a proposed listing rule another, with the populations in other natural or manmade factors such or a 12-month not warranted finding Kentucky, North Carolina, and as human-induced fires, use of prior to making the next annual occurring within a single site herbicides and pesticides, vegetation resubmitted petition 12-month finding. for each State, thus precluding management, and climate change. These In the course of preparing a proposed recolonization from other populations. factors would substantially affect the listing rule or not warranted petition These small, isolated populations are distribution and abundance of the finding, we are continuing to monitor likely to become unviable over time due species, as well as its habitat. In new information about this species’ to lower genetic diversity which reduces addition, the lack of effective status so that we can make prompt use their ability to adapt to environmental enforcement makes the existing policies of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in change, effects of stochastic events, and and regulations inadequate for the the case of an emergency posing a inability to recolonize areas where they protection of the species’ habitat. These significant risk to the species. are extirpated. threats are imminent because known Rattlesnake-master borer moths have Tatum Cave beetle populations occur in areas that are life-history traits that make them more subject to development, increased (Pseudanophthalmus parvus)—We susceptible to outside stressors. They traffic, and increased road maintenance continue to find that listing this species are univoltine (having a single flight per and construction. The threats are high is warranted but precluded as of the year), do not disperse widely, and are in magnitude, because they cause direct date of publication of this notice. monophagous (have only one food population-level impacts during all life However, we are working on a thorough source). The life history of the species stages. These threats are expected to review of all available data and expect makes it particularly sensitive to fire, continue and potentially increase in the to publish either a proposed listing rule which is the primary practice used in foreseeable future. Therefore, we assign or a 12-month not warranted finding prairie management. The species is only a LPN of 2 to the Puerto Rican harlequin prior to making the next annual safe from fire once it bores into the root butterfly. resubmitted petition 12-month finding. of the host plant, which makes adult, Clifton Cave beetle In the course of preparing a proposed egg, and first larval stages subject to (Pseudanophthalmus caecus)—We listing rule or not warranted petition mortality during prescribed burns and continue to find that listing this species finding, we are continuing to monitor wildfires. Fire and grazing cause direct is warranted but precluded as of the new information about this species’ mortality to the moth and destroy food date of publication of this notice. status so that we can make prompt use plants if the intensity, extent, or timing However, we are working on a thorough of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in is not carefully managed. Although fire review of all available data and expect the case of an emergency posing a management is a threat to the species, to publish either a proposed listing rule significant risk to the species. lack of management is also a threat, and or a 12-month not warranted finding Rattlesnake-master borer moth at least one site has become extirpated prior to making the next annual (Papaipema eryngii)—Rattlesnake- likely because of the succession to resubmitted petition 12-month finding. master borer moths are obligate woody habitat. The species is sought In the course of preparing a proposed residents of undisturbed prairie after by collectors and the host plant is listing rule or not warranted petition remnants, savanna, and pine barrens very easy to identify, making the moth finding, we are continuing to monitor that contain their only food plant— susceptible to collection, and thus many new information about this species’ rattlesnake-master (Eryngium sites are kept undisclosed to the public. status so that we can make prompt use yuccifolium). The rattlesnake-master Existing regulatory mechanisms of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in borer moth is known from 16 sites in 5 provide protection for 12 of the 16 sites the case of an emergency posing a States: Illinois, Arkansas, Kentucky, containing rattlesnake-master borer significant risk to the species. Oklahoma, and North Carolina. moth populations. Illinois’ endangered Icebox Cave beetle Currently 12 of the sites contain extant species statute provides regulatory (Pseudanophthalmus frigidus)—We populations, 3 contain populations with mechanisms to protect the species from continue to find that listing this species unknown status, and 1 contains a potential impacts from actions such as is warranted but precluded as of the population that is considered development and collection on the 10 date of publication of this notice. extirpated. Illinois sites; however, illegal

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP3.SGM 24DEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 80602 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Notices

collections of the species have occurred warranted petition finding, we are capabilities, restricted range, at two sites. A permit is required for continuing to monitor new information dependence on pristine habitats, and collection by site managers within the about this species’ status so that we can small population size are characteristics sites in North Carolina and Oklahoma. make prompt use of our authority under that make this species vulnerable to The rattlesnake-master borer moth is section 4(b)(7) in the case of an stochastic events and catastrophic also listed as endangered in Kentucky emergency posing a significant risk to events (and potential impacts from by the State’s Nature Preserves the species. climate change), these events are not Commission; however, at this time the Arapahoe snowfly (Arsapnia currently occurring and increased Kentucky legislature has not enacted arapahoe)—The following summary is temperatures will adversely affect the any statute that provides legal based on information contained in our species in the future. Therefore, we have protection for species that are State files. This is a winter stonefly assigned the Arapahoe snowfly an LPN listed as threatened or endangered. associated with clean, cool, running of 5. There are no statutory mechanisms in waters. Adult snowflies emerge in late Meltwater lednian stonefly (Lednia place to protect the populations in winter from the space underneath tumana)—The following summary is North Carolina, Arkansas, or Oklahoma. stream ice. Until 2013, the Arapahoe based on information contained in our Some threats that the rattlesnake- snowfly had been confirmed in only two files and in the petition we received on master moth faces are high in streams (Elkhorn Creek and Young July 30, 2007. This species is an aquatic magnitude, such as habitat conversion Gulch), both of which are small insect in the order and fragmentation, and population tributaries of the Cache la Poudre River (stoneflies). Stoneflies are primarily isolation. These threats with the highest in the Roosevelt National Forest, associated with clean, cool streams and magnitude occur in many of the Larimer County, Colorado. However, the rivers. Eggs and nymphs (juveniles) of populations throughout the species’ species has not been identified in Young the meltwater lednian stonefly are range, but although they are likely to Gulch since 1986; it is likely that either found in high-elevation alpine and affect each population at some time, the habitat became unsuitable or other subalpine streams, most typically in they are not likely to affect all of the unknown causes extirpated the species. locations closely linked to glacial populations at any one time. Other Habitats at Young Gulch were further runoff. The species is generally threats, such as agricultural and degraded by the High Park Fire in 2012, restricted to streams with mean summer nonagricultural development, mortality and potentially by a flash flood disaster water temperature less than 10 °C from implementation of some prairie in September 2013. New surveys (50 °F). The only known meltwater management tools (such as fire), completed in 2013 and 2014 identified lednian stonefly occurrences are within flooding, succession, and climate the Arapahoe snowfly in seven new Glacier National Park (NP), Montana. change, are of moderate to low localities, including Elkhorn Creek, Climate change, and the associated magnitude. For example, the life history Sheep Creek (a tributary of the Big effects of glacier loss (with glaciers of rattlesnake-master borer moths makes Thompson River), Central Gulch (a predicted to be gone by 2030)— them highly sensitive to fire, which can tributary of Saint Vrain Creek), and including reduced streamflows, and cause mortality of individuals through Bummer’s Gulch, Martin Gulch, and increased water temperatures—are most of the year and can affect entire Bear Canyon Creek (tributaries of expected to significantly reduce the populations. Conversely, complete fire Boulder Creek in Boulder County). occurrence of populations and extent of suppression can also be a threat to However, numbers of specimens suitable habitat for the species in rattlesnake-master borer moths as collected at each location were Glacier NP. In addition, the existing prairie habitat declines and woody or extremely low. These new locations regulatory mechanisms are not adequate invasive species become established occur on Forest Service land, Boulder to address these environmental changes such that the species’ only food plant is County Open Space, and private land. due to global climate change. We not found in disturbed prairies. We note that the scientific name for determined that the meltwater lednian Although these threats can cause direct Arapahoe snowfly has changed from stonefly was a candidate for listing in a and indirect mortality of the species, Capnia arapahoe to Arsapnia arapahoe warranted-but-precluded 12-month they are of moderate or low magnitude due to recent genetic analyses. petition finding published on April 5, because they affect only some Climate change is a threat to the 2011 (76 FR 18684). We have assigned populations throughout the range and to Arapahoe snowfly, and modifies its the species an LPN of 5, based on three varying degrees. Overall, the threats are habitats by reducing snowpacks, criteria: (1) The high magnitude of moderate. The threats are imminent altering streamflows, increasing water threat, which is projected to because they are ongoing; every known temperatures, fostering mountain pine substantially reduce the amount of population of rattlesnake-master borer beetle outbreaks, and increasing the suitable habitat relative to the species’ moth has at least one ongoing threat, frequency of destructive wildfires. current range; (2) the low immediacy of and some have several working in Limited dispersal capabilities, a the threat based on the lack of tandem. Thus, we assigned a LPN of 8 restricted range, dependence on pristine documented evidence that climate to this species. habitats, and a small population size change is affecting stonefly habitat; and Stephan’s riffle beetle (Heterelmis make the Arapahoe snowfly vulnerable (3) the taxonomic status of the species, stephani)—We continue to find that to demographic stochasticity, which is a full species. listing this species is warranted but environmental stochasticity, and Highlands tiger beetle (Cicindela precluded as of the date of publication random catastrophes. Furthermore, highlandensis)—We continue to find of this notice. However, we are working regulatory mechanisms appear that listing this species is warranted but on a thorough review of all available inadequate to reduce these threats, precluded as of the date of publication data and expect to publish either a which may act cumulatively to affect of this notice. However, we are working proposed listing rule or a 12-month not the species. The threats to the Arapahoe on a thorough review of all available warranted finding prior to making the snowfly are high in magnitude because data and expect to publish either a next annual resubmitted petition 12- they occur throughout the species’ proposed listing rule or a 12-month not month finding. In the course of limited range. However, the threats are warranted finding prior to making the preparing a proposed listing rule or not nonimminent. While limited dispersal next annual resubmitted petition 12-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP3.SGM 24DEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Notices 80603

month finding. In the course of threats are imminent, because the requirements of Fremont County preparing a proposed listing rule or not species is currently facing them in many rockcress have allowed the plant to warranted petition finding, we are portions of its range. Therefore, we have persist without competition from other continuing to monitor new information assigned skiff milkvetch an LPN of 8. herbaceous plants or sagebrush- about this species’ status so that we can Astragalus schmolliae (Chapin Mesa grassland species that are present in the make prompt use of our authority under milkvetch)—The following summary is surrounding landscape. section 4(b)(7) in the case of an based on information provided by Mesa Fremont County rockcress has a threat emergency posing a significant risk to Verde National Park and Colorado that is not identified, but that is the species. Natural Heritage Program, contained in indicated by the small and overall our files, and in the petition we received declining population size. Although the Flowering Plants on July 30, 2007. Chapin Mesa threat is not fully understood, we know Artemisia borealis var. wormskioldii milkvetch is a narrow endemic it exists as indicated by the declining (northern wormwood)—We continue to perennial plant that grows in the mature population. The overall population size find that listing this species is pinyon-juniper woodland of mesa tops may be declining from a variety of warranted but precluded as of the date on Chapin Mesa in the Mesa Verde unknown causes, with drought or of publication of this notice. However, National Park and in the adjoining Ute disease possibly contributing to the we are working on a thorough review of Mountain Ute Tribal Park in southern trend. The downward trend may have all available data and expect to publish Colorado. The species was previously been leveled off somewhat recently, but either a proposed listing rule or a 12- known by the common name Schmoll’s without improved population numbers, month not warranted finding prior to milkvetch, but we have adopted the the species may reach a population level making the next annual resubmitted newly accepted common name Chapin at which other stressors become threats. petition 12-month finding. In the course Mesa milkvetch in this document. We are unable to determine how climate of preparing a proposed listing rule or The most significant threats to the change may affect the species in the not warranted petition finding, we are species are degradation of habitat by future. To the extent that we understand continuing to monitor new information fire, followed by invasion by nonnative the species, other potential habitat- about this species’ status so that we can cheatgrass and subsequent increase in related threats have been removed make prompt use of our authority under fire frequency. These threats currently through the implementation of Federal section 4(b)(7) in the case of an affect about 40 percent of the species’ regulatory mechanisms and associated emergency posing a significant risk to entire known range. Cheatgrass is likely actions. Overutilization, predation, and the species. to increase given its rapid spread and the inadequacy of regulatory Astragalus microcymbus (Skiff persistence in habitat disturbed by mechanisms are not viewed as threats to milkvetch)—The following summary is wildfires, fire and fuels management, the species. The threats that Fremont based on information contained in our development of infrastructure, and the County rockcress faces are moderate in files and in the petition we received on inability of land managers to control it magnitude, primarily because of the July 30, 2007. Skiff milkvetch is a on a landscape scale. Other threats to recent leveling off of the population perennial forb that dies back to the Chapin Mesa milkvetch include fires, decline. The threat to Fremont County ground every year. It has a very limited fire break clearings, and drought, and rockcress is imminent, because we have range and a spotty distribution within existing regulatory mechanisms are not evidence that the species is currently Gunnison and Saguache Counties in adequate to address these threats. The facing a threat indicated by a reduced Colorado, where it is found in open, threats to the species overall are population size. The threat appears to park-like landscapes in the sagebrush- imminent and moderate in magnitude, be ongoing, although we are unsure of steppe ecosystem on rocky or cobbly, because the species is currently facing the extent and timing of its effects on moderate-to-steep slopes of hills and them in many portions of its range, but the species. Thus, we have assigned B. draws. the threats do not collectively result in pusilla an LPN of 8. The most significant threats to skiff population declines on a short time Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum milkvetch are recreation, roads, trails, scale. Therefore, we have assigned (Pineland sandmat)—We continue to and habitat fragmentation and Chapin Mesa milkvetch an LPN of 8. find that listing this species is degradation. Existing regulatory Boechera pusilla (Fremont County warranted but precluded as of the date mechanisms are not adequate to protect rockcress)—The following summary is of publication of this notice. However, the species from these threats. based on information in our files and in we are working on a thorough review of Recreational impacts are likely to the petition received on July 24, 2007. all available data and expect to publish increase, given the close proximity of Fremont County rockcress is a perennial either a proposed listing rule or a 12- skiff milkvetch to the town of Gunnison herb that occupies sparsely vegetated, month not warranted finding prior to and the increasing popularity of coarse granite soil pockets in exposed making the next annual resubmitted mountain biking, motorcycling, and all- granite-pegmatite outcrops, with slopes petition 12-month finding. In the course terrain vehicles. Furthermore, the generally less than 10 degrees, at an of preparing a proposed listing rule or Hartman Rocks Recreation Area draws elevation between 2,438 and 2,469 m not warranted petition finding, we are users, and contains over 40 percent of (8,000 and 8,100 ft). The only known continuing to monitor new information the skiff milkvetch units. Other threats population of Fremont County rockcress about this species’ status so that we can to the species include residential and is located in Wyoming on lands make prompt use of our authority under urban development; livestock, deer, and administered by the Bureau of Land section 4(b)(7) in the case of an elk use; climate change; increasing Management in the southern foothills of emergency posing a significant risk to periodic drought; nonnative, invasive the Wind River Range. The population the species. cheatgrass; and wildfire. The threats to is made up of at least 8 subpopulations. Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina skiff milkvetch are moderate in Fremont County rockcress is likely (San Fernando Valley spineflower)—We magnitude, because, while serious and restricted in distribution by the limited continue to find that listing this species occurring rangewide, they do not occurrence of pegmatite (a very coarse- is warranted but precluded as of the collectively result in population grained rock formed from magma or date of publication of this notice. declines on a short time scale. The lava) in the area. The specialized habitat However, we are working on a thorough

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP3.SGM 24DEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 80604 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Notices

review of all available data and expect hydrology of its rare wetland habitat), precious metal and gravel mining. to publish either a proposed listing rule while serious and occurring rangewide, Mining for precious metals historically or a 12-month not warranted finding do not at this time collectively and occurred within the vicinity of all four prior to making the next annual significantly adversely affect the species populations. Three of the populations resubmitted petition 12-month finding. at a population level. All of the threats are currently in the immediate vicinity In the course of preparing a proposed are ongoing and therefore imminent. of active limestone quarries. Ongoing listing rule or not warranted petition Thus, we continue to assign an LPN of mining in the species’ habitat has the finding, we are continuing to monitor 8 to Wright’s marsh thistle. potential to extirpate one population in new information about this species’ Dalea carthagenensis ssp. floridana the near future and extirpate all status so that we can make prompt use (Florida prairie-clover)—We continue to populations in the foreseeable future. of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in find that listing this species is Ongoing exploration for precious metals the case of an emergency posing a warranted but precluded as of the date and gravel indicate that mining will significant risk to the species. of publication of this notice. However, continue, but it will take time for the Cirsium wrightii (Wright’s marsh we are working on a thorough review of mining operations to be put into place. thistle)—The following summary is all available data and expect to publish This will result in the loss and based on information from the 12-month either a proposed listing rule or a 12- fragmentation of Frisco buckwheat warranted-but-precluded finding month not warranted finding prior to populations over a longer time scale. published November 4, 2010 (75 FR making the next annual resubmitted Other threats to the species include 67925), as well as any new information petition 12-month finding. In the course nonnative species in conjunction with gathered since then. Wright’s marsh of preparing a proposed listing rule or surface disturbance from mining thistle is a in the not warranted petition finding, we are activities. Existing regulatory sunflower family. It is prickly with short continuing to monitor new information mechanisms are inadequate to protect black spines and a 3-to 8-foot (ft) (0.9- about this species’ status so that we can the species from these threats. to 2.4-meter (m)) single stalk covered make prompt use of our authority under Vulnerabilities of the species include with succulent leaves. Flowers are section 4(b)(7) in the case of an small population size and climate white to pale pink in areas of the emergency posing a significant risk to change. The threats that Frisco Sacramento Mountains, but are vivid the species. buckwheat faces are moderate in pink in all the Pecos Valley locations. Dichanthelium hirstii (Hirst Brothers’ magnitude, because while serious and There are eight general confirmed panic grass)—See above summary under occurring rangewide, the threats do not locations of Wright’s marsh thistle in Listing Priority Changes in Candidates. significantly reduce populations on a New Mexico: Santa Rosa, Guadalupe Digitaria pauciflora (Florida pineland short time scale. The threats are County; Bitter Lake National Wildlife crabgrass)—We continue to find that imminent, because three of the Refuge, Chaves County; Blue Spring, listing this species is warranted but populations are currently in the Eddy County; La Luz Canyon, Karr precluded as of the date of publication immediate vicinity of active limestone Canyon, Silver Springs, and Tularosa of this notice. However, we are working quarries. Therefore, we have assigned Creek, Otero County; and Alamosa on a thorough review of all available Frisco buckwheat an LPN of 8. Creek, Socorro County. Wright’s marsh data and expect to publish either a ligulata (Guadalupe fescue)— thistle has been extirpated from all proposed listing rule or a 12-month not We continue to find that listing this previously known locations in Arizona, warranted finding prior to making the species is warranted but precluded as of and was misidentified and likely not next annual resubmitted petition 12- the date of publication of this notice. ever present in Texas. The status of the month finding. In the course of However, we are working on a thorough species in Mexico is uncertain, with few preparing a proposed listing rule or not review of all available data and expect verified collections. warranted petition finding, we are to publish either a proposed listing rule Wright’s marsh thistle faces threats continuing to monitor new information or a 12-month not warranted finding primarily from natural and human- about this species’ status so that we can prior to making the next annual caused modifications of its habitat due make prompt use of our authority under resubmitted petition 12-month finding. to ground and surface water depletion, section 4(b)(7) in the case of an In the course of preparing a proposed drought, invasion of Phragmites emergency posing a significant risk to listing rule or not warranted petition australis, and from the inadequacy of the species. finding, we are continuing to monitor existing regulatory mechanisms. The Eriogonum soredium (Frisco new information about this species’ species occupies relatively small areas buckwheat)—The following summary is status so that we can make prompt use of seeps, springs, and wetland habitat in based on information in our files and of our authority under section 4(b)(7) in an arid region plagued by drought and the petition we received on July 30, the case of an emergency posing a ongoing and future water withdrawals 2007. Frisco buckwheat is a narrow significant risk to the species. in the surrounding watershed. The endemic perennial plant restricted to Lepidium ostleri (Ostler’s species’ highly specific requirements of soils derived from Ordovician limestone peppergrass)—The following summary saturated soils with surface or outcrops. The range of the species is less is based on information in our files and subsurface water flow make it than 5 sq mi (13 sq km), with four the petition we received on July 30, particularly vulnerable. known populations. All four 2007. Ostler’s peppergrass is a long- Long-term drought, in combination populations occur exclusively on lived perennial herb in the mustard with ground and surface water private lands in Beaver County, Utah, family that grows in dense, cushion-like withdrawal, pose a current and future and each population occupies a very tufts. Ostler’s peppergrass is a narrow threat to Wright’s marsh thistle and its small area with high densities of plants. endemic restricted to soils derived from habitat. In addition, we expect that Available population estimates are Ordovician limestone outcrops. The these threats will likely intensify in the highly variable and inaccurate due to range of the species is less than 5 sq mi foreseeable future. However, the threats the limited access for surveys associated (13 sq km), with only four known are moderate in magnitude because the with private lands. populations. All four populations occur majority of the threats (habitat loss and The primary threat to Frisco exclusively on private lands in the degradation due to alteration of the buckwheat is habitat destruction from southern San Francisco Mountains of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP3.SGM 24DEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Notices 80605

Beaver County, Utah. Available Solanum conocarpum is threatened vegetation management. Bracted population estimates are highly variable by the lack of natural recruitment, twistflower is potentially threatened by and inaccurate due largely to the limited absence of dispersers, fragmented as-yet unknown impacts of climate access for surveys associated with distribution, lack of genetic variation, change. The Service has established a private lands. climate change, and habitat destruction voluntary memorandum of agreement The primary threat to Ostler’s or modification by exotic mammal with Texas Parks and Wildlife peppergrass is habitat destruction from species. These threats are evidenced by Department, the City of Austin, Travis precious metal and gravel mining. the reduced number of individuals, low County, the Lower Colorado River Mining for precious metals historically number of populations, and lack of Authority, and the Lady Bird Johnson occurred within the vicinity of all four connectivity between populations. Wildflower Center to protect bracted populations. Three of the populations Overall, the threats are of high twistflower and its habitats on tracts of are currently in the immediate vicinity magnitude because they are leading to Balcones Canyonlands Preserve. of active limestone quarries, but mining population declines for a species that Overall, the threats to bracted is only currently occurring in the area already has low population numbers twistflower are of moderate magnitude of one population. Ongoing mining in and fragmented distribution; the threats because most of the populations occur the species’ habitat has the potential to are also ongoing and therefore on protected land where the threats will extirpate one population in the future. imminent. Therefore, we assigned a LPN be managed through the MOA. The Ongoing exploration for precious metals of 2 to Solanum conocarpum. threats are ongoing and, therefore, and gravel indicate that mining will Streptanthus bracteatus (bracted imminent. We maintain a LPN of 8 for continue, but will take time for the twistflower)—The following summary is this species. mining operations to be put into place. based on information obtained from our Trifolium friscanum (Frisco clover)— This will result in the loss and files, on-line herbarium databases, The following summary is based on fragmentation of Ostler’s peppergrass surveys and monitoring data, seed information in our files and the petition populations over a longer time scale. collection data, and scientific we received on July 30, 2007. Frisco Other threats to the species include publications. Bracted twistflower, an clover is a narrow endemic perennial nonnative species, vulnerability annual herbaceous plant of the herb found only in Utah, with five associated with small population size, Brassicaceae (mustard family), is known populations restricted to and climate change. Existing regulatory endemic to a small portion of the sparsely vegetated, pinion-juniper mechanisms are inadequate to protect Edwards Plateau of Texas. The Texas sagebrush communities and shallow, the species from these threats. The Natural Diversity Database, as revised gravel soils derived from volcanic threats that Ostler’s peppergrass faces on April 12, 2012, lists 16 element gravels, Ordovician limestone, and occurrences (EOs; i.e., populations) that dolomite outcrops. The majority (68 are moderate in magnitude, because, were documented from 1989 to 2010 in percent) of Frisco clover plants occur on while serious and occurring rangewide, five counties. Currently, nine EOs private lands, with the remaining plants the threats do not collectively result in remain with intact habitat, two EOs are found on Federal and State lands. significant population declines on a partially intact, two are on managed On the private and State lands, the short time scale. The threats are rights-of-way, and three sites have been most significant threat to Frisco clover imminent because the species is developed and the populations are is habitat destruction from mining for currently facing them across its entire presumed extirpated. Only seven of the precious metals and gravel. Active range. Therefore, we have assigned nine intact EOs and portions of two EOs mining claims, recent prospecting, and Ostler’s peppergrass an LPN of 8. are in protected natural areas. Four an increasing demand for precious Pinus albicaulis (whitebark pine)— extant EOs are vulnerable to metals and gravel indicate that mining See above summary under Listing development and other impacts. Five in Frisco clover habitats will increase in Priority Changes in Candidates. EOs have been partially or completely the foreseeable future, likely resulting in Solanum conocarpum (marron developed, including two EOs that were the loss of large numbers of plants. bacora)—The following summary is destroyed in 2012 and 2013, Other threats to Frisco clover include based on information in our files and in respectively. nonnative, invasive species in the petition we received on November The continued survival of bracted conjunction with surface disturbance 21, 1996. Solanum conocarpum is a dry- twistflower is imminently threatened by from mining activities. Existing forest shrub in the island of St. John, habitat destruction from urban regulatory mechanisms are inadequate U.S. Virgin Islands. Its current development, severe herbivory from to protect the species from these threats. distribution includes eight localities in dense herds of white-tailed deer and Vulnerabilities of the species include the island of St. John, each ranging from other herbivores, and the increased small population size and climate 1 to 144 individuals. The species has density of woody plant cover. change. The threats to Frisco clover are been reported to occur on dry, poor Additional ongoing threats include moderate in magnitude because, while soils. It can be locally abundant in erosion and trampling from foot and serious and occurring rangewide, they exposed topography on sites disturbed mountain-bike trails, a pathogenic are not acting independently or by erosion, areas that have received fungus of unknown origin, and cumulatively to have a highly moderate grazing, and around ridgelines inadequate protection by existing significant negative impact on its as an understory component in diverse regulations. Furthermore, due to the survival or reproductive capacity. For woodland communities. A habitat small size and isolation of remaining example, although mining for precious suitability model suggests that the vast populations, and lack of gene flow metals and gravel historically occurred majority of Solanum conocarpum between them, several populations are throughout Frisco clover’s range, and habitat is found in the lower elevation now inbred and may have insufficient mining operations may eventually coastal scrub forest. Efforts have been genetic diversity for long-term survival. expand into occupied habitats, there are conducted to propagate the species to Bracted twistflower populations often no active mines within the immediate enhance natural populations, and occur in habitats that also support the vicinity of any known population. The planting of seedlings has been endangered golden-cheeked warbler, but threats are imminent because the conducted in the island of St. John. the two species may require different species is currently facing them across

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP3.SGM 24DEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 80606 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Notices

its entire range. Therefore, we have petitions requesting a change in status high priority listing actions. The assigned Frisco clover an LPN of 8. for the North Cascades grizzly bear primary rationale for reclassifying delta population (55 FR 32103, August 7, smelt from threatened to endangered Petitions To Reclassify Species Already 1990; 56 FR 33892, July 24, 1991; 57 FR was the significant declines in delta Listed 14372, April 20, 1992; 58 FR 43856, smelt abundance that have occurred We previously made warranted-but- August 18, 1993; 63 FR 30453, June 4, since 2001. Delta smelt abundance, as precluded findings on three petitions 1998). In response to these petitions, we indicated by the Fall Mid-Water Trawl seeking to reclassify threatened species determined that grizzly bears in the survey, was exceptionally low between to endangered status. The taxa involved North Cascade ecosystem warrant a 2004 and 2010, increased during the wet in the reclassification petitions are one change to endangered status. In 2015, year of 2011, and decreased again to a population of the grizzly bear (Ursus we continue to find that reclassifying very a low levels in 2012, 2013 and arctos horribilis), delta smelt this population as endangered is 2014. (Hypomesus transpacificus), and warranted but precluded, and we The primary threats to the delta smelt Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette continue to assign a LPN of 3 for the are direct entrainments by State and cactus). Because these species are uplisting of the North Cascades Federal water export facilities, summer already listed under the ESA, they are population based on high magnitude and fall increases in salinity and water not candidates for listing and are not threats, including very small population clarity resulting from decreases in included in Table 1. However, this size, incomplete habitat protection freshwater flow into the estuary, and notice and associated species measures (motorized access effects from introduced species. assessment forms or 5-year review management), and population Ammonia in the form of ammonium documents also constitute the findings fragmentation resulting in genetic may also be a significant threat to the for the resubmitted petitions to isolation. The threats are high in survival of the delta smelt. Additional reclassify these species. Our updated magnitude because the limiting factor potential threats are predation by assessments for these species are for this population is human-caused striped and largemouth bass and inland provided below. We find that mortality and extremely small silversides, contaminants, and small reclassification to endangered status for population size and as human population size. Existing regulatory one grizzly bear ecosystem population, populations continue to grow, it is mechanisms have not proven adequate delta smelt, and Sclerocactus inevitable that this will put additional to halt the decline of delta smelt since brevispinus are all currently warranted pressures on grizzly bear populations. the time of listing as a threatened but precluded by work identified above The threats are ongoing, and thus species. (see Findings for Petitioned Candidate imminent. However, higher priority However, higher-priority listing Species, above). One of the primary actions, including court-approved listing actions, including court- reasons that the work identified above is settlements, court-ordered and statutory approved settlements, court-ordered and considered to have higher priority is deadlines for petition findings and statutory deadlines for petition findings that the grizzly bear population, delta listing determinations, emergency and listing determinations, emergency smelt, and Sclerocactus brevispinus are listing determinations, and responses to listing determinations, and responses to currently listed as threatened, and litigation, continue to preclude litigation, continue to preclude therefore already receive certain reclassifying the delta smelt. reclassifying grizzly bears in this protections under the ESA. In Furthermore, proposed rules to ecosystem. Furthermore, proposed rules accordance with our regulations at 50 reclassify threatened species to to reclassify threatened species to CFR 17.31 and 50 CFR 17.71, endangered are a lower priority than respectively, these wildlife and plant endangered are a lower priority than listing currently unprotected species species are protected by the take listing currently unprotected species (i.e., candidate species), since species prohibitions under section 9. It is (i.e., candidate species), since species currently listed as threatened are therefore unlawful for any person, currently listed as threatened are already afforded the protection of the among other prohibited acts, to take already afforded the protection of the ESA and the implementing regulations. (i.e., to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, ESA and the implementing regulations. As a result of our analysis of the best shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or We continue to monitor this population available scientific and commercial collect, or attempt to engage in such and will change its status or implement data, we have retained the activity) any of these wildlife species. In an emergency uplisting if necessary. In recommendation of uplisting the delta addition, it is unlawful under section 9 2014, the National Park Service and the smelt to an endangered species with a for any person, among other prohibited Service initiated an environmental LPN of 2, based on high magnitude and acts, to remove or reduce to possession impact statement process to evaluate imminent threats. The magnitude of the any of these listed plants from an area recovery options in the North Cascades. threats is high, because the threats occur under Federal jurisdiction (50 CFR We expect it to take 3 years to complete rangewide and result in mortality or 17.61). Other protections that apply to and evaluate a variety of alternatives, significantly reduce the reproductive these threatened species even before we including population augmentation. capacity of the species and they are, in complete proposed and final Delta smelt (Hypomesus some cases (i.e., nonnative species), reclassification rules include those transpacificus) (Region 8) (see 75 FR considered irreversible. Threats are under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, 17667, April 7, 2010, for additional imminent because they are ongoing. whereby Federal agencies must insure information on why reclassification to Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette that any action they authorize, fund, or endangered is warranted but cactus) (Region 6) (see 72 FR 53211, carry out is not likely to jeopardize the precluded)—The following summary is September 18, 2007, and the species continued existence of any endangered based on information contained in our assessment form (see ADDRESSES) for or threatened species. files. In April 2010, we completed a 12- additional information on why Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos month finding for delta smelt in which reclassification to endangered is horribilis)—North Cascades ecosystem we determined that a change in status warranted but precluded)—Pariette population (Region 6)—Since 1990, we from threatened to endangered was cactus is restricted to clay badlands of have received and reviewed five warranted, although precluded by other the Uinta geologic formation in the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP3.SGM 24DEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Notices 80607

Uinta Basin of northeastern Utah. The class or order. Plants are subdivided highest priority. We assign LPNs based species is restricted to one population into two groups: (1) Flowering plants on the immediacy and magnitude of with an overall range of approximately and (2) ferns and their allies. Useful threats, as well as on taxonomic status. 16 mi by 5 mi in extent. The species’ synonyms and subgeneric scientific We published a complete description of entire population is within a developed names appear in parentheses with the our listing priority system in the and expanding oil and gas field. The synonyms preceded by an ‘‘equals’’ Federal Register (48 FR 43098, location of the species’ habitat exposes sign. Several species that have not yet September 21, 1983). it to destruction from road, pipeline, been formally described in the scientific The third column, ‘‘Lead Region,’’ and well-site construction in connection literature are included; such species are identifies the Regional Office to which with oil and gas development. The identified by a generic or specific name you should direct information, species may be collected as a specimen (in italics), followed by ‘‘sp.’’ or ‘‘ssp.’’ comments, or questions (see addresses plant for horticultural use. Recreational We incorporate standardized common under Request for Information at the off-road vehicle use and livestock names in these notices as they become end of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION trampling are additional potential available. We sort plants by scientific section). threats. The species is currently name due to the inconsistencies in Following the scientific name (fourth federally listed as threatened (44 FR common names, the inclusion of column) and the family designation 58868, October 11, 1979; 74 FR 47112, vernacular and composite subspecific (fifth column) is the common name September 15, 2009). The threats are of names, and the fact that many plants (sixth column). The seventh column a high magnitude, because any one of still lack a standardized common name. provides the known historical range for the threats has the potential to severely Table 1 lists all candidate species, the species or vertebrate population (for affect the survival of this species, a plus species currently proposed for vertebrate populations, this is the narrow endemic with a highly limited listing under the ESA. We emphasize historical range for the entire species or range and distribution. Threats are that in this notice we are not proposing subspecies and not just the historical ongoing and, therefore, are imminent. to list any of the candidate species; range for the distinct population Thus, we assigned an LPN of 2 to this rather, we will develop and publish segment), indicated by postal code species for uplisting. However, higher- proposed listing rules for these species abbreviations for States and U.S. priority listing actions, including court- in the future. We encourage State territories. Many species no longer approved settlements, court-ordered and agencies, other Federal agencies, and occur in all of the areas listed. statutory deadlines for petition findings other parties to give consideration to Species in Table 2 of this notice are and listing determinations, emergency these species in environmental those we included either as proposed listing determinations, and responses to planning. species or as candidates in the previous litigation, continue to preclude In Table 1, the ‘‘category’’ column on CNOR (published December 5, 2014, at reclassifying the Pariette cactus. the left side of the table identifies the 79 FR 72450) that are no longer Furthermore, proposed rules to status of each species according to the proposed species or candidates for reclassify threatened species to following codes: listing. Since December 5, 2014, we endangered are a lower priority than PE—Species proposed for listing as listed 31 species, withdrew 1 species listing currently unprotected species endangered. Proposed species are those from proposed status, and removed 23 (i.e., candidate species), since species species for which we have published a species from the candidate list. The first currently listed as threatened are proposed rule to list as endangered or column indicates the present status of already afforded the protection of the threatened in the Federal Register. This each species, using the following codes ESA and the implementing regulations. category does not include species for (not all of these codes may have been which we have withdrawn or finalized the used in this CNOR): Current Notice of Review proposed rule. We gather data on plants and animals PT—Species proposed for listing as E—Species we listed as endangered. native to the United States that appear threatened. T—Species we listed as threatened. PSAT—Species proposed for listing as Rc—Species we removed from the candidate to merit consideration for addition to list, because currently available the Lists of Endangered and Threatened threatened due to similarity of appearance. C—Candidates: Species for which we have information does not support a proposed Wildlife and Plants (Lists). This notice on file sufficient information on biological listing. identifies those species that we vulnerability and threats to support Rp—Species we removed from the candidate currently regard as candidates for proposals to list them as endangered or list, because we have withdrawn the addition to the Lists. These candidates threatened. Issuance of proposed rules for proposed listing. include species and subspecies of fish, these species is precluded at present by The second column indicates why the wildlife, or plants, and DPSs of other higher priority listing actions. This species is no longer a candidate or vertebrate animals. This compilation category includes species for which we proposed species, using the following relies on information from status made a 12-month warranted-but-precluded finding on a petition to list. We made new codes (not all of these codes may have surveys conducted for candidate findings on all petitions for which we been used in this CNOR): assessment and on information from previously made ‘‘warranted-but- A—Species that are more abundant or State Natural Heritage Programs, other precluded’’ findings. We identify the widespread than previously believed and State and Federal agencies, species for which we made a continued species that are not subject to the degree knowledgeable scientists, public and warranted-but-precluded finding on a of threats sufficient that the species is a private natural resource interests, and resubmitted petition by the code ‘‘C*’’ in candidate for listing (for reasons other than comments received in response to the category column (see the Findings for that conservation efforts have removed or previous notices of review. Petitioned Candidate Species section for reduced the threats to the species). Tables 1 and 2 list animals arranged additional information). F—Species whose range no longer includes alphabetically by common names under The ‘‘Priority’’ column indicates the a U.S. territory. I—Species for which the best available the major group headings, and list LPN for each candidate species, which information on biological vulnerability and plants alphabetically by names of we use to determine the most threats is insufficient to support a genera, species, and relevant subspecies appropriate use of our available conclusion that the species is a threatened and varieties. Animals are grouped by resources. The lowest numbers have the species or an endangered species.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP3.SGM 24DEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 80608 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Notices

L—Species we added to the Lists of to the Regional Director of the Region Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225– Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and identified as having the lead 0486 (303/236–7400). Plants. responsibility for that species. The Region 7. Alaska. Regional Director M—Species we mistakenly included as regional addresses follow: (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, candidates or proposed species in the last notice of review. Region 1. Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK N—Species that are not listable entities based Washington, American Samoa, Guam, 99503–6199 (907/786–3505). on the ESA’s definition of ‘‘species’’ and and Commonwealth of the Northern Region 8. California and Nevada. current taxonomic understanding. Mariana Islands. Regional Director Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and U—Species that are not subject to the degree (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, of threats sufficient to warrant issuance of Eastside Federal Complex, 911 NE. Suite W2606, Sacramento, CA 95825 a proposed listing and therefore are not (916/414–6464). candidates for listing, due, in part or 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232– totally, to conservation efforts that remove 4181 (503/231–6158). We will provide information received or reduce the threats to the species. Region 2. Arizona, New Mexico, to the Region having lead responsibility X—Species we believe to be extinct. Oklahoma, and Texas. Regional for each candidate species mentioned in Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife the submission. We will likewise The columns describing lead region, consider all information provided in scientific name, family, common name, Service, 500 Gold Avenue SW., Room 4012, Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505/ response to this CNOR in deciding and historical range include information whether to propose species for listing as previously described for Table 1. 248–6920). Region 3. Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and when to undertake necessary listing Request for Information Michigan, Minnesota, , Ohio, actions (including whether emergency We request you submit any further and Wisconsin. Regional Director listing under section 4(b)(7) of the ESA information on the species named in (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is appropriate). Information and this notice as soon as possible or 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990, comments we receive will become part whenever it becomes available. We are Bloomington, MN 55437–1458 (612/ of the administrative record for the particularly interested in any 713–5334). species, which we maintain at the information: Region 4. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, appropriate Regional Office. (1) Indicating that we should add a Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Public Availability of Comments species to the list of candidate species; Mississippi, North Carolina, South Before including your address, phone (2) Indicating that we should remove Carolina, Tennessee, Puerto Rico, and number, email address, or other a species from candidate status; the U.S. Virgin Islands. Regional personal identifying information in your (3) Recommending areas that we Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife submission, be advised that your entire should designate as critical habitat for a Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, submission—including your personal species, or indicating that designation of Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30345 (404/ identifying information—may be made critical habitat would not be prudent for 679–4156). publicly available at any time. Although a species; Region 5. Connecticut, Delaware, you can ask us in your submission to (4) Documenting threats to any of the District of Columbia, Maine, withhold from public review your included species; Maryland, Massachusetts, New (5) Describing the immediacy or Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, personal identifying information, we magnitude of threats facing candidate Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, cannot guarantee that we will be able to species; Virginia, and West Virginia. Regional do so. (6) Pointing out taxonomic or Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Authority nomenclature changes for any of the Service, 300 Westgate Center Drive, This notice is published under the species; Hadley, MA 01035–9589 (413/253– authority of the Endangered Species Act (7) Suggesting appropriate common 8615). of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et names; and Region 6. Colorado, , Montana, seq.). (8) Noting any mistakes, such as Nebraska, North Dakota, South errors in the indicated historical ranges. Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Regional Dated: December 15, 2015. Submit information, materials, or Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Stephen Guertin, comments regarding a particular species Service, P.O. Box 25486, Denver Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

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

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

MAMMALS

PE ...... 3 ...... R1 ...... Emballonura Emballonuridae ...... Bat, Pacific sheath-tailed U.S.A. (AS), Fiji, Inde- semicaudata (American Samoa pendent Samoa, semicaudata. DPS). Tonga, Vanuatu. C* ...... 6 ...... R2 ...... Tamias minimus Sciuridae ...... Chipmunk, Pen˜asco U.S.A. (NM). atristriatus. least.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP3.SGM 24DEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Notices 80609

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

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

PT ...... 6 ...... R8 ...... Martes pennanti ...... Mustelidae ...... Fisher (west coast DPS) U.S.A. (CA, CT, IA, ID, IL, IN, KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MT, ND, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, TN, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY), Canada. C* ...... 3 ...... R8 ...... Vulpes vulpes necator ... Canidae ...... Fox, Sierra Nevada red U.S.A. (CA, OR). (Sierra Nevada DPS). C* ...... 5 ...... R1 ...... Urocitellus washingtoni .. Sciuridae ...... Squirrel, Washington U.S.A. (WA, OR). ground. C* ...... 9 ...... R1 ...... Arborimus longicaudus .. Cricetidae ...... Vole, Red (north Oregon U.S.A. (OR). coast DPS). C* ...... 9 ...... R7 ...... Odobenus rosmarus Odobenidae ...... Walrus, Pacific ...... U.S.A. (AK), Russian divergens. Federation (Kamchatka and Chukotka).

BIRDS

C* ...... 3 ...... R1 ...... Porzana tabuensis ...... Rallidae ...... Crake, spotless (Amer- U.S.A. (AS), Australia, ican Samoa DPS). Fiji, Independent Samoa, Marquesas, Philippines, Society Is- lands, Tonga. PE ...... 9 ...... R1 ...... Gallicolumba stairi ...... Columbidae ...... Ground-dove, friendly U.S.A. (AS), Inde- (American Samoa pendent Samoa. DPS). PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Gymnomyza samoensis Meliphagidae ...... Ma’oma’o ...... U.S.A. (AS), Inde- pendent Samoa. C* ...... 5 ...... R8 ...... Synthliboramphus Alcidae ...... Murrelet, Xantus’s ...... U.S.A. (CA), Mexico. hypoleucus. C* ...... 2 ...... R2 ...... Amazona viridigenalis .... Psittacidae ...... Parrot, red-crowned ...... U.S.A. (TX), Mexico. C* ...... 8 ...... R6 ...... Anthus spragueii ...... Motacillidae ...... Pipit, Sprague’s ...... U.S.A. (AR, AZ, CO, KS, LA, MN, MS, MT, ND, NE, NM, OK, SD, TX), Canada, Mexico. PE ...... 3 ...... R1 ...... Oceanodroma castro ..... Hydrobatidae ...... Storm-petrel, band- U.S.A. (HI), Atlantic rumped (Hawaii DPS). Ocean, Ecuador (Ga- lapagos Islands), Japan. PT ...... 11 ...... R4 ...... Dendroica angelae ...... Emberizidae ...... Warbler, elfin-woods ...... U.S.A. (PR).

REPTILES

PT ...... 8 ...... R3 ...... Sistrurus catenatus ...... Viperidae ...... Massasauga (= rattle- U.S.A. (IA, IL, IN, MI, snake), eastern. MN, MO, NY, OH, PA, WI), Canada. C* ...... 5 ...... R4 ...... Pituophis ruthveni ...... Colubridae ...... Snake, Louisiana pine ... U.S.A. (LA, TX). C* ...... 8 ...... R4 ...... Gopherus polyphemus ... Testudinidae ...... Tortoise, gopher (east- U.S.A. (AL, FL, GA, LA, ern population). MS, SC). C* ...... 6 ...... R2 ...... Kinosternon sonoriense Kinosternidae ...... Turtle, Sonoyta mud ...... U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico. longifemorale.

AMPHIBIANS

C* ...... 8 ...... R8 ...... Lithobates onca ...... Ranidae ...... Frog, relict leopard ...... U.S.A. (AZ, NV, UT). C* ...... 8 ...... R4 ...... Notophthalmus Salamandridae ...... Newt, striped ...... U.S.A. (FL, GA). perstriatus. C* ...... 8 ...... R4 ...... Gyrinophilus gulolineatus Plethodontidae ...... Salamander, Berry Cave U.S.A. (TN). C ...... 3 ...... R2 ...... Hyla wrightorum ...... Hylidae ...... Treefrog, Arizona U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico (So- (Huachuca/Canelo nora). DPS). C* ...... 2 ...... R4 ...... Necturus alabamensis ... Proteidae ...... Waterdog, black warrior U.S.A. (AL). (=Sipsey Fork).

FISHES

PT ...... 8 ...... R2 ...... Gila nigra ...... Cyprinidae ...... Chub, headwater ...... U.S.A. (AZ, NM).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP3.SGM 24DEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 80610 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Notices

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

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

PT ...... 9 ...... R2 ...... Gila robusta ...... Cyprinidae ...... Chub, roundtail (Lower U.S.A. (AZ, CO, NM, Colorado River Basin UT, WY). DPS). C* ...... 11 ...... R6 ...... Etheostoma cragini ...... ...... Darter, Arkansas ...... U.S.A. (AR, CO, KS, MO, OK). PE ...... 2 ...... R5 ...... Crystallaria cincotta ...... Percidae ...... Darter, diamond ...... U.S.A. (KY, OH, TN, WV). PT ...... 2 ...... R4 ...... Etheostoma spilotum ..... Percidae ...... Darter, Kentucky arrow .. U.S.A. (KY). C* ...... 8 ...... R4 ...... Percina aurora ...... Percidae ...... Darter, Pearl ...... U.S.A. (LA, MS). C* ...... 5 ...... R4 ...... Moxostoma sp...... Catostomidae ...... Redhorse, sicklefin ...... U.S.A. (GA, NC, TN). C* ...... 3 ...... R8 ...... Spirinchus thaleichthys .. Osmeridae ...... Smelt, longfin (San Fran- U.S.A. (AK, CA, OR, cisco Bay–Delta DPS). WA), Canada. PSAT ..... N/A ...... R1 ...... Salvelinus malma ...... Salmonidae ...... Trout, Dolly Varden ...... U.S.A. (AK, WA), Can- ada, East Asia.

CLAMS

C* ...... 2 ...... R2 ...... Lampsilis bracteata ...... Unionidae ...... Fatmucket, Texas ...... U.S.A. (TX). C* ...... 2 ...... R2 ...... Truncilla macrodon ...... Unionidae ...... Fawnsfoot, Texas ...... U.S.A. (TX). C* ...... 8 ...... R2 ...... Popenaias popei ...... Unionidae ...... Hornshell, Texas ...... U.S.A. (NM, TX), Mex- ico. PT ...... — ...... R4 ...... Medionidus walkeri ...... Unionidae ...... Moccasinshell, Suwan- U.S.A. (FL, GA). nee. C* ...... 8 ...... R2 ...... Quadrula aurea ...... Unionidae ...... Orb, golden ...... U.S.A. (TX). C* ...... 8 ...... R2 ...... Quadrula houstonensis .. Unionidae ...... Pimpleback, smooth ...... U.S.A. (TX). C* ...... 2 ...... R2 ...... Quadrula petrina ...... Unionidae ...... Pimpleback, Texas ...... U.S.A. (TX).

SNAILS

C* ...... 8 ...... R4 ...... Elimia melanoides ...... ...... Mudalia, black ...... U.S.A. (AL). C* ...... 2 ...... R4 ...... Planorbella magnifica .... Planorbidae ...... Ramshorn, magnificent .. U.S.A. (NC). PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Eua zebrina ...... Partulidae ...... Snail, no common name U.S.A. (AS). PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Ostodes strigatus ...... Potaridae ...... Snail, no common name U.S.A. (AS). C* ...... 11 ...... R2 ...... Pyrgulopsis thompsoni ... Hydrobiidae ...... Springsnail, Huachuca ... U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico.

INSECTS

PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Hylaeus anthracinus ...... Colletidae ...... Bee, Hawaiian yellow- U.S.A. (HI). faced. PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Hylaeus assimulans ...... Colletidae ...... Bee, Hawaiian yellow- U.S.A. (HI). faced. PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Hylaeus facilis ...... Colletidae ...... Bee, Hawaiian yellow- U.S.A. (HI). faced. PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Hylaeus hilaris ...... Colletidae ...... Bee, Hawaiian yellow- U.S.A. (HI). faced. PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Hylaeus kuakea ...... Colletidae ...... Bee, Hawaiian yellow- U.S.A. (HI). faced. PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Hylaeus longiceps ...... Colletidae ...... Bee, Hawaiian yellow- U.S.A. (HI). faced. PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Hylaeus mana ...... Colletidae ...... Bee, Hawaiian yellow- U.S.A. (HI). faced. C* ...... 5 ...... R8 ...... Lycaena hermes ...... Lycaenidae ...... Butterfly, Hermes copper U.S.A. (CA). C* ...... 2 ...... R4 ...... Atlantea tulita ...... ...... Butterfly, Puerto Rican U.S.A. (PR). harlequin. C* ...... 5 ...... R4 ...... Pseudanophthalmus Carabidae ...... Cave beetle, Clifton ...... U.S.A. (KY). caecus. C* ...... 5 ...... R4 ...... Pseudanophthalmus Carabidae ...... Cave beetle, icebox ...... U.S.A. (KY). frigidus. C* ...... 5 ...... R4 ...... Pseudanophthalmus Carabidae ...... Cave beetle, Louisville ... U.S.A. (KY). troglodytes. C* ...... 5 ...... R4 ...... Pseudanophthalmus Carabidae ...... Cave beetle, Tatum ...... U.S.A. (KY). parvus. PE ...... 8 ...... R1 ...... Megalagrion Coenagrionidae ...... Damselfly, orangeblack U.S.A. (HI). xanthomelas. Hawaiian. C* ...... 8 ...... R3 ...... Papaipema eryngii ...... Noctuidae ...... Moth, rattlesnake-master U.S.A. (AR, IL, KY, NC, borer. OK). C* ...... 11 ...... R2 ...... Heterelmis stephani ...... Elmidae ...... Riffle beetle, Stephan’s .. U.S.A. (AZ). C* ...... 5 ...... R6 ...... Arsapnia (=Capnia) Capniidae ...... Snowfly, Arapahoe ...... U.S.A. (CO). arapahoe.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP3.SGM 24DEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Notices 80611

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

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

C* ...... 5 ...... R6 ...... Lednia tumana ...... ...... Stonefly, meltwater U.S.A. (MT). lednian. C* ...... 5 ...... R4 ...... Cicindela highlandensis Cicindelidae ...... Tiger beetle, highlands .. U.S.A. (FL).

CRUSTACEANS

C ...... 8 ...... R5 ...... kenki ...... ...... Amphipod, Kenk’s ...... U.S.A. (DC). PE ...... R5 ...... callainus ...... ...... Crayfish, Big Sandy ...... U.S.A. (KY, VA, WV). PE ...... R5 ...... Cambarus veteranus ..... Cambaridae ...... Crayfish, Guyandotte U.S.A. (WV). River. PE ...... 5 ...... R1 ...... Procaris hawaiana ...... Procarididae ...... Shrimp, anchialine pool U.S.A. (HI).

FLOWERING PLANTS

PT ...... 11 ...... R4 ...... Argythamnia blodgettii ... Euphorbiaceae ...... Silverbush, Blodgett’s .... U.S.A. (FL). C* ...... 3 ...... R1 ...... Artemisia borealis var. Asteraceae ...... Wormwood, northern ..... U.S.A. (OR, WA). wormskioldii. C* ...... 8 ...... R6 ...... Astragalus microcymbus Fabaceae ...... Milkvetch, skiff ...... U.S.A. (CO). C* ...... 8 ...... R6 ...... Astragalus schmolliae .... Fabaceae ...... Milkvetch, Chapin Mesa U.S.A. (CO). C* ...... 8 ...... R6 ...... Boechera (Arabis) pusilla Brassicaceae ...... Rockcress, Fremont U.S.A. (WY). County or small. PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... expansa ...... Reedgrass, Maui ...... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 9 ...... R4 ...... Chamaecrista lineata Fabaceae ...... Pea, Big Pine partridge U.S.A. (FL). var. keyensis. C* ...... 12 ...... R4 ...... Chamaesyce deltoidea Euphorbiaceae ...... Sandmat, pineland ...... U.S.A. (FL). pinetorum. PE ...... 9 ...... R4 ...... Chamaesyce deltoidea Euphorbiaceae ...... Spurge, wedge ...... U.S.A. (FL). serpyllum. C* ...... 6 ...... R8 ...... Chorizanthe parryi var. Polygonaceae ...... Spineflower, San Fer- U.S.A. (CA). fernandina. nando Valley. C* ...... 8 ...... R2 ...... Cirsium wrightii ...... Asteraceae ...... Thistle, Wright’s ...... U.S.A. (AZ, NM), Mex- ico. PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Cyanea kauaulaensis .... Campanulaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Cyperus neokunthianus Cyperaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Cyrtandra hematos ...... Gesneriaceae ...... Haiwale ...... U.S.A. (HI). C* ...... 3 ...... R4 ...... Dalea carthagenensis Fabaceae ...... Prairie-clover, Florida ..... U.S.A. (FL). var. floridana. C* ...... 2 ...... R5 ...... Dichanthelium hirstii ...... Poaceae ...... Panic grass, Hirst Broth- U.S.A. (DE, GA, NC, ers’. NJ). C* ...... 5 ...... R4 ...... Digitaria pauciflora ...... Poaceae ...... Crabgrass, Florida pine- U.S.A. (FL). land. C* ...... 8 ...... R6 ...... Eriogonum soredium ...... Polygonaceae ...... Buckwheat, Frisco ...... U.S.A. (UT). PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Exocarpos menziesii ...... Santalaceae ...... Heau ...... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Festuca hawaiiensis ...... Poaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). C* ...... 11 ...... R2 ...... Festuca ligulata ...... Poaceae ...... Fescue, Guadalupe ...... U.S.A. (TX), Mexico. PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Gardenia remyi ...... Rubiaceae ...... Nanu ...... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 3 ...... R1 ...... Joinvillea ascendens Joinvilleaceae ...... Ohe ...... U.S.A. (HI). ascendens. PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Kadua (=Hedyotis) Rubiaceae ...... Kampuaa ...... U.S.A. (HI). fluviatilis. PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Kadua haupuensis ...... Rubiaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Labordia lorenciana ...... Loganiaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Lepidium orbiculare ...... Brassicaceae ...... Anaunau ...... U.S.A. (HI). C* ...... 8 ...... R6 ...... Lepidium ostleri ...... Brassicaceae ...... Peppergrass, Ostler’s .... U.S.A. (UT). PE ...... — ...... R1 ...... Lepidium papilliferum ..... Brassicaceae ...... Peppergrass, slickspot ... U.S.A. (ID). PE ...... 5 ...... R4 ...... Linum arenicola ...... Linaceae ...... Flax, sand ...... U.S.A. (FL). PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Myrsine fosbergii ...... Myrsinaceae ...... Kolea ...... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Nothocestrum latifolium Solanaceae ...... Aiea ...... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Ochrosia haleakalae ...... Apocynaceae ...... Holei ...... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Phyllostegia brevidens ... Lamiaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Phyllostegia helleri ...... Lamiaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Phyllostegia stachyoides Lamiaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). C* ...... 8 ...... R6 ...... Pinus albicaulis ...... Pinaceae ...... Pine, whitebark ...... U.S.A. (CA, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA, WY), Can- ada (AB, BC). PT ...... 8 ...... R4 ...... Platanthera integrilabia .. Orchidaceae ...... Orchid, white fringeless U.S.A. (AL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA). PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Portulaca villosa ...... Portulacaceae ...... Ihi ...... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Pritchardia bakeri ...... Arecaceae ...... Loulu (=Loulu lelo) ...... U.S.A. (HI).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP3.SGM 24DEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 80612 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Notices

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

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

PE ...... 3 ...... R1 ...... Pseudognaphalium Asteraceae ...... Enaena ...... U.S.A. (HI). (=Gnaphalium) sandwicensium var. molokaiense. PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Ranunculus hawaiensis Ranunculaceae ...... Makou ...... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Ranunculus mauiensis ... Ranunculaceae ...... Makou ...... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Sanicula sandwicensis ... Apiaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Santalum involutum ...... Santalaceae ...... Iliahi ...... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 3 ...... R1 ...... Schiedea diffusa ssp. Caryophyllaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). diffusa. PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Schiedea pubescens ..... Caryophyllaceae ...... Maolioli ...... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Sicyos lanceoloideus ..... Cucurbitaceae ...... Anunu ...... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Sicyos macrophyllus ...... Cucurbitaceae ...... Anunu ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 12 ...... R4 ...... Sideroxylon reclinatum Sapotaceae ...... Bully, Everglades ...... U.S.A. (FL). austrofloridense. C* ...... 2 ...... R4 ...... Solanum conocarpum .... Solanaceae ...... Bacora, marron ...... U.S.A. (PR). PE ...... 8 ...... R1 ...... Solanum nelsonii ...... Solanaceae ...... Popolo ...... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 3 ...... R1 ...... Stenogyne kaalae ssp. Lamiaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). sherffii. C* ...... 8 ...... R2 ...... Streptanthus bracteatus Brassicaceae ...... Twistflower, bracted ...... U.S.A. (TX). C* ...... 8 ...... R6 ...... Trifolium friscanum ...... Fabaceae ...... Clover, Frisco ...... U.S.A. (UT). PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Wikstroemia Thymelaceae ...... Akia ...... U.S.A. (HI). skottsbergiana.

FERNS AND ALLIES

PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Asplenium diellaciniatum Aspleniaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 8 ...... R1 ...... Cyclosorus boydiae ...... Thelypteridaceae ...... Kupukupu makalii ...... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Deparia kaalaana ...... Athyraceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 3 ...... R1 ...... Dryopteris glabra var. Dryopteridaceae ...... Hohiu ...... U.S.A. (HI). pusilla. PE ...... 3 ...... R1 ...... Hypolepis hawaiiensis Dennstaedtiaceae ...... Olua ...... U.S.A. (HI). var. mauiensis. PE ...... 2 ...... R1 ...... Huperzia (= Lycopodiaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). Phlegmariurus) stemmermanniae. PE ...... 3 ...... R1 ...... Microlepia strigosa var. Dennstaedtiaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). mauiensis (= Microlepia mauiensis).

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

Status Lead re- Scientific name Family Common name Historical range Code Expl. gion

MAMMALS

T ...... L ...... R3 ...... Myotis septentrionalis ...... Bat, northern long-eared U.S.A. (AL, AR, CT, DE, DC, FL, GA, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, VT, VA, WV, WI, WY); Canada (AB, BC, LB, MB, NB, NF, NS, NT, ON, PE, QC, SK, YT). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Emballonura Emballonuridae ...... Bat, Pacific sheath-tailed U.S.A. (GU, CNMI). semicaudata rotensis. (Mariana Islands sub- species). Rc ...... U ...... R5 ...... Sylvilagus transitionalis .. Leporidae ...... Cottontail, New England U.S.A. (CT, MA, ME, NH, NY, RI, VT). Rc ...... U ...... R1 ...... Urocitellus endemicus .... Sciuridae ...... Squirrel, Southern Idaho U.S.A. (ID). ground.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP3.SGM 24DEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Notices 80613

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

Status Lead re- Scientific name Family Common name Historical range Code Expl. gion

E ...... L ...... R2 ...... Canis lupus baileyi ...... Canidae ...... Wolf, Mexican gray ...... U.S.A. (AZ, NM).

BIRDS

T ...... L ...... R5 ...... Calidris canutus rufa ...... Scolopacidae ...... Knot, red ...... U.S.A. (Atlantic coast), Canada, South Amer- ica. Rc ...... U ...... R6 ...... Centrocercus Phasianidae ...... Sage-grouse, greater ..... U.S.A. (AZ, CA, CO, ID, urophasianus. MT, ND, NE, NV, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY), Canada (AB, BC, SK). Rp ...... U ...... R8 ...... Centrocercus Phasianidae ...... Sage-grouse, greater (Bi- U.S.A. (AZ, CA, CO, ID, urophasianus. State DPS). MT, ND, NE, NV, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY), Canada (AB, BC, SK). Rc ...... N ...... R1 ...... Centrocercus Phasianidae ...... Sage-grouse, greater U.S.A. (AZ, CA, CO, ID, urophasianus. (Columbia Basin DPS). MT, ND, NE, NV, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY), Canada (AB, BC, SK). E ...... L ...... R6 ...... Centrocercus minimus .... Phasianidae ...... Sage-grouse, Gunnison U.S.A. (AZ, CO, NM, UT).

REPTILES

E ...... L ...... R1 ...... slevini ...... Scincidae ...... Skink, Slevin’s (Guali’ek U.S.A. (Guam, Mariana Halom Tano). Islands). T ...... L ...... R4 ...... Pituophis melanoleucus Colubridae ...... Snake, black pine ...... U.S.A. (AL, LA, MS). lodingi. Rc ...... A ...... R2 ...... Gopherus morafkai ...... Testudinidae ...... Tortoise, Sonoran desert U.S.A. (AZ, CA, NV, UT).

AMPHIBIANS

Rc ...... U ...... R8 ...... Rana luteiventris ...... Ranidae ...... Frog, Columbia spotted U.S.A. (AK, ID, MT, NV, (Great Basin DPS). OR, UT, WA, WY), Canada (BC).

FISHES

Rc ...... A ...... R4 ...... Etheostoma sagitta ...... Percidae ...... Darter, Cumberland U.S.A. (KY, TN). arrow.

SNAILS

E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Samoana fragilis ...... Partulidae ...... Snail, fragile tree ...... U.S.A. (GU, MP). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Partula radiolata ...... Partulidae ...... Snail, Guam tree ...... U.S.A. (GU). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Partula gibba ...... Partulidae ...... Snail, Humped tree ...... U.S.A. (GU, MP). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Partula langfordi ...... Partulidae ...... Snail, Langford’s tree ..... U.S.A. (MP). Rc ...... U ...... R2 ...... Pyrgulopsis morrisoni ..... Hydrobiidae ...... Springsnail, Page ...... U.S.A. (AZ).

INSECTS

E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Hypolimnas octucula Nymphalidae ...... Butterfly, Mariana eight- U.S.A. (GU, MP). mariannensis. spot. E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Vagrans egistina ...... Nymphalidae ...... Butterfly, Mariana wan- U.S.A. (GU, MP). dering. Rc ...... A ...... R4 ...... Glyphopsyche Limnephilidae ...... Caddisfly, Sequatchie ..... U.S.A. (TN). sequatchie. Rc ...... A ...... R4 ...... Pseudanophthalmus Carabidae ...... Cave beetle, Baker Sta- U.S.A. (TN). insularis. tion (= insular). Rc ...... A ...... R4 ...... Pseudanophthalmus Carabidae ...... Cave beetle, Coleman .... U.S.A. (TN). colemanensis. Rc ...... A ...... R4 ...... Pseudanophthalmus Carabidae ...... Cave beetle, Fowler’s ..... U.S.A. (TN). fowlerae. Rc ...... A ...... R4 ...... Pseudanophthalmus Carabidae ...... Cave beetle, Indian U.S.A. (TN). tiresias. Grave Point (= Sooth- sayer). Rc ...... A ...... R4 ...... Pseudanophthalmus in- Carabidae ...... Cave beetle, inquirer ...... U.S.A. (TN). quisitor.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:50 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP3.SGM 24DEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 80614 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Notices

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

Status Lead re- Scientific name Family Common name Historical range Code Expl. gion

Rc ...... A ...... R4 ...... Pseudanophthalmus pau- Carabidae ...... Cave beetle, Noblett’s .... U.S.A. (TN). lus. E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Ischnura luta ...... Coenagrionidae ...... Damselfly, Rota blue ...... U.S.A. (Mariana Islands). Rc ...... U ...... R8 ...... Ambrysus funebris ...... Naucoridae ...... Naucorid bug (= Furnace U.S.A. (CA). Creek), Nevares Spring. T ...... L ...... R3 ...... Hesperia dacotae ...... Hesperiidae ...... Skipper, Dakota ...... U.S.A. (MN, IA, IL, SD, ND), Canada. E ...... L ...... R3 ...... Oarisma poweshiek ...... Hesperiidae ...... Skipperling, Poweshiek .. U.S.A. (IA, IL, IN, MI, MN, ND, SD, WI), Canada (MB).

CRUSTACEANS

Rc ...... I ...... R1 ...... Metabetaeus lohena ...... Alpheidae ...... Shrimp, anchialine pool .. U.S.A. (HI). Rc ...... I ...... R1 ...... Palaemonella burnsi ...... Palaemonidae ...... Shrimp, anchialine pool .. U.S.A. (HI).

FLOWERING PLANTS

Rc ...... U ...... R8 ...... Abronia alpina ...... Nyctaginaceae ...... Sand-verbena, Ramshaw U.S.A. (CA). Meadows. Rc ...... U ...... R6 ...... Astragalus anserinus ...... Fabaceae ...... Milkvetch, Goose Creek U.S.A. (ID, NV, UT). Rc ...... A ...... R6 ...... Astragalus tortipes ...... Fabaceae ...... Milkvetch, Sleeping Ute .. U.S.A. (CO). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Bulbophyllum guamense Orchidaceae ...... Cebello halumtano ...... U.S.A. (Guam, Mariana Islands). Rc ...... U ...... R8 ...... Calochortus persistens ... Liliaceae ...... Mariposa lily, Siskiyou .... U.S.A. (CA, OR). T ...... L ...... R1 ...... Cycas micronesica ...... Cycadaceae ...... Fadang ...... U.S.A. (Guam, Mariana Islands). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Dendrobium guamens .... Orchidaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (Guam, Mariana Islands). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Eugenia bryanii ...... Myrtaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (Guam). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Hedyotis megalantha ...... Rubiaceae ...... Paudedo ...... U.S.A. (Guam). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... longipetiolata .... ...... Ufa-halomtano ...... U.S.A. (Guam, Mariana Islands). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Maesa walkeri ...... Primulaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (Guam, Mariana Islands). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Nervilia jacksoniae ...... Orchidaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (Guam, Mariana Islands). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Phyllanthus saffordii ...... Phyllanthaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (Guam). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Psychotria malaspinae ... Rubiaceae ...... Aplokating-palaoan ...... U.S.A. (Guam). Rc ...... U ...... R8 ...... Rorippa subumbellata .... Brassicaceae ...... Cress, Tahoe yellow ...... U.S.A. (CA, NV). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Solanum guamense ...... Solanaceae ...... Bereng-henas halomtano U.S.A. (Guam, Mariana Islands). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Tinospora homosepala ... Menispermaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A (Guam). T ...... L ...... R1 ...... Tabernaemontana Apocynaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (Guam, Mariana rotensis. Islands). E ...... L ...... R1 ...... Tuberolabium guamense Orchidaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (Guam, Mariana Islands). FERNS AND ALLIES

E ...... L ...... R4 ...... Trichomanes punctatum Hymenophyllaceae ...... Florida bristle fern ...... U.S.A. (FL). floridanum.

[FR Doc. 2015–32284 Filed 12–23–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\24DEP3.SGM 24DEP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3