[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 21, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64843-64857]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22453]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[4500090022]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Findings 
on Petitions To List Nine 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), announce 12-
month findings on petitions to list nine species as endangered or 
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(Act). After a review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information, we find that listing the angular dwarf crayfish, Guadalupe 
murrelet, Huachuca springsnail, two Kentucky cave beetles (Clifton Cave 
and Icebox Cave beetles), Artemisia campestris var. wormskioldii 
(northern wormwood), Scripps's murrelet, Virgin Islands coqu[iacute], 
and Washington ground squirrel is not warranted at this time. However, 
we ask the public to submit to us at any time any new information that 
becomes available concerning the stressors to any of the nine species 
listed above or their habitats.

DATES: The findings announced in this document were made on September 
21, 2016.

ADDRESSES: These findings are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at the following docket numbers:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Species                                                 Docket No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angular dwarf crayfish.....................................  FWS-R4-ES-2011-0049
Guadalupe murrelet.........................................  FWS-R8-ES-2016-0081
Huachuca springsnail.......................................  FWS-R2-ES-2016-0082
Kentucky cave beetles (Clifton Cave and Icebox Cave          FWS-R4-ES-2016-0032
 beetles).
Artemisia campestris var. wormskioldii (Northern wormwood).  FWS-R1-ES-2016-0083
Scripps's murrelet.........................................  FWS-R8-ES-2016-0084
Virgin Islands coqu[iacute]................................  FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0125
Washington ground squirrel.................................  FWS-R1-ES-2016-0085
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Supporting information used to prepare 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angular dwarf crayfish.......  Cary Norquist, Field Supervisor,
                                Mississippi Ecological Services Field
                                Office, 601-965-4900.
Guadalupe murrelet...........  Steve Henry, Field Supervisor, Ventura
                                Fish and Wildlife Office, 805-644-1766.
Huachuca springsnail.........  Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, Arizona
                                Ecological Services Field Office, 602-
                                242-0210.
Kentucky cave beetles          Lee Andrews, Field Supervisor, Kentucky
 (Clifton Cave and Icebox       Ecological Services Field Office, 502-
 Cave beetles).                 695-0468.
Artemisia campestris var.      Brad Thompson, Deputy State Supervisor,
 wormskioldii (Northern         Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 360-
 wormwood).                     753-6046.
Scripps's murrelet...........  Steve Henry, Field Supervisor, Ventura
                                Fish and Wildlife Office, 805-644-1766.
Virgin Islands coqu[iacute]..  Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of
                                Foreign Species, Headquarters Ecological
                                Services Office, 703-358-2171.
Washington ground squirrel...  Paul Henson, Field Supervisor, Oregon
                                Fish and Wildlife Office, 503-231-6179;
                                Eric Rickerson, Field Supervisor,
                                Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 360-
                                753-9440.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, 
within 12 months after receiving 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 
(``12-month finding''). In this finding, we determine whether listing 
the angular dwarf crayfish, Guadalupe murrelet, Huachuca springsnail, 
two Kentucky cave beetles (Clifton Cave and Icebox Cave beetles), 
Artemisia campestris var. wormskioldii (northern wormwood), Scripps's 
murrelet, Virgin Islands coqu[iacute], and Washington ground squirrel 
is: (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

[[Page 64844]]

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. The Act defines 
``endangered species'' as any species that is in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 
1532(6)), and ``threatened species'' as any species that is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Under 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be an 
endangered 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 to determine 
whether the angular dwarf crayfish, Guadalupe murrelet, Huachuca 
springsnail, two Kentucky cave beetles (Clifton Cave and Icebox Cave 
beetles), Artemisia campestris var. wormskioldii, Scripps's murrelet, 
Virgin Islands coqu[iacute], and Washington ground squirrel meet the 
definition of an endangered or threatened species. More detailed 
information about these species is presented in the species-specific 
assessment forms found on http://www.regulations.gov under the 
appropriate docket number (see ADDRESSES, above).
    In considering what stressors under the five 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 stressor 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 stressors that could 
affect a species negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that 
listing is appropriate; we require evidence that these stressors are 
operative threats to the species and its habitat, either singly or in 
combination, to the point that the species meets the definition of an 
endangered or a threatened species under the Act.
    In making our 12-month findings, we considered and evaluated the 
best available scientific and commercial information regarding the 
past, present, and future stressors and threats. We reviewed the 
petition, information available in our files, other available published 
and unpublished information. This evaluation may include information 
from recognized experts, Federal, State, tribal, academic, foreign 
governments, private entities, and the public.

Angular Dwarf Crayfish (Cambarellus (Pandicambarus) lesliei)

Previous Federal Actions

    On April 20, 2010, we received a petition dated April 20, 2010, 
from the Center for Biological Diversity, The Alabama Rivers Alliance, 
The Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, The Gulf Restoration Network, 
Tennessee Forests Council, and The West Virginia Highlands Conservancy 
requesting that we list 404 species, including the angular dwarf 
crayfish (Cambarellus (Pandicambarus) lesliei) as an endangered or 
threatened species under the Act and designate critical habitat for the 
species. The petition included supporting information regarding the 
species' taxonomy and ecology, historical and current distribution, 
present status, and potential causes of decline. On September 27, 2011 
(76 FR 59836), we published a partial 90-day finding on the petition. 
In that document, we announced our finding that the petition presented 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that 
listing the angular dwarf crayfish may be warranted, and we initiated a 
status review for the species.

Background

    The angular dwarf crayfish is one of the smallest crayfish in the 
northern hemisphere, with adults usually less than 25 millimeters (mm) 
(1.0 inches (in)) long. The species was described from a slow-moving 
stream ``0.5 mi S of Alabama Port, Mobile County, Alabama'' by J. F. 
Fitzpatrick, Jr. and B. A. Laning in 1976. The angular dwarf crayfish 
is considered a valid species and meets the Act's definition of a 
species.
    This species has been collected from heavily vegetated ponds, slow-
moving streams, and backwater areas, and the principal habitat feature 
appears to be the presence of dense, submerged aquatic vegetation. 
Little is known about the life history of the angular dwarf crayfish. 
Fitzpatrick and Laning (1976) observed egg-bearing females in February, 
April, and June, and females-with-young in both April and June, and 
they concluded that the species was a year-round breeder. However, they 
also believed that females did not produce eggs annually. Form I males 
have been found in February, April, June, August, October, and 
November.
    There is no information on the historical distribution of the 
angular dwarf crayfish. The known range of the species has expanded 
with limited collection efforts since the species was described in 1976 
using specimens collected in Alabama. It is currently known from 4 
localities within, or relatively close to, the Pascagoula River in 
George County, Mississippi, and 27 localities in the lower Alabama and 
lower Tombigbee River systems, the Mobile-Tensaw Delta, and Mobile Bay 
tributaries in Baldwin, Mobile, and Washington Counties, Alabama. The 
population in Mississippi appears to be disjunct from the Alabama 
population, but this is possibly an artifact of inadequate collecting 
effort. The angular dwarf crayfish is difficult to collect and is 
likely often overlooked. There are limited population and demographic 
data available for the angular dwarf crayfish.

Summary of Status Review

    Potential stressors for the angular dwarf crayfish were identified 
in the petition as direct alterations of waterways such as impoundment, 
diversion, dredging and channelization, and draining of wetlands; and 
land-use activities such as development, agriculture, logging, and 
mining. A supporting document entitled ``Species Assessment and Listing 
Priority

[[Page 64845]]

Assignment Form'' (assessment form) for the angular dwarf crayfish 
provides a summary of the literature and information regarding 
distribution, habitat requirements, life history, and stressors, as 
well as an analysis of the stressors to the species. We were unable to 
find any direct link between landscape-level stressors and the 
conservation status of the angular dwarf crayfish. Information acquired 
during our status review indicated that the angular dwarf crayfish 
continues to persist throughout its limited historical range, and that 
its known range has expanded due to recent survey efforts. In addition, 
the species is difficult to collect and identify, and additional 
populations are likely to be present within the currently known range.
    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information revealed that the angular dwarf crayfish is poorly 
understood and additional research is needed to more thoroughly define 
range, abundance, and population trends. However, during our status 
review, we did not identify any specific stressors that registered as 
threats to the species or its habitat throughout its currently known 
range, or within a significant portion of that range. We found no 
evidence that the species has experienced curtailment of range or 
habitat, or is affected by disease or predation, commercial or 
recreational harvest, the inadequacy of existing regulations, or any 
other natural or manmade factor.

Finding

    Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the stressors 
potentially acting on the species and its habitat, either singly or in 
combination, are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude 
to indicate that the angular dwarf crayfish 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 narrow and stressors are 
similar throughout the entire species' range, we found no concentration 
of stressors that suggests the angular dwarf crayfish may be in danger 
of extinction in any portion of its range. This finding is based on the 
continued presence of the species within its historical range, the 
expansion of the species' known range with limited survey efforts, and 
the absence of any direct link between the landscape-level stressors 
identified in the petition and the conservation status of the angular 
dwarf crayfish throughout its currently known range, or within a 
significant portion of that range.
    Therefore, we find that listing the angular dwarf crayfish as an 
endangered or threatened species is not warranted throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range at this time. This document 
constitutes the Service's 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, 
petition to list the angular dwarf crayfish as an endangered or 
threatened species. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding 
can be found in the angular dwarf crayfish's species-specific 
assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).

Guadalupe Murrelet (Synthliboramphus hypoleucus)

Previous Federal Actions

    On April 16, 2002, we received a petition dated April 8, 2002, from 
the Pacific Seabird Group to list the Xantus's murrelet 
(Synthliboramphus hypoleucus) as a threatened species. In our 2004 
annual review of species that are candidates for listing under the Act 
(also called a candidate notice of review or CNOR) published in the 
Federal Register on May 4, 2004 (69 FR 24876), we added the Xantus's 
murrelet to our list of candidate species and assigned it a listing 
priority of 5 (high magnitude of nonimminent threats), and determined 
that listing the Xantus's murrelet was warranted but precluded by 
higher priority listing actions. We published subsequent warranted-but-
precluded findings in later CNORs (70 FR 24870, May 11, 2005; 71 FR 
53756, September 12, 2006; 72 FR 69034, December 6, 2007; 73 FR 75176, 
December 10, 2008; 74 FR 57804, November 9, 2009; 75 FR 69222, November 
10, 2010; 76 FR 66370, October 26, 2011; 77 FR 69994, November 21, 
2012; 78 FR 70104, November 22, 2013; 79 FR 72450, December 5, 2014; 
and 80 FR 80584, December 24, 2015).

Background

    At the time of the petition, the Xantus's murrelet 
(Synthliboramphus hypoleucus) was recognized as having two subspecies, 
S. h. hypoleucus and S. h. scrippsi. However, information received 
since the petition suggested the two subspecies should be recognized as 
distinct species, the Guadalupe murrelet (S. hypoleucus) and the 
Scripps's murrelet (S. scrippsi). In 2012, the American Ornithologists 
Union (AOU) approved the elevation of the two subspecies to full 
species status. Incorporating this taxonomic change into the 
petitioner's request, we evaluated the two (newly recognized) species 
separately.
    The Guadalupe murrelet is a small diving seabird, approximately 23-
25 centimeters (9-10 inches) in length and weighing 148-187 grams (5-7 
ounces). The at-sea distribution of the species occurs up to 600 
kilometers (373 miles) off the coast of southern British Columbia, 
Canada, south to Baja California Sur, Mexico. Guadalupe murrelets are 
confirmed to nest on Guadalupe Island and on the San Benito Islands 
(comprised of San Benito Oeste, San Benito Medio, and San Benito Este) 
off the west coast of Baja California, Mexico. A historical breeding 
site with limited birds was observed on Santa Barbara Island, 
California, but is no longer in use.

Summary of Status Review

    In our current assessment of the status of the species, we 
developed a Species Status Assessment report (SSA report) outlining the 
stressors potentially impacting Guadalupe murrelets and their habitat 
(Species Report--Scripps's Murrelet (Synthliboramphus scrippsi) and 
Guadalupe Murrelet (Synthliboramphus hypoleucus)). We consider the SSA 
report to be the compilation of the best available scientific and 
commercial information on the status of the Guadalupe murrelet and its 
habitat. The stressors we evaluated in the species report include: (1) 
Native predators; (2) nonnative predators; (3) introduced mammals 
(sheep, goats, cattle, pigs, rabbits, and hares); (4) guano mining; (5) 
human disturbance; (6) artificial lighting; (7) fishing activity; (8) 
prey availability; (9) off-shore natural gas exploration and extraction 
activities; (10) oil pollution; (11) the effects of climate change; and 
(12) the effects of small population size.
    In our assessment, we acknowledge that the Guadalupe murrelet 
probably underwent steep declines as a result of predation and habitat 
destruction in the early to mid-1900s, as evidenced by anecdotal and 
observed accounts. However, no extirpations or steep declines have been 
observed within the last 40 years, and population numbers remain stable 
based on the limited survey information. Residual effects from habitat 
modification and displacement from potential breeding habitat may still 
be occurring. However, we anticipate that these residual effects will 
decrease in the future as vegetation recovers naturally and birds 
slowly move back into previously used breeding habitat. All nonnative 
predators have been removed from the San Benito Islands. Cats do still 
occur on the main Guadalupe Island, but only impact a small population 
of Guadalupe murrelets as the majority nest on off-

[[Page 64846]]

shore rocks and islets. Some eradication efforts have been conducted, 
and fencing has been installed around known seabird nesting areas on 
Guadalupe Island since 2003. Additional conservation efforts include 
designation of Guadalupe Island as a Biosphere Reserve in June 2005, by 
the Government of Mexico. Since 2011, there has been a management plan 
in place on Guadalupe Island, implementing measures to restrict access, 
limit existing human activity, and provide measures for restoration and 
conservation of endemic species and their habitats.

Finding

    Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the stressors 
impacting the species have either been eliminated or reduced to the 
point where they are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or 
magnitude, either singularly or cumulatively, to indicate that the 
Guadalupe murrelet is currently in danger of extinction (an endangered 
species), or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future 
(a threatened species) throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. This is based on the relatively stable population and 
distribution of the species and the fact that conservation management 
is occurring throughout the species' range to minimize impacts to both 
the habitat and individuals.
    In considering any significant portion of the range of this 
species, we evaluated whether the stressors facing Guadalupe murrelet 
might be geographically concentrated in any one portion of its range 
and whether these stressors manifest as threats to Guadalupe murrelet 
such that it would be presently in danger of extinction throughout all 
of the species' range. We found no portion of its range where the 
stressors are significantly concentrated or substantially greater than 
in any other portion of its range. As a result, we find that factors 
affecting Guadalupe murrelet are essentially uniform throughout its 
range, indicating no portion of the range warrants further 
consideration of possible endangered or threatened status under the 
Act.
    Therefore, we find that listing the Guadalupe murrelet as an 
endangered or threatened species or maintaining the species as a 
candidate under the Act is not warranted at this time, and consequently 
we are removing it from candidate status.
    As a result of the Service's 2011 multidistrict litigation 
settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth 
Guardians, the Service is required to submit a proposed listing rule or 
a not-warranted 12-month finding to the Federal Register 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)), for all 
251 species that were included as candidate species in the Service's 
November 10, 2010, CNOR. This document satisfies the requirements of 
that settlement agreement for the Guadalupe murrelet, and constitutes 
the Service's 12-month finding on the April 8, 2002, petition to list 
the Guadalupe murrelet as an endangered or threatened species. A 
detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the 
Guadalupe murrelet's species-specific assessment form, the SSA report, 
and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).

Scripps's Murrelet (Synthliboramphus scrippsi)

Previous Federal Actions

    On April 16, 2002, we received a petition dated April 8, 2002, from 
the Pacific Seabird Group to list the Xantus's murrelet 
(Synthliboramphus hypoleucus) as a threatened species. In our 2004 
CNOR, published in the Federal Register on May 4, 2004 (69 FR 24876), 
we added the Xantus's murrelet to our list of candidate species and 
assigned it a listing priority of 5 (high magnitude of nonimminent 
threats), and determined that listing the Xantus's murrelet was 
warranted but precluded by higher priority listing actions. We 
published subsequent warranted-but-precluded findings in later CNORs 
(70 FR 24870, May 11, 2005; 71 FR 53756, September 12, 2006; 72 FR 
69034, December 6, 2007; 73 FR 75176, December 10, 2008; 74 FR 57804, 
November 9, 2009; 75 FR 69222, November 10, 2010; 76 FR 66370, October 
26, 2011; 77 FR 69994, November 21, 2012; 78 FR 70104, November 22, 
2013; 79 FR 72450, December 5, 2014; and 80 FR 80584, December 24, 
2015).

Background

    At the time of the petition, the Xantus's murrelet 
(Synthliboramphus hypoleucus) was recognized as having two subspecies, 
S. h. hypoleucus and S. h. scrippsi. However, information since the 
petition suggested the two subspecies should be recognized as distinct 
species, the Guadalupe murrelet (S. hypoleucus) and the Scripps's 
murrelet (S. scrippsi). Incorporating this taxonomic change into the 
petitioner's request, we evaluated the two (newly recognized) species 
separately.
    The Scripps's murrelet is a small diving seabird, approximately 23-
25 centimeters (9-10 inches) in length and weighing 148-187 grams (5-7 
ounces). The at-sea distribution of the species occurs up to 600 
kilometers (373 miles) off the coast of southern British Columbia, 
Canada, south to Baja California, Mexico. Scripps's murrelets are 
confirmed to nest on the Channel Islands (San Miguel, Santa Cruz, 
Anacapa, Santa Barbara, Santa Catalina, and San Clemente Islands) off 
the California coast and on several islands off the coast of Baja 
California, Mexico (Coronado, Todos Santos, San Jeronimo, and San 
Benito Islands). The species is present on the island of San Martin, 
Mexico, but there is no confirmed breeding.

Summary of Status Review

    In our current assessment of the status of the species, we 
developed a SSA report outlining the stressors potentially impacting 
Scripps's murrelets and their habitat (Species Report--Scripps's 
Murrelet (Synthliboramphus scrippsi) and Guadalupe Murrelet 
(Synthliboramphus hypoleucus). We consider the SSA report to be the 
compilation of the best available scientific and commercial information 
on the status of the Scripps's murrelet and its habitat. The stressors 
we evaluated in the species report include: (1) Native predators; (2) 
nonnative predators; (3) introduced mammals (sheep, goats, cattle, 
pigs, rabbits, and hares); (4) guano mining; (5) human disturbance; (6) 
artificial lighting; (7) fishing activity; (8) prey availability; (9) 
off-shore natural gas exploration and extraction activities; (10) oil 
pollution; (11) the effects of climate change; and (12) the effects of 
small population size.
    In our assessment, we acknowledge that the Scripps's murrelet 
probably underwent steep declines as a result of predation and habitat 
destruction in the early to mid-1900s as evidenced by anecdotal and 
observed accounts; however, no extirpations or steep declines have been 
observed within the last 40 years and populations numbers remain 
stable, based on the limited survey information. Population numbers of 
Scripps's murrelet have rebounded on Santa Barbara Island and Anacapa 
Island after the removal of nonnative predators and habitat restoration 
(both natural and prescripted), and now make up over 40 percent of the 
breeding population for the species. Residual effects from habitat 
modification and displacement from potential breeding habitat may still 
be occurring. However,

[[Page 64847]]

we anticipate that these residual effects will decrease in the future 
as vegetation recovers naturally and birds slowly move back into 
previously used breeding habitat. All nonnative predators have been 
removed from all breeding and nonbreeding islands. Additional 
conservation efforts include restrictions of human activity near 
breeding areas on the Channel Islands and designation of several of the 
islands off the coast of Baja California as natural reserves by the 
Government of Mexico. These measures restrict access and limit human 
activity and provide measures for restoration and conservation of 
endemic species.

Finding

    Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the stressors 
impacting the species have either been eliminated or reduced to the 
point where they are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or 
magnitude to indicate that the Scripps's murrelet is currently in 
danger of extinction (endangered), or likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future (threatened) throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. This is based on stable or increasing 
populations and distribution of the species and the fact that 
conservation management is occurring throughout the species' range for 
both impacts to habitat and individuals.
    In considering any significant portion of the range of this 
species, we evaluated whether the stressors facing Scripps's murrelet 
might be geographically concentrated in any one portion of its range 
and whether these stressors in a portion of its range manifest as 
threats to Scripps's murrelet such that it would be presently in danger 
of extinction throughout all of the species' range. We found no portion 
of its range where the stressors are significantly concentrated or 
substantially greater than in any other portion of its range. As a 
result, we find that factors affecting Scripps's murrelet are 
essentially uniform throughout its range, indicating no portion of the 
range warrants further consideration of possible endangered or 
threatened status under the Act.
    Therefore, we find that listing the Scripps's murrelet as an 
endangered or threatened species or maintaining the species as a 
candidate under the Act is not warranted at this time, and consequently 
we are removing this species from candidate status.
    As a result of the Service's 2011 multidistrict litigation 
settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth 
Guardians, the Service is required to submit a proposed listing rule or 
a not-warranted 12-month finding to the Federal Register 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)), for all 
251 species that were included as candidate species in the Service's 
November 10, 2010, CNOR. This document satisfies the requirements of 
that settlement agreement for the Scripps's murrelet, and constitutes 
the Service's 12-month finding on the 2002 petition to list the 
Scripps's murrelet as an endangered or threatened species. A detailed 
discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Scripps's 
murrelet's species-specific assessment form, the SSA report, and other 
supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).

Huachuca Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis thompsoni)

Previous Federal Actions

    We designated the Huachuca springsnail as a Category 2 candidate in 
the Animal Notice of Review published in the Federal Register on 
January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554). Category 2 candidate 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 February 28, 
1996, CNOR (61 FR 7596) discontinued recognition of categories and in 
that document we designated the Huachuca springsnail a candidate 
species as currently defined. On May 11, 2004, we received a petition 
dated May 4, 2004, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting 
that we list 225 plants and animals, including the Huachuca 
springsnail, as endangered species under the Act and designate critical 
habitat. In response to the May 4, 2004, petition to list the Huachuca 
springsnail as an endangered species, we published a warranted-but-
precluded 12-month finding in the Federal Register on May 11, 2005 (70 
FR 24870). We published subsequent warranted-but-precluded 12-month 
findings in later CNORs (71 FR 53756, September 12, 2006; 72 FR 69034, 
December 6, 2007; 73 FR 75176, December 10, 2008; 74 FR 57804, November 
9, 2009; 75 FR 69222, November 10, 2010; 76 FR 66370, October 26, 2011; 
77 FR 69994, November 21, 2012; 78 FR 70104, November 22, 2013; 79 FR 
72450, December 5, 2014; and 80 FR 80584, December 24, 2015).

Background

    The Huachuca springsnail is a small (1.7 to 3.2 millimeters (0.07 
to 0.13 inches)) aquatic snail (class Gastropoda; subclass Rissooidea; 
family Hydrobiidae) endemic to Santa Cruz and Cochise Counties in 
southeastern Arizona and adjacent portions of northern Sonora, Mexico. 
There are an estimated 29 historical spring ecosystem sites (23 on 
Federal land, 4 on private land, 2 in Mexico), of which 23 are 
confirmed as occupied sites. The Huachuca springsnail is most commonly 
found in rheocrene ecosystems (water emerging from the ground as a 
flowing stream) where proximity to spring vents plays a key role in 
their life history. Most information regarding Huachuca springsnail 
life history is derived from closely related congeners or other members 
of the Hydrobiidae family. Springsnails are gill-breathing and have an 
entirely benthic life cycle with a typical lifespan of about one year. 
Female springsnails are noticeably larger than males and are oviparous 
(egg-laying), and reproduction occurs throughout the year in warm water 
and seasonally in colder environments. Springsnails are known to feed 
primarily on periphyton, which is a complex mixture of algae, detritus, 
bacteria, and other microbes that live upon submerged surfaces in 
aquatic environments. Due to their small size, springsnail mobility is 
limited and significant dispersal events are unlikely to occur. 
Suitable habitat for springsnails includes spring ecosystems that 
produce running water with firm substrates characterized by cobble, 
gravel, woody debris, and aquatic vegetation.

Summary of Status Review

    The SSA report for the Huachuca springsnail provides a summary of 
the information assembled and reviewed by the Service and incorporates 
the best available scientific and commercial information for this 
species. In the SSA report, we evaluated the potential stressors that 
could be affecting Huachuca springsnail populations. Those stressors 
that could meaningfully impact the status of the species include: (1) 
Reduction of spring discharge; (2) springhead modification; (3) 
conversion from lotic (flowing water) to lentic (standing water) 
systems; (4) aquatic vegetation management; (5) water contamination; 
(6) predation; and (7) competition. We evaluated each of these factors 
for their potential to have

[[Page 64848]]

population- and species-level effects to the Huachuca springsnail (for 
further information, please refer to the Huachuca springsnail SSA 
report). Many of these stressors are ameliorated by ongoing 
conservation efforts. The majority of springs that are occupied by the 
Huachuca springsnail are on Federal lands where there are some existing 
protections in place related to general land use plans (Department of 
Defense and U.S. Forest Service). In addition, a candidate conservation 
agreement (CCA) is under development that could potentially enhance 
existing conservation measures and protections.
    The Huachuca springsnail continues to occupy a very large portion 
of its estimated historical range (found in 23 of 29 spring sites 
surveyed since 2004), and a substantial portion of the spring habitat 
throughout the species' current range is relatively intact (25 of 29 
sites assessed as either high- or medium-quality habitat). Current 
Huachuca springsnail occupancy, and the amount and distribution of 
high- and medium-quality habitat, supports sufficient resiliency to 
sustain the Huachuca springsnail into the near future. These levels are 
commensurate with historical information, and there is no information 
to suggest that the species will not continue to occur at these levels.
    In considering the foreseeable future as it relates to the status 
of the Huachuca springsnail, we considered the stressors acting on the 
species and looked to see if reliable predictions about the status of 
the species in response to those factors could be drawn. We considered 
whether we could reliably predict any future effects that might affect 
the status of the species, recognizing that our ability to make 
reliable predictions into the future is limited by the variable 
quantity and quality of available data about impacts to the Huachuca 
springsnail and the species' response to those impacts.
    For the Huachuca springsnail, the most significant stressor looking 
into the future is climate change, resulting in both springhead 
modification and spring discharge decline. When evaluated under 
plausible future scenarios, however (see Huachuca springsnail SSA 
report), the best available scientific and commercial information does 
not show that these stressors to the Huachuca springsnail are likely to 
result in meaningful population declines in the foreseeable future.

Finding

    Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information pertaining to the five listing 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 Huachuca springsnail 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 is based on the relatively stable population and distribution of 
the species and the fact that conservation management is occurring 
throughout the species' range to minimize impacts to both the habitat 
and individuals.
    We also evaluated the current range of the Huachuca springsnail to 
determine if there are any apparent geographic concentrations of 
potential threats to the species. Generally speaking, the risk factors 
affecting the Huachuca springsnail occur throughout the range of the 
species; however, portions of the range that are outside of areas 
currently afforded protection from future spring modifications (i.e., 
springs located on private land and in Mexico) may be subject to 
impacts not found throughout the range of the species, which is mostly 
located on Federal lands. If we assume that all areas on unprotected 
land had springhead modification that resulted in the habitat being 
made entirely unusable to the Huachuca springsnail, that conversion 
would represent a loss of 21 percent of available habitat. At this 
scale, we have no information to suggest that the remaining 79 percent 
of available habitat on Federal lands would not continue to support 
sufficient Huachuca springsnail resiliency and redundancy. 
Additionally, there is no genetic information available for the 
populations on private land and in Mexico to suggest there are unique 
genetic values for these areas that would need to be maintained to 
support representation. Based on this analysis, we conclude that the 
portion of the range of the Huachuca springsnail on Federal lands (79 
percent of available habitat) contains sufficient redundancy, 
resiliency, and representation that ensure that the Huachuca 
springsnail would not be in danger of extinction in a significant 
portion of its range if the available habitat on non-Federal lands (21 
percent of available habitat) were to become unusable for the species.
    Based on the above evaluations, we find that listing the Huachuca 
springsnail as an endangered or threatened 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.
    As a result of the Service's 2011 multidistrict litigation 
settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth 
Guardians, the Service is required to submit a proposed listing rule or 
a not-warranted 12-month finding to the Federal Register 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)), for all 
251 species that were included as candidate species in the Service's 
November 10, 2010, CNOR. This document satisfies the requirements of 
that settlement agreement for the Huachuca springsnail, and constitutes 
the Service's 12-month finding on the May 4, 2004, petition to list the 
Huachuca springsnail as an endangered or threatened species. A detailed 
discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Huachuca 
springsnail's species-specific assessment form, SSA report, and other 
supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).

Two Kentucky Cave Beetles (Clifton Cave Beetle (Pseudanophthalmus 
caecus) and Icebox Cave Beetle (Pseudanophthalmus frigidus))

Previous Federal Actions

    The Icebox Cave beetle was added to the Federal list of candidate 
species in the 1989 CNOR (54 FR 554; January 6, 1989) as a Category 2 
candidate species. The Clifton Cave beetle was added to the Federal 
list of candidate species in the 1994 CNOR (59 FR 58982; November 15, 
1994) as a Category 2 candidate species. When the 1996 CNOR (61 FR 
7596) discontinued recognition of categories, the Icebox Cave beetle 
and Clifton Cave beetle were no longer considered candidate species.
    On October 30, 2001, the Service added both the Icebox Cave beetle 
and the Clifton Cave beetle to the candidate list through the Service's 
own internal process (66 FR 54808). However, the Service received a 
petition from the Center for Biological Diversity and others, dated May 
11, 2004, to list eight cave beetles, including the Clifton Cave beetle 
and Icebox Cave beetle. In the May 11, 2005, CNOR (70 FR 24870), the 
Service determined that listing the Clifton Cave beetle and Icebox Cave 
beetle was warranted but precluded by higher priority listing 
decisions. Further, we have included both species addressed in this 
finding in every CNOR since 2001 (66 FR 54808, October 30, 2001; 67 FR 
40657, June 13, 2002; 69 FR 24876, May 4, 2004; 70 FR 24870, May 11, 
2005; 71 FR 53756, September 12, 2006; 72 FR 69034, December 6, 2007;

[[Page 64849]]

73 FR 75176, December 10, 2008; 74 FR 57804, November 9, 2009; 75 FR 
69222, November 10, 2010; 76 FR 66370, October 26, 2011; 77 FR 69994, 
November 21, 2012; 78 FR 70104, November 22, 2013; 79 FR 72450, 
December 5, 2014; and 80 FR 80584, December 24, 2015).

Background

    The species are small (about 4 millimeters in length), predatory 
cave beetles that occupy moist habitats containing organic matter 
transported from sources outside the cave environment. Members of the 
Pseudanophthalmus genus vary in abundance from fairly widespread 
species that are found in many caves to species that are extremely rare 
and often restricted to only one or two caves. The two beetles 
addressed by this finding are examples of the latter group as they are 
restricted to one or two cave habitats in Kentucky. The Clifton Cave 
Beetle is known from two caves (Clifton Cave and Richardson's Spring 
Cave) in Woodford County, while the Icebox Cave beetle is known from 
one cave (Icebox Cave) in Bell County.

Summary of Status Review

    When the Clifton Cave beetle and Icebox Cave beetle were first 
identified as candidates for protection under the Act (66 FR 54808; 
October 30, 2001), the Service considered both species to be vulnerable 
to habitat destruction or modification caused by a disruption of the 
natural inflow of energy into the cave environment; we considered both 
species to be vulnerable to habitat disturbance within the cave 
environment resulting from vandalism, pollution, or sedimentation; and 
we noted the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to ameliorate 
those threats. In the 2005 CNOR (70 FR 24879; May 11, 2005), we also 
considered the species' restricted distribution and perceived small 
population sizes to increase their vulnerability to these effects, and 
we recognized the potential of these characteristics to limit the 
species' natural exchange of genetic material, leading to lower genetic 
diversity and reduced fitness. Both species were assigned a listing 
priority number (LPN) of 5, which reflects threats of a high magnitude 
that are not considered imminent.
    Over the last year, new field surveys and monitoring efforts for 
the Clifton Cave beetle and Icebox Cave beetle have improved our 
understanding of the species' distribution and threats. A supporting 
document entitled ``Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment 
Form'' (assessment form) for each of the two cave beetle species 
provides a summary of the literature and information regarding 
distribution, habitat requirements, life history, and stressors, as 
well as a detailed analysis of the stressors to the species. Based on 
these findings, we have re-examined each species' status and re-
evaluated the magnitude and imminence of their threats. We acknowledge 
that the species have narrow ranges and are sometimes difficult to 
locate within known habitats; however, based on these new field surveys 
we have determined that each species' overall status is more secure 
than previously believed.
    With respect to the Clifton Cave beetle, we have no evidence 
suggesting that the closure of Clifton Cave has harmed the species. 
Closure of the cave likely benefited the species, as the cave did not 
appear to be accessible to humans prior to its original disturbance in 
the early 1960s. Land use surrounding Clifton Cave has not changed 
dramatically since the 1960s, so we do not expect that habitats within 
the cave have been disturbed, nor do we expect a future rise in any 
habitat-related stressors. Due to the consistent land use and low 
disturbance within the watershed, we also expect that energy inputs via 
sinkholes, rock fissures, or other karst windows have been maintained, 
and have provided the energy needed to maintain the cave ecosystem.
    Agricultural land use is even more prevalent in areas surrounding 
the species' other known cave, Richardson's Spring Cave; however, 
recent surveys demonstrate that the Clifton Cave beetle has persisted 
within the cave for over 20 years and continues to be present at levels 
similar to (or perhaps higher than) those observed in 1994. The 
species' persistence and high relative abundance over the past two 
decades indicate that any potential habitat stressors related to 
agriculture or small population size have not been sufficient to 
adversely affect the species. The species' persistence also suggests 
that physical disturbance and vandalism caused by human entry is not a 
threat (Service 2016, entire). The cave's low ceiling and narrow 
passage are not favorable for human visitors, and Lewis and Lewis 
observed no evidence of recent human entry during surveys in 2015.
    With respect to the Icebox Cave beetle, ground disturbance 
associated with development, agriculture, or resource extraction does 
not appear to pose a current threat to the species. There is visible 
evidence of past logging (e.g., abandoned, unpaved roads) near the 
cave's entrance and some residential development in nearby Pineville, 
Kentucky, but areas surrounding the cave entrance are forested and 
remain relatively undisturbed. Land use surrounding the cave has 
changed little since the beetle's discovery in 1963, and we do not 
expect this to change. Because of these conditions, we also expect that 
energy inputs via sinkholes or other karst windows have likely been 
maintained and will continue to provide energy needed to support the 
cave ecosystem. Our review of current land use and the species' 
persistence within Icebox Cave for over 50 years indicates that 
stressors associated with ground disturbance are not occurring at 
levels that would cause negative population trends for the Icebox Cave 
beetle.
    Icebox Cave has a long history of human visitation, and the cave 
has been heavily disturbed as evidenced by extensive graffiti on cave 
walls and several altered (broken) formations. Despite this 
disturbance, recent surveys by Lewis and Lewis demonstrate the Icebox 
Cave beetle continues to occur in Icebox Cave, the species has 
persisted within the cave for over 50 years, and it continues to be 
present at levels similar to (or perhaps greater than) those observed 
previously (1963 and 1979). The species' persistence over the past five 
decades suggests that the level of physical disturbance and vandalism 
observed within the cave has not risen to the level that would threaten 
the species' continued existence or alter its population levels within 
the cave. There is also recent evidence that human disturbance within 
Icebox Cave has all but ceased. Lewis and Lewis observed no evidence of 
recent human visitation or entry, no fresh garbage, and no recent 
graffiti.
    We also have no evidence that small population size represents a 
threat to the Icebox Cave beetle. Only a total of four individuals have 
been observed in Icebox Cave since 1963, but recent observations by 
Lewis and Lewis demonstrate the species continues to occur in Icebox 
Cave and in numbers similar to those reported by previous 
investigators. The small number of beetles reported from Icebox Cave is 
not unusual; other Pseudanophthalmus species have been reported in low 
densities. We believe it is reasonable to assume that some 
Pseudanophthalmus species have always occurred in low but stable 
numbers and this is a normal aspect of their life history.

Finding

    Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial

[[Page 64850]]

information pertaining to the five threat factors, we find that the 
stressors acting on these species and their habitats, either singly or 
in combination, are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or 
magnitude to indicate the Clifton Cave beetle or Icebox Cave beetle are 
in danger of extinction (an endangered species), or likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future (a threatened species), 
throughout all of their respective ranges.
    We evaluated the current ranges of the Clifton Cave beetle and 
Icebox Cave beetle to determine if there is any apparent geographic 
concentration of potential threats for these species. Both species have 
a relatively small range that is limited to one or two cave systems. We 
examined potential stressors including human visitation, agricultural 
activities (livestock grazing, row crops), commercial and residential 
development, resource extraction (logging), disease, predation, sources 
of water quality impairment, and small population size. We found no 
concentration of stressors that suggests that either of these cave 
beetles may be in danger of extinction in a portion of their respective 
ranges. Therefore, we find that listing the Clifton Cave beetle and 
Icebox Cave beetle as an endangered or threatened species under the Act 
throughout all or a significant portion of their respective ranges is 
not warranted at this time, and consequently we are removing both 
species from candidate status.
    As a result of the Service's 2011 multidistrict litigation 
settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth 
Guardians, the Service is required to submit a proposed listing rule or 
a not-warranted 12-month finding to the Federal Register 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)), for all 
251 species that were included as candidate species in the Service's 
November 10, 2010, CNOR. This document satisfies the requirements of 
that settlement agreement for the Clifton Cave beetle and Icebox Cave 
beetle, and constitutes the Service's 12-month finding on the May 11, 
2004, petition to list the Clifton Cave beetle and Icebox Cave beetle 
as endangered or threatened species. A detailed discussion of the basis 
for this finding can be found in the Clifton Cave beetle's and Icebox 
Cave beetle's species-specific assessment forms and other supporting 
documents (see ADDRESSES, above).

Artemisia Campestris Var. Wormskioldii (Northern Wormwood)

Previous Federal Actions

    In this and previous Federal actions we refer to northern wormwood 
as Artemisia borealis var. wormskioldii. However, northern wormwood is 
currently recognized by regional botanical authorities as Artemisia 
campestris L. var. wormskioldii (Besser) Cronquist.
    Artemisia campestris var. wormskioldii was first recognized as a 
Category 2 candidate species in the September 27, 1985, review of plant 
taxa for listing as endangered or threatened species (50 FR 39526). In 
the February 21, 1990, CNOR, we changed A. campestris var. wormskioldii 
's candidate status to Category 1, a species for which substantial 
information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) was available to 
support proposals for listing as endangered or threatened species, but 
issuance of the proposed rule was precluded by other higher priority 
listing actions (55 FR 6184). In the February 28, 1996, CNOR, we 
discontinued the use of categories and removed A. campestris var. 
wormskioldii from candidate status (61 FR 7596).
    In the October 25, 1999, CNOR, we added Artemisia campestris var. 
wormskioldii back to the candidate list (64 FR 57534). At that time, 
this species was assigned a listing priority number of 3 (threat facing 
the subspecies was of high magnitude and imminent) as outlined in our 
Listing and Recovery Priority Guidelines (48 FR 43098; September 21, 
1983). We were petitioned to list this species by the Center for 
Biological Diversity and others on May 11, 2004. A. campestris var. 
wormskioldii retained the same status in our CNORs published since 2001 
(66 FR 54808, October 30, 2001; 67 FR 40657, June 13, 2002; 69 FR 
24876, May 4, 2004; 70 FR 24870, May 11, 2005; 71 FR 53756, September 
12, 2006; 72 FR 69034, December 6, 2007; 73 FR 75176, December 10, 
2008; 74 FR 57804, November 9, 2009; 75 FR 69222, November 10, 2010; 76 
FR 66370, October 26, 2011; 77 FR 69994, November 21, 2012; 78 FR 
70104, November 22, 2013; 79 FR 72450, December 5, 2014; and 80 FR 
80584, December 24, 2015).

Background

    Artemisia campestris var. wormskioldii is a perennial plant in the 
family Asteraceae (asters or sunflowers). It is generally low-growing, 
reaching 15 to 30 centimeters (6 to 12 inches) average height, and has 
a taproot. Historically, northern wormwood was found on exposed basalt, 
cobbly-sandy terraces, and sandy habitat in riparian areas along the 
banks of the Columbia River at elevations above mean sea level ranging 
from 50 to 150 meters (160 to 500 feet).
    The available information indicates that Artemisia campestris var. 
wormskioldii is a narrow endemic that may always have existed in only a 
few, small populations at any one time. Currently, A. campestris var. 
wormskioldii is known to exist naturally at two sites, Beverly and 
Miller Island, located respectively in Grant and Klickitat Counties, 
Washington. Northern wormwood has been planted at five additional 
locations with the aim of creating new populations within its 
historical range. Introduction sites in Oregon include Squally Point 
and Rock Creek Park in Wasco County, and Rufus Island in Sherman 
County. Introduction sites in Washington include Johnson Island in 
Benton County and Island 18 in Franklin County. With the exception of 
Rock Creek Park (owned by the City of Mosier, Oregon), and Squally 
Point (part of Mayer State Park, Oregon), all of the locations where 
northern wormwood is found are located on Federal land.

Summary of Status Review

    A supporting document entitled ``Species Assessment and Listing 
Priority Assignment Form'' (assessment form) provides a summary of the 
literature and information regarding Artemisia campestris var. 
wormskioldii's distribution, habitat requirements, life history, and 
stressors, as well as a detailed analysis of the stressors to the 
species. This evaluation includes information from all sources, 
including Federal, State, tribal, academic, and private entities and 
the public. We consider this supporting document the best available 
scientific and commercial information.
    We previously identified potential stressors (natural or human-
induced negative pressures affecting individuals or subpopulations of a 
species) on Artemisia campestris var. wormskioldi, to include: (1) 
Altered hydrology; (2) erosion; (3) trampling; (4) nonnative, invasive 
plants; (5) herbivory; (6) climate change; (7) fire; and (8) genetic 
and other small-population issues. Dam construction, associated changes 
in flow and sediment regimes, deep pool formation behind the dams, and 
related shoreline development (such as roads, railroads, and riprap) 
likely caused the loss of historical habitat of northern wormwood, and 
as a result of these changes, little suitable habitat may

[[Page 64851]]

remain within the plant's documented historical range. The habitat 
within the known historical range, as well as some other areas of 
suitable habitat, have been surveyed by knowledgeable biologists for 
additional populations of A. campestris var. wormskioldii since 2002, 
and the likelihood is low that undiscovered populations exist in these 
areas. The current hydrology in the Columbia River may have some effect 
on individual A. campestris var. wormskioldii plants and on their 
habitat; high flows in some years have caused mortality of recently 
transplanted individuals) and also have been correlated with large 
flushes of seedlings. However, the best available scientific and 
commercial information does not indicate that current flow regimes or 
past development have current or ongoing population-level effects on 
the abundance and distribution of A. campestris var. wormskioldii.
    Natural erosion by wind and water of the sandy substrate has been 
observed at Miller Island and Squally Point and has caused mortality of 
individual Artemisia campestris var. wormskioldii plants and decreased 
seedling survival. Deposition of sand has buried plants on Miller 
Island, and an inverse relationship evidently exists between sand 
deposition and the number of A. campestris var. wormskioldii plants on 
the island in a given year. Since 2010, the number of mature plants has 
increased annually on Miller Island, and percent sand cover in A. 
campestris var. wormskioldii monitoring plots varied and decreased 
overall over the same period. This phenomenon has not been observed at 
the Beverly site or the other introduced sites.
    In the past, both natural populations of Artemisia campestris var. 
wormskioldii suffered from trampling by people (Beverly and Miller 
Island) and trampling and herbivory by grazing cattle (Miller Island 
only). People using these sites for recreation inadvertently trampled 
plants, and on Miller Island, cattle reportedly uprooted individual 
plants growing in loose, sandy substrate and may also have acted as a 
vector for nonnative plant species. However, grazing was eliminated 
from Miller Island in 1988, and cattle are not present there today or 
at any other site occupied by A. campestris var. wormskioldii. Foot 
traffic and boat launching were curtailed at Beverly with the 
construction of a fence to protect the A. campestris var. wormskioldii 
population. Trampling by people and cattle and herbivory by cattle, 
therefore, are unlikely to be population-level stressors to A. 
campestris var. wormskioldii today or in the foreseeable future. The 
extent of herbivory by native animals is largely unknown, but based on 
available information, it is likely to be minor and have no population-
level impacts on A. campestris var. wormskioldii.
    Nonnative, invasive plants occur at most of the sites where 
Artemisia campestris var. wormskioldii occurs. Dalmatian toadflax 
(Linaria dalmatica) and diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) are 
present in the A. campestris var. wormskioldii population at Beverly, 
where monitoring and regular treatment keep them under control. At 
Miller Island, diffuse knapweed and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) are 
present but in low density. Among the sites where A. campestris var. 
wormskioldii has been introduced, indigo bush (Amorpha fruticosa) 
occurs on Rufus Island, and indigo bush, diffuse knapweed, and rush 
skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea) plants occur at Squally Point. 
Although initial treatment of nonnative plants occurred at both of 
these sites, follow up treatments have not yet occurred. Without 
regular intervention, these nonnative plants can spread into new areas, 
including into patches of A. campestris var. wormskioldii, and they are 
likely to compete with A. campestris var. wormskioldii for resources. 
Although the impacts of nonnative, invasive plant species on ecosystems 
generally are well known, there is no prior documentation or current, 
direct evidence of a negative response in A. campestris var. 
wormskioldii to the presence of nonnative, invasive plant species. 
Thus, we can only speculate about potential effects on A. campestris 
var. wormskioldii and about the imminence and severity of those effects 
if they occur. The species of nonnative, invasive plants and efforts to 
control them (current and anticipated) are not uniformly distributed 
across the sites where A. campestris var. wormskioldii occurs. 
Therefore, if invasive plants have negative impacts to A. campestris 
var. wormskioldii, those potential impacts, and whether and when they 
might be expressed, are likely to be different at different sites. We 
do anticipate, however, that ongoing treatment of nonnative, invasive 
plants will occur as needed at A. campestris var. wormskioldii sites, 
especially given the current investment in establishing new populations 
of A. campestris var. wormskioldii and the long-term, ongoing interest 
and involvement of our State and other partners in the conservation of 
this rare plant.
    With only two known naturally occurring populations and two of five 
introduction sites with documented natural recruitment, A. campestris 
var. wormskioldii has a limited capacity to withstand stochastic events 
such as harsh winter conditions, prolonged droughts, and fire. For 
example, a steep decline in the number of adult A. campestris var. 
wormskioldii plants at the Beverly site in 2009 may have been caused in 
part by the previous winter having been unusually cold and long. 
However, whether the harsher than average winter was related to climate 
change is not known.
    Climate model projections for the Pacific Northwest Region indicate 
a continued increase in temperature, with changes in annual mean 
maximum temperature projected to be largest in the summer months). 
Precipitation in this region is projected to remain close to current 
levels, but mean runoff is expected to peak earlier in the year. The 
projected effects of climate change in the Pacific Northwest, including 
effects on water management in the Columbia River basin, may exacerbate 
the effects of drought, invasive species, and fire on Artemisia 
campestris var. wormskioldii and its habitat. Although A. campestris 
var. wormskioldii populations may experience reduced reproduction and 
increased mortality as a result of climate fluctuations today and the 
effects of climate change in the future, the available information does 
not point to current impacts of these stressors on the species or allow 
us to reasonably predict the imminence or severity of the cumulative 
effects of climate change on A. campestris var. wormskioldii or its 
habitat.
    To date, fire has not been a limiting factor for Artemisia 
campestris var. wormskioldii at Beverly or Miller Island. Because bio-
fuel accumulation (from native and nonnative plants) is generally low 
in the sand, gravel, and cobble bars where this species occurs, fire 
has not influenced the status of northern wormwood individuals or 
populations. Although A. campestris var. wormskioldii may be top-killed 
by fire, the likelihood of an entire population succumbing to or being 
able to recover from a fire is unknown). Related subspecies have been 
shown to persist on repeatedly burned sites.
    The two naturally occurring populations of Artemisia campestris 
var. wormskioldii are separated by a large distance, more than 200 
miles (320 kilometers), likely negating the possibility of gene 
exchange. Loss of genetic variability can affect disease resistance, 
adaptive capacity, and reproductively compatible gene combinations 
(genotypes) in the affected species. Small populations are more 
susceptible to inbreeding, which can

[[Page 64852]]

reduce the fitness of offspring. However, the historical rate of 
genetic exchange among A. campestris var. wormskioldii populations is 
unknown, and the best available scientific and commercial information 
does not indicate that A. campestris var. wormskioldii has lost, or is 
losing, genetic variability or experiencing inbreeding depression as a 
result. In addition, plantings to augment natural populations and 
establish new populations were begun in 2006 and are ongoing.
    To date, Artemisia campestris var. wormskioldii has been introduced 
to five sites within the historical range to expand the number of 
populations, increase distribution and abundance, decrease isolation, 
and buffer potential risks faced by small populations. Seeds collected 
from the two natural populations were used to propagate plants for 
these introductions, and plantings have been done experimentally to 
determine microsite conditions where plants are most likely to survive 
and become established. Modest natural recruitment has been documented 
at the two oldest sites, initially planted in 2008 and 2011. We 
anticipate that the genetic diversity in the two natural populations of 
A. campestris var. wormskioldii will continue to be represented at 
existing and future introduction sites.
    Regulatory mechanisms, such as designation by Bureau of Land 
Management and U.S. Forest Service as a sensitive species through the 
Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program, the species 
conservation plan under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
licensing agreement for the Priest Rapids Hydroelectric Project, and 
current State-level protections in Oregon and Washington, have resulted 
in some increased protection of the natural populations of Artemisia 
campestris var. wormskioldii, some control of invasive plant species in 
some sites where A. campestris var. wormskioldii occurs, and 
amelioration of stressors such as trampling by livestock and by people 
(e.g., at the Beverly and Miller Island sites). Conservation measures 
undertaken for the species have shown variable results at the five 
introduction sites, including two nascent populations that improve A. 
campestris var. wormskioldii's abundance and distribution.
    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information does not indicate that the potential stressors currently 
have, or are anticipated to have, population-level effects on Artemisia 
campestris var. wormskioldii. Some stressors cause or could cause 
individual mortality, including erosion, inundation, and possibly 
herbivory by native animals, but the available information does not 
indicate that any of, or the cumulative impact of all, these stressors 
has a population- or species-level impact now or that they are likely 
to have such impacts in the foreseeable future. Although numbers of 
mature, flowering individuals at some populations have decreased in 
recent years, numbers have increased at others. While questions remain 
regarding limiting factors, demography, age structure, and population 
trends, the plant's ability to persist appears greater than previously 
understood.
    Future impacts of climate change may exacerbate stressors to A. 
campestris var. wormskioldii and its habitat, but we cannot reasonably 
project the timing, imminence, or severity of the effects of climate 
change into the foreseeable future. Further, the uncertainty about how 
A. campestris var. wormskioldii will respond to climate change, 
combined with the uncertainty about how potential changes in plant 
species composition would affect site suitability, make projecting 
possible synergistic effects of climate change highly speculative at 
this time.
    A species may occur in very low numbers without being at risk of 
extinction. Such species, merely by virtue of their rarity, do not 
merit listing under the Act. Although Artemisia campestris var. 
wormskioldii has persisted at low numbers and with a narrowly limited 
distribution, rarity in itself does not automatically imply that the 
species is at risk of extinction. Moreover, a species may be exposed to 
stress factors and lose individuals, without expressing a negative 
response at the population or species level such that the species meets 
the definition of endangered or threatened under the Act. We must 
evaluate the exposure of the species to stressors to determine whether 
the species responds to the stressors in a way that causes impacts now 
or is likely to cause impacts in the future. We also must determine 
whether impacts are or will be of an intensity or magnitude to place 
the species at risk. In our analysis of potential stressors to A. 
campestris var. wormskioldii, we have not found evidence of such 
responses or negative impacts.

Finding

    Based on our evaluation of the best available scientific and 
commercial information, we find that no stressors are of sufficient 
imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate that A. campestris var. 
wormskioldii is in danger of extinction (endangered) or likely to 
become endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened) throughout 
all of its range. This is because we have determined that threats we 
identified in past CNORs are not affecting the species as we previously 
understood. Further, the distribution of Artemisia campestris var. 
wormskioldii is relatively stable across its range (and the number of 
populations, including sites where the plant was recently introduced, 
has increased since 2006) and stressors are similar throughout the 
species' range. Thus, we did not find any concentration of stressors 
that suggests that this plant may be in danger of extinction in any 
portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing A. campestris 
var. wormskioldii as an endangered or a threatened species is not 
warranted throughout all or a significant portion of its range at this 
time, and consequently we are removing this species from candidate 
status.
    As a result of the Service's 2011 multidistrict litigation 
settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth 
Guardians, the Service is required to submit a proposed listing rule or 
a not-warranted 12-month finding to the Federal Register 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)), for all 
251 species that were included as candidate species in the Service's 
November 10, 2010, CNOR. This document satisfies the requirements of 
that settlement agreement for Artemisia campestris var. wormskioldii, 
and constitutes the Service's 12-month finding on the May 11, 2004, 
petition to list A. campestris var. wormskioldii as an endangered or 
threatened species. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding 
can be found in the A. campestris var. wormskioldii 's species-specific 
assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).

Virgin Islands Coqu[iacute] (Eleutherodactylus schwartzi)

Previous Federal Actions

    On October 6, 2011, the Service received a petition dated September 
28, 2011, from WildEarth Guardians, requesting that we list the Virgin 
Islands coqu[iacute] (VI coqu[iacute]), a frog species, under the Act. 
On January 22, 2014, we published a 90-day finding (79 FR 3559) in 
which we found that the petition presented substantial scientific and 
commercial information indicating that listing may be warranted for the 
VI coqu[iacute].

[[Page 64853]]

Background

    The VI coqu[iacute] is a small frog species, of the family 
Eleutherodactylidae. The VI coqu[iacute] was first described as 
Eleutherodactylus schwartzi based on specimens obtained on the islands 
of Tortola and Virgin Gorda. While similar to the Puerto Rican 
coqu[iacute] (Eleutherodactylus coqu[iacute]), a species native to 
neighboring Puerto Rico, E. schwartzi is distinguished by its smaller 
size and coloration.
    The VI coqu[iacute]'s breeding season begins in May and lasts until 
August. Although members of the Eleutherodactylus genus do not require 
an aquatic environment for reproduction, they do require cool, moist 
habitat for rehydration and to prevent the desiccation of egg clutches. 
This species is a ``direct development'' species, meaning that it skips 
the tadpole stage and fully formed froglets hatch from the eggs.
    The VI coqu[iacute] is a tree-dwelling, terrestrial species, 
occurring in temperate woodlands and forests, in elevations up to 227 
meters (744.7 feet). The species is typically not found outside of 
forested areas. However, there have been reports of the VI coqu[iacute] 
in residential gardens, pastures, and gullies in and around Great 
Harbour on the island of Jost Van Dyke and in residential gardens on 
Frenchman's Cay. The VI coqu[iacute] prefers to hide under rocks, leaf 
litter, and bromeliad leaves during the day to stay out of the hot sun. 
The species is strongly associated with the presence of terrestrial 
bromeliads, such as the false pineapple (Bromelia pinguin) and species 
from the genus Tillandsia. The males use bromeliads for perching when 
calling, and females lay their eggs on the leaves of the plants.
    The VI coqu[iacute] has a broad diet that includes small 
vertebrates and invertebrates. Although there is a lack of information 
on the diet of this species, members of the genus Eleutherodactylus are 
known to be ``nocturnal, sit-and-wait predators that prey on members of 
the order Hymenoptera (which includes ants, wasps, bees), Collembolan 
(springtails), Pseudoscorpionida (false scorpions) and Dipteran (true 
flies)''.
    The VI coqu[iacute] has a relatively limited range, with its 
historical population occurring in the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) and 
the British Virgin Islands (BVI) in the Caribbean. Specifically, the 
species was found on the island of Saint John in the USVI and the 
islands of Tortola, Virgin Gorda, Jost Van Dyke, Great Dog, Beef 
Island, Frenchman's Cay, and Little Thatch in the BVI. The species has 
since experienced alteration of its range within the past 40 years. 
Surveys conducted in the 1970s found no presence of the species on St. 
John in the USVI, suggesting the species is extirpated there. Although 
some ambiguity exists in the survey due to similarity in calls between 
the VI coqu[iacute] and the related Puerto Rican coqu[iacute], 
subsequent acoustic surveys confirmed the presence of the VI 
coqu[iacute] on the other islands: Tortola, Virgin Gorda, Jost Van 
Dyke, Great Dog, Beef Island, and Frenchman's Cay.

Summary of Status Review

    A supporting document entitled ``12-Month Finding on a Petition to 
List the Virgin Islands Coqu[iacute] as an Endangered or Threatened 
Species'' provides a summary of the current literature and information 
regarding the VI coqu[iacute]'s distribution, habitat requirements, 
life history, and stressors (see ADDRESSES, above). We reviewed the 
petition, information available in our files, and other available 
published and unpublished information, and we consulted with recognized 
species and habitat experts and representatives of the range countries.
    We evaluated whether each of the potential stressors impact, 
presently or in the future, individuals or portions of suitable 
habitat. The potential stressors that we assessed are: (1) Habitat loss 
and fragmentation from urban development; (2) trade and collection; (3) 
predation from the small Indian mongoose and Cuban tree frog (CTF); (4) 
chytridiomycosis; (5) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanism; (6) 
competition from CTF and Puerto Rican coqu[iacute]; (7) climate change; 
and (8) small population size.
    The Virgin Islands coqu[iacute] is found on six islands in the BVI. 
Although we do not have survey data on the population, the species 
continued to persist on these islands. Continued persistence of the 
species on the island is due to past and present management efforts by 
the BVI territory government. Rate of deforestation has declined from 
historical high in the 20th century due to the transition in the BVI's 
economy from cash crop to tourism as well as the establishment of 
protected areas. These protected areas helped maintain and protect 
remaining forest habitats. Additionally, these areas have allowed 
deforested habitat to recover, promoting new secondary deciduous and 
dry forests.
    To support the BVI tourism industry, development projects are being 
proposed or are currently in progress across the BVI with Tortola 
containing most of the major projects. However, most of the development 
projects occur in areas that already contain little to no coqu[iacute] 
habitat; therefore we have no reason to believe that these projects 
would adversely affect the VI coqu[iacute]. We also found no 
indications of trade or collection occurring with this species.
    The impact of invasive species such as the small Indian mongoose 
and the CTF is mitigated both by ongoing management effort as well as 
differences in the ecology of these species. A mongoose eradication 
program is currently in place on Jost Van Dyke. The small Indian 
mongoose's preference for drier climate gives the coqu[iacute] some 
protection from predation, as it prefers wetter habitat. More 
importantly, mongoose cannot climb trees, which offers protection for 
arboreal species like the coqu[iacute]. These factors together limit 
the impact the mongoose has on the VI coqu[iacute].
    The impact of CTF on the VI coqu[iacute] is ameliorated by 
differences in reproductive method and ongoing management program. CTF 
require freshwater habitat to lay their eggs. Meanwhile, as a direct-
developing species, VI coqu[iacute] can give birth to live young in 
bromeliads. Additionally, predation of VI coqu[iacute] by CTF is 
limited due to CTF's preference for smaller invertebrates, with frogs 
making up only 3 percent of CTF's diet. CTFs may compete with VI 
coqu[iacute]s for prey, as the species' diet is similar to the 
coqu[iacute]'s. However, we have found no information indicating 
competition for invertebrates is affecting the coqu[iacute].
    The impact of chytrid fungus on the VI coqu[iacute] is limited by 
local conditions in the BVI. The current temperature range in the BVI 
is outside the optimal range of the fungus. Additionally, while cases 
of infection can still occur in sub-optimal area, infection may not be 
fatal due to unfavorable growing conditions of the fungus.
    We reviewed all international and local laws, regulations, and 
other regulator mechanisms that may impact the VI coqu[iacute] and its 
habitat. Despite shortages in staff and personnel, a recent survey of 
protected areas found many areas to be stable or experiencing light 
development. The stability in these protected areas seems to indicate 
that although these organizations are facing shortages in funds and 
staff, they are still able to protect fragile habitat in the BVI.
    Surveys conducted on Jost Van Dyke found the Puerto Rican 
coqu[iacute] may also compete with the VI coqu[iacute]. Although the 
potential exists that the Puerto Rican coqu[iacute] could compete with 
the VI coqu[iacute], sightings of the species have only recently 
occurred on Jost Van Dyke in 2015. The Puerto Rican coqu[iacute] has 
not been documented on the other six islands where the VI coqu[iacute] 
is known to

[[Page 64854]]

occur. Thus, it is too soon to tell what impacts, if any, the Puerto 
Rican coqu[iacute] might have on the VI coqu[iacute].
    The effects of climate change on the VI coqu[iacute] are unclear. 
While the impact from an increase in stochastic event is limited by the 
steep hills and mountains on the islands, the impact of climate change 
on plant biomes and the species' reproductive season remains unknown. 
As we do not have information to reasonably predict whether climate 
change may affect the species' breeding season or result in changes in 
plant composition, we cannot draw conclusions on how the VI 
coqu[iacute] may respond to potential changes.
    While we do not have information on population trends for the VI 
coqu[iacute], we nonetheless considered whether small population size 
and limited distribution in combination with other stressors might 
impact the species. The species has been described as rare. However, 
species that naturally occur in low densities are not necessarily in 
danger of extinction, and therefore do not necessarily warrant listing, 
merely by virtue of their rarity. In the absence of information 
identifying stressors to the species and linking those stressors to the 
rarity of the species or a declining status, we do not consider rarity 
alone to be a threat. Further, a species that has always had small 
population sizes or has always been rare, yet continues to survive, 
could be well-equipped to continue to exist into the future.
    Finally, we found that the VI coqu[iacute] has sufficient 
resiliency, redundancy and representation to recover from periodic 
disturbance such as hurricanes, droughts, and other stochastic events. 
The VI coqu[iacute] population is distributed across six of nine 
islands in the BVI, which contributes to the redundancy of the species. 
While we lack detailed information on the genetic diversity of the 
species, male VI coqu[iacute]s on different islands are characterized 
by variation in sizes. Additionally, the Great Dog population of VI 
coqu[iacute] has been described as somewhat distinct. These factors 
suggest that there exist genetic diversity (representation) among the 
populations of coqu[iacute] across the six islands.

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 VI coqu[iacute] is in danger of extinction (endangered) or 
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened), 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
    We found no portions of the species' 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 no 
portion of the range of the VI coqu[iacute] is likely to be in danger 
of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. 
Therefore, we found that no portion warranted further consideration to 
determine whether the species may be endangered or threatened in a 
significant portion of its range.
    Therefore, we find that listing the VI coqu[iacute] as an 
endangered or threatened species under the Act is not warranted at this 
time. This document constitutes the 12-month finding on the September 
28, 2011, petition to list the VI coqu[iacute] as an endangered or 
threatened species. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding 
can be found in the supporting document entitled ``12-Month Finding on 
a Petition to List the Virgin Islands Coqu[iacute] as an Endangered or 
Threatened Species'' (see ADDRESSES, above).

Washington Ground Squirrel (Urocitellus washingtoni)

Previous Federal Actions

    The Washington ground squirrel was recognized as a Category 2 
candidate species (as Spermophilus washingtoni) in 1994 (59 FR 58982; 
November 15, 1994). When the February 28, 1996, CNOR (61 FR 7596) 
discontinued recognition of categories, the Washington ground squirrel 
was no longer considered a candidate species. We again identified the 
Washington ground squirrel as a candidate for listing in 1999 (64 FR 
57534; October 25, 1999) and assigned a listing priority number of 5, 
which reflects threats of a high magnitude that are not considered 
imminent.
    On March 2, 2000, we received a petition from the Northwest 
Environmental Defense Center, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Oregon 
Natural Desert Association to emergency list the Oregon population of 
this species as a distinct population segment, or list the species over 
its entire range as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. 
Included in the petition was information regarding the species' 
taxonomy and ecology, historical and current distribution, present 
status, and actual and potential causes of decline. In 2001, based on 
new information, including information contained in the 2000 petition, 
we determined that the Washington ground squirrel faced imminent 
threats of a high magnitude and reassigned it an LPN of 2 (66 FR 54808; 
October 30, 2001). The Washington ground squirrel remained on the 
candidate list with an LPN of 2 from 2002 to 2004 (67 FR 40657, June 
13, 2002; and 69 FR 24876, May 4, 2004). In the 2005 CNOR (70 FR 24870, 
May 11, 2005), we changed the LPN to 5, and since that date, the 
species has remained on the candidate list with an LPN of 5 (71 FR 
53756, September 12, 2006; 72 FR 69034, December 6, 2007; 73 FR 75176, 
December 10, 2008; 74 FR 57804, November 9, 2009; 75 FR 69222, November 
10, 2010; 76 FR 66370, October 26, 2011; 77 FR 69994, November 21, 
2012; 78 FR 70104, November 22, 2013; 79 FR 72450, December 5, 2014; 
and 80 FR 80584, December 24, 2015). In our November 22, 2013, CNOR (78 
FR 70104), we recognized Urocitellus washingtoni as the scientific name 
for the Washington ground squirrel.

Background

    The Washington ground squirrel was formerly part of the genus 
Spermophilus (as Spermophilus washingtoni), but is now determined to be 
one of 12 species in the genus Urocitellus (Holarctic ground squirrels. 
The Washington ground squirrel is diurnal (active during the day) and 
semi-fossorial (e.g., partly adapted to digging and life underground). 
Their active, above-ground period spans anywhere between the months of 
January and July, with the specific timing depending on elevation and 
microhabitat conditions as well as availability of food sources. 
Washington ground squirrels typically live fewer than 5 years and 
produce one litter annually, with an average of five to eight pups. 
They eat a wide variety of foods including succulent forbs and grass 
stems, buds, leaves, flowers, roots, bulbs, and seeds.
    The Washington ground squirrel occurs in shrub-steppe and grassland 
habitat in eastern Washington and north-central Oregon. In Washington, 
the species occurs in Adams, Douglas, Franklin, Grant, Lincoln, and 
Walla Walla Counties. In Oregon, it is found in Gilliam, Morrow, and 
Umatilla Counties, but is centered largely on the Naval Weapon Systems 
Training Facility Boardman (NWSTF Boardman) and the adjacent Boardman 
Conservation Area (BCA). Washington ground squirrel habitat is 
characterized by deep, loamy soils deposited by the Missoula Floods and 
shrub-steppe vegetation. Historically, the species was

[[Page 64855]]

primarily associated with sagebrush (Artemisia sp.) and bunchgrass 
habitats, but cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and rabbitbrush 
(Chrysothamnus sp.) have replaced much of the original flora on 
nonagricultural land. The species can be found in all these habitat 
types where there is sufficient forage and suitable soils, regardless 
of vegetation type.

Summary of Status Review

    Historically, the Washington ground squirrel was a little-studied 
species. A 1990 survey of 179 of the 189 potential historical 
Washington ground squirrel locations found 80 confirmed and 7 probable 
colonies. In a repeat survey in 1998 of the confirmed and probable 
sites, clear evidence of squirrels was found at only 46 of the 
locations. The Washington ground squirrel received more attention and 
funding after it became a Federal candidate species in 1999, and the 
increased survey effort led to a notable expansion of the number of 
documented locations and distribution of the species from what was 
known in 1999.
    As part of our assessment of the best available scientific and 
commercial information, we evaluated the number of Washington ground 
squirrel records included in the Oregon and Washington Natural Heritage 
Program databases. In Oregon, 2012 data showed 705 known records (any 
of which could constitute a single individual or a small, medium, or 
large colony). As of April 2013, Oregon records of Washington ground 
squirrels had increased to 1,318, an 87 percent increase from the 2012 
data. In Washington, 2012 data showed 567 mapped polygons (estimated 
areas containing squirrels) and 65 known squirrel records outside of 
the polygons. As of April 2013, Washington polygons had increased to 
602 and records had increased to 579.
    These updated Washington ground squirrel records, along with new 
information on dispersal distances and habitat quality, led us to 
evaluate potential connectivity between squirrel detections. We 
analyzed new data regarding linkages between areas of high-quality 
habitat, and dispersal distances from known sites to potential habitat, 
and found that there is some connectivity between these areas of high-
quality habitat, and connectivity between known sites and potential 
habitat. The majority of known Washington ground squirrel sites are on 
public lands, within the BCA, or are newer sites documented from 
increased survey efforts on private lands. The analysis indicated that 
many squirrel sites are within dispersal distance of one another, and 
potential squirrel habitat exists within the interstitial space between 
clusters providing connectivity between the sites. This indicates that 
Washington ground squirrel populations are not as isolated from one 
another as we had previously thought, and potential opportunities for 
genetic exchange exist in most of the range, as many sites are likely 
functioning within a metapopulation framework.
    Furthermore, based on the Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 
Working Group habitat quality layer for Washington ground squirrel and 
recent squirrel surveys in Oregon and Washington, we estimated that 
there are at least 0.74 million hectares (ha) (1.84 million acres (ac)) 
of potential occupied habitat within the current range. Although our 
finding does not rely on the presumed presence of squirrels in 
potential habitat, this estimate of potential habitat, along with the 
fact that new sites are consistently documented when suitable habitat 
is surveyed, supports the assumption that additional Washington ground 
squirrels are likely to be found with further survey effort in large 
areas of at least moderate-quality potential habitat. This adds 
confidence to our independent conclusion that, based on the best 
scientific data currently available to us, the Washington ground 
squirrel is more widespread and numerous than we had previously 
understood.
    Candidate status was based on habitat loss, fragmentation, or 
modification due to fire and invasive plants, agriculture, intensive 
grazing, proposed and ongoing military activities, energy development 
and transmission, and urban development; predation; recreational 
shooting; disease; potential effects of pesticides; and potential 
effects of drought on forage quality and quantity. Habitat loss was 
considered the main reason the squirrel's range is smaller than it was 
historically, particularly through agricultural conversion of shrub-
steppe habitat, and more recently the invasion of nonnative annual 
grasses and forbs, especially cheatgrass.
    There are current management actions, policies, and protections in 
place that have substantially reduced or eliminated stressors to the 
Washington ground squirrel and will continue to do so in the future. 
The 25-year Threemile Canyon Farms Multi-Species Candidate Conservation 
Agreement with Assurances (MSCCAA), signed in 2004, included the 
implementation of habitat management, operational modifications, and 
conservation measures for four unlisted species, including the 
Washington ground squirrel, on approximately 37,636 ha (93,000 ac) of 
habitat. This dramatically reduced agricultural development in 
Washington ground squirrel habitat and was part of an overall decline 
in the conversion of shrub-steppe to agricultural use in recent years; 
harvested cropland accounted for only 1 percent of all land available 
to the squirrel within its range during the 1978 to 2007 time period. 
There are no known large-scale agricultural projects planned that are 
likely to impact Washington ground squirrels by conversion to 
agricultural uses, and we are unaware of any planned U.S. Department of 
Agriculture programs that could significantly change the current rate 
of conversion in counties containing Washington ground squirrels in the 
future. Furthermore, as a State-endangered species in Oregon, 
activities detrimental to squirrels are prohibited on State-owned or 
leased land and easements in Oregon. The Oregon Energy Facility Siting 
Council and Gilliam, Morrow, and Umatilla Counties have adopted the 
State's guidelines on 100 percent of wind projects sited in Oregon, and 
these guidelines include conservation measures for Washington ground 
squirrels. Urban development, while it continues, is mostly 
concentrated in urban growth areas, which represent a very small 
portion of the range. Finally, the Service and Foster Creek 
Conservation District (FCCD) signed the Douglas County Multiple Species 
General Conservation Plan (MSGCP) on September 17, 2015. The MSGCP is a 
programmatic habitat conservation plan that private landowners in 
Douglas County, Washington, can voluntarily opt into; the plan includes 
best management practices (BMPs) specific to supporting the 
conservation of Washington ground squirrels. Though this habitat 
conservation plan is anticipated to provide conservation benefits to 
Washington ground squirrel, it is a voluntary program and we do not 
know how many landowners will enroll, so we cannot rely on the 
certainty of these benefits in our finding determination.
    We also evaluated a future conservation effort in connection with 
military readiness activities at NWSTF Boardman following the Service's 
Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing 
Decisions (PECE); 68 FR 15100, March 28, 2003). The final environmental 
impact statement (FEIS) completed in December 2015, and record of 
decision (ROD) signed on March 31, 2016, confirm the Navy's commitment 
to implement conservation efforts that eliminate or reduce threats to 
Washington ground squirrels from

[[Page 64856]]

military readiness activities on the 19,020 ha (47,000 ac) of NWSTF 
Boardman through a combination of BMPs, mitigation, monitoring, and 
adaptive management. In order to determine whether we should consider 
these conservation measures in this decision, we completed an analysis 
of the certainty of implementation and effectiveness of these future 
actions pursuant to PECE (68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003). Based on the 
history of the Navy's collaboration with us; the combined application 
of BMPs, mitigation, monitoring, and adaptive management; and their 
formal commitment to fully implement the actions they agreed to, we 
have a high level of certainty that the conservation efforts will be 
implemented and effective, and therefore considered them in this 
determination for the Washington ground squirrel. Military readiness 
activities at NWSTF Boardman will negatively impact only a small 
percentage (less than 1 percent) of the Washington ground squirrel 
habitat on the facility. Additionally, the majority of impacts 
associated with projectiles striking the ground, potential training-
caused wildfires, and spread of invasive plants would occur in a small 
area (less than 324 ha (800 ac)). The Navy has committed to 
implementing all of the BMPs, mitigation measures, and the adaptive 
management strategy outlined in their FEIS in order to ameliorate any 
impacts to the species due to current and future military readiness 
activities. Therefore, we consider the former threat posed to 
Washington ground squirrels from military readiness activities to have 
been ameliorated.
    Fire and conversion of sagebrush habitat to invasive plant species 
are, and will continue to be, rangewide issues. However, fire and 
invasive species have not prevented squirrels from persisting and 
remaining broadly distributed in these habitats, even in areas that 
burn frequently (e.g., the NWSTF), and we anticipate squirrels will 
continue to persist in these areas. These stressors are being addressed 
at varying levels by landowners, local governments, organizations, and 
agencies. Grazing can be a compatible land use with this species, and 
we have no information indicating that intensive grazing is currently 
widespread, or anticipated to be in the future, in areas occupied by 
the species. Other factors such as shooting, disease, and effects from 
pesticide use occur on a small enough scale that they are not 
considered significant stressors to the species now, nor are they 
likely to be in the future.
    Some isolated populations of the Washington ground squirrel may be 
vulnerable to genetic effects associated with small populations; 
however squirrel occurrence sites are likely not as isolated as we 
previously thought. The rate of habitat conversion that contributes to 
habitat fragmentation has dropped significantly, and there are no 
strong and predictive trends toward development or agricultural 
conversion of occupied and potential habitat. Furthermore, we have 
documentation that squirrels are more widely distributed than 
previously thought; it is very likely that additional undocumented 
sites exist and connectivity provides potential opportunities for 
genetic exchange in most of the range. We therefore conclude that small 
population size is not currently a stressor to the Washington ground 
squirrel as a whole, nor is it likely to become one in the future.
    Washington ground squirrel habitat is likely to be influenced by 
the climate change effects of increased temperatures, changes in 
precipitation, increased frequency and intensity of fire, and an 
increase in invasive vegetation (due to fire, drought, and increased 
carbon dioxide concentrations). We have some information about climate-
change projections for temperature and precipitation in the range of 
the squirrel, but we have no information to suggest that temperature 
will increase or precipitation decrease to levels that would affect the 
viability of Washington ground squirrels rangewide. Increased winter 
and spring precipitation could have a positive effect on squirrels by 
providing adequate forage during the breeding season. Although hotter 
and drier summers may reduce the quality and abundance of native forage 
available to Washington ground squirrels, the species is distributed 
across a range of elevations, has a diverse diet, and is able to 
persist in disturbed grassland. Thus, the best available scientific and 
commercial information at this time does not lead us to conclude that 
the current or future effects of climate change will impact the 
viability of Washington ground squirrels rangewide.

Finding

    Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information pertaining to the five factors, and when considering all of 
the factors in combination with each other and the existing 
conservation measures that benefit the species and its habitat, we 
conclude that the impacts on the species and its habitat are not of 
such imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate that the Washington 
ground squirrel 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. Although the types of stressors 
vary across the range, we 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 
Washington ground squirrel as an endangered or threatened 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.
    As a result of the Service's 2011 multidistrict litigation 
settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth 
Guardians, the Service is required to submit a proposed listing rule or 
a not-warranted 12-month finding to the Federal Register 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)), for all 
251 species that were included as candidate species in the Service's 
November 10, 2010, CNOR. This document satisfies the requirements of 
that settlement agreement for the Washington ground squirrel and 
constitutes the Service's 12-month finding on the March 2, 2000, 
petition to list the Washington ground squirrel as an endangered or 
threatened species. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding 
can be found in the Washington ground squirrel's species-specific 
assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).

New Information

    We request that you submit any new information concerning the 
taxonomy, biology, ecology, status of, or stressors to the angular 
dwarf crayfish, Guadalupe murrelet, Huachuca springsnail, two Kentucky 
cave beetles (Clifton Cave and Icebox Cave beetles), Artemisia 
campestris var. wormskioldii, Scripps's murrelet, Virgin Islands 
coqu[iacute], and Washington ground squirrel 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. We encourage local agencies and 
stakeholders to continue cooperative monitoring and conservation 
efforts for these species. If an emergency situation develops for

[[Page 64857]]

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.

Authors

    The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the 
Unified Listing Team, 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 7, 2016.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-22453 Filed 9-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P