Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 195 (Thursday, October 8, 2015) 2015 Federal Register, 80 FR 60834-60850; Centralized Library: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 195 (Thursday, October 8, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60834-60850]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25058]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0143; 4500030113]

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Findings
on Petitions To List 19 Species as Endangered or Threatened Species

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition findings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, FWS, or
USFWS), announce 12-month findings on petitions to list 19 species as
endangered species or threatened species under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After review of the best available
scientific and commercial information, we find that listing the
American eel, Cumberland arrow darter, the Great Basin distinct
population segment (DPS) of the Columbia spotted frog, Goose Creek
milkvetch, Nevares spring bug, Page springsnail, Ramshaw meadows sand-
verbena, Sequatchie caddisfly, Shawnee darter, Siskiyou mariposa lily,
Sleeping ute milkvetch, Southern Idaho ground squirrel, Tahoe yellow
cress, and six Tennessee cave beetles (Baker Station, Coleman,
Fowler's, Indian Grave Point, inquirer, and Noblett's cave beetles) is
not warranted at this time. However, we ask the public to submit to us
any new information that becomes available concerning the threats to
any of the 19 species listed above or their habitat at any time.

DATES: The findings announced in this document were made on October 8,
2015.

ADDRESSES: These findings are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number

[[Page 60835]]

FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0143. Supporting information used in preparing these
findings is available for public inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours by contacting the appropriate person as specified
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning these
findings to the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Contact information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
American eel........................... Northeast Regional Office,
Endangered Species Program,
413-253-8615.
Cumberland arrow darter................ Kentucky Ecological Services
Field Office, 502-695-0468.
Great Basin DPS of the Columbia spotted Nevada Fish and Wildlife
frog. Office, 775-861-6300.
Goose Creek milkvetch.................. Utah Ecological Services Field
Office, 801-975-3330.
Nevares spring naucorid bug............ Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife
Office, 760-431-9440.
Page springsnail....................... Arizona Ecological Services
Field Office, 602-242-0210.
Ramshaw meadows sand-verbena........... Sacramento Fish and Wildlife
Office, 916-414-6700.
Sequatchie caddisfly................... Tennessee Ecological Services
Field Office, 931-528-6481.
Shawnee darter......................... Kentucky Ecological Services
Field Office, 502-695-0468.
Siskiyou mariposa lily................. Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office,
530-842-5763.
Sleeping ute milkvetch................. Western Colorado Ecological
Services Field Office, 970-628-
7184.
Southern Idaho ground squirrel......... Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office,
208-378-5265.
Tahoe yellow cress..................... Nevada Fish and Wildlife
Office, 775-861-6300.
Tennessee cave beetles (Baker Station, Tennessee Ecological Services
Coleman, Fowler's, Indian Grave Point, Field Office, 931-528-6481.
inquirer, and Noblett's cave beetles).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) requires that, for
any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing an animal or plant species may be
warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of
the petition. In this finding, we determine whether the petitioned
actions regarding the American eel, Cumberland arrow darter, the Great
Basin distinct population segment (DPS) of the Columbia spotted frog,
Goose Creek milkvetch, Nevares spring bug, Page springsnail, Ramshaw
meadows sand-verbena, Sequatchie caddisfly, Shawnee darter, Siskiyou
mariposa lily, Sleeping ute milkvetch, Southern Idaho ground squirrel,
Tahoe yellow cress, and six Tennessee cave beetles (Baker Station,
Coleman, Fowler's, Indian Grave Point, inquirer, and Noblett's cave
beetles) are: (1) Not warranted, (2) warranted, or (3) warranted, but
the immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned
action is precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether
species are endangered or threatened species, and expeditious progress
is being made to add or remove qualified species from the Federal Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (warranted but
precluded). Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we treat a
petition for which the requested action is found to be warranted but
precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such finding, that is,
requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 months. We must
publish these 12-month findings in the Federal Register.

Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations in part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing
species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of
the Act, a species may be determined to be an endangered species or a
threatened species based on any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
We summarize below the information on which we based our evaluation
of the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act in
determining whether the American eel, Cumberland arrow darter, the
Great Basin DPS of the Columbia spotted frog, Goose Creek milkvetch,
Nevares spring bug, Page springsnail, Ramshaw meadows sand-verbena,
Sequatchie caddisfly, Shawnee darter, Siskiyou mariposa lily, Sleeping
ute milkvetch, Southern Idaho ground squirrel, Tahoe yellow cress, and
six Tennessee cave beetles (Baker Station, Coleman, Fowler's, Indian
Grave Point, inquirer, and Noblett's cave beetles) are threatened
species or endangered species. More detailed information about these
species is presented in the species-specific assessment forms found on
www.regulations.gov. In considering what factors might constitute
threats, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the
factor to determine whether the species responds to the factor in a way
that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a
factor, but no response, or only a positive response, that factor is
not a threat. If there is exposure and the species responds negatively,
the factor may be a threat. In that case, we determine if that factor
rises to the level of a threat, meaning that it may drive or contribute
to the risk of extinction of the species such that the species warrants
listing as an endangered or threatened species as those terms are
defined by the Act. This does not necessarily require empirical proof
of a threat. The combination of exposure and some corroborating
evidence of how the species is likely affected could suffice. The mere
identification of factors that could affect a species negatively is not
sufficient to compel a finding that listing is appropriate; we require
evidence that these factors are operative threats that act on the
species to the point that the species meets the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened species under the Act.
In making our 12-month findings, we considered and evaluated the
best

[[Page 60836]]

available scientific and commercial information.

American Eel (Anguilla rostrata)

Previous Federal Actions

For a complete petition history for the American eel prior to
September 2011, see the Previous Federal Action section of our
September 29, 2011, 90-day substantial petition finding. Publication of
the 90-day finding in the Federal Register (September 29, 2011; 76 FR
60431) opened a period to solicit new information that was not
previously available or was not considered at the time of our previous
2007 status review and not-warranted 12-month finding (February 2,
2007; 72 FR 4967), and initiated a new status review.
On December 23, 2011, the petitioner (Center for Environmental
Science Accuracy and Reliability (CESAR), formerly known as the Council
for Endangered Species Act Reliability) filed a Notice of Intent to sue
the Service for failure to publish a finding within 12 months of
receiving the April 30, 2010, petition. On August 7, 2012, CESAR filed
a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
for the Service's failure to meet the petition's statutory timeline. On
April 24, 2013, the Service entered into a court-approved settlement
agreement with CESAR stipulating that the Service would complete a
status review of American eel and deliver a 12-month finding to the
Federal Register on or before September 30, 2015 (Stipulated Settlement
Agreement, Center for Envt'l Science Accuracy and Reliability v.
Salazar, et al. (D.D.C., Case No. 1:12-cv-01311-EGS), Doc. 18, filed
April 24, 2013.).
To ensure the status review was based on the best scientific and
commercial information available, the Service, in November 2013 through
January 2014, requested any new or updated American eel information
since the 2007 status review. The requests were sent to State and
Federal agencies, Native American tribes, nongovernmental agencies, and
other interested parties. In addition to any new or updated
information, the requests specifically sought information related to
panmixia, glass eel recruitment, climate change, oceanographic
conditions, and eel abundance at fishways. See the lists of references
reviewed and cited for a list of agencies, organizations, and parties
from which we received information; these reference lists are available
at http://www.regulations.gov and at http://www.fws.gov/northeast/newsroom/eels.html.

Summary of Status Review

In making our 12-month finding on the petition, we consider and
evaluate the best available scientific and commercial information. This
evaluation includes information from all sources, including State,
Federal, tribal, academic, and private entities and the public.
However, because we have a robust history with the American eel and
completed a thorough status review for the species in 2007, we are
incorporating by reference the February 7, 2007, 12-month finding (72
FR 4967) and using its information as a baseline for our 2015 status
review and 12-month petition finding.
A supporting document entitled, American Eel Biological Species
Report (Report) provides a summary of the current (post 2007)
literature and information regarding the American eel's distribution,
habitat requirements, life-history, and stressors. The Report is
available as a Supplemental Document at http://www.fws.gov/northeast/newsroom/eels.html. We describe in the Report or in our 12-month
finding document any substantive changes that we identified in the data
used in the February 7, 2007, 12-month finding or in conclusions drawn
from that data, based upon our review of the best available scientific
and commercial information since 2007.
American eel are a facultative catadromous fish species, meaning
they commonly use brackish estuaries or near-shore marine habitats, in
addition to the freshwater habitats. After mature eels spawn in the
Sargasso Sea, the eggs hatch into ``leptocephali,'' a larval stage that
lasts for about 1 year. Leptocephali are transported by ocean currents
from the Sargasso Sea to the Atlantic coast of North America, the
Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, Central America and northern portions of
South America. Leptocephali metamorphose into ``glass eels'' while at
sea and then actively swim across the continental shelf to coastal
waters. Glass eels transform into small pigmented juvenile eels,
commonly called ``elvers,'' after taking up residence in marine,
estuarine, or freshwater rearing habitats in coastal waters. As they
grow, the larger juvenile eels are known as ``yellow eels.'' American
eels begin sexual differentiation at a length of about 20 to 25
centimeters (7.9 to 9.8 inches), well in advance of maturation as a
``silver eel.'' Upon nearing sexual maturity, silver eels begin
migration toward the Sargasso Sea, completing sexual maturation en
route. In the United States, the American eel is found in fresh,
estuarine, and marine waters in 36 States. The upstream extent of eel
distribution in freshwater is limited by impassable dams and natural
barriers. American eel are ubiquitous in many continental aquatic
habitats including marine habitats, estuaries, lakes, ponds, small
streams, and large rivers to the headwaters. They may be locally
abundant to the extent that they sometimes constitute a large
proportion of the total fish biomass in many watersheds.
The 2007 Status Review and the 2015 Report reviewed a number of
stressors (natural or human induced negative pressures affecting
individuals or subpopulations of a species) on the American eel,
including the effects of climate change; parasites; habitat loss in
estuaries, lakes, and rivers; migratory effects from hydroelectric
projects; recreational and commercial harvests; and contaminants.
In terms of climate change, North Atlantic Ocean temperatures may
continue to rise as a result of climate change, but a great deal of
uncertainty remains regarding changes in physical oceanographic
processes and how, or to what extent, those processes will affect eel
migration, aggregation for reproduction, and ultimately abundance. The
species report discusses in detail the complex subject of climate
change and its foreseeable effects on the species. Based on our review
of the best available scientific and commercial information, we
conclude that climate change, based on its reasonably foreseeable
effects, is not a threat to the American eel that puts it in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, nor is it
reasonably foreseeable that it would become such a threat in the
future.
As for parasites, despite the spread of Anguillicoloides crassus
and increasing mean infection rates over time, there is no direct
evidence to support a conclusion that the parasite causes significant
American eel mortality. Nor is there direct evidence to support or
refute the hypotheses that A. crassus impairs the silvering process,
prevents American eels from completing their spawning migration to the
Sargasso Sea, or impairs spawning.
With regard to habitat loss, American eel have been extirpated from
some portions of their historical range, mostly as a result of large
hydroelectric and water storage dams built since the early twentieth
century. Although dams have extirpated eels from some large rivers and
certain headwaters, the species remains widely distributed over the
majority of its historical range. We consider habitat loss from
barriers to be a historical effect, and any population-

[[Page 60837]]

level effects likely have already been realized. The extensive range of
American eel provides multiple freshwater and estuarine areas that
support the species' life stages and thus buffer the species as a whole
from stressors affecting individuals or smaller populations in any one
area. Currently, ocean habitats and the full range of continental
habitats (estuaries, lakes, and rivers) remain available and occupied
by the American eel. Some American eels complete their life cycle
without ever entering freshwater. Highly fecund females continue to be
present in extensive areas of freshwater (lacustrine and riverine),
estuarine, and marine habitats; males also continue to be present in
these habitats. Recruitment of glass eels continues to occur in these
habitats with no evidence of continuing reduction in glass eel
recruitment. For these reasons, we conclude that the available
freshwater, estuarine, and marine habitats are sufficient to sustain
the American eel population.
With regard to migratory effects from hydroelectric projects,
hydroelectric dams are obstacles that may delay the downstream
migration of silver eels that mature in riverine habitats, and
hydroelectric turbines can cause mortality or injury (eels that mature
and migrate from estuary or marine habitats downstream are not affected
by hydroelectric dams). The effects of turbine injury, including
delayed mortality and possible impaired reproduction and increased
predation risk, are poorly understood in the American eel. The best
scientific and commercial information available indicates that
mortality from hydroelectric turbines can cause significant mortality
to downstream-migrating silver eels. The installation of effective
downstream passage measures (i.e., bypasses or night spillage) through
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission relicensing process has
reduced, and continues to reduce this mortality.
In terms of recreational and commercial harvest, we continue to
acknowledge that sometimes large numbers of individual American eel are
recreationally or commercially harvested for food, bait, or
aquaculture, but we conclude that harvest and trade are not threats to
the American eel. The species is highly resilient, and remains a widely
distributed fish species with a relatively stable population despite
the levels of historical habitat loss and historical and current
commercial and recreational harvest. That harvest is being managed and
monitored via existing harvest quotas, licenses, and reporting
requirements to ensure the species' conservation.
In addition, contaminants may affect early life stages of the
American eel, but without specific information, we remain cautious in
extrapolation of laboratory studies to rangewide population-level
effects (e.g., there are no studies showing reduced recruitment of
glass eels in the wild, which would be an indicator of decreased
outmigration, or decreased egg or leptocephali survival). A correlation
between the contamination of the upper Saint Lawrence River/Lake
Ontario watershed and the timing of the 1980s decline of American eel
in the upper Saint Lawrence River/Lake Ontario watershed is not
evident.
Lastly, there are no individual stressors that rise to the level of
a threat to the American eel. Some stressors can have cumulative
effects and result in increased mortality. For example, the Report
discusses known cumulative and synergistic interactions of various
contaminants and known cumulative effects of increased predation and
mortality at or below dams that block eel migration. While some
individual American eels may be exposed to increased levels of
mortality as a result of these contaminant or predation cumulative
effects, we have no indication that the species is, or will be,
significantly affected at a population level. Therefore, we conclude
that there are no cumulative stressors that are a threat to the
American eel now, or that will become a threat in the foreseeable
future.
The best available information indicates that, American eel are a
single panmictic population that lacks distinct population structure,
breeds in the Sargasso Sea, and shares a single common gene pool.
Panmixia is central to evaluating stressors to the American eel since,
in order for any stressor to rise to the level of a threat (natural or
human-induced pressure affecting a species as a whole), it must act
upon a large portion of the population at some life-history focal
point, or the stressor must be present throughout a large part of the
species' range. And the stressor must elicit a response that results in
significant mortality, impaired reproduction, or juvenile recruitment
failure.
Several lines of evidence indicate that the American eel population
is not subject to threats that would imperil its continued existence.
Despite historical habitat losses and a population reduction over the
past century, American eels remain widely distributed throughout a
large part of their historical range. Glass eels are recruited to North
American rivers in large numbers. Elvers are also present in large
numbers well inland on some east coast river systems--for example, more
than 820,000 eels passed through a new fishway at the Roanoke Rapids
Dam, located 137 miles inland on the Roanoke River in 2013, the fourth
year of operation. American eels are plastic in their behavior and
adaptability, inhabiting a wide range of freshwater, estuarine, and
marine habitats over an exceptionally broad geographic range. Because
of the species' panmixia, areas that have experienced depletion or
extirpation may experience a ``rescue effect'' allowing for continued
or renewed occupation of available areas. Trends in abundance over
recent decades vary among locations and life stages, showing decreases
in some areas, and increases or no trends in other areas. Limited
records of glass eel recruitment do not show trends that would signal
recent declines in annual reproductive success or the effect of new or
increased stressors. Taken as a whole, a clear trend cannot be detected
in species-wide abundance during recent decades, and, while
acknowledging that there have been large declines in abundance from
historical times, the species currently appears to be depleted but
stable. While some eel habitat has been permanently lost and access to
freshwater habitats is impaired by dams that lack upstream fish
passage, access to freshwater habitat has improved, and continues to
improve, in other areas through new or improved eel ladders and removal
of barriers. Despite the loss of some freshwater habitat, the American
eel population appears to be stable based on young-of-the-year indices
and estimates of spawner abundance. In addition, since 2007, newer
information indicates that some American eel complete their life cycle
in estuarine and marine waters.

Finding

Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the stressors
are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate
that the American eel is in danger of extinction (an endangered
species), or likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future (a threatened species), throughout all of its range.
There are no threats currently affecting the American eel
throughout the species' range. There are several stressors that cause
individual mortality, including recreational and commercial harvest
(Factor B),

[[Page 60838]]

predation (Factor C), and hydroelectric turbines (Factor E), but none
that affect a portion of the species' range more than another. In
addition, there are no portions of the species' range that are
considered significant given the species' panmictic life-history.
Therefore, we find that no portion of the American eel's range warrants
further consideration of possible endangered or threatened status under
the Act, and we find that listing the American eel as a threatened or
endangered species throughout all or a significant portion of its range
is not warranted at this time.

Cumberland Arrow Darter (Etheostoma sagitta)

Previous Federal Actions

The Cumberland arrow darter was first identified as a candidate for
protection under the Act through our internal process in the Candidate
Notice of Review published in the November 21, 2012, Federal Register
(77 FR 69994); the subspecies was identified at the time as E. sagitta
sagitta. Threats to the subspecies identified at that time were water
pollution from surface coal mining and gas exploration activities;
removal of riparian vegetation; stream channelization; increased
siltation associated with poor mining, logging, and agricultural
practices; and deforestation of watersheds. It was assigned a listing
priority number (LPN) of 9. On November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), the LPN
was changed to 8 due to morphological and genetic analysis resulting in
the recognition of Cumberland arrow darter as a species (E. sagitta) as
opposed to a subspecies, which it remained until evaluation for listing
this year.

Summary of Status Review

The following summary is based on information in our files. From
2010 to 2012, the Service and its partners (Kentucky Department of Fish
and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR), Kentucky State Nature Preserve
Commission (KSNPC), and Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA))
completed a range-wide status assessment for the Cumberland arrow
darter (USFWS 2012, pp. 1-2). We first generated a list of historical
(pre-2000) records through review of agency databases (KDFWR, KSNPC,
and TWRA), museum records (University of Tennessee), and published
literature. From 2010 through 2012, surveys were completed at 187 of
202 historical sites and in 124 of 128 historical streams (sites
corresponded to individual sampling reaches and more than one could be
present on a given stream). Surveys were also conducted at other sites/
streams where habitat conditions appeared to be suitable for the
species. When first considered for candidate status in early 2012,
status surveys were still ongoing, and the species had been observed in
72 of 123 historical sites visited (58 percent) and 60 of 101
historical streams visited (59 percent). More comprehensive surveys in
Tennessee in late 2012 and additional surveys in Kentucky in 2013-2014
expanded the species' known range to 98 streams, including 119 of 187
historical sites visited (64 percent), 85 of 128 historical streams
visited (66 percent), and 13 new (non-historical) streams (USFWS 2012,
pp. 1-2; USFWS unpublished data). New distributional records were
obtained during each year of sampling, primarily from the middle and
western portions of the species' geographical range. Within Kentucky,
the species was observed at 87 of 143 sites (61 percent) and in 61 of
100 streams (61 percent). Within Tennessee, the species was observed at
32 of 44 sites (73 percent) and in 24 of 30 streams (80 percent). [Note
that 2 of the historical streams surveyed occur in both Kentucky and
Tennessee and are, therefore, included in each of the State totals
provided in the previous sentences (i.e., 100 and 30, respectively.]
The species' most significant declines were documented within the Poor
Fork, Clover Fork, Straight Creek, Clear Creek, and Clear Fork
drainages, all of which are located within the eastern half of the
species' geographical range. This portion of the upper Cumberland River
drainage has less public ownership than the western half of the
drainage and has been impacted more extensively by surface coal mining.
Over the last 3 years, new field surveys and monitoring efforts
across the Cumberland arrow darter's range have improved our
understanding of the species' distribution and stressors. Based on
these findings, we have reexamined the species' status and reevaluated
the magnitude and imminence of its stressors. We acknowledge that the
species has suffered declines in portions of its range (e.g., it has
been extirpated from 43 of 128 historical streams) and portions of the
range continue to suffer some level of water quality degradation and
habitat disturbance. However, we have determined that the species'
overall status is more secure than previously believed, and stressors
acting on the species are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or
magnitude to indicate the species is in danger of extinction (an
endangered species), or likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future (a threatened species). The Cumberland arrow
darter's status is bolstered by its large number of occupied streams
(98) and its frequent occurrence in streams on public lands and in
streams with listed species (e.g., blackside dace). In support of this
not-warranted finding, we offer the following specifics with regard to
its status:
The species' range (number of extant streams) is larger
than first believed. When first identified as a candidate for listing
in 2012, the Cumberland arrow darter was known from 72 of 123
historical sites visited (58 percent) and 60 of 101 historical streams
visited (59 percent). More comprehensive surveys in Tennessee and
additional surveys in Kentucky from 2012 through 2014 expanded the
species' known range to 98 streams, including 85 of 128 historical
streams (66 percent) and 13 new streams. The species' relatively broad
distribution and high number of occupied streams increases its
resiliency and redundancy.
The species has demonstrated greater persistence in
streams with at least 1 listed species (62 streams) or in streams
located on public lands (45 streams). When combined, these two groups
total 75 streams, or 77 percent of the species' known habitats.
Historically, less habitat disturbance has occurred on public lands,
and many of the species' best remaining habitats are located in these
areas. The Cumberland arrow darter also benefits indirectly from listed
species' protections provided by Federal and State statutes and
regulations, especially in Kentucky where State water quality
regulations (401 Kentucky Administrative Regulations 10:031, Section 8)
provide added protections for streams supporting listed species
(``Outstanding State Resource Waters'').
The species utilizes larger streams more frequently than previously
believed, bolstering the species' redundancy, resiliency, and
representation (capacity of a species to adapt to changing
environmental conditions). We have recent records (multiple individuals
each) from Capuchin Creek, Elk Fork Creek, Jellico Creek (at Criscillis
Branch), Marsh Creek (near mouth), and Roaring Paunch Creek, all of
which are fourth-order streams or larger and have watersheds exceeding
65 square kilometers (25 square miles). This information suggests the
species utilizes more stream kilometers (miles) than previously
believed because most survey efforts have focused on smaller streams
(third-order and smaller). The species'

[[Page 60839]]

presence in these habitats protects against stochastic and catastrophic
events (e.g., drying, floods, or pollution events) that can occur
across the species' range.

Finding

We evaluated the stressors to the Cumberland arrow darter and
considered factors that, individually and in combination, presently or
potentially could pose a risk to the species and its habitat. Based on
our analysis of these stressors and our review of the species' current
status, we conclude that listing this species under the Act is not
warranted, because this species is not in danger of extinction, and is
not likely to become in danger of extinction throughout all of its
within the foreseeable future. We evaluated the current range of the
Cumberland arrow darter to determine if there is any apparent
geographic concentration of potential threats for this species. We
examined potential threats, and found that potential impacts (e.g.,
water quality degradation) associated with surface coal mining and
other land uses (e.g., residential development) are greater in the
eastern half of the species' geographical range (e.g., water quality
degradation is more common within this part of the range, and more
extirpations have occurred there).
To determine if this portion of the range was significant, we
evaluated its contribution and importance to the species' overall
viability. Even though the species has been extirpated from multiple
streams within the eastern half of the geographical range, we do not
consider this portion of the range to be so important that, without the
members in that portion, the species in the remainder of the range
would be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future, throughout all of its range (i.e., the loss of this
portion clearly would not be expected to increase the vulnerability to
extinction of the entire species). The species continues to occupy 98
streams across its entire range. A total of 75 of these streams (77
percent) either support a listed species (62 streams) or occur on
publicly owned lands (45 streams) where disturbance is minimal (e.g.,
Daniel Boone National Forest). The eastern half of the species'
geographical range continues to support multiple viable populations; 17
occupied streams, 15 of which are in public ownership or are occupied
by a listed species. Given the hypothetical loss of the geographical
eastern portion of the species range, the Cumberland arrow darter would
still occupy 81 streams, 60 of which are in public ownership are
occupied by a listed species. Therefore, we do not consider the eastern
half of the species geographical range to constitute a significant
portion of the species' range. Because this portion of the range is not
significant, we conclude that the species is not in danger of
extinction (an endangered species) nor likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future (a threatened species), throughout all or
a significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the
Cumberland arrow darter as an endangered or threatened species under
the Act is not warranted at this time. Therefore, we no longer consider
it to be a candidate species for listing.

Great Basin DPS of the Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris)

Previous Federal Actions

On May 4, 1989, we received a petition dated May 1, 1989, from
Peter Hoving, Chairman, Issues Committee, requesting that the spotted
frog be listed as a threatened species under the Act. In 1993, we
announced a finding on the petition where we found five populations of
the spotted frog warranted listing (58 FR 27260; May 7, 1993). On
September 19, 1997, we announced our acceptance of species-specific
genetic and geographic differences in spotted frogs and we added the
Great Basin distinct population segment of the Columbia spotted frog to
the candidate list with a listing priority number (LPN) of 3 (62 FR
49402). In the December 6, 2007,Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR) (72
FR 69039), we announced a change in LPN from 3 to 9 for this entity. In
subsequent annual CNOR publications, we maintained our determination of
LPN of 9 for this species.

Summary of Status Review

The Columbia spotted frog (Great Basin DPS) occurs in Nevada,
southwestern Idaho, and southeastern Oregon. The Columbia spotted frog
is a slim-waisted, long-legged, smooth-skinned frog measuring between 2
to 4 inches. Dorsal colors and pattern include light brown, dark brown,
or gray, with small spots. Ventral coloration can differ among
geographic population units and may range from yellow to salmon with
mottled throat regions.
Columbia spotted frogs in the Great Basin have been affected
primarily by the remaining effects of past habitat destruction and
modification, which caused increased habitat fragmentation and
isolation. Livestock grazing, mining activities, beaver management,
water development, predation, disease, and the effects of climate
change have also been identified as potential threats to the species.
Heavy use by livestock has been shown to be detrimental to Columbia
spotted frog habitat in localized areas. Livestock grazing and
development of springs for livestock and agricultural purposes occur or
have occurred throughout the Great Basin and resulted in an
unquantifiable loss of riparian and wetland habitats used by the
species. However, springs developed into ponds for the purposes of
watering livestock have resulted in the creation and maintenance of
persistent, high quality breeding and rearing habitat for the species
in portions of the species range.. Mining has been shown to have
localized impacts to populations but has a relatively low influence on
a rangewide basis. Historical trapping nearly extirpated beaver from
the Great Basin; however, beaver populations have rebounded and occupy
the majority of its historical range but at lower densities. Harvest of
beaver continues throughout the Great Basin but does not seem to be
negatively impacting the beaver population as a whole within the Great
Basin. However, there is little information on the impacts of harvest
at the local watershed level to analyze impacts at this finer scale.
The ability of beavers to restore degraded stream systems and the
resulting habitat modification from their dams which keeps water on the
landscape longer is becoming recognized as an important restoration
technique (Gibson and Olden 2014, pp. 399-401; Pollack et al. 2014, pp.
284-286).
Nonnative fish and amphibian predators occur within the range of
Columbia spotted frogs. The level of impact from predation is variable
across the species' range, and depends on the quality of habitat
(availability of cover and shelter). These nonnative predators can also
introduce and help spread diseases and pathogens. However, current
population-level effects of both predation and disease (pathogens and
parasites) have not been documented within the Great Basin; therefore,
we conclude that predation and disease are not negatively affecting
Columbia spotted frogs in the Great Basin at this time nor do we expect
them to in the near future.
Climate change has affected, and is expected to continue to affect,
Great Basin ecosystems; however, the impacts to permanent water sources
and to Columbia spotted frog populations are not well documented. The
available data does not indicate whether any effects from climate
change will have population-level effects within a

[[Page 60840]]

reasonably foreseeable period of time. Based on this variability and
uncertainty of the exact effects of climate change on the Columbia
spotted frog Great Basin DPS within its range, we cannot reasonably
determine that the effects of climate change are likely to have a
population-level impact on the species now or in the foreseeable
future.
Many of the stressors discussed above do not act alone. Multiple
stressors can alter the effects of other stressors or act
synergistically to affect individuals and populations. For example,
Kiesecker and Blaustein (1995, pp. 11050-11051) describe how UV-B acts
with a pathogen to increase embryonic mortality above levels shown with
either factor alone. Interactions between current land uses and
changing climate or other environmental conditions may cause shifts in
populations, communities, and ecosystems or may increase an
individual's susceptibility to infection, disease, or predation (Hansen
et al. 2001, p. 767; IPCC 2002, p. 22). However, the best available
scientific information does not indicate that multiple stressors acting
in combination or synergistically currently rising to the level of
being identified as a stressor to the Great Basin DPS of Columbia
spotted frogs and we therefore conclude that they do not cumulatively
pose a threat to the species at this time nor do we expect them to do
so in the future.
Conservation efforts are occurring in many areas across the range
of the Columbia spotted frog. A 10-year Conservation Agreement and
Strategy has been implemented in Nevada since 2003. Due to the success
of the Conservation Agreement and Strategy in managing and conserving
Columbia spotted frogs in Nevada, a revised 10-year agreement (2015-
2024) was signed in February 2015. In 2006, a Candidate Conservation
Agreement with Assurances was developed for a population in Idaho. An
increase in monitoring has improved our knowledge of the distribution
of the species, as well as improved knowledge of demography in several
populations. Improved grazing management in some locations has
contributed to improved stream and riparian habitat in some areas.
Creating ponded habitat has also improved numerous occupied sites
throughout the Great Basin, as well as in other parts of the species'
range. All three States include Columbia spotted frog on their list of
protected species.

Finding

Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the stressors
acting on the species and its habitat, either singly or in combination,
are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate
that the Great Basin DPS of the Columbia spotted frog is in danger of
extinction (an endangered species), or likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future (a threatened species), throughout all of
its range. This finding is based on additional populations that have
been found since the species was first identified as a candidate, the
relatively stable population and distribution of the species, and
conservation management that is occurring throughout the species' range
for impacts to both the habitat and the species. Because the
distribution of the species is relatively stable across its range and
stressors are similar throughout the species' range, we found no
concentration of stressors that suggests that the Great Basin DPS of
the Columbia spotted frog may be in danger of extinction in any portion
of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the Great Basin DPS of
the Columbia spotted frog as a threatened or an endangered species or
maintaining the species as a candidate is not warranted throughout all
or a significant portion of its range at this time, and consequently we
are removing it from candidate status.

Goose Creek Milkvetch (Astragalus anserinus)

Previous Federal Actions

On February 3, 2004, we received a petition dated January 30, 2004,
from Red Willow Research, Inc., and 25 other concerned parties,
including the Prairie Falcon Audubon Society Chapter Board, Western
Watersheds Project, Utah Environmental Congress, Sawtooth Group of the
Sierra Club, and 21 private citizens. The petitioners requested that we
list Goose Creek milkvetch as a threatened or an endangered species,
emergency list the species, and designate critical habitat concurrently
with the listing (Red Willow Research Inc, in litt. 2004). The petition
contained information on the natural history of Goose Creek milkvetch,
its population status, and potential threats to the species. Potential
threats discussed in the petition include the destruction and
modification of habitat, disease and predation, inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms, and other natural and manmade factors such as
exotic and noxious weed invasions and road construction and
maintenance. The petition clearly identified itself as a petition, and
included the requisite identification information as required in 50 CFR
424.14(a).
In a February 19, 2004, letter to the petitioners, we responded
that our initial review of the petition for Goose Creek milkvetch
determined that an emergency listing was not warranted, and that due to
court orders and judicially approved settlement agreements for other
listing actions, we would not be able to further address the petition
to list the species at that time. On August 16, 2007, we published a
notice of 90-day finding that the petition presented substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing Goose
Creek milkvetch may be warranted, and we were initiating a status
review of the species (72 FR 46023). A 60-day public comment period
followed.
Our subsequent 12-month finding identified Goose Creek milkvetch as
a species for which listing as an endangered species or threatened
species was warranted but was precluded due to higher priority listing
decisions, and we assigned Goose Creek milkvetch a listing priority
number of 5 (74 FR 46521; September 10, 2009). Following the finding,
we completed annual Candidate Notices of Review in 2010 (75 FR 69222;
November 10, 2010), 2011 (76 FR 66370; October 6, 2011), 2012 (77 FR
69994; November 21, 2012), 2013 (78 FR 70104; November 22, 2013), and
2014 (79 FR 72449; December 5, 2014), all of which maintained the
species as a candidate. We assigned the listing priority number of 2 to
the species in 2012, and maintained that listing priority through 2014.
The change in the listing priority number was based upon information
indicating that livestock use and invasive species (cheatgrass) had
increased following the 2007 wildfires and that impacts to the species
from these stressors were imminent.
As a result of the Service's 2011 multidistrict litigation
settlement with petitioners, a proposed listing rule or a not-warranted
12-month finding is required by September 30, 2016 (In re: Endangered
Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 10-377 (EGS), MDL Docket
No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)). This 12-month finding satisfies the
requirements of that settlement agreement for the Goose Creek
milkvetch.

Summary of Status Review

Goose Creek milkvetch is a narrow endemic plant in the Goose Creek
drainage in Idaho, Nevada, and Utah. The current range of Goose Creek
milkvetch is essentially the same as the historical range; however, we
continue to identify a greater distribution of the species across its
range. Overall, Goose

[[Page 60841]]

Creek milkvetch occurs in a scattered distribution within five
populations. Plants are typically found on sparsely vegetated outcrops
of highly weathered volcanic-ash (tuffaceous) soils. The total
population size in 2014 is estimated to be approximately 31,648 plants
occupying approximately 2,117 acres (857 hectares).
In our 2009 12-month finding (74 FR 46521; September 10, 2009), we
identified the threats to Goose Creek milkvetch to be wildfire,
wildfire management (firefighting and post-wildfire emergency
stabilization and restoration activities), invasive nonnative plant
species (cheatgrass, leafy spurge, crested wheatgrass), livestock use,
development, recreation, mining, the inadequacy of regulatory
mechanisms, and small population size. In our current candidate
assessment, we evaluated available information, and concluded that the
species is resilient to these stressors and that current impacts to the
species are not as strong as previously believed.
In 2015 we identified leafy spurge as a future threat to Goose
Creek milkvetch, based upon its anticipated future spread and expansion
within the species' range containing 64 percent of the total
population. Leafy spurge has the ability to increase in density rapidly
and displace Goose Creek milkvetch, which may lead to local extirpation
of the species in infested areas that are not detected and controlled
at early stages of leafy spurge invasion. As a result, our initial
finding was that Goose Creek milkvetch warranted listing as a result of
the future threat of leafy spurge. However, the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finalized a
conservation agreement for the long-term conservation of Goose Creek
milkvetch in early 2015 that identifies conservation measures to
address the spread and control of leafy spurge in Goose Creek milkvetch
habitat. Through our Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When
Making Listing Decisions (PECE) (68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003) analysis,
we evaluated the actions in the conservation agreement and concluded
that there is sufficient certainty that the actions will be implemented
and effective such that leafy spurge will not become a future threat to
Goose Creek milkvetch.
As a result of new information and analysis, the originally
identified threats in our previous 12-month finding are no longer
considered current or foreseeable threats for the following reasons:
(1) The population is stable, the species is persisting at all
monitored sites despite disturbance events, and it is occupying its
historical range; (2) the species occurs over 216 square miles (559
square kilometers), and currently has adequate representation,
resiliency, and redundancy throughout its range; (3) the species
appears resilient to the identified stressors based on our evaluation
in the 2015 candidate assessment; (4) new monitoring information after
recent wildfires indicates that Goose Creek milkvetch was not
significantly affected by wildfire and wildfire management (post-
wildfire emergency stabilization and restoration activities) as
previous information indicated; and (5) expanded commitments in the
2015 BLM/FWS conservation agreement to survey for and annually treat
leafy spurge within Goose Creek milkvetch habitat on BLM lands will be
effective in controlling the future spread of this noxious weed, and
will protect approximately 86 percent of the total known population and
93 percent of the total known habitat of Goose Creek milkvetch.

Finding

Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the current
stressors acting on the species and its habitat are not of sufficient
imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate that the Goose Creek
milkvetch is warranted for listing at this time. However, we did find
the potential future threat from leafy spurge is of such a magnitude
that listing Goose Creek milkvetch may be warranted. We evaluated the
actions outlined in the 2015 conservation agreement with the BLM under
PECE, and we found sufficient certainty of implementation and
effectiveness of the actions such that the potential future threat of
the habitat impacts due to the spread of leafy spurge will largely be
ameliorated. Therefore, based on the best available information, we
find that listing Goose Creek milkvetch is not warranted throughout its
range. Because the distribution of the species is relatively stable
across its range and stressors are similar throughout the species'
range, we found no concentration of stressors that suggests that the
Goose Creek milkvetch may be in danger of extinction in any portion of
its range. Therefore, we find that listing the Goose Creek milkvetch as
a threatened or an endangered species is not warranted throughout all
or a significant portion of its range at this time, and consequently we
are removing it from candidate status.

Nevares Spring Naucorid Bug (Ambrysus Funebis)

Previous Federal Actions

On November 15, 1994, we added the Nevares Spring naucorid bug
(Amargosa naucorid bug) to the candidate list as a category 2 species
on the Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR) (59 FR 59012). Category 2
species were those species for which listing as endangered or
threatened species was possibly appropriate, but for which biological
information sufficient to support a proposed rule was lacking. However,
the February 28, 1996, CNOR (61 FR 7596) discontinued recognition of
category 1 and 2 species, so the Nevares Spring naucorid bug was no
longer considered a candidate species after that date. On May 4, 2004
(69 FR 24880), we added the species to the candidate list with a
listing priority number (LPN) of 5. In our November 21, 2012, CNOR (77
FR 69998), we changed the LPN from 5 to 2. In subsequent annual CNOR
publications, we maintained our determination of LPN of 2 for this
species.

Summary of Status Review

The Nevares Spring naucorid bug is an aquatic invertebrate found
only within the Furnace Creek Springs (Nevares, Texas, and Travertine
Springs) of Death Valley National Park, California, managed by the
National Park Service (NPS). Based on both historical and recent
surveys, this narrow endemic species is considered locally abundant
where found, but otherwise uncommon in aquatic habitats within the
Travertine and Nevares Spring complexes and in areas of the Furnace
Creek Wash. The Furnace Creek Springs have been used as a water source
(potable and non-potable water) since the 1800s, and the primary threat
to the Nevares Spring naucorid bug at the time it was placed on the
candidate list (2004) was loss of habitat due to diversion of water.
Since then, the NPS has rebuilt the Furnace Creek water collection
system and has implemented restoration actions within the range of the
species. The combined post-pumping flow for affected springs is
approximately 80 percent of the estimated pre-pumping flow. While this
activity represents a negative factor within one of four of the
Travertine Springs springbrooks, we have determined that this stressor
is not of significant magnitude to affect the conservation status of
the species. Flows from Nevares Springs (occupied by the bug) and Texas
Spring (unknown occupation) have not been affected by the groundwater
pumping and are not

[[Page 60842]]

part of the Furnace Creek water collection system. The NPS has also
eliminated water diversions and implemented aquatic habitat restoration
at Travertine Spring 2, including restoration of its previously dry
downstream springbrook. The results have augmented local groundwater,
which has reemerged in aquatic habitat in portions of the spring area
and downstream areas, including Furnace Creek Wash (occupied by the
bug). Similar beneficial restoration actions are planned for other
areas. While we believe that these future habitat restoration efforts
could enhance the conservation status of the species by providing
suitable habitat, these future actions are not factored into our
determination.
We also evaluated potential threats related to nonnative or
invasive plants, predation, fire, and the effects of climate change.
The impact to the species' habitat from nonnative or invasive plants is
minor in scope and is currently being managed by the NPS. Predation is
not currently a threat to the species and is not expected to be a
threat in the near future. Fire has been a rare event within the
Furnace Creek Springs area, and it is not expected to be a threat in
the near future due to specific management actions being implemented by
the NPS as required by the Death Valley National Park General
Management Plan. Based on computer model projections (Fisk 2011, pp.
141-144), potential impacts to the species from the effects of climate
change (i.e., changes to groundwater head and spring discharge for the
Furnace Creek Springs) also are unlikely to be significant well into
the 21st Century.

Finding

Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the stressors
acting on the species and its habitat are not of sufficient imminence,
intensity, or magnitude to indicate that the Nevares Spring naucorid
bug is in danger of extinction (an endangered species), or likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future (a threatened species),
throughout all of its range. This finding is based on the relatively
stable population and distribution of the species, and the habitat
restoration efforts and conservation management that have occurred
throughout the species' range to minimize impacts to both the habitat
and the species since the species was first identified as a candidate.
Because the distribution of the species is narrow and stressors are
similar throughout the entire species' range, we found no concentration
of stressors that suggests that the Nevares Spring naucorid bug may be
in danger of extinction in any portion of its range, or likely to
become so in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we find that listing
the Nevares Spring naucorid bug as a threatened species or an
endangered species or maintaining the species as a candidate throughout
all or a significant portion of its range is not warranted at this
time, and consequently we are removing it from candidate status.

Page Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis morrisoni)

Previous Federal Actions

The Service first identified the Page springsnail as a category 2
candidate species on January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554). Category 2 candidates
were defined as species for which we had information that proposed
listing was possibly appropriate, but conclusive data on biological
vulnerability and threats were not available to support a proposed rule
at the time. In the February 28, 1996, Candidate Notice of Review
(CNOR) (61 FR 7596), we discontinued the designation of Category 2
species as candidates. Page springsnail became a candidate species
(formerly known as Category 1 candidate) on February 28, 1996, with a
listing priority number of 2 (61 FR 7596). The Page springsnail
remained on the candidate list thereafter with no change in listing
priority number. On April 12, 2002, we received a petition dated April
11, 2002, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting
emergency listing and designation of critical habitat for the Page
springsnail. We acknowledged receipt of the petition in a letter dated
August 8, 2002. In that letter we stated the Service's policy to treat
petitions on candidate species as second petitions, and that we
consider all candidates as having been subject to both a positive 90-
day finding and a warranted-but-precluded 12-month finding under
section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act. As such we did not make a separate
90-day or 12-month finding in response to the petition.
In 2011, the Service entered into two settlement agreements
regarding species on the candidate list at that time (Endangered
Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 10-377 (EGS), MDL Docket
No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)). This finding fulfills our obligations
regarding the Page springsnail under those settlement agreements.

Summary of Status Review

The Page springsnail is a small aquatic snail endemic to 10
populations in a complex of springs along Oak Creek and Spring Creek in
Yavapai County, central Arizona. Like other members of the family
Hydrobiidae, Page springsnails are strictly aquatic and often occur in
abundance within suitable spring habitats. The Page springsnail occurs
in springs, seeps, marshes, cienegas, spring brooks, spring pools,
outflows, and diverse lotic (flowing) waters, supported by water
discharged from a regional aquifer. Eight of the 10 known populations
occur on land managed by Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) as a
fish hatchery.
The Page springsnail became a candidate species primarily due to
habitat modifications at the springhead and spring run that resulted in
changes to the habitat factors listed above, resulting in the
extirpation of two populations. Subsequently, AGFD implemented a
Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances that includes
conservation measures that have resulted in the majority of Page
springsnail populations being secure from spring modification, aquatic
vegetation removal, and water contamination in the future. These
management actions include coordinating with the Service and
considering the needs of the Page springsnail when conducting aquatic
vegetation control, management of nonnative fishes, chemical use, and
addition of material into springs. AGFD has also restored much of the
spring habitat on their lands; restoration activities include modifying
springs, adding substrate preferred by springsnails, and eradicating
nonnative species.
The Page springsnail needs multiple resilient populations
distributed across its range to maintain viability into the future and
to avoid extinction. In general, the more Page springsnail populations
that occur across its range, the higher the viability of the species
and the lower the risk of extinction. A number of factors influence
whether Page springsnail populations will maximize habitat occupancy,
which increases the resiliency of a population to stochastic events.
These factors include (1) adequate spring discharge (water quantity),
(2) sufficient water quality, (3) free-flowing spring ecosystems, and
(4) appropriate substrate and aquatic vegetation within the springs.
In the future, the primary source of potential habitat loss is
groundwater

[[Page 60843]]

depletion, which may result in reduced or eliminated spring flow. We
are relatively certain that climate change and increased water
consumption from increased human population levels in the Verde Valley
will result in lowered groundwater levels. Though we are not certain of
the specific relationship between base flow and spring discharge, it is
likely that declines in groundwater levels in the Verde Valley subbasin
and base flow in the Verde River will translate to some decline in
spring flow. We therefore anticipate that the effect of groundwater
declines on future levels of spring discharge is the primary factor
influencing the future condition of the Page springsnail.

Finding

Our review found that there are currently 10 existing Page
springsnail populations, occurring in approximately the same geographic
range that the species was known to occupy historically. To assess the
current status of these populations, we grouped each of them into three
categories of resiliency, which were based on spring flow rate, water
quality, free-flowing spring runs, and vegetation and substrate
quality. We categorized six populations as currently having high
resiliency, three as currently having moderate resiliency, and one as
currently having low resiliency. The best available data suggests that
populations in high or moderate condition will be resilient populations
at low risk of extirpation. In total, nine of the populations rank as
high or moderate for the combined evaluation of the elements needed to
maintain the species (water flow rate, water quality, free flowing, and
aquatic vegetation and substrate). This current number of populations
in high or moderate condition existing across the species' range
provides resiliency (90 percent of populations considered sufficiently
large to withstand stochastic events), redundancy (the populations
exist across the historical range, although that range is inherently
small, to withstand catastrophic events), and representation (multiple
populations continuing to occur across the range of the species to
maintain ecological and genetic diversity). Because this estimate of
the condition and distribution of populations provides sufficient
resiliency, representation, and redundancy for the species, we conclude
that the current risk of extinction of the Page springsnail is
sufficiently low that it does not meet the definition of an endangered
species under the Act.
Looking into the foreseeable future, and considering that spring
flows could decline somewhat by 2065, we forecasted that two
populations would continue to have high resiliency, four would have
moderate resiliency, and four would have low resiliency (Service 2015,
p. 33). The best available data suggests that populations in high or
moderate condition will be resilient populations at low risk of
extirpation. This forecasted number of populations in good condition
existing across the species' range would provide resiliency (60 percent
of populations considered sufficiently large to withstand stochastic
events), redundancy (the populations would exist across the historical
range, although that range is inherently small, to withstand
catastrophic events), and representation (multiple populations would
continue to occur across the range of the species to maintain
ecological and genetic diversity). Therefore, because this forecast of
the number and distribution of populations under the spring flow
scenario that we expect to occur provides sufficient resiliency,
redundancy, and representation for the species, we conclude the species
is likely to remain at a sufficiently low risk of extinction that it
will not become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future.
Therefore, we find that the Page springsnail does not meet the
definition of a threatened species under the Act.
Having found that the Page springsnail is not an endangered species
or a threatened species throughout all of its range, we next consider
whether there are any significant portions of its range in which the
Page springsnail is in danger of extinction or likely to become so. We
found no portions of its range where potential threats are
significantly concentrated or substantially greater than in other
portions of its range. Therefore, we find that factors affecting the
species are essentially uniform throughout its range, indicating that
no portion of the range of the Page springsnail warrants further
consideration of possible endangered species or threatened species
status under the Act.
In conclusion, because the number and distribution of Page
springsnail populations provides sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and
representation for the species now and in the foreseeable future, we
find that the Page springsnail no longer warrants listing throughout
all or a significant portion of its range, and consequently we are
removing it from candidate status.

Ramshaw Meadows Sand-Verbena (Abronia alpina)

Previous Federal Actions

Summary of Status Review

Abronia alpina is a small perennial herb 1 to 6 inches across
forming compact mats with lavender pink, trumpet-shaped, and generally
fragrant flowers. The species is known from one main population center
at Ramshaw Meadow and a smaller population at the adjacent Templeton
Meadow on the Kern River Plateau (8,700-feet elevation) in the Sierra
Nevada Mountains, California. The entire range of the species is
approximately 15 acres (6.1 hectares) and is administered by the U.S.
Forest Service (USFS) (Inyo National Forest, Tulare County,
California). The species' population fluctuates from year to year
without any clear trends with estimates ranging from approximately
150,000 to 50,000 plants (based on USFS survey results 1985-2012).
Abronia alpina is currently categorized by the USFS as a ``Sensitive
Species'' under the 1988 Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), but
is proposed to be categorized as an ``At-Risk Species'' under the
revised LRMP currently being developed.
Threats to Abronia alpina and its habitat identified at the time it
was determined to be a candidate species

[[Page 60844]]

included cattle trailing, trampling by campers and packstock,
deteriorated watershed conditions, and potential bank cutting of
habitat. In response, the USFS has implemented a number of conservation
measures that have been effective in reducing these adverse effects,
including developing a livestock trailing strategy; exclosure fencing;
establishing a monitoring program; discontinuing livestock grazing for
a 10-year period (2001-2011); rerouting hiking and packstock trails;
and conducting land exchanges of private land so that all A. alpina
habitat is on Federal land.
The stressors currently acting upon Abronia alpina and its habitat
include lodgepole pine encroachment; potential bank cutting of habitat;
the effects of climate change; recreation (camping, packstock); and
cattle trailing within meadow habitats. Past conservation actions by
the U.S. Forest Service have reduced or eliminated the effects of most
of these stressors on A. alpina and its habitat. In addition, the Inyo
National Forest and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have developed and
signed a conservation agreement to evaluate current stressors for A.
alpina and update conservation actions that will be implemented by the
Inyo National Forest to continue to protect and manage A. alpina and
its habitat (Conservation Agreement and Species Management Guide for
Abronia alpina (Ramshaw abronia) Tulare County, California, Dated:
April 2015). The conservation agreement addresses ongoing management
needs of A. alpina and its habitat, including management or monitoring
of past and present stressors that have been identified. The past and
current conservation actions and protection provided by the Inyo
National Forest have been demonstrated to reduce and ameliorate the
effect of stressors acting upon the species, and we anticipate those
completed actions to have lasting, positive effects into the near
future. While we are not basing our finding on the February 2015
conservation agreement, we anticipate that conservation measures and
protections outlined in the Conservation Agreement will continue to
build on the success that past actions have had and will continue to
benefit Abronia alpina into the future.

Finding

Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the stressors
acting on the species and its habitat are not of sufficient imminence,
intensity, or magnitude to indicate that Abronia alpina is in danger of
extinction (an endangered species), or likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future (a threatened species), throughout all of
its range. This finding is based on the past conservation actions and
protections provided by the Inyo National Forest that have shown
success in reduction and amelioration of the effect of stressors acting
upon the species and its habitat. We found no concentration of
stressors that suggests that the Abronia alpina may be in danger of
extinction in any portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing
A. alpina as a threatened or an endangered species throughout all or a
significant portion of its range or maintaining the species as a
candidate is not warranted at this time, and we are removing it from
candidate status.

Sequatchie Caddisfly (Glyphopsyche sequatchie)

Previous Federal Actions

The Sequatchie caddisfly was first identified as a candidate for
protection under the Act through our internal process in the October
25, 1999, Candidate Notice of Review published in the Federal Register
(64 FR 57534), and the Service was subsequently petitioned on May 11,
2004, to list the species although no new information was provided with
the petition. Threats to the species identified at that time were
siltation; agricultural, chemical, and municipal runoff; vandalism;
pollution from trash; and small population size. The Sequatchie
caddisfly was assigned a listing priority number (LPN) of 5 (64 FR
57534), and that LPN was maintained until evaluation for listing this
year.

Summary of Status Review

The Sequatchie caddisfly (Glyphopsyche sequatchie) was discovered
in 1994 and first described by Etnier and Hix (1999, entire). This
species is a member of the insect order Trichoptera, family
Limnephilidae, subfamily Limnephilinae, and tribe Chilostigmini
(Wiggins 1996, pp. 270, 310).
Despite extensive efforts to find additional sites (Moulton and
Floyd, 2013, entire), the Sequatchie caddisfly has been observed at
only three spring runs in the Sequatchie Valley, all in Marion County,
Tennessee: Owen Spring Branch (the type locality); Martin Spring run in
the Battle Creek system, and Clear Spring Branch (Etnier and Hix 1999,
pp. 629-630; Walton 2011, pers. comm.). In July 2014, biologists with
the Service, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
(TDEC), the University of Tennessee, and the Tennessee Wildlife
Resources Agency completed quantitative surveys within a 20-meter (66-
foot) reach at both the Owen Spring Branch and Martin Spring sites.
During the Owen Spring Branch survey, a total of 269 Sequatchie
caddisflies were observed within 29 0.25-square-meter (2.7-square-foot)
quadrats (USFWS, unpublished data).
Using these data, we estimated the population size at 5,192-6,273
individuals (95% confidence interval) within the 20-meter (66-foot)
sampling reach. Considering the amount of occupied habitat within Owen
Spring Branch (approximately 280 meters (919 feet)), we extrapolated
that the population size at Owen Spring exceeds 50,000 caddisflies.
During the Martin Spring surveys, a total of 260 Sequatchie caddisflies
were observed within 30 0.25-square-meter (2.7-square-foot) quadrats
(USFWS, unpublished data). Using these data, we estimated the
population size at 6,546-10,593 individuals (95% confidence interval)
within the 20-meter (66-foot) sampling reach. Considering the amount of
occupied habitat within Martin Spring (approximately 660 meters (2,165
feet)), we extrapolated that the population size at Martin Spring
exceeds 100,000 caddisflies. Both the Owen Spring Branch and Martin
Spring estimates are much larger than previous estimates, which were
1,500 to 3,000 individuals at Owen Spring Branch and characterized as
``very rare,'' with only 6 individuals found at Martin Spring (Moulton
and Floyd (2013, pp. 8-9)). In 2010, a single larva was collected at
Clear Spring Branch during routine water quality monitoring by TDEC
(Walton 2011, pers. comm.). In subsequent surveys, no individuals were
observed at the Clear Spring Branch site (Moulton and Floyd 2013, p. 8;
USFWS, unpublished data). It is unclear whether the larva collected in
2010 was the result of a dispersal event or of a population that
occurred at very low levels, and the site is now considered unoccupied
by the species. Sedimentation, beaver activity, mowing/clearing,
trampling/public access, and possibly watershed disturbance are all
stressors to habitat (Factor A). All of these stressors occur at both
the Owen Spring Branch and Martin Spring sites, except for beaver
activity, which is only found at Owen Spring Branch. However, these
stressors are largely abated by management practices that have been in
place for over 3 years, such as beaver and erosion control measures
currently being undertaken by TDEC and other partners. Nevertheless,
our not-

[[Page 60845]]

warranted finding is not based on the implementation of these voluntary
efforts.

Finding

The Sequatchie caddisfly is found at only two sites in Marion
County, Tennessee. However, population sizes are now estimated to be
substantially larger than previously thought, and the best available
information does not indicate any evidence of declines or inbreeding
depression in either of the known populations at this time. Based on
our review of the best available scientific and commercial information
pertaining to the five factors, we find that there are no stressors of
sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate that the
Sequatchie caddisfly is in danger of extinction (an endangered
species), or likely to become so within the foreseeable future (a
threatened species), throughout all of its range.
We consider the range of the Sequatchie caddisfly to include Martin
Spring and Owen Spring in the Sequatchie Valley of Tennessee. We
evaluated the current range of Sequatchie caddisfly to determine if
there is any apparent geographic concentration of potential threats for
this species. We examined potential threats from range curtailment,
sedimentation, beaver activity, mowing/clearing, trampling/public
access, watershed disturbance, collection, disease, predation by
introduced rainbow trout, the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms, and small population size effects and found no
concentration that suggests that the Sequatchie caddisfly may be in
danger of extinction in a portion of its range. While there is a higher
level of trampling and public access at Owen Spring Branch, the best
available data do not indicate that this stressor rises to the level of
a threat to the species at this site, such that this portion meets the
definition of an endangered or a threatened species. Furthermore, we
found no other portions of the range where potential threats are
significantly concentrated or substantially greater than in other
portions of its range. Therefore, we find that the factors affecting
Sequatchie caddisfly are essentially uniform throughout its range,
indicating no portion of the range warrants further consideration of
possible endangered species or threatened species status under the Act.
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the Sequatchie caddisfly is not in danger of
extinction (an endangered species) and is not likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future (a threatened
species), throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Therefore, we find that listing Sequatchie caddisfly as an endangered
or a threatened species under the Act is not warranted at this time,
and we are removing it from candidate status.

Siskiyou Mariposa Lily (Calochortus persistens)

Previous Federal Actions

The Act directed the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to
prepare a report on endangered and threatened plant species, which was
published as House Document No. 94-51. We published a notice in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1975 (40 FR 27823), in which we announced
that we would review more than 3,000 native plant species named in the
Smithsonian's report and other species added by the 1975 notice for
possible addition to the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.
Siskiyou mariposa lily was one of those species. In the February 21,
1990, Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR) (55 FR 6192), we first
identified the species as a category 2 candidate. However, the February
28, 1996, CNOR (61 FR 7596) discontinued recognition of category 1 and
2 species, so Siskiyou mariposa lily was no longer considered candidate
species after that date. On September 10, 2001, we received a petition
dated August 24, 2001, from Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Oregon
Natural Resources Council, and Barbara Knapp requesting that the
Siskiyou mariposa lily be listed as an endangered species under the Act
and that critical habitat be designated. In the June 13, 2002, CNOR (67
FR 40662), we once again added the species as a candidate with a
listing priority number (LPN) of 2. In the May 11, 2005, CNOR, we
changed the LPN to 5 (70 FR 24932). In subsequent annual CNOR
publications, we maintained our determination of LPN of 5 for this
species.

Summary of Status Review

Calochortus persistens is a perennial flowering bulb with one to
two large showy, pink to lavender, erect, bell-shaped flowers with
yellow fringes. Calochortus persistens is restricted to three disjunct
areas in the Klamath-Siskiyou Mountain Range at elevations of 4,300
feet (ft) to 6,000 ft, on the California-Oregon border (Gunsight-Humbug
Ridge and Cottonwood Peak Area, west of Yreka, Siskiyou County,
California (two locations), and Bald Mountain site, west of Ashland,
Jackson County, Oregon). Land ownership for the three sites is a
combination of U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), and private lands. Population numbers for the species varies by
location and numbers from 5 to 100,000 plants. Past numbers of
Calochortus persistens plants in each area may have been underestimated
depending on survey timing.
Between 1982 and 2013, numerous conservation initiatives and
management plans have been developed to conserve Calochortus
persistens. The most recent is the ``Conservation Agreement between the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Forest Service and U.S.
Bureau of Land Management for Calochortus persistens (Siskiyou mariposa
lily)'' (Calochortus persistens Conservation Agreement) that was
finalized and approved on November 19, 2013. The conservation agreement
identifies completed, ongoing, and future actions to remove or reduce
the stressors to C. persistens across all occupied Federal lands. The
USFS and BLM have also identified Calochortus persistens as a
``Sensitive Species.'' Based on the successful track record of managing
the species as provided for with the conservation initiatives,
including the 2013 conservation agreement, we conclude that management
of the species will provide for diverse plant communities by
maintaining viable populations of plants and for conservation of the
species by ensuring continued existence of viable populations that will
prevent a trend towards listing under the Act. The USFS has issued
management guidelines for C. persistens and has designated 1,005 acres
(407 hectares) as a Special Habitat Management Area for the species.
The major stressor to Calochortus persistens habitat has been
competition from the nonnative plant Isatis tinctoria (dyer's woad).
Isatis tinctoria was reported to have spread throughout the Gunsight-
Humbug Ridge and Cottonwood Peak occurrences to varying degrees.
However, surveys have demonstrated that juvenile recruitment is evident
and plants of all ages occur in each population. In 2003, the USFS
initiated removal of I. tinctoria. In 2006, a second population of C.
persistens was found at Cottonwood Peak consisting of more than 15,900
plants. This area does not contain any I. tinctoria. Because the
existing occurrences for I. tinctoria are being managed, and some
populations or occurrences within populations are not subject to the
impacts from I. tinctoria, we have determined that the severity of the
impacts from nonnative plants has been greatly decreased and is not
resulting in significant impacts to C.

[[Page 60846]]

persistens at the range wide or local population level at this time nor
do we expect it to in the foreseeable future.
Other stressors identified include fire and fire suppression
activities, habitat disturbance activities, roads, off-highway vehicle
use, grazing activities, collection, predation, low recruitment, and
the species' relatively small, disjunct distribution. In our candidate
assessment, we evaluated these stressors and determined that they are
not resulting in significant population-level impacts to Calochortus
persistens now nor are they likely to do so into the foreseeable
future. Our finding is based partly on management activities and
because evidence review of the best available data does not suggest
that there is a decline in the C. persistens populations at any of the
three locations.

Finding

Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the stressors
acting on the species and its habitat are not of such imminence,
intensity, or magnitude to indicate that Calochortus persistens is in
danger of extinction (an endangered species), or likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future (a threatened species),
throughout all of its range. We also found no portion of its range
where the threats are significantly concentrated or substantially
greater than in any other portion of its range. Therefore, we find that
listing Calochortus persistens as a threatened or an endangered species
or maintaining the species as a candidate is not warranted throughout
all or a significant portion of its range at this time, and
consequently we are removing it from candidate status.

Shawnee Darter (Etheostoma tecumsehi)

Previous Federal Action

On April 20, 2010, we received, via email, a petition from the
Center for Biological Diversity, Alabama Rivers Coalition, Clinch
Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee
Forests Council, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Tierra Curry, and
Noah Curry, requesting to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland
species, including the Shawnee darter, as an endangered or a threatened
species and to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing. We
subsequently published a notice of a 90-day petition finding in the
Federal Register (76 FR 59836; September 27, 2011), concluding that the
petition to list the Shawnee darter, among other species, presented
substantial scientific or commercial evidence that listing may be
warranted.

Summary of Status Review

The Shawnee darter occurs within the Pond River system of the Green
River in parts of four western Kentucky counties (Christian, Todd,
Muhlenberg, and Hopkins). The species is broadly distributed across its
range, inhabiting high-gradient headwater streams with abundant sand,
gravel, and cobble riffles. Color characteristics of the females and
non-breeding males of this species are similar to other members of the
orangethroat darter group, and the largest specimens reach over 2
inches for males and up to 1.8 inches for females
Destruction and modification of habitat have been identified as
potential threats to the Shawnee darter. Streams within the Pond River
system have been degraded by a variety of past and current activities
such as dredging, channelization, impoundment, riparian zone removal
and others. Much of the stream modification in the Pond River system
occurred decades ago for agricultural and flood control purposes. While
these manipulations occurred in the past, the habitat and water quality
impacts persist, and siltation/sedimentation is considered a primary
source of degradation within the Shawnee darter's range. While there
are numerous dams across the range of the Shawnee darter, constructed
mostly for flood control in the 1960s and 1970s, only eight occur
between known species occurrences.
Historical and ongoing land uses (e.g., agriculture, natural
resource extraction, etc.) have also affected and continue to affect
stream habitats as well as water quality. Residential and agricultural
land uses may result in increases in nutrients (e.g., fecal coliforms)
that can be detrimental to aquatic fauna, and the Shawnee darter is
often absent from streams with high nutrient levels. However, these
impacts do not appear to be widespread within the species' range. Coal
mining historically occurred, to a limited extent, in the northernmost
edge of the species' range but has not reduced the species'
distribution or occurrences. While oil and gas extraction is widespread
within the range, it does not appear to be causing any broad changes to
stream habitat or water quality. Reviews of permitted activities (e.g.,
coal mining) and digital land use coverages over the years do not
indicate any significant changes in land use; despite these historical
and ongoing impacts, survey efforts in 2007 and 2013 indicate that the
Shawnee darter is maintaining its populations and remains one of the
most abundant darter species in the streams where it occurs.

Finding

Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the stressors
acting on the species and its habitat are not of such imminence,
intensity, or magnitude to indicate that the Shawnee darter is in
danger of extinction (an endangered species), or likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future (a threatened species),
throughout all of its range. We also found no portion of its range
where the stressors are significantly concentrated or substantially
greater than in any other portion of its range. Therefore, we find that
listing the Shawnee darter as a threatened species or an endangered
species throughout all or a significant portion of its range is not
warranted at this time.

Sleeping Ute Milkvetch (Astragalus tortipes)

Previous Federal Actions

Sleeping Ute milkvetch became a candidate species in the Candidate
Notice of Review (CNOR) of 1996, with a listing priority number (LPN)
of 11, after approximately 3 percent of the species' range was
disturbed during construction of an irrigation canal (61 FR 7596;
February 28, 1996). Between 1997 and 2006, the LPN was changed various
times, and ultimately returned to LPN 11, because the threats were
considered non-imminent (62 FR 49398, September 19, 1997; 66 FR 54808,
October 30, 2001; 71 FR 53756, September 12, 2006). We received a
petition in 2004 from the Center for Biological Diversity and others to
list 225 species, including Sleeping Ute milkvetch. We reported in the
2005 CNOR that the petition contained no new information regarding
Sleeping Ute milkvetch, and maintained it as a candidate (60 FR 24870,
May 11, 2005). The species was maintained as a candidate with LPN 11
through the 2014 CNOR (79 FR 72450, December 5, 2014).

Summary of Status Review

Sleeping Ute milkvetch is a perennial plant that grows only on the
Smokey Hills layer of the Mancos Shale Formation on Ute Mountain Ute
Tribal land in Montezuma County, Colorado. Very few formal surveys have
been done for Sleeping Ute milkvetch, so we have no information on
long-term population

[[Page 60847]]

trends. However, surveys in 2000 indicated the presence of 3,744 plants
at 24 locations covering 500 acres (202 hectares) within an overall
range of 6,400 acres (2,590). The Tribe received a grant in 2015 that
enabled them to document the current status of the species. The 2015
plant surveys and impact assessment report show that the population has
increased to 14,929 individual plants that were counted, plus an
additional 5,000 that were estimated to occur within the same range.
We evaluated all known potential impacts to the plant, including
impacts from the Towaoc Highline Canal construction, rifle range use,
off-highway vehicles (OHVs), cattle grazing, and a prairie dog colony.
While these impacts were previously believed to pose a threat to the
species, and some may have caused losses of individual plants or
habitat in the past, we received updated information from the Tribe
that has improved our understanding of how these factors currently
affect the species. For example, there are currently no plans for oil
and gas development within the plant's habitat. The design and
operation of the canal has not opened the area to increased vehicle use
and associated ground disturbance as previously anticipated; the entire
length of the canal and its maintenance roads are fenced; and access
points from roads are gated and locked. The presence of a rifle range
has introduced OHV use and outdoor recreation that has negatively
affected individual plants and habitat, but these effects have been
limited to one location, while the majority of populations remain
unaffected. The Tribe has taken significant steps to reduce the impact
of feral livestock, removing more than 400 head of feral livestock in
2013 and 2014, leaving only around 50 head remaining. Herbivory was
reported, but the effects on reproduction were not determined.
Overall, current information indicates an increase in abundance
from past surveys; that most stressors are speculative and any actual
impacts have been at the individual, not population or species level;
and that no impacts individually or cumulatively rise to the level of a
threat so significant that it contributes to putting the species in
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
In addition, the Tribe believes that the health and existence of the
species is in part due to its location on Tribal land, where all
activities are controlled by the Tribe and no public access is allowed
without permission.

Finding

Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the stressors
acting on the species and its habitat are not of such imminence,
intensity, or magnitude to indicate that Sleeping Ute milkvetch is in
danger of extinction (an endangered species), or likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future (a threatened species),
throughout all of its range. We also found no portion of its range
where the stressors are significantly concentrated or substantially
greater than in any other portion of its range. Therefore, we find that
listing Sleeping Ute milkvetch as a threatened species or an endangered
species is not warranted throughout all or a significant portion of its
range at this time, and we have removed it from candidate status.

Southern Idaho Ground Squirrel (Urocitellus Endemicus)

Previous Federal Actions

The southern Idaho ground squirrel was recognized as a Category 2
candidate species in the 1985 Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR) (50 FR
37958; September 18, 1985). Category 2 species were those species for
which listing as an endangered species or as a threatened species was
possibly appropriate, but for which biological information sufficient
to support a proposed rule was lacking. However, the February 28, 1996,
CNOR (61 FR 7596) discontinued recognition of category 1 and 2 species,
so the southern Idaho ground squirrel was no longer considered a
candidate species after that date.
On January 29, 2001, we received a petition dated January 26, 2001,
from Biodiversity Legal Foundation, requesting that the southern Idaho
ground squirrel, at the time classified taxonomically as a subspecies,
be listed as an endangered or a threatened species under the Act and
that critical habitat be designated. Included in the petition was
supporting information regarding the species' taxonomy, historical and
current distribution, habitat, life history, present status, and
threats to the species. We acknowledged the receipt of the petition in
a letter to the Biodiversity Legal Foundation, dated February 26, 2001.
In that letter we also stated that due to court orders and judicially
approved settlement agreements for other listing and critical habitat
determinations under the Act that required nearly all of our listing
and critical habitat funding for fiscal year (FY) 2001, we would not be
able to address the petition further at that time but would complete
the action in FY 2002. We also stated that an initial review of the
petition did not indicate that an emergency listing was warranted.
In the October 30, 2001, CNOR (66 FR 54808), we again identified
the southern Idaho ground squirrel as a candidate for listing and
assigned it a listing priority number (LPN) of 3, which reflects a
subspecies facing threats of a high magnitude that are considered
imminent.
On May 4, 2004, we continued to identify the southern Idaho ground
squirrel as a candidate for listing in the CNOR (69 FR 24876), but we
changed the LPN to 6, which reflects a subspecies facing threats of a
high magnitude that are not considered imminent. This change was the
result of conservation actions that had been implemented and that had
reduced the imminence of threats, along with commitments from various
agencies and parties to initiate and implement conservation actions for
the squirrel. We acknowledged in this CNOR that although the magnitude
of threats was still high, it was trending toward a moderate-to-low
range.
On June 21, 2004, the U.S. District court for the District of
Oregon (Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton, Civ. No. 03-1111-AA)
found that our resubmitted petition findings for three species,
including the southern Idaho ground squirrel, that we published as part
of the CNOR on May 4, 2004 (69 FR 24876), were not sufficient because
we did not provide adequate information to support our warranted but
precluded determinations. The court ordered that we publish updated
findings. On December 27, 2004, in response to the court's order, we
published a 12-month finding (69 FR 77167) on resubmitted petitions to
list the three species. In response to ongoing conservation actions, we
also changed the LPN to 9, which reflects a subspecies facing threats
of a moderate to low magnitude that are considered imminent.
On November 22, 2013, we continued to identify the southern Idaho
ground squirrel as a candidate for listing in the CNOR (78 FR 70104),
but changed the LPN to 8 to reflect a change in taxonomy from
subspecies to species. The most recent CNOR dated December 5, 2014 (79
FR 72450), continued to reflect the species' status as a candidate
species with an LPN of 8.

Summary of Status Review

The southern Idaho ground squirrel is endemic to four counties in
southwest Idaho; its total known range is

[[Page 60848]]

approximately 718,318 acres (290,693 hectares). Threats to southern
Idaho ground squirrels identified in the January 26, 2001, listing
petition include: Habitat degradation from invasive exotic annual
vegetation and future loss of habitat from urban development; direct
killing from shooting, trapping, or poisoning; competition with
Columbian ground squirrels; inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; and low population numbers.
Habitat across the range of the southern Idaho ground squirrel is
degraded from nonnative vegetation, primarily by nonnative annuals such
as Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass) and Taeniatherum caput-medusae
(medusahead). Nonnative annuals provide inconsistent forage quality for
southern Idaho ground squirrels compared to native vegetation. Although
their habitat is degraded, squirrels have been at a peak in their
population cycle for the past several years and are well distributed
throughout most of their historical range, which has led to an increase
in gene flow among populations. Additionally, based on a Geographic
Information Systems analysis, we found that the fire-return interval of
80 years has not changed and falls within the range of historical
levels.
The 2001 listing petition cited rapid urban development as a threat
to southern Idaho ground squirrels; however, very little urban
development has occurred in the range of the squirrel in the past 14
years. Although urban development will likely occur in the future, we
are not aware of any large-scale development plans at this time.
Recreational shooting and other direct killing of southern Idaho
ground squirrels is being regulated and monitored. Authorized control
actions and trapping/translocation efforts in areas where local
abundance is high results in a temporary decrease of the local
population, but not the extermination of the population. Competition
with Columbian ground squirrels does not result in a substantial impact
to the species due to limited overlap in their distributions. Climate
change models predict increased temperatures that could have both
positive and possibly negative effects on squirrels, and we do not have
enough information at this time to determine what the actual impact, if
any, will be on this species, although we note there is evidence that
southern Idaho ground squirrels may be phenotypically plastic, similar
to other species, which should enable them to adapt more readily to a
changing climate through changes such as earlier emergence from their
burrows.
A programmatic Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances
(CCAA) was completed for this species in 2005 and contains conservation
measures that minimize ground-disturbing activities, allow for the
investigation of methods to restore currently degraded habitat, provide
for additional protection to southern Idaho ground squirrels from
recreational shooting and other direct killing on enrolled lands, and
allow for the translocation of squirrels to or from enrolled lands, if
necessary. The acreage enrolled through the programmatic CCAA
encompasses approximately 9 percent of the known range of the species.
A more recent CCAA is expected to be completed by the fall of 2015.
Therefore, despite changes in habitat conditions and localized
stressors (agricultural control, competition), squirrels continue to
persist throughout the majority of their historical range and
populations appear stable. Although we recognize that current
conditions do not provide ideal habitat for the species, we anticipate
that southern Idaho ground squirrels will continue to demonstrate
resilience and persist in these degraded habitat conditions in the
future.

Finding

Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the stressors
acting on the species and its habitat are not of such imminence,
intensity, or magnitude to indicate that the southern Idaho ground
squirrel is in danger of extinction (an endangered species), or likely
to become endangered within the foreseeable future (a threatened
species), throughout all of its range. We also found no portion of its
range where the stressors are significantly concentrated or
substantially greater than in any other portion of its range.
Therefore, we find that listing the southern Idaho ground squirrel as a
threatened species or an endangered species is not warranted throughout
all or a significant portion of its range at this time, and we have
removed it from candidate status.

Tahoe Yellow Cress (Rorippa Subumbellata)

Previous Federal Actions

The Act directed the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to
prepare a report on endangered and threatened plant species, which was
published as House Document No. 94-51. We published a notice in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1975 (40 FR 27823), in which we announced
that we would review more than 3,000 native plant species named in the
Smithsonian's report and other species added by the 1975 notice for
possible addition to the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.
Tahoe yellow cress was one of those species. In the September 27, 1985,
Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR) (50 FR 39526; supplementary
information page 18), Tahoe yellow cress was added to the candidate
list as a category 3C species. Category 3C species were those species
that were proven to be more abundant or widespread than previously
believed or those that are not subject to identifiable threats. In the
September 30, 1993, CNOR (58 FR 51184), we changed the candidate status
to category 1: Category 2 species were those species for which listing
as endangered or threatened species was possibly appropriate, but for
which biological information sufficient to support a proposed rule was
lacking In the February 28, 1996, CNOR (61 FR 7612), we no longer
recognized category 1 and 2 species as candidates and, therefore, most
of those species, including Tahoe yellow cress, were removed from
candidate status.
On December 27, 2000, we received a petition from the Southwest
Center for Biological Diversity requesting the Tahoe yellow cress be
listed as an endangered species with critical habitat. On December 27,
2004 (69 FR 77167), we published a notice of resubmitted petition
findings including the Tahoe yellow cress. In that document, we
announced the change of LPN from 2 to 8. In subsequent annual CNOR
publications, we maintained our determination of LPN of 8 for this
species.

Summary of Status Review

Tahoe yellow cress is a member of the mustard family (Brassicaceae)
known only from the shores of Lake Tahoe in California and Nevada. The
species is a low-growing, herbaceous perennial with yellow flowers.
Flowering and fruiting occurs between late May and late October.
Tahoe yellow cress is well adapted to its dynamic shorezone
environment and is capable of recolonizing sites after periods of
inundation. This ability is evident by the demonstrated natural
fluctuations in the number of Tahoe yellow cress that coincide with
lake elevation and available habitat. Since 2001, the population
numbers (number of stems) have ranged from a low of approximately 4,500
stems in 2006 (high lake level year (1,898-meter (m) elevation)) to
more than 30,000 stems in

[[Page 60849]]

2014 (low lake level (1,897 m)). At this time, the most significant
stressor to Tahoe yellow cress and its habitat is recreational
activities on public beaches and adjacent habitat around the shore of
Lake Tahoe; however, impacts from this stressor are being addressed by
ongoing management actions that include fencing, signage, and adherence
to beach-raking guidelines on public lands. Beach raking on private
lands remains a concern, because guidelines are voluntary and cannot be
enforced. However, this stressor is not of such magnitude as to present
a population-level risk to the species. Impacts from shorezone
development are being effectively managed by ongoing and effective
implementation of applicable shorezone ordinances.
Since 1999, the Adaptive Management Working Group has developed and
implemented conservation actions for Tahoe yellow cress. A conservation
strategy coupled with a memorandum of understanding/conservation
agreement (MOU/CA) between numerous Federal, State, and local agencies
and environmental organizations has been implemented to address the
stressor to Tahoe yellow cress. The MOU/CA was again signed in 2013 for
a period of 10 years, and an updated conservation strategy is expected
in 2015. An annual monitoring plan is in place, and propagation,
transplanting, and translocation strategies have been examined and
successfully initiated. Based on the successful track record of
numerous parties implementing these conservation actions together, we
conclude that ongoing implementation of those actions is managing and
avoiding or mitigating identified impacts.

Finding

Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the stressors
acting on the species and its habitat are not of sufficient imminence,
intensity, or magnitude to indicate that Tahoe yellow cress is in
danger of extinction (an endangered species), or likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future (a threatened species),
throughout all of its range. Because the distribution of the species is
limited to the shoreline areas of Lake Tahoe and stressors are similar
throughout the species' range, we found no concentration of stressors
that suggests that Tahoe yellow cress may be in danger of extinction in
any portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing Tahoe yellow
cress as a threatened species or as an endangered species throughout
all of or a significant portion of its range is not warranted at this
time, and consequently we are removing it from candidate status.

6 Tennessee Cave Beetles: Baker Station (=Insular) Cave Beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus Insularis); Coleman Cave Beetle (Pseudanophthalmus
Colemanensis); Fowler's Cave Beetle (Pseudanophthalmus Fowlerae);
Indian Grave Point (=Soothsayer) Cave Beetle (Pseudanophthalmus
Tiresias); Inquirer Cave Beetle (Pseudanophthalmus Inquisitor); and
Noblett's Cave Beetle (Pseudanophthalmus Paulus)

Previous Federal Actions

The Service provided notification letters of status review for the
Noblett's Cave beetle on June 22, 1990, and for the Fowler's Cave
beetle, inquirer cave beetle, Baker Station Cave beetle, Noblett's Cave
beetle, and Indian Grave Point Cave beetle on November 8, 1993. These
letters were provided to species experts, representatives of resource
agencies, and other interested parties to request information and
comments regarding potential listing of the species as endangered
species or threatened species.
Fowler's Cave beetle, inquirer cave beetle, Baker Station Cave
beetle, Noblett's Cave beetle, and Indian Grave Point Cave beetle were
added to the Federal list of candidate species in the 1991 Candidate
Notice of Review (CNOR) (56 FR 58804) as category 2 species. Category 2
species were those species for which listing as an endangered species
or a threatened species was possibly appropriate, but for which
biological information sufficient to support a proposed rule was
lacking. The category 2 status of these five species was confirmed in
1994 (59 FR 58982). However, the February 28, 1996, CNOR (61 FR 7596)
discontinued recognition of category 1 and 2 species, so the Fowler's
Cave beetle, inquirer cave beetle, Baker Station Cave beetle, Noblett's
Cave beetle, and Indian Grave Point Cave beetle were no longer
considered candidate species after that date.
The Service received a petition from the Center for Biological
Diversity and others, dated May 4, 2004, to list as endangered species,
225 species, including the inquirer cave beetle, and to designate
critical habitat for the species. The Service received another petition
on May 11, 2004, to list eight cave beetles, including the inquirer
cave beetle. The Service had already determined, in the October 30,
2001, CNOR that the inquirer cave beetle was a candidate for listing
(66 FR 54808), and therefore, we did not need to issue a new 90-day or
12-month finding in response to the petition. The Coleman Cave beetle,
Fowler's Cave beetle, Baker Station Cave beetle, Indian Grave Point
Cave beetle, and Noblett's Cave beetle became candidates for listing in
the May 4, 2004, CNOR (69 FR 24876).
On April 20, 2010, the Center for Biological Diversity and others
petitioned the Service to list as threatened or endangered 404 species,
including the Coleman Cave beetle, and to designate critical habitat
for those species. Because this species was already a candidate for
listing, we were not required to issue a new 90-day or 12-month finding
in response to the petition.
Each of the six species addressed in this finding has been included
by the Service in every CNOR since the petitions were received in 2004,
as species for which listing is warranted but precluded by higher
priority listing actions.
The 2011 Multi-District Litigation (MDL) settlement agreement
specified that the Service will systematically, over a period of 6
years, review and address the needs of 251 candidate species to
determine if they should be added to the Federal Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. The six beetle species included in
this finding were on that list of candidate species. This finding
completes the Service's requirements under the MDL agreement with
respect to these six beetle species.

Summary of Status Review

The six species are small (3 to 8 millimeters in length) predatory
cave beetles that occupy moist habitats containing organic matter
transported from sources outside the inhabited caves. Members of the
Pseudanophthalmus genus vary in rarity from fairly widespread species
that are found in many caves, to species that are extremely rare and
commonly restricted to only one cave or, at most, two or three caves.
The six beetles addressed by this finding are found entirely within
Tennessee, and two of the species (i.e., inquirer cave beetle and
Noblett's Cave beetle) are currently known from only one cave. Fowler's
Cave beetle and Indian Grave Point Cave beetle are known to occur in
two caves; Baker Station Cave beetle has been documented from three
caves; and the Coleman Cave beetle is known from four caves and a
possible fifth. Surveys conducted during a status update for the six
cave beetles during the period 2013-2015 resulted in findings of three
of the beetles that had not been seen in decades (i.e., Fowler's Cave
beetle,

[[Page 60850]]

Baker Station Cave beetle, and Noblett's Cave beetle). Although usually
zero to three individuals of any of the six species are found during
most surveys, 97 Coleman Cave beetles were also found during a 2013
site visit.
Various populations of the six cave beetles were historically
believed to have been subjected to stressors such as water quality
impacts associated with a landfill, erosion due to construction,
livestock operations, various aspects of human visitation of caves, and
possible impacts to cave food webs resulting from interruption of
organic energy inputs. The greatest potential stressors to the beetles
appear recently to have been human trampling of beetles and their
habitats, curtailing the input of organic materials to caves,
excavation of cave habitats, and predation. However, actual impacts
from these potential sources appear to be minimal. We have no
information indicating that these stressors are adversely affecting the
species at this time, either individually or cumulatively, at a level
that warrants their listing under the Act.
Abatement of stressors has been initiated for the Coleman Cave
beetle, Fowler's Cave beetle, and inquirer cave beetle through
development of cooperative management agreements (CMAs) with private
landowners and coordination between State property managers,
nongovernmental organizations, and the Service. Implementation of CMAs
is likely resulting in reduction of the impacts of potential stressors
to these three beetles. However, our not-warranted finding is not based
on the implementation of these voluntary efforts. For the Baker Station
Cave beetle, Indian Grave Point Cave beetle, and Noblett's Cave beetle,
the stressors appear minimal.
There has been a perception since the 1960s that population trends
of the six beetles could possibly be decreasing, but that perception is
likely due in part to the low level of survey effort expended for these
species and difficulty in collecting them. The recent evidence of
continued persistence of these species, in conjunction with the lack of
evidence that stressors are negatively affecting these cave beetles,
lead us to conclude that these species are more stable than previously
thought.

Finding

Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the stressors
acting on the species and its habitat are not of sufficient imminence,
intensity, or magnitude to conclude that the Coleman Cave beetle,
Fowler's Cave beetle, inquirer cave beetle, Baker Station Cave beetle,
Indian Grave Point Cave beetle, or Noblett's Cave beetle are in danger
of extinction (endangered species), or likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future (threatened species), throughout all of
their respective ranges. We evaluated the current range of the six
beetles to determine if there is any apparent geographic concentration
of stressors for any of the species. The six beetles have relatively
small ranges that are limited to the local cave systems where they are
currently found. We examined potential stressors including human
visitation, livestock grazing, commercial and residential development,
disease, predation, and sources of water quality impairment. We found
no concentration of stressors that suggests that any of these six
species of cave beetles may be in danger of extinction in a portion of
their respective ranges. Therefore, we find that listing the Coleman
Cave beetle, Fowler's Cave beetle, inquirer cave beetle, Baker Station
Cave beetle, Indian Grave Point Cave beetle, or Noblett's Cave beetle
as threatened species or endangered species throughout all or a
significant portion of their respective ranges is not warranted at this
time, and consequently we are removing Coleman Cave beetle, Fowler's
Cave beetle, inquirer cave beetle, Baker Station Cave beetle, Indian
Grave Point Cave beetle, and Noblett's Cave beetle from candidate
status.

New Information

We request that you submit any new information concerning the
status of, or stressors to, the American eel, Cumberland arrow darter,
the Great Basin distinct population segment of the Columbia spotted
frog, Goose Creek milkvetch, Nevares spring bug, Page springsnail,
Ramshaw meadows sand-verbena, Sequatchie caddisfly, Shawnee darter,
Siskiyou mariposa lily, Sleeping ute milkvetch, Southern Idaho ground
squirrel, Tahoe yellow cress, and six Tennessee cave beetles (Baker
Station, Coleman, Fowler's, Indian Grave Point, inquirer, and Noblett's
cave beetles) to the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, whenever it becomes available. New information
will help us monitor these species and encourage their conservation. If
an emergency situation develops for any of these species, we will act
to provide immediate protection.

References Cited

Lists of the references cited in the petition findings are
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon
request from the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

Author(s)

The primary author(s) of this notice are the staff members of the
Branch of Listing, Ecological Services Program.

Authority

The authority for this section is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: September 23, 2015.
Gary Frazer,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-25058 Filed 10-7-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P