[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 194 (Thursday, October 6, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69425-69442]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24142]


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

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 10 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 10 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 Huachuca-Canelo population of the 
Arizona treefrog, the Arkansas darter, black mudalia, Highlands tiger 
beetle, Dichanthelium (=panicum) hirstii (Hirst Brothers' panic grass), 
two Kentucky cave beetles (Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave 
beetle), relict leopard frog, sicklefin redhorse sucker, and Stephan's 
riffle beetle 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 10 species listed above or their 
habitats.

DATES: The findings announced in this document were made on October 6, 
2016.

ADDRESSES: Detailed descriptions of the basis for each of these 
findings are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at 
the following docket numbers:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Species                            Docket No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona treefrog (Huachuca-Canelo           FWS-R2-ES-2016-0111.
 population).
Arkansas darter...........................  FWS-R6-ES-2016-0113.
Black mudalia.............................  FWS-R4-ES-2016-0112.
Highlands tiger beetle....................  FWS-R4-ES-2016-0114.
Dichanthelium (=panicum) hirstii (Hirst     FWS-R5-ES-2016-0105.
 Brothers' panic grass).
Kentucky cave beetles (Louisville cave      FWS-R4-ES-2016-0115.
 beetle and Tatum Cave beetle).
Relict leopard frog.......................  FWS-R8-ES-2016-0116.
Sicklefin redhorse sucker.................  FWS-R4-ES-2016-0117.
Stephan's riffle beetle...................  FWS-R2 ES-2016-0118.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 69426]]

    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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona treefrog (Huachuca-    Nathan Allan, Acting Listing Coordinator,
 Canelo population).            Southwest Regional Office, Ecological
                                Services, 512-490-0057.
Arkansas darter..............  Jason Luginbill, Field Supervisor, Kansas
                                Ecological Services Field Office, 785-
                                539-3474.
Black mudalia................  Bill Pearson, Field Supervisor, Alabama
                                Ecological Services Field Office, 251-
                                441-5181.
Highlands tiger beetle.......  Roxanna Hinzman, Field Supervisor, South
                                Florida Ecological Services Field
                                Office, 772-562-3909.
Dichanthelium (=panicum)       Krishna Gifford, Listing Coordinator,
 hirstii (Hirst Brothers'       Northeast Regional Office, Ecological
 panic grass).                  Services, 413-253-8619.
                               Submit any new information concerning the
                                species' taxonomy, population status, or
                                threats to: New Jersey Ecological
                                Services Field Office, 4 E. Jimmie Leeds
                                Road, Suite 4, Galloway, NJ 08205.
Kentucky cave beetles          Lee Andrews, Field Supervisor, Kentucky
 (Louisville cave beetle and    Ecological Services Field Office, 502-
 Tatum Cave beetle).            695-0468.
Relict leopard frog..........  Michael Senn, Field Supervisor, Southern
                                Nevada Ecological Services Field Office,
                                702-515-5244.
Sicklefin redhorse sucker....  Jason Mays, Asheville (North Carolina)
                                Ecological Services Field Office, 828-
                                258-3939.
Stephan's riffle beetle......  Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, Arizona
                                Ecological Services Field Office, 602-
                                242-0210.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Huachuca-Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog, the Arkansas 
darter, black mudalia, Highlands tiger beetle, Dichanthelium (=panicum) 
hirstii (Hirst Brothers' panic grass), two Kentucky cave beetles 
(Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave beetle), relict leopard frog, 
sicklefin redhorse sucker, and Stephan's riffle beetle 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 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 because of 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 Huachuca-Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog, the 
Arkansas darter, black mudalia, Highlands tiger beetle, Dichanthelium 
(=panicum) hirstii, two Kentucky cave beetles (Louisville cave beetle 
and Tatum Cave beetle), relict leopard frog, sicklefin redhorse sucker, 
and Stephan's riffle beetle 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 Act's 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

[[Page 69427]]

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, and other available 
published and unpublished information. This evaluation may include 
information from recognized experts; Federal, State, and tribal 
governments; academic institutions; foreign governments; private 
entities, and other members of the public.

Arizona Treefrog, Huachuca-Canelo Population (Hyla wrightorum)

Previous Federal Actions

    In our annual candidate notice of review (CNOR) published on 
December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034), we recognized the Huachuca-Canelo 
population of the Arizona treefrog as a candidate for listing as a 
distinct population segment (DPS). Subsequently, we published similar 
findings in our CNORs on December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75176), November 9, 
2009 (74 FR 57804), November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222), October 26, 2011 
(76 FR 66370), November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994), November 22, 2013 (78 
FR 70104), December 5, 2014 (79 FR 72450), and December 24, 2015 (80 FR 
80584). In 2007, the Huachuca-Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog 
was assigned a listing priority number (LPN) of 3, reflecting the 
taxonomic identity of the listable entity as a subspecies/population 
with threats that we considered to be imminent and high in magnitude. 
The LPN numbers range from 1 to 11, with 1 being the highest priority.

Background

    The Arizona treefrog (Hyla wrightorum) is a small (4.6 centimeters 
(cm) (1.8 inches (in)) green frog with a dark eyestripe that extends 
past the shoulder onto the side of the body, and sometimes to the groin 
area. It occurs in Madrean oak woodland and savannah, pine-oak 
woodland, mixed conifer forest, and Plains grasslands at elevations of 
approximately 1,525 to 2,590 meters (m) (5,000 to 8,500 feet (ft)), and 
requires ponds for successful reproduction.
    The Arizona treefrog is known to occur within Arizona, New Mexico, 
and Mexico. In Arizona and New Mexico, the Arizona treefrog occurs 
along the Mogollon Rim (central Arizona and western New Mexico), in the 
Huachuca Mountains and Canelo Hills area (a disjunct mountain range on 
the Arizona/Sonora, Mexico border), and farther south in Mexico (in the 
Sierra Madre Occidental and sky island mountain ranges). We refer to 
these three areas as the Mogollon Rim, Huachuca-Canelo, and Mexico 
populations.
    Within the Huachuca-Canelo population, historical information has 
documented Arizona treefrogs from three general localities at Rancho 
Los Fresnos, Sonora, Mexico, and from 13 to 15 verified localities in 
the Huachuca Mountains and Canelo Hills, Arizona. The Huachuca-Canelo 
population of Arizona treefrog has continued to persist in Arizona sky 
island mountain range and Plains grassland habitats, and the treefrog 
has recently been found in new locations within grasslands and 
ci[eacute]negas (a swamp or marsh, especially one formed and fed by 
springs) in Arizona. These new locations in varied habitats indicate 
that the Arizona treefrogs may be less selective in choosing breeding 
habitat than previously thought. In addition, the species likely occurs 
in other wet canyons with suitable breeding habitat in the Huachuca 
Mountains, and perhaps in ci[eacute]negas in the vicinity of Rancho Los 
Fresnos.
    The Huachuca-Canelo DPS of the Arizona treefrog was originally 
defined based on the historical locations. However, recently the 
Service has received information on Arizona treefrog locations nearby, 
but outside of, the DPS area. This new information, along with many new 
location detections in the Huachuca Mountains and Canelo Hills, 
indicates that the Arizona treefrog is not only more numerous, but is 
much more widespread than we knew when the Service made this Arizona 
treefrog a candidate species as a DPS. There are now approximately more 
than 30 known localities in Arizona in the Huachuca Mountains and 
Canelo Hills, and the Arizona treefrog also occurs in areas outside of 
the DPS boundary, but within the vicinity of the Huachuca Mountains and 
Canelo Hills.

Summary of Status Review

    Based on new information and review of previously referenced 
studies, we find that the Huachuca-Canelo population of the Arizona 
treefrog does not meet the requirements of the Service's Policy 
Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments 
(DPS Policy) published in the Federal Register on February 7, 1996 (61 
FR 4722). The DPS Policy sets forth three elements for the Service to 
consider in determining whether a vertebrate population is a DPS that 
warrants listing: Whether the population is discrete and whether the 
population is significant. If the population is determined to be both 
discrete and significant, then the DPS Policy requires the Service to 
evaluate the conservation status of the population to determine whether 
the population falls within the Act's definition of an ``endangered 
species'' or of a ``threatened species.''
    On the basis of the best available scientific and commercial 
information, and in accordance with our DPS Policy, we conclude that 
the Huachuca-Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog is discrete but 
it is not significant (i.e., it is not biologically or ecologically 
important) to the taxon as a whole. Regarding discreteness, we have 
reviewed the best available scientific and commercial information and 
the evidence relative to potential differences in physical, behavioral, 
morphological, and genetic attributes. We conclude that the Huachuca-
Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog is discrete based on its 
geographical separation from the other two populations on the Mogollon 
Rim and in Mexico.
    Regarding significance, we considered the four classes of 
information listed in the DPS Policy as possible considerations in 
making a determination, as well as all other information that might be 
relevant to making this determination for the Huachuca-Canelo 
population. The Huachuca-Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog does 
not appear to exhibit any direct or indirect habitat adaptation or 
behavioral advantage that would indicate that their persistence in the 
Huachuca Mountains and Canelo Hills area is biologically or 
ecologically important to the taxon as a whole. Moreover, we considered 
the other three considerations that the DPS Policy sets out for 
evaluating significance, and none of them provides evidence that the 
Huachuca-Canelo population is significant to the Arizona treefrog as a 
whole: (1) Loss of the Huachuca-Canelo population would not result in a 
significant gap in the range; (2) the Huachuca-Canelo population does 
not represent the only surviving natural occurrence of the Arizona 
treefrog; and (3) the Huachuca-Canelo population's genetic 
characteristics do not differ markedly from those of other Arizona 
treefrog populations.

[[Page 69428]]

Finding

    Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information pertaining to the Act's five threat factors, we conclude 
that the Huachuca-Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog does not 
meet the significance criterion of the DPS Policy, as detailed above 
and, therefore, is not a valid DPS under our DPS Policy. As a result, 
we find that the Huachuca-Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog is 
not a listable entity under section 3(16) of the Act. Therefore, we 
find that listing the Huachuca-Canelo population of Arizona treefrog 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 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-Canelo population of the 
Arizona treefrog. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding 
can be found in the species-specific assessment form for the Huachuca-
Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog and other supporting 
documents (see ADDRESSES, above).

Arkansas Darter (Etheostoma cragini)

Previous Federal Actions

    The Arkansas darter was first identified as a candidate for listing 
under the Act in 1989 (54 FR 554; January 6, 1989), as a Category 2 
candidate species. Category 2 candidate species were identified as 
those taxa for which the Service possessed information indicating 
proposing to list the taxa was possibly appropriate, but for which 
conclusive data on biological vulnerability and threats sufficient to 
support a proposed listing rule was lacking. On February 28, 1996, the 
CNOR (61 FR 7596) discontinued recognition of Categories 1-3. Because 
listing the Arkansas darter was warranted but precluded, we assigned 
the species an LPN of 5. In 2002, we changed the LPN from 5 to 11 (67 
FR 40657; June 13, 2002).
    On May 11, 2004, the Service received a petition dated May 4, 2004, 
from the Center for Biological Diversity and others to list 225 
species, including the Arkansas darter. The Service published a 12-
month finding in the Federal Register on May 11, 2005, with a 
reaffirmed determination that listing was warranted but precluded and 
that the taxon had an LPN of 11 (70 FR 24870). We have continued to 
evaluate the status of the candidate taxon through our annual CNOR and 
maintained the LPN of 11 for this species (see September 12, 2006 (71 
FR 53756), December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034), December 10, 2008 (73 FR 
75176), November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), November 10, 2010 (75 FR 
69222), October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), November 21, 2012 (77 FR 
69994), November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), December 5, 2014 (79 FR 
72450), and December 24, 2015 (80 FR 80584)).

Background

    The Arkansas darter (Etheostoma cragini) is a small fish in the 
perch family native to the Arkansas River basin. The species occurs 
most often in sand- or pebble-bottomed pools of small, spring-fed 
streams and marshes, with cool water, and broad-leaved aquatic 
vegetation. Arkansas darters prefer flowing, spring-fed streams and 
pools in contact with groundwater sources. However, the species is very 
tolerant to periods of very poor water quality, including high water 
temperatures, low dissolved oxygen, high turbidity, and hyper-
eutrophication.
    The Arkansas darter's range includes eastern Colorado, southwest 
and central Kansas, northwest and northeast Oklahoma, southwest 
Missouri, and northwest Arkansas. Recent surveys have expanded our 
knowledge of occupied Arkansas darter populations. We currently 
consider to be extant a total of 80 populations within 15 
metapopulations rangewide. This is more than we knew of for previous 
assessments of this species.

Summary of Status Review

    In completing our status review for the Arkansas darter, we 
reviewed the best available scientific and commercial information and 
compiled this information in the Species Status Assessment Report (SSA 
Report) for the Arkansas darter. In previous candidate assessments and 
findings for this species, the identified threats we considered were 
water depletion, water quality degradation, urbanization and 
development, confined-animal feeding operations, dams and reservoirs, 
salt cedar invasion, disease, and predation. Although localized 
negative effects have been observed, all of these stressors (other than 
water depletion) occur at a limited scale and scope, and the overall 
impact at the population and species level is minimal.
    Water depletion is the stressor with the largest potential impact 
to the Arkansas darter's viability, affecting approximately 25 percent 
of the geographic range, resulting mainly from groundwater withdrawals 
for agriculture. Seasonal low flows and intermittency of streams are 
common within the Great Plains portion of its range, and it appears the 
species is adapted to this phenomenon. However, the continued existence 
of the species in these areas is dependent on localized areas of 
refugia. Typically refugia exist where groundwater flows come to the 
surface and create permanent pools or small wetland areas along the 
stream course. When seasonal precipitation occurs and the streams 
become flowing systems, typically in the spring, the stream then 
provides habitat for spawning, rearing, and dispersal of young and 
adult individuals throughout the watershed. Climate change projections 
forecast minimal change in average annual precipitation in the Arkansas 
River basin and do not forecast reduced or diminished streamflow as a 
result of future changes in precipitation patterns. Therefore, we do 
not expect to see climate-change-driven decreased trends in 
precipitation and related stream flows.
    Water depletion results in decreased resiliency of populations 
affected in the portions of the range in southwestern Kansas, 
northwestern Oklahoma, and parts of Colorado, approximately 25 percent 
of the range. However, the species has endured over 40 years of 
groundwater withdrawals in these areas, indicating continued resiliency 
of these populations. The large number of populations (80) spread 
across the multi-State range provides the Arkansas darter species with 
a high level of redundancy should a catastrophic event occur somewhere 
within its occupied range. Multiple populations and metapopulations 
currently occupying the unique ecological settings of the three unique 
physiogeographic areas, the same physiogeographic areas that this 
species was known to occupy historically, allow the species to maintain 
adaptive potential and the underlying genetic makeup to adapt to 
changing environmental conditions.
    Over the next 30 years, under our expected scenario, we are likely 
to see

[[Page 69429]]

a continuation of similar levels of impact from the stressors affecting 
this species as we have in the past. We believe a continued rate of 
groundwater usage and continued rates of impact from other stressors 
over the next 30 years would not likely result in significant effects 
to the occupied range of the Arkansas darter. Although we expect little 
change on a rangewide basis, we could see some range contraction in the 
western Cimarron and upper Rattlesnake Creek basin in Kansas and 
Oklahoma due to water depletion, as well as small portions of the 
Colorado range. Additionally, we could see range contraction in the 
eastern portion of the range (Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma) 
due to development effects. However, we do not expect to see a 
reduction in redundancy of the species overall (e.g., no the loss of 
entire populations).

Finding

    Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information pertaining to the Act's five threat 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 Arkansas darter is currently in danger 
of extinction (an endangered species), or likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future (a threatened species). In conclusion, we 
find that this species no longer warrants listing throughout its range.
    We evaluated the current range of the Arkansas darter to determine 
if there is any apparent geographic concentration of potential threats 
for the species. Groundwater withdrawals are currently impacting 
portions of the upper, central, and lower Arkansas River basins in 
Kansas, Oklahoma, and Colorado, an area representing approximately 25 
percent of geographic range of the Arkansas darter. Additional 
stressors outside of this area are generally low level, localized 
impacts not affecting entire populations. The 25 percent of the range 
affected by groundwater withdrawal does not meet the biologically based 
definition of ``significant'' (i.e., the loss of that portion clearly 
would not be expected to increase the vulnerability to extinction of 
the entire species). If that 25 percent of the range were lost, the 
species would still have approximately 75 percent of its geographic 
range in areas that are not expected to be subject to the negative 
effects of water depletion. Therefore, we determined that there are no 
significant portions of the species' range where the Arkansas darter 
meets the definition of an endangered or a threatened species and that 
the best available scientific and commercial information indicates this 
species is no longer in danger of extinction (endangered) or likely to 
become endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened) throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range.
    Arkansas darter populations appear to be resilient to threats 
identified in previous status assessments; these threats are now 
believed to have fewer impacts on the Arkansas darter than previously 
understood; the species is expected to maintain a high level of 
redundancy and representation into the future; we know of more 
currently-occupied populations then we have in previous assessments; 
and while groundwater withdrawals affecting water depletion are 
expected to continue in approximately 25 percent of the range, we do 
not expect to see a reduction in redundancy of the species overall 
(e.g., no loss of Arkansas darter populations). Therefore, we find that 
listing the Arkansas darter as an endangered or threatened species 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 Arkansas darter, and constitutes the 
Service's 12-month finding on the May 4, 2004, petition to list the 
Arkansas darter as an endangered or threatened species. A detailed 
discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Arkansas 
darter's species-specific assessment form, SSA Report, and other 
supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).

Black Mudalia (Elimia melanoides)

Previous Federal Actions

    The Service first identified black mudalia as a candidate for 
listing in the September 12, 2006, CNOR and assigned an LPN of 2 based 
on imminent, high-magnitude threats (71 FR 53756). In the December 6, 
2007, CNOR, we concluded that the threats were at the time moderate in 
magnitude and changed the LPN to 8 (72 FR 69034). We retained the LPN 
of 8 in all subsequent CNORs (see December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75176), 
November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222), 
October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994), 
November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), December 5, 2014 (79 FR 72450), and 
December 24, 2015 (80 FR 80584)).
    On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for 
Biological Diversity requesting that the Service list 404 species, 
including black mudalia, as endangered or threatened. No new 
information regarding black mudalia was presented in the petition, and 
on September 27, 2011, we published a 90-day finding (76 FR 59836).

Background

    The species formerly described as the black mudalia is a small 
species of aquatic snail growing to 13 millimeters (mm) (0.5 inches 
(in)) in length and belongs to the aquatic snail family of 
Pleuroceridae. The species formerly described as the black mudalia was 
found clinging to clean gravel, cobble, boulders, and/or logs in 
flowing water on shoals and riffles within five streams in the Locust 
Fork drainage in Jefferson and Blount Counties, Alabama.

Summary of Status Review

    The following summary is based on our review of the best available 
scientific and commercial information. No new information was provided 
in the petition we received on April 20, 2010. The species was 
described from ``rivers in North Alabama'' by T.A. Conrad as 
Anculosotus melanoides, but he failed to provide a specific type of 
locality. For the second half of the 20th century, the black mudalia 
was considered to be extinct. However, in 2003, Dr. Russell Minton 
published a paper on the apparent rediscovery of the species, with a 
re-description of what he believed was Conrad's black mudalia. He 
designated an individual from the upper Black Warrior Basin as the 
neotype--a biological specimen that is selected as the type specimen 
when the holotype (a single specimen chosen for designation of a new 
species), lectotype (a specimen chosen from syntypes to designate types 
of species), or any syntypes (any one specimen of a series used to 
designate a species when the holotype has not been selected) have been 
lost or destroyed--and restricted the type locality to one site on the 
Little Warrior River in Blount County, Alabama; however, the neotype is 
currently unavailable for study.

[[Page 69430]]

    Recently, the Service's Alabama Ecological Services Field Office 
learned that a specimen at the Museum of Comparative Zoology in Boston, 
Massachusetts, identified by T.A. Conrad as A. melanoides is not the 
same species that was described by Minton et al. (2003). Therefore, we 
cannot with any certainty determine the status of either the entity 
that Conrad (1834) first described as A. melanoides, or the entity that 
Minton et al. (2003) re-described as E. melanoides. Additional 
taxonomic review, led by the Smithsonian Institution, is underway as of 
early 2016. The results of this review will require additional efforts 
to define Elimia spp. boundaries, status, and distribution within the 
Black Warrior River Basin.

Finding

    The Act only allows listing of ``species'' as defined under Section 
3(16)--that is, recognized species, subspecies, or distinct population 
segments of vertebrates. Based on our review of the best available 
scientific and commercial information, and in light of the best 
available scientific information regarding taxonomic uncertainty 
described above, we conclude that the black mudalia is not currently a 
recognized ``species.'' We are therefore removing the black mudalia 
from candidate status pending further study.
    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 black mudalia, and constitutes the 
Service's 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to list the 
black mudalia as an endangered or threatened species. A detailed 
discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the black 
mudalia's species-specific assessment form and other supporting 
documents (see ADDRESSES, above).

Highlands Tiger Beetle (Cicindela highlandensis)

Previous Federal Actions

    The Highlands tiger beetle was first recognized as a candidate 
species on November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804), when we assigned the 
species an LPN of 2. In the October 30, 2001, CNOR (66 FR 54808), we 
changed the LPN for the Highlands tiger beetle from 2 to 5, because the 
immediacy of threats to the species' scrub habitat had decreased with 
the acquisition of scrub habitat by the State of Florida and 
conservation groups. On May 11, 2004, the Service received a petition 
dated May 4, 2004, from the Center for Biological Diversity and others 
to list 225 species as endangered or threatened, including the 
Highlands tiger beetle. The species was maintained as a candidate with 
an LPN of 5 through the 2015 CNOR (see June 13, 2002 (67 FR 40657); May 
4, 2004 (69 FR 24876); May 11, 2005 (70 FR 24870); September 12, 2006 
(71 FR 53756), December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034), December 10, 2008 (73 FR 
75176), November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), November 10, 2010 (75 FR 
69222), October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), November 21, 2012 (77 FR 
69994), November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), December 5, 2014 (79 FR 
72450), and December 24, 2015 (80 FR 80584)).

Background

    The Highlands tiger beetle is elongate with an oval shape and 
bulging eyes, and is one of the smallest (7.0-9.5 mm) (0.28-0.37 in) 
tiger beetles in the United States. As is typical of other tiger 
beetles, adult Highlands tiger beetles are active diurnal predators 
that use their keen vision to detect movement of small arthropods and 
run quickly to capture prey with their well-developed mandibles (jaws). 
Tiger beetle larvae have an elongate white grub-like body and a dark or 
metallic head with large mandibles. Larvae are sedentary sit-and-wait 
predators occurring in permanent burrows flush with the ground surface. 
When feeding, larvae position themselves at the burrow mouth and 
quickly strike at and seize small arthropods that pass within a few 
centimeters of the burrow mouth. Larvae prey on small arthropods, 
similar to adults.
    The Highlands tiger beetle occurs primarily in open sandy patches 
of Florida scrub habitat on the Lake Wales Ridge in Highlands and Polk 
Counties. The Lake Wales Ridge is one of the largest and oldest Florida 
scrub ecosystems. The harsh environment on the Lake Wales Ridge is 
characterized by hot weather, nutrient-poor sandy soils, and 
(historically) frequent wildfires. The Highlands tiger beetle is often 
associated with evergreen scrub oaks, as well as high pineland with 
deciduous turkey oak (Quercus laevis) and longleaf pine (Pinus 
palustris). High-quality habitat for the species is primarily scrub or 
sandhill having natural or management-created interior patches with a 
high percent of open sand (greater than 50 percent) that is continuous 
or connected to adjacent open patches by lightly disturbed trails or 
paths. The known extant range of the Highlands tiger beetle exists in 
the core of the suitable (scrub) habitat in the central and south-
central portion of the Lake Wales Ridge, approximately 90 km (56 mi) in 
length and about 10 km (6 mi) in width).

Summary of Status Review

    The following summary is based on information contained in our 
files. The Highlands tiger beetle is narrowly distributed and 
restricted to areas of bare sand within scrub and sandhill on ancient 
sand dunes of the Lake Wales Ridge in Polk and Highlands Counties, 
Florida. Adult tiger beetles have been found in 56 of the total 71 
sites surveyed at the core of the Lake Wales Ridge. In 2004-2005 
surveys, a total of 1,574 adults were found at four sites. A total of 
643 adults at 31 sites were found in 1996, 928 adults at 31 sites in 
1995, and 742 adults at 21 sites in 1993. A visual reference count of 
2,231 adults was found from 46 sites in 2014. This increase in index 
counts over time can be attributed to new survey sites and finding a 
large number of beetles at these sites. Estimates from the visual 
reference (index) counts are used to provide an estimate of the 
populations. Results from a limited removal study suggest that the 
actual population size at some survey sites can be as much as two to 
three times as high as the visual reference. In addition, surveys for 
Highland tiger beetles were not exhaustive, and there are additional 
potential suitable habitats. An estimate of beetle numbers likely 
present in these additional potential habitats added to the modified 
index count produces an estimated minimum total abundance of 10,438 
adults in at least 16 populations. Based on these expanded surveys and 
the findings of additional large beetle populations at these sites, it 
is determined that the Highland tiger beetle is more abundant than 
previously documented, and its habitat is of much better quality than 
previously documented. Of the 15 sites with the largest populations, 7 
sites show an increase in number of individuals. The number of occupied 
sites identified as high or good quality also increased from 13 in 
2005, to 21 in 2014, and of the currently known sites nearly half of 
them (21 of 46) are of high or good quality.

[[Page 69431]]

    We evaluated all known potential impacts to the Highlands tiger 
beetle, including the Act's five threat factors. While these impacts 
were previously believed to pose imminent or significant threats to the 
species, and some may have caused losses to individuals or habitat, the 
updated information we received regarding species' occurrence and 
population size has improved our understanding on how the stressors 
affect the status of species. In our current candidate assessment, we 
evaluated the best available scientific and commercial information, and 
concluded that the species is resilient to these stressors and that 
current impacts to the species are not as strong as previously 
believed. Approximately 43.4 percent of the existing potential suitable 
habitat for the species is protected conservation lands. While 
fragmentation of the Lake Wales Ridge scrub and sandhill habitats 
exists, 63 percent of the Highlands tiger beetle populations occur on 
these protected conservation lands, including three of the largest 
known populations. These lands are managed for the scrub habitat and 
species, including the Highlands tiger beetle, through government and 
private partnership prescribed burn programs, invasive species control, 
best management practices, and enforcement and protection of the 
resources. Fragmentation of the habitat was identified as a stressor 
compromising the dispersal capabilities of Highlands tiger beetle 
populations. However, the new information on the number and 
distribution of occupied sites and population size indicates that the 
threat to the dispersal capabilities of the species is not as high as 
previously reported. New sites have been identified in four populations 
across the north to south range of the species, and the Lake Wales 
Ridge as a whole has areas of open lands, remnant scrub and sandhill, 
and patchworks of scrub roadside habitat that can act as corridors or 
``stepping stones'' for Highlands tiger beetle movement and flight, 
making active migration to new sites or the exchange of individuals 
between sites feasible for this species. In addition, storm winds, 
water flow, rafting transport, and animals are possible means of 
stochastic dispersal of individual beetles.
    As a result of the new information and analysis, we no longer 
consider the threats originally identified in our previous 12-month 
finding for the Highlands tiger beetle to be current or foreseeable 
threats for the following reasons: (1) The species is larger in 
individual numbers and occurs in more sites across its range than 
previously documented; (2) the populations occur primarily on protected 
conservation lands; (3) more than half of the potential suitable 
habitat for the species consists of protected lands under conservation 
management, with new conservation lands and conservation banks acquired 
in 2014; (4) the species occurs in 16 populations across 225,920 acres 
(91,426 hectares) or 353 square miles (920 square kilometers), and 
existing unsurveyed suitable habitat occurs in the species' range; (5) 
new survey information has identified an increased number of sites 
graded as ``high'' and ``good'' quality habitat for the Highlands tiger 
beetle; (6) the analysis reveals annual prescribed burning schedules 
are being implemented across the range of the Highlands tiger beetle on 
government and private conservation lands; and (7) the stressors 
identified in the 2015 candidate assessment, including collections, 
occur at the individual level but are not rising to the level of 
population or species impacts.
    Overall, current information from additional surveys indicates an 
increase in occupied sites with a large increase in the number of 
beetles. Most threats are being addressed through the presence of large 
populations of the species occurring on protected lands and through the 
management actions that occur on these lands. Any actual impact from 
threats occurs at the individual, not population or species, level, and 
no impact, individually or cumulatively, rises to the level that it 
contributes to making the species meet the definition of ``threatened 
species'' or ``endangered species.''

Finding

    Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information pertaining to the Act's five threat factors, we find that 
the current stressors acting on the species and its habitat are not of 
sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to make the Highlands 
tiger beetle warrant listing throughout the species' range at this 
time. Because the distribution of the species is relatively stable 
across its range and stressors are similar throughout the species' 
range, we found no concentration of stressors that suggests that the 
Highlands tiger beetle may be in danger of extinction or likely to 
become so in any portion of its range. With the documentation of 16 
newly identified occupied sites, the identification of improved habitat 
quality, and the existing estimated adult beetle count of over 10,000 
individuals in 56 sites, we find that Highlands tiger beetle is no 
longer in danger of extinction (endangered) or likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened) throughout all of 
its range or any portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing 
the Highlands tiger beetle 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 the Highlands tiger beetle, and 
constitutes the Service's 12-month finding on the May 11, 2004, 
petition to list the Highlands tiger beetle as an endangered or 
threatened species. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding 
can be found in the Highland tiger beetle's species-specific assessment 
form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).

Dichanthelium (=panicum) hirstii (Hirst Brothers' Panic Grass)

Previous Federal Actions

    In 1975, Panicum hirstii (i.e., Dichanthelium hirstii's former 
scientific name; see Summary of Status Review, below) was 1 of more 
than 3,000 vascular plants included in a Smithsonian Institution report 
entitled ``Report on Endangered and Threatened Plants of the United 
States'' (Report) that the Service subsequently treated as a petition 
under the Act (40 FR 27824; July 1, 1975). The Federal Register notice 
indicated that P. hirstii and the other plants were under consideration 
for listing, and the notes of endangered or threatened after each 
species' name solely represented the views of the authors of the 
Report. The Report indicated that P. hirstii occurred in Georgia and 
placed it in the endangered category. The Service did not publish 
another species notice of review until 1980.
    In 1980, Panicum hirstii was considered a Category 2 candidate 
species (45 FR 82480; December 15, 1980). Category 2 candidate species 
were identified as those taxa for which

[[Page 69432]]

the Service possessed information indicating proposing to list the taxa 
was possibly appropriate, but for which conclusive data on biological 
vulnerability and threats sufficient to support a proposed listing rule 
was lacking. Panicum hirstii remained a Category 2 candidate species in 
the subsequent plant notices of review in 1983, 1985, 1990, and 1993 
(48 FR 53640, November 28, 1983; 50 FR 39526, September 27, 1985; 55 FR 
6184, February 21, 1990; 58 FR 51144, September 30, 1993). The Service 
did not publish any other notices of review for plants during this time 
period.
    The Service revised candidate categories in 1996, and Panicum 
hirstii was not included as a candidate species under the updated 
categorization (61 FR 7596; February 28, 1996). The revised categories 
further defined a candidate species as a species for which we have on 
file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to 
support preparation of a listing proposal, but for which development of 
a listing regulation is precluded by other higher-priority listing 
activities.
    In 1999, the Service included Panicum hirstii as a new candidate 
species, using the updated definition, through its own internal 
assessment process (i.e., not via a petition), and assigned it an LPN 
of 5, meaning it was a species with a high magnitude of nonimminent 
threats (64 FR 57534, October 25, 1999). Panicum hirstii was included 
in the subsequent annual CNORs with an LPN of 5 in 2001, 2002, and 2004 
(66 FR 54808, October 30, 2001; 67 FR 40657, June 13, 2002; 69 FR 
24876, May 4, 2004). The Service did not publish a CNOR in 2003.
    On May 11, 2004, we received a petition dated May 4, 2004, from the 
Center for Biological Diversity and other groups and individuals 
requesting that the Service list Panicum hirstii and 225 other 
candidate species as endangered species or threatened species under the 
Act. In 2005, the Service again made a warranted-but-precluded finding 
for the plant, with an LPN of 5, but noted a change in its scientific 
name to Dichanthelium hirstii (70 FR 24870, May 11, 2005). In 2006 
through 2014, D. hirstii remained a candidate with an LPN of 5 (see 
September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53756), December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034), 
December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75176), November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), 
November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222), October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), 
November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994), November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), and 
December 5, 2014 (79 FR 72450)). In 2015, D. hirstii was included as a 
candidate in the CNOR, but the LPN was elevated from 5 to 2, indicating 
a species with a high magnitude of imminent threats (80 FR 80584, 
December 24, 2015).

Background

    Dichanthelium hirstii, as referenced in some literature, is a 
perennial, wetland-obligate grass that is currently estimated to occur 
in eight locations distributed across four States: New Jersey 
(Barkwoods Pond, Labounsky Pond, and Berlin Avenue Bogs North in 
Atlantic County, and Hampton Furnace Pond in Burlington County); 
Delaware (Assawoman Pond in Sussex County); North Carolina (Starretts 
Meadow and Lyman Road in Onslow County); and Georgia (Leslie Pond in 
Sumter County). A ninth location, in Calhoun County, Georgia, is 
considered historical.

Summary of Status Review

    The plant that the Service has been referring to as either P. 
hirstii or D. hirstii has always had a complex taxonomic history, and 
has undergone several changes to its scientific name as understanding 
about its distribution and morphology has evolved. The Flora of North 
America (FNA) is one source of information available to the Service and 
is considered the taxonomic authority for plants in North America 
because it is a comprehensive, systematic taxonomic account of the 
plants of North America. While several authors have published regional 
flora and descriptions that recognize Panicum hirstii/Dichanthelium 
hirstii as a separate entity, few have published taxonomic treatments. 
The last taxonomic treatment was the 2003 FNA, which is a complete 
taxonomic treatment of the Dichanthelium genus and the species therein, 
that explicitly relegates P. hirstii/D. hirstii to a synonym of D. 
dichotomum ssp. roanokense (Ashe). This indicates that the plant the 
Service had considered a candidate species is not a valid taxon and is 
a component of a larger, more widespread species that appears to grow 
on the coastal plain from Delaware to southeastern Texas and in the 
West Indies. Although the Integrated Taxonomic Information System 
(ITIS; http://www.itis.gov/) reports that Dichanthelium hirstii is an 
accepted species and the Service often relies on ITIS as a reliable 
database source of taxonomic information, in this instance ITIS is 
incorrect. Given this closer review of the taxonomic history of P. 
hirstii/D. hirstii, the Service recognizes that we overlooked the 
significance of the synonymy information, and in retrospect should not 
have included P. hirstii or D. hirstii as a candidate species. While 
the 2015 published and draft documents of McAvoy et al. and Weakley, 
respectively, and the ITIS database information are more recent than 
the 2003 FNA's published treatment, those documents and database do not 
individually or collectively represent a more comprehensive systematic 
analysis of the plant's taxonomic status because they are not full 
taxonomic treatments of Panicum and Dichanthelium. Therefore, the 
Service considers the FNA's 2003 treatment of Panicum and Dichanthelium 
as representing the best available scientific and commercial 
information regarding the plant's taxonomic status. The FNA's treatment 
indicates that neither P. hirstii nor D. hirstii is considered a 
species, subspecies, or variety. Therefore, the best available 
scientific and commercial information indicates that P. hirstii/D. 
hirstii does not meet the Act's definition of a species.

Finding

    Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, 
we find that Dichanthelium hirstii does not meet the Act's definition 
of ``species'' and is, therefore, not a listable entity under the Act. 
Dichanthelium hirstii was subsumed into D. dichotomum ssp. roanokense 
(Ashe), which ``grows on the coastal plain from Delaware to 
southeastern Texas and in the West Indies.'' As a result, we are 
removing Dichanthelium hirstii from the candidate list.
    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 Hirst Brothers' panic grass, and 
constitutes the Service's 12-month finding on the May 4, 2004, petition 
to list the Hirst Brothers' panic grass as an endangered or threatened 
species. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding, including 
a complete review of the taxonomic history, can be found in the Hirst 
Brothers' panic grass's species-specific assessment form and other 
supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).

[[Page 69433]]

Two Kentucky Cave Beetles (Louisville Cave Beetle (Pseudanophthalmus 
troglodytes) and Tatum Cave Beetle (Pseudanophthalmus parvus)

Previous Federal Actions

    The Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave beetle were added to the 
Federal list of candidate species in the November 15, 1994, CNOR (59 FR 
58982) as Category 2 species. Category 2 candidate species were 
identified as those taxa for which the Service possessed information 
indicating proposing to list the taxa was possibly appropriate, but for 
which conclusive data on biological vulnerability and threats 
sufficient to support a proposed listing rule was lacking. The February 
28, 1996, CNOR (61 FR 7596) discontinued recognition of categories, so 
both species were no longer considered candidate species and were 
therefore removed from the candidate list.
    In the October 30, 2001, CNOR, the Service re-evaluated both cave 
beetle species, and placed them back on the candidate list through the 
Service's own internal process with an LPN of 5 (66 FR 54808). The 
Service received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity 
and others, dated May 11, 2004, to list eight cave beetles, including 
the Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave beetle, as endangered or 
threatened species. In the May 11, 2005, CNOR (70 FR 24870), the 
Service determined that listing the Louisville cave beetle and Tatum 
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 (see October 30, 2001 (66 FR 54808); 
June 13, 2002 (67 FR 40657); May 4, 2004 (69 FR 24876); May 11, 2005 
(70 FR 24870); September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53756), December 6, 2007 (72 
FR 69034), December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75176), November 9, 2009 (74 FR 
57804), November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222), October 26, 2011 (76 FR 
66370), November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994), November 22, 2013 (78 FR 
70104), December 5, 2014 (79 FR 72450), and December 24, 2015 (80 FR 
80584)).

Background

    These two species are small (about 4 mm (0.16 in) 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 rarity from fairly widespread 
species that are found in many caves to species that are extremely rare 
and commonly restricted to one or only a few cave habitats. The 
Louisville cave beetle is restricted to four caves in Jefferson County, 
Kentucky, while the Tatum Cave beetle is known from one cave (Tatum 
Cave) in Marion County, Kentucky.

Summary of Status Review

    When the Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave beetle were 
identified as candidates for protection under the Act in the October 
30, 2001, CNOR (66 FR 54808), the Service considered both species to be 
vulnerable to toxic chemical spills, discharges of large amounts of 
polluted water, closure or alterations of cave entrances, and the 
disruption of cave energy processes by highway construction and 
industrial, residential, and commercial development. Our general 
perception was that both species were vulnerable to these habitat 
stressors, and we suspected that these stressors were significant and 
the species' overall population trends were likely decreasing. We also 
noted the lack of State or Federal regulations to ameliorate those 
threats. In the May 11, 2005, CNOR (70 FR 24870), we noted both 
species' limited distribution and how that would increase their 
vulnerability to isolated events that would have only a minimal effect 
on more wide-ranging members of the genus Pseudanophthalmus. Both 
species were assigned an LPN of 5.
Louisville Cave Beetle
    Over the last 2 years, field surveys for the Louisville cave beetle 
have provided new information on the species' distribution and 
stressors. Based on this new information, we have re-examined the 
species' status and re-evaluated the magnitude and imminence of its 
threats. Lewis and Lewis confirmed the continued presence of P. 
troglodytes in Eleven Jones Cave (a period of 20 years) and observed 
the species in three new caves (Sauerkraut Cave, Cave Hill Cave, and 
Cave Creek Cave), demonstrating that the species is more abundant and 
widespread than previously believed. The species was difficult to find 
in each of these caves (one to four individuals observed), but this is 
not unusual for the genus Pseudanophthalmus, which is often difficult 
to find and is frequently observed in low numbers. Population estimates 
or discernable trends for these populations have not been possible due 
to the low number of individuals observed and the difficulty in finding 
specimens during repeat visits. We acknowledge that caves within the 
species' range likely continue to be affected by many of the same 
stressors identified by previous investigators: reduced energy inputs, 
sedimentation, pollution, and human visitation. However, we have no 
evidence that these stressors are operative threats that are adversely 
affecting P. troglodytes at a population level.
Tatum Cave Beetle
    With respect to the Tatum Cave beetle, we have no evidence 
suggesting that the species is still extant in Tatum Cave. The species 
was relatively abundant (20 individuals) in Tatum Cave when first 
observed by C. H. Krekeler in 1957, but the species appeared to be less 
common in 1965, when T. C. Barr observed only two individuals. Since 
1965, extensive surveys of Tatum Cave have been completed on eight 
separate occasions, using search techniques similar to those used by C. 
H. Krekeler and T. C. Barr (i.e., methodical visual searches of all 
available habitats). Three of these survey efforts also involved the 
use of baited pitfall traps (small cups buried in the substrate and 
baited with limburger cheese) placed in several locations within Tatum 
Cave for a period of one week. Despite all of these searches, no Tatum 
Cave beetles have been observed in Tatum Cave since the last 
observation by Barr in 1965 (a period of 51 years).
    The Tatum Cave beetle is small in size and may be more difficult to 
locate than some cave organisms; however, both Krekeler and Barr were 
able to find the species using methodical, visual searches of suitable 
habitats in Tatum Cave. Subsequent researchers have used identical 
search methods on eight separate occasions in the exact same habitats 
within Tatum Cave, but no Tatum Cave beetles have been observed. 
Therefore, based on our review of the best available scientific and 
commercial information, the Service believes the Tatum Cave beetle to 
be extinct. We acknowledge that it is difficult, if not impossible, to 
verify a species' extinction. There is considerable uncertainty about 
the actual status of the species, and we acknowledge that, as suggested 
by Lewis and Lewis, there is some chance that the species remains 
extant but occurs in low numbers and is simply undetectable using 
traditional search methods. However, considering the best available 
scientific and commercial information, we believe that it is reasonable 
to conclude that the species is extinct. The Service encourages 
continued surveys for the Tatum Cave beetle in Tatum Cave, as time and 
funding allow. If the species is subsequently found to be extant, we 
can reevaluate its legal status under the Act in the future.

[[Page 69434]]

Finding

Louisville Cave Beetle
    Based our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information pertaining to the Act's five threat factors and our review 
of the species' status, we conclude that the Louisville cave beetle is 
not subject to the degree of threats sufficient to indicate that it is 
in danger of extinction (an endangered species), or likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future (a threatened species), 
throughout all of its range.
    We evaluated the current range of the Louisville cave beetle to 
determine if there is any apparent geographic concentration of 
potential threats for this species. It has a relatively small range 
that is limited to four caves. We examined potential stressors 
including human visitation and disturbance, commercial and residential 
development, sources of water quality impairment, and small population 
size. We found no concentration of stressors that suggests that the 
species may be in danger of extinction in any portion of its range. 
Therefore, we find that listing the Louisville cave beetle as an 
endangered species or a threatened species under the Act throughout all 
or a significant portion of its range is not warranted at this time, 
and consequently we are removing it from candidate status.
Tatum Cave Beetle
    A review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information, leads us to believe that the Tatum Cave beetle is extinct, 
and, as such, it is not eligible for listing as an endangered species 
or a threatened species under the Act. Therefore, we did not further 
evaluate whether the Tatum Cave beetle is in danger of extinction 
throughout its range (an endangered species), likely to become in 
danger of extinction throughout its range in the foreseeable future (a 
threatened species), or whether the species is an endangered or 
threatened species in a significant portion of its range.
    Therefore, we find that listing the Louisville cave beetle and 
Tatum Cave beetle as 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 Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave 
beetle, and constitutes the Service's 12-month finding on the May 11, 
2004, petition to list the Louisville cave beetle and Tatum Cave 
beetles as endangered or threatened species under the Act. A detailed 
discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Louisville 
cave beetle's and Tatum Cave beetle's species-specific assessment form 
and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).

Relict Leopard Frog (Lithobates onca)

Previous Federal Actions

    On May 9, 2002, the Service received a petition from the Center for 
Biological Diversity and Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) 
seeking to list the relict leopard frog and designate critical habitat, 
under the authority of the Act. The petition identified information 
regarding the species' ecology, historical and current distribution, 
present status, and actual and potential causes of decline.
    Prior to receipt of the May 2002 petition, the Service was involved 
in coordinated conservation efforts for the relict leopard frog among 
multiple partners and was aware of the species' status. On June 13, 
2002, the Service's CNOR determined the species (as Rana onca) 
warranted listing but that listing was precluded by higher priorities; 
therefore, it became a candidate species with an LPN of 5 (67 FR 
40657).
    In 2006, the species' LPN was lowered to 11, and remained at that 
LPN through the 2010 CNOR (see September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53756), 
December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034), December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75176), 
November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), and November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222)). 
The lower priority ranking resulted from the development of the 2005 
Relict Leopard Frog Conservation Agreement and Strategy (Conservation 
Agreement) and implementation of conservation actions by the relict 
leopard frog Conservation Team (Conservation Team), which led to an 
overall reduction in most threats and an overall improvement in the 
species' status. On October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), we changed the 
species' LPN to 8, due in part to the discovery of chytrid fungus 
(Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd)) in relict leopard frogs in 2010, 
and we maintained an LPN of 8 for the species through the 2015 CNOR 
(see November 21, 2012 (77 FR 69994), November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), 
December 5, 2014 (79 FR 72450), and December 24, 2015 (80 FR 80584)). 
In 2010, we recognized the scientific name of the relict leopard frog 
as Lithobates onca (see November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222)).

Background

    Relict leopard frogs are endemic to the Colorado, Virgin, Santa 
Clara, and Muddy Rivers and associated springs in Nevada, Arizona, and 
Utah. Relict leopard frogs appear to require habitat heterogeneity 
(consisting of diverse habitat types) in the aquatic and terrestrial 
environments. Relict leopard frogs historically occupied a variety of 
habitats including springs, streams, and wetlands characterized by 
clean, clear water with various depths, and cover such as submerged, 
emergent, and perimeter vegetation. Nonnative predators such as 
Louisiana red swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarki), American bullfrogs 
(Lithobates catesbeiana), and nonnative fish are associated with 
extirpation of relict leopard frogs.
    The relict leopard frog currently occurs at 8 natural sites--three 
in the Northshore Springs Complex (along the base of the Muddy 
Mountains near the Overton Arm area of Lake Mead) and five in the Black 
Canyon (below Lake Mead). Natural sites are those sites that support 
wild populations of relict leopard frogs that were not established 
through translocation effort.
    The Northshore Springs Complex and Black Canyon populations 
represent distinct relict leopard frog metapopulations, wherein each 
metapopulation consists of smaller, spatially separated populations 
that occasionally interact through the movement of individuals between 
them, but do not interact with the other metapopuation. Within the 
Northshore Springs Complex, dispersal of relict leopard frogs may be 
possible between Blue Point and Rogers Springs. Migration and dispersal 
among sites also appears likely in Black Canyon but not between the two 
metapopulations.
    In addition to natural sites, relict leopard frogs were introduced 
to 15 sites, 11 of which are extant. Introduction sites are those 
estimated by deliberately translocating relict leopard frogs to 
suitable habitat within the assumed historical range. All extant 
natural and introduction sites occur on lands managed by the National 
Park Service (NPS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of 
Reclamation (BR), and the Service. There is low genetic variation 
within

[[Page 69435]]

the relict leopard frog, which may indicate a history of bottlenecking 
or small effective population size.

Summary of Status Review

Conservation Actions Implemented
    The Conservation Team was established in March 2001, and has since 
met at least twice each year for the past 15 years to establish and 
carry forward the conservation and monitoring program for the relict 
leopard frog. The Conservation Team has included Federal, State, and 
local representatives from the Service, NPS, BLM, BR, the Environmental 
Protection Agency, the Nevada Department of Wildlife, the Arizona Game 
and Fish Department, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Clark 
County (Nevada), the Southern Nevada Water District (including the Las 
Vegas Springs Preserve), the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, and the 
University of Nevada-Reno. The primary objective of the Conservation 
Team was to develop and implement the 2005 Conservation Agreement. Much 
conservation occurred prior to finalization of the Conservation 
Agreement, and the Conservation Team developed the first annual work 
plan in 2003. Conservation actions continue to be implemented by 
partners through annual work plans. Revision of the Conservation 
Agreement is in development with an anticipated completion date of late 
2016. Part of the management effort the Conservation Team undertakes to 
increase population sizes and expand the distribution of the species is 
to collect portions of relict leopard frog egg masses from natural 
sites, and then captive-rear and translocate them to appropriate sites 
as late-stage tadpoles and juvenile frogs. The Conservation Team may 
augment any population, natural or introduction, as determined 
necessary to conserve the species.
    The main relict leopard frog conservation actions, both those 
completed and ongoing into the foreseeable future, are:
     Remove or substantially minimize threats to extant 
populations and occupied habitats.
     Enhance existing habitat and/or create new habitats where 
feasible.
     Establish additional populations of relict leopard frogs 
in existing or created habitats.
     Manage relict leopard frogs and their habitats to ensure 
persistence in diverse aquatic ecosystems, and facilitate processes 
that promote self-sustaining populations.
     Monitor relict leopard frog populations.
     Investigate the conservation biology of the relict leopard 
frog, and use the results of such investigations to better meet the 
overall conservation goal and objectives.
Current Analysis of Stressors Impacting the Relict Leopard Frog
    In completing our status review for the relict leopard frog, we 
reviewed the best available scientific and commercial information, and 
compiled this information in the SSA Report for the relict leopard 
frog. We evaluated the potential threats (identified in the SSA Report 
as ``stressors'' or ``potential stressors,'' and consistent with the 
Act's five threat factors identified in the SSA Report) that may be 
operative upon the relict leopard frog currently or in the future.
    As required by the Act, we considered the five threat factors in 
assessing whether the relict leopard frog is endangered or threatened 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We examined the 
best scientific and commercial information available regarding the 
past, present, and future stressors faced by the relict leopard frog. 
We reviewed the information available in our files and other available 
published and unpublished information, and we consulted with recognized 
relict leopard frog species and habitat experts and other Federal, 
State, and tribal agencies. Listing under the Act is warranted if, 
based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information, we find that the stressors to the relict leopard frog are 
so severe or broad in scope as to indicate that the species 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.
    In the SSA Report we evaluated each of the potential stressors for 
the relict leopard frog, and we determined that the following factors 
have impacted, or may impact individuals, specific sites, or portions 
of suitable habitat in the future: (1) Alteration of natural spring and 
groundwater systems and reduced habitat connectivity; (2) overgrowth of 
emergent vegetation and nonnative or invasive plants; (3) excessive 
disturbance due to feral horses, burro, and livestock use; (4) disease; 
(5) nonnative fish predation; (6) small population size; and (7) 
climate change, flash flood events, and wildfire. Although these 
stressors may continue to affect the relict leopard frog, they are not 
causing a population-level risk to the species now nor are they 
expected to do so into the foreseeable future. Overutilization and 
crayfish and bullfrog predation were evaluated in the SSA Report for 
the relict leopard frog but were found to result in no or low impacts, 
respectively, across the species' range. Thus, we do not discuss 
overutilization or predation further in this document. We have 
summarized the threats analysis from the SSA Report below. A complete 
description of those stressors and threats, and how they affect the 
viability of the species, is included in the SSA Report.
    The effects of historical alteration of natural riverine and 
groundwater systems and reduced habitat connectivity to the relict 
leopard frog at the individual or site-specific level are ongoing and 
may continue into the future. However, there have not been any recent 
alterations of natural riverine and groundwater systems and reduced 
habitat connectivity on relict leopard frog populations and their 
habitat. Historical modification to the Colorado and Virgin rivers 
effectively isolated the two metapopulations of relict leopard frog, 
and they will most likely never be reconnected. Although the two relict 
leopard frog metapopulations and most relict leopard frog introduction 
sites are not connected, ongoing management actions by the Conservation 
Team minimizes population isolation through captive rearing and 
translocation of frogs to targeted sites. We conclude that there are 
effects to relict leopard frog populations and perhaps the species from 
historical alteration of natural riverine and ground water systems and 
reduced habitat connectivity, but these the effects are low in severity 
and do not threaten the persistence of the species.
    Some sites can have overgrowth of vegetation that can have adverse 
effects on relict leopard frogs that reduce the extent of surface water 
and habitat for breeding and feeding. These effects from overgrowth of 
vegetation are low in severity because they are reduced by storms that 
remove vegetation through scouring, by manual removal, and by grazing.
    Burro and cattle grazing have both degraded and improved aquatic 
habitat at some sites. Controlled, low-level grazing typically provides 
disturbance that benefits frog habitat by removing excess vegetation. 
If grazing increases to heavy use, habitat conditions may become 
degraded. Similarly, burro and cattle grazing are not having a 
population-level effect to the relict leopard frog now or into the 
future.
    Disease and nonnative fish predation have been evaluated and 
monitored by the Conservation Team. The presence of the chytrid fungus, 
Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) in relict leopard

[[Page 69436]]

frogs at Lower Blue Point Spring warrants further evaluation of its 
impact to the species. Although there is evidence that Bd is present in 
one population, there is no indication any frogs have been adversely 
affected by disease. The Conservation Team will continue to monitor 
populations for effects of disease. Any potential effects at the 
individual or site- specific level resulting from nonnative fish in the 
Northshore Springs Complex and Corn Creek are low in severity. Disease 
and predation are not having a population-level effect on the relict 
leopard frog now, and such effects are not expected to occur in the 
future. The Conservation Team is taking action to improve the 
conditions for disease and predation through conservation measures (see 
``Conservation Actions Implemented,'' above).
    The small population size is the focus of conservation efforts, 
including population augmentation and establishing introduction sites. 
Low numbers of individual frogs at a given site may increase risk and 
vulnerability of the species to other stressors. Although small 
population size can affect the species as a whole by reducing genetic 
diversity and possibly reducing the species' ability to adapt to 
changing environmental conditions, the best available scientific and 
commercial information shows that this species is capable of persisting 
into the foreseeable future with current population sizes and under 
existing levels of management by the Conservation Team. The potential 
for effects of small population size has been, and will continue to be, 
minimized by actions taken by the Conservation Team, including habitat 
management and a captive-rearing program that produces frogs from eggs 
collected in the wild. These frogs are used to establish new sites and 
augment both natural and introduction sites, as appropriate. 
Conservation Team actions continue to minimize the potential for 
effects of small population size, and small population effects are not 
expected to affect the persistence of frogs at any site or population.
    Climate change effects may result in reduced spring flow, habitat 
loss, increased severity of storms, flooding, and increased prevalence 
of wildfire that could adversely affect relict leopard frog 
populations. Although negative effects from climate change could occur 
to individuals or specific sites, species-level effects would not reach 
a level now or into the foreseeable future to the extent that rangewide 
numbers and distribution would be substantially reduced. The relict 
leopard frog Conservation Team has been addressing these stressors in 
the past, and ongoing efforts are planned to continue into the future.
    We considered relevant Federal, State, and tribal laws and 
regulations when evaluating the status of the species. Regulatory 
mechanisms, if they exist, may preclude the need for listing if we 
determine that such mechanisms adequately reduce the stressors to the 
species such that listing is not warranted. The effects of applicable 
existing regulatory mechanisms are considered in our evaluation of the 
stressors acting on the species. Below, we briefly review those 
regulatory mechanisms aimed to help reduce stressors to the relict 
leopard frog and its habitat.
    The relict leopard frog is protected by the State laws of Nevada, 
Arizona, and Utah. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 533.367 states that 
before a person may obtain a right to the use of water from a spring or 
water that has seeped to the surface of the ground, that person must 
ensure that wildlife which customarily uses the water will have access 
to it. However, the State Engineer, who oversees all water rights, may 
waive this requirement for a domestic use of water (NRS 533.367). 
Authority provided by NRS 503.587 allows the Wildlife Commission to use 
its authority to manage land to carry out a program for conserving, 
protecting, restoring and propagating selected species of native fish, 
wildlife, and other vertebrates and their habitat, which are threatened 
with extinction and destruction. Also, habitat protection for the 
relict leopard frog is provided by Nevada Administrative Code 504.520, 
which prohibits alteration of a wetland or stream to the detriment of 
wildlife without a permit.
    The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) classified the relict 
leopard frog as a Tier 1A Species of Greatest Conservation. Commission 
Order 41 of the AGFD regulations prohibits collection or hunting of 
relict leopard frogs, except under the authority of a special permit. 
Protection under Commission Order 41 provides protection to individual 
frogs, but not to habitat.
    The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources classified the relict 
leopard frog as a Sensitive Species in Utah. State of Utah Rule 657-3 
prohibits the collection, importation, and possession of relict leopard 
frogs without a certificate of registration but provides no protection 
of habitat.
    All populations of the relict leopard frog occur on Federal land 
(Service, BLM, NPS, BR). Existing Federal laws, such as the NPS Organic 
Act of 1916, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1976 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the National 
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-57), have 
facilitated conservation efforts that have reduced the threats to the 
relict leopard frog. NPS and BLM manage all extant relict leopard frog 
sites except Pupfish Refuge and Corn Creek. The Pupfish Refuge occurs 
in a protected area of Hoover Dam and Corn Creek, and is an 
experimental population on a Service National Wildlife Refuge. NPS 
provides the captive-rearing facility, which is important for 
establishing and augmenting relict leopard frog populations.
    BLM uses their regulatory mechanisms and authority to provide sites 
to establish new populations of relict leopard frog, a BLM sensitive 
species, and complete habitat improvements to benefit the species.
    BLM's manual (6840--Special Status Species Management) establishes 
policy for management of BLM sensitive species under the Federal Land 
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). BLM 
sensitive species will be managed consistent with species and habitat 
management objectives in land use and implementation plans to promote 
their conservation and to minimize the likelihood and need for listing 
under the Act. BLM is a member of the Conservation Team and implements 
or authorizes conservation actions for the conservation of the relict 
leopard frog.
    The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 
provides the mission for the Service's wildlife refuges to administer a 
national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, 
and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant 
resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future 
generations of Americans. Each refuge is required to fulfill this 
mission and provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants, 
and their habitats within the Refuge System. Within the range of the 
relict leopard frog, the Desert National Wildlife Refuge would 
complement efforts of States and other Federal agencies to conserve 
fish and wildlife and their habitats, and to assist in the maintenance 
of adequate water quantity and water quality to fulfill the mission. 
Prior to release of relict leopard frogs at Corn Creek, the Refuge 
eradicated bullfrogs and substantially improved conditions that created 
habitat for the relict leopard frog. The Refuge manager provides access 
to biologists to perform releases of frogs and monitor the population. 
The Refuge continues to

[[Page 69437]]

control crayfish, maintain habitat conditions by removing excess 
vegetation, and inform the public about the species.
    NPS and BLM authorities and regulatory mechanisms have successfully 
provided or facilitated conservation of the species (see ``Conservation 
Actions Implemented,'' above). NPS, BLM, BR, and the Service are 
signatories on the Conservation Agreement and actively involved in all 
actions of the Conservation Team. Each agency coordinates development 
of annual work plans and utilizes their authority to implement 
conservation actions that benefit the species. Federal authorities and 
regulatory mechanisms have successfully provided or facilitated 
conservation of the species.
    We did not find any stressors examined under the Act's threat 
factors A, B, C, and E to rise to the level of a threat that would 
cause us to determine listing of the relict leopard frog is warranted. 
Based on our review of the stressors combined with the beneficial 
effects that the various conservation efforts and regulatory mechanisms 
provided to the species, we find that the existing regulatory 
mechanisms (Factor D) are adequate to address the stressors currently 
impacting the relict leopard frog and its habitat.
    Regarding cumulative effects, there are potential stressors that 
may act together to affect relict leopard frogs at certain sites. 
Overgrowth of vegetation, nonnative plants and predators, and disease 
acting on small populations may adversely affect certain populations 
concurrently. Flash floods or wildfire may adversely affect a site at 
the same time as nonnative plants and predators. Reduced habitat 
connectivity adversely affects sites with small populations at the same 
time as overgrowth of vegetation, and nonnative plants and predators. 
Climate change may affect a site at the same time as grazing, wildfire, 
and flash floods. However, after evaluating the cumulative effects, we 
conclude that the magnitude of cumulative effects to the relict leopard 
frog is low to moderate. Most stressors adversely affect the relict 
leopard frog in a single geographic area due to the isolated 
distribution of most sites. Although individuals may be affected by 
cumulative effects in a single geographic area, there would not be 
population level effects to the species.
    Multiple stressors on relict leopard frogs may act synergistically, 
exacerbating effects greater than what may be observed by individual 
stressors. The effects of climate change may increase the number and 
frequency of wildfires and flash flood events. The presence of 
nonnative plants can make the effects of excess vegetation worse. 
Overgrowth of vegetation may reduce habitat for breeding, potentially 
making small populations smaller. Disease and nonnative predators such 
as bullfrogs, crayfish, and fishes may also exacerbate the effects of 
small populations by removing frogs. We determined that synergistic 
effects may occur, although they are expected to be low in magnitude. 
Most individual stressors adversely affect the relict leopard frog in a 
single geographic area, due to the isolated distribution of most sites. 
Although individuals may be affected by synergistic effects in a single 
geographic area, there would not likely be population-level effects to 
the species.
    To minimize or mitigate effects from stressors affecting the relict 
leopard frog, the Conservation Team will continue monitoring 
populations and reintroducing frogs to sites should they become greatly 
reduced in numbers or extirpated due to the effects of one or more 
stressors.

Finding

    Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information pertaining to the Act's five threat 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 relict leopard frog is in danger of 
extinction (an endangered species) throughout all of its range, or 
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (a threatened 
species) throughout all of its range.
    Populations of relict leopard frogs are improving due to past 
conservation actions and current efforts to re-establish and increase 
naturally-occurring and reintroduced populations. Current and ongoing 
habitat management, establishment of new sites, and restoration 
activities have made substantial progress since their inception and are 
continuing into the future. We have determined that the number of frogs 
and habitat conditions at individual sites change from year to year and 
may vary widely, but the rangewide status of the species is stable or 
increasing.
    After determining the species is not endangered or threatened 
throughout all of its range, we then conducted an analysis to determine 
if it was endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of 
the species' range. To do this, we evaluated whether there was any 
portion of the species' range where threats were concentrated such that 
the species in that portion would be endangered or threatened, and that 
losing that portion of the range would cause the remainder of the 
species to be endangered or threatened. Once we determined that there 
was no geographic concentration of threats that would cause any portion 
of the species' range to be at greater risk of extinction, then we 
could conclude that no portion warranted further consideration. 
Therefore, we find that listing the relict leopard frog as an 
endangered or a threatened species throughout all of or a significant 
portion of its range 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 relict leopard frog, and constitutes 
the Service's 12-month finding on the May 8, 2002, petition to list the 
relict leopard frog as an endangered or threatened species. A detailed 
discussion of the basis for this finding, including the many effective 
conservation measures completed by the Conservation Team, can be found 
in the relict leopard frog's species-specific assessment form, SSA 
Report, and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).

Sicklefin Redhorse Sucker (Moxostoma sp.)

Previous Federal Actions

    The sicklefin redhorse sucker was originally made a candidate 
species in the May 11, 2005, CNOR (70 FR 24870), and it was included in 
the subsequent CNORs through 2015 (see September 12, 2006 (71 FR 
53756), December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034), December 10, 2008 (73 FR 
75176), November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), November 10, 2010 (75 FR 
69222), October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), November 21, 2012 (77 FR 
69994), November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), and December 5, 2014 (79 FR 
72450)).
    On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for 
Biological Diversity, requesting that the Service list 404 aquatic 
species as endangered or threatened species under the Act,

[[Page 69438]]

including the sicklefin redhorse sucker. The petition included 
supporting information regarding the species' taxonomy and ecology, 
historical and current distribution, present status, and actual and 
potential causes of decline. In a partial 90-day finding on the 
petition to list 404 species, published on September 27, 2011 (76 FR 
59836), the Service reaffirmed the existing candidate status of the 
sicklefin redhorse sucker.

Background

    The sicklefin redhorse sucker (Moxostoma sp.), a freshwater fish 
species, can grow to a length of approximately 650 mm (roughly 25.6 
in). It has an elongate, somewhat compressed body and a highly falcate 
(sickle shaped) dorsal fin (back fin). Its body is olive-colored, with 
a coppery or brassy sheen; its lower fins (pectoral, pelvic, and anal 
fins) are primarily dusky to dark, often tinted yellow or orange and 
pale edged; the caudal fin (tail fin) is mostly red; and its dorsal fin 
is olive in color, sometimes partly red.
    Although the sicklefin redhorse sucker is now known to have been 
collected in 1937 (based upon preserved specimens collected at the 
then-unimpounded mouth of Forney Creek near its confluence with the 
Tuckasegee River), it was not recognized as a potentially distinct 
species until 1992, when Dr. Robert Jenkins obtained and examined two 
specimens that had been collected in 1981 and 1982 from the Little 
Tennessee River by Dr. Edward Menhinick (University of North Carolina 
at Charlotte, Charlotte, North Carolina). Based on the characteristics 
of the specimens' lower lips, dorsal fins, and pharyngeal teeth, 
Jenkins recognized the species as possibly a previously unidentified 
species or a hybrid of the smallmouth redhorse (M. breviceps) and the 
river redhorse (M. carinatum). Subsequent detailed morphological and 
behavioral studies and genetic studies have concluded that the 
sicklefin redhorse sucker is, in fact, a distinct species. The Service 
has reviewed the available taxonomic literature, and is not aware of 
any challenges to the validity of this conclusion.
    The species is currently known to occupy cool to warm, moderate-
gradient creeks and rivers and, during at least parts of its early 
life, large reservoirs. In streams, adults of the species are generally 
associated with moderate to fast currents, in riffles, runs, and well-
flowing pools, while juveniles show a preference for moderate to deep 
pools with slow currents and large boulder crevice cover. Adults feed 
and spawn over gravel, cobble, boulder, and bedrock substrates with no, 
or very little, silt overlay.
    Past and recent collection records of the sicklefin redhorse 
sucker, together with what is known about the habitat utilization of 
the species, indicate that the sicklefin redhorse sucker once inhabited 
the majority, if not all, of the rivers and large creeks in the Blue 
Ridge portion of the Hiwassee and Little Tennessee River systems in 
North Carolina, Tennessee, and Georgia. Currently, there are only two 
metapopulations of the sicklefin redhorse sucker known to remain: One 
in the Hiwassee River system and one in the Little Tennessee River 
system. Estimated occupied stream habitat in the Hiwassee river systems 
totals about 53.0 river miles (rm). However, use of various streams/
stream reaches within this total appears to be seasonal. Available 
information indicates that the sicklefin redhorse sucker uses Brasstown 
Creek, Hanging Dog Creek, Beaverdam Creek, Nottely River, and the mid 
and upper reaches of the Valley River, primarily for spawning. No 
spawning or courting behavior was observed within the mainstem of the 
Hiwassee River; the mid and lower Hiwassee River or lower reaches of 
the spawning tributaries primarily from the post-spawning period 
through the fall and early winter; or the lower un-impounded reaches of 
the Hiwassee River, and to a lesser extent, the lower Valley River, 
during the winter months.
    The Little Tennessee River system metapopulation of the sicklefin 
redhorse sucker includes a total of approximately 59.15 rm of creek and 
river reaches plus near-shore areas of Fontana Reservoir, including: 
(1) The main stem of the Little Tennessee River in Macon and Swain 
Counties, North Carolina, between the Franklin Dam and Fontana 
Reservoir (approximately 23.2 rm), and its tributaries, Burningtown 
Creek (approximately 5.5 rm) and Iotla Creek (approximately 0.1 rm) in 
Macon County, North Carolina; (2) the main stem of the Tuckasegee River 
in Swain and Jackson Counties, North Carolina, from approximately rm 
27.5, downstream to Fontana Reservoir (approximately 27.5 rm), and its 
tributaries, Forney Creek (mouth of the creek), Deep Creek 
(approximately 2.35 rm), and the Oconaluftee River below the Bryson Dam 
(also sometimes referred to as the Ela Dam) (approximately 0.5 rm), in 
Swain County, North Carolina; and (3) sub-adults in the near shore 
portions of Fontana Reservoir, Swain County, North Carolina.

Summary of Status Review

    In completing our status review, we reviewed the best available 
scientific and commercial information and compiled this information in 
the SSA Report for the sicklefin redhorse sucker. For our finding, we 
evaluated potential stressors related to the sicklefin redhorse sucker 
and its habitat. The stressors we analyzed were: (1) Hydroelectric 
operations, inadequate erosion/sedimentation control during 
agricultural, timbering, and construction activities; (2) runoff and 
discharge of organic and inorganic pollutants from industrial, 
municipal, agricultural, and other point and nonpoint sources; (3) 
habitat alterations associated with channelization and instream 
dredging/mining activities; (4) predation and habitat suitability 
impacts by nonnative species; (5) fragmentation and isolation of 
surviving populations; and (6) other natural and human-related factors 
that adversely modify the aquatic environment. Associated with the 
status review for this 12-month finding, we conducted an analysis of 
the Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA) for the Sicklefin Redhorse 
Sucker under the Service's Policy for Evaluation of Conservation 
Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE policy), published in the 
Federal Register on March 28, 2003 (68 FR 15100), and found that the 
CCA does meet the PECE policy criteria for certainty of implementation 
and certainty of effectiveness.
    A number of factors likely contributed to a reduction in the 
species' historical range and may have affected population dynamics 
within the existing occupied stream reaches. The construction of 
hydroelectric dams fragmented populations, confining spawning activity 
only to river reaches accessible from the two reservoirs where this 
species is thought to reside during the juvenile stage of its life 
cycle. The sicklefin redhorse sucker also appears to be absent from 
several reaches of unimpounded river habitat where it was likely 
extirpated by degradation of the habitat or by cold water from 
hypolimnetic (deepwater that remains perpetually cold) discharges or 
hydropeaking (releasing frequent, large discharge pulses of water) for 
hydropower production. The introduction of blueback herring (Alosa 
aestivalis) into the habitat occupied by the sicklefin redhorse sucker 
was also considered a potential threat to future population stability 
in past candidate assessments.
    Upon further review of the information related to the factors

[[Page 69439]]

believed to be affecting the species at present, it appears many of 
them were largely historical, were less significant than previously 
thought, have been mitigated, or could be managed to alleviate many of 
the effects on the species. The sicklefin redhorse sucker likely 
experienced substantial range contraction associated with dam 
construction, power generation, and historical habitat degradation 
early in the 20th century, but the remaining populations appear to have 
stabilized within the present conditions and are successfully spawning 
and recruiting in four primary river drainages accessible from Hiwassee 
and Fontana Reservoirs.
    In the future, we expect human population growth and land 
development to be primary factors affecting habitat quality in the 
range of the sicklefin redhorse sucker. However, compared to historical 
land use effects, we expect the effect of these future activities to be 
minimized by more stringent State and local land quality regulations, 
such as are required by current regulations for land development and 
water quality, and a trend of diminishing agriculture in the area. 
Improvements in land use practices are likely attributable to the 
modern regulatory environment that provides protection to the stream 
environment. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 
661 et seq.), North Carolina Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Clean 
Water Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), North Carolina Sediment and 
Pollution Control Act of 1973, Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Act of 
1975, as well as other regulatory actions, were enacted to control the 
effects of land development and pollution on the aquatic environment. 
Historical records indicate that the existing populations of the 
sicklefin redhorse sucker have persisted through significant 
agricultural land disturbance that resulted in considerable 
sedimentation of its habitat, indicating that the sicklefin redhorse 
sucker is likely able to tolerate moderate land disturbance. Rural 
development and the growth of several small towns within the range of 
the sicklefin redhorse sucker appear to be the dominant forms of land 
use disturbance. Rural development is limited in certain areas due to 
large portions of the watershed that are permanently protected by 
inclusion in the Nantahala and Chattahoochee National Forests. The 
region is currently experiencing a trend of diminishing agricultural 
land use, indicating that widespread conversion to farmland is not 
likely. Commercial development is likely to be limited by a lack of 
large metropolitan areas or interstate highways that would facilitate 
rapid growth. The trend of high suspended sediment yield in the range 
of the sicklefin redhorse sucker appears to have improved over the last 
few decades. Increasing environmental regulation, greater public 
awareness, and the actions of governmental and nongovernmental 
organizations to improve water quality conditions have resulted in 
considerable improvements in suspended sediment rates. Therefore, we 
expect existing regulations for land development and water quality to 
adequately maintain habitat quality, and we anticipate that the species 
is likely to persist into the future even with the expected increase in 
development.
    The sicklefin redhorse sucker is provided additional protection by 
State endangered species regulations and association with other 
federally listed species. It is listed as threatened by the State of 
North Carolina and endangered by the State of Georgia. Both States 
prohibit direct take of the species and the collection of the fish for 
scientific purposes without a valid State collecting permit. In the 
unimpounded portions of the mainstems of the Little Tennessee River and 
Tuckasegee River where the sicklefin redhorse sucker occurs, the 
species' habitat is indirectly provided Federal protection through the 
Act, where the mainstem portions of both of these rivers are designated 
as critical habitat for the endangered Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta 
raveneliana) (a mussel). In addition to the Appalachian elktoe, the 
portion of the Little Tennessee River where the sicklefin redhorse 
sucker occurs also supports populations of the endangered little-wing 
pearlymussel (Pegias fabula) and the threatened spotfin chub (Erimonax 
monachus) and is also designated as critical habitat for the spotfin 
chub.
    Substantial public land ownership in the watersheds occupied by the 
sicklefin redhorse sucker provides partial protection to the watershed. 
Approximately 43 percent of the land adjacent to waterways occupied 
this species is owned by State and Federal agencies or by 
nongovernmental conservation organizations. On these conserved 
properties, land development is prohibited, providing protection to 
buffers and potentially improving water quality throughout the 
watershed. Most of the land surrounding Hiwassee and Fontana Lakes is 
publicly owned, limiting shoreline development and protecting the near 
shore habitat used by juvenile sicklefin redhorse suckers. The Eastern 
Band of Cherokee Indians has management jurisdiction over a portion of 
the lands within both the Hiwassee River and Tuckasegee River 
watersheds, and tribal water quality ordinances protect habitat and 
water quality. Approximately 65 percent of the occupied area of the 
Little Tennessee River is protected from development by inclusion in 
the Needmore Game Lands. Along the other three major spawning 
tributaries, most of the land is privately held and does not have any 
restriction on land development.
    When the sicklefin redhorse sucker was elevated to candidate status 
in 2005, the blueback herring, an invasive predator species, had been 
inadvertently introduced into the Hiwassee Reservoir, a major waterbody 
supporting the sicklefin redhorse sucker. At the time, predation of 
young sicklefin redhorse sucker by blueback herring was an unassessed 
threat. However, a recent study examining the gut contents of blueback 
herring in the Valley River and Hiwassee Reservoir failed to find any 
sicklefin redhorse suckers among the samples. It appears that the 
sicklefin redhorse sucker may naturally avoid predation by blueback 
herring by spawning farther upstream than typical foraging habitat for 
blueback herring. In the spring of 2016, blueback herring were 
collected from Fontana Reservoir, the other reservoir important for 
sicklefin redhorse sucker recruitment. Further investigation is 
required to determine the degree of impact the presence of blueback 
herring in Fontana Reservoir poses to the sicklefin redhorse sucker, 
but the distance to spawning sites upstream of Fontana Reservoir is 
similar to the distance in the Hiwassee Reservoir, suggesting that 
blueback herring will be similarly separated from the hatching 
sicklefin redhorse sucker fry during the time when they are most likely 
to be present in the reservoir. Collections in the Hiwassee River 
system in 2014-2015 produced many young adult/late juvenile sicklefin 
redhorse suckers that have clearly recruited since the herring 
invasion, even while juvenile walleye and white bass steeply declined 
immediately after the invasion, suggesting the blueback herring is not 
preventing successful recruitment of sicklefin redhorse suckers. 
Therefore, recent observations indicate that blueback herring have not 
proven to be a threat to the sicklefin redhorse sucker as once feared.
    Many of the stressors that may affect the sicklefin redhorse sucker 
in the future can be further minimized by conservation actions carried 
out under the recently signed CCA among the Service, North Carolina 
Wildlife

[[Page 69440]]

Resources Commission, Duke Energy Carolinas, Eastern Band of Cherokee 
Indians, Tennessee Valley Authority, and Georgia Department of Natural 
Resources. A primary goal of the CCA is to expand the range of this 
species upstream of barrier dams to repopulate stream reaches that were 
formerly degraded, but currently appear suitable. Expanding the range 
of the sicklefin redhorse sucker into the upper sections of these 
watersheds will provide a greater variety of available habitat, 
allowing the species to more easily adjust to temporary effects of 
construction and landscape alteration, and providing more opportunities 
to use areas of refuge during periods of adverse conditions, such as 
periods of high temperature or increased flow. Accessibility to more 
suitable habitat will increase the number of available spawning sites, 
increasing the opportunities for successful recruitment, and will 
provide alternative spawning areas should some spawning sites become 
unsuitable. Successful reintroduction will increase the carrying 
capacity of the sicklefin redhorse sucker by providing the species with 
additional riverine habitat as well as access to additional reservoirs 
to serve as juvenile rearing habitat. The SSA Report for the sicklefin 
redhorse sucker noted that threats (i.e., factors affecting the 
species) could be exacerbated by climate change or interaction among 
the threats. However, the SSA Report's evaluation of all of the threats 
facing this species indicates that the existing populations are stable 
and are likely to remain stable in most of the plausible future 
scenarios. In addition, while populations are currently stable and 
likely to remain so, under the CCA's management framework, the parties 
will work collaboratively to address threats in a way that reduces the 
likelihood that they will negatively affect the future viability of the 
species.

Finding

    Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information pertaining to the Act's five threat 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 sicklefin redhorse sucker is in danger 
of extinction (an endangered species), or likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future (a threatened species), throughout all of 
its range. This finding is based on stability of existing populations, 
re-evaluation of threats that are likely to affect the populations in 
the future, and development of a CCA that ensures the continued 
participation by all stakeholders in a focused effort to address and 
mitigate potential threats while expanding the range and population 
health of the species. Additionally, we evaluated the current range of 
the sicklefin redhorse sucker to determine if there is any apparent 
geographic concentration of potential threats for the species. The 
current range of the species is relatively small and limited to two 
river systems in western North Carolina and northwestern Georgia. We 
examined potential threats from: (1) Hydroelectric operations, 
inadequate erosion/sedimentation control during agricultural, 
timbering, and construction activities; (2) runoff and discharge of 
organic and inorganic pollutants from industrial, municipal, 
agricultural, and other point and nonpoint sources; (3) habitat 
alterations associated with channelization and instream dredging/mining 
activities; (4) predation and habitat suitability impacts by nonnative 
species; (5) fragmentation and isolation of surviving populations; and 
(6) other natural and human-related factors that adversely modify the 
aquatic environment. We found no portions of the species' range where 
potential threats are significantly concentrated or substantially 
greater than in other portion of its range so as to suggest that the 
species may be in danger of extinction in a portion of its range. 
Therefore, we find that factors affecting the sicklefin redhorse sucker 
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 
sicklefin redhorse sucker as an endangered or a threatened species 
under the Act 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 sicklefin redhorse sucker, and 
constitutes the Service's 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, 
petition to list the sicklefin redhorse sucker as an endangered or 
threatened species. A detailed discussion of the basis for this 
finding, including the PECE policy analysis of the CCA, can be found in 
the sicklefin redhorse sucker's species-specific assessment form, SSA 
Report, and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).

Stephan's Riffle Beetle (Heterelmis stephani)

Previous Federal Actions

    Stephan's riffle beetle (Heterelmis stephani) was designated as a 
Category 2 candidate in the notice published in the Federal Register on 
May 22, 1984, at 49 FR 21664. Category 2 candidate species were 
identified as those taxa for which the Service possessed information 
indicating proposing to list the taxa was possibly appropriate, but for 
which conclusive data on biological vulnerability and threats 
sufficient to support a proposed listing rule was lacking. The February 
28, 1996, CNOR (61 FR 7596) discontinued recognition of categories, so 
this species was no longer considered a candidate species. In the June 
13, 2002, CNOR (67 FR 40657), Stephan's riffle beetle was designated as 
a candidate species as currently defined, with an LPN of 5. On May 11, 
2004, we received a petition dated May 4, 2004, from the Center for 
Biological Diversity, requesting that 225 plants and animals, including 
Stephan's riffle beetle, be listed as endangered species under the Act 
and critical habitat be designated. In response to the May 4, 2004, 
petition to list Stephan's riffle beetle as an endangered species, we 
published a warranted-but-precluded 12-month finding in the Federal 
Register on May 11, 2005 (70 FR 24870). Subsequent warranted-but-
precluded 12-month findings were published on September 12, 2006 (71 FR 
53756), December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034), December 10, 2008 (73 FR 
75176), November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), November 10, 2010 (75 FR 
69222), October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), November 21, 2012 (77 FR 
69994), November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70104), December 5, 2014 (79 FR 
72450), and December 24, 2015 (80 FR 80584).

Background

    Stephan's riffle beetle is one of five known species in the genus 
Heterelmis found in the United States. Historically, Stephan's riffle 
beetle occurred in Santa Cruz and Pima Counties, Arizona, at two known 
locations: Bog Springs Campground and Sylvester Spring in

[[Page 69441]]

Madera Canyon. Stephan's riffle beetle is no longer found at the Bog 
Springs Campground location, as the habitat there no longer exists. 
Stephan's riffle beetle has not been collected or documented since 
1993, despite the Service's surveying for the species at the one 
remaining known location, Sylvester Spring, and at numerous other 
nearby locations with potential habitat. Based on our review of the 
best available scientific and commercial information, we believe that 
the Stephan's riffle beetle is extinct.
    The preponderance of Stephan's riffle beetle specimens have been 
documented in artificial habitat created by a water tank's leaking 
pipeline and overflow at the Bog Springs Campground. Only two specimens 
have ever been documented from Sylvester Spring, the only relatively 
intact spring habitat remaining where the species was known to exist. 
Historically, Stephan's riffle beetle may have only occupied Sylvester 
and Bog Springs, and populations may have started declining when water 
from springs in Madera Canyon was first captured in concrete boxes and 
piped to divert water for domestic and recreational water supplies. Up 
until 1993, when Stephan's riffle beetle was last detected, the species 
appears to have existed only in extremely low numbers within Sylvester 
Spring, making it very difficult to detect, in contrast to the 
relatively large numbers collected in 1979 at the Bog Springs 
Campground site. The species has not been documented as extant since 
1993, 23 years ago, when one individual was found at Sylvester Spring 
as part of a specific effort to survey for Stephan's riffle beetle in 
Madera Canyon.
    Beginning in 2012, the Service surveyed Sylvester Spring, the one 
remaining known population location for Stephan's riffle beetle, and 
seven other locations with potential habitat on multiple occasions. The 
most intensive survey efforts occurred at Sylvester Spring and Bog 
Springs, the water source for the extirpated Bog Springs Campground 
population. Three different survey methods were used in an effort to 
find the species, and no Stephan's riffle beetles were found. While 
Stephan's riffle beetle is small in size (and therefore difficult to 
find), adult beetles, if present, should be detected regardless of the 
time of year surveyed based on their life history (multi-year 
metamorphosis and relatively long life span). Therefore, based on the 
best available scientific and commercial information, the Service 
believes Stephan's riffle beetle to be extinct.

Summary of Status Review

    The SSA Report for Stephan's riffle beetle is a summary of the 
information assembled and reviewed by the Service and incorporates the 
best available scientific and commercial information for this species. 
Our analysis leads us to believe Stephan's riffle beetle is extinct. 
Species extinction is difficult, if not impossible, to prove, and the 
Service has no policy specifically defining the level of information 
necessary to conclude that a species should be considered extinct. For 
any species there is uncertainty in drawing a conclusion of extinction. 
For the Stephan's riffle beetle, we have carefully assessed the best 
scientific and commercial information available regarding the current 
status of the species. The biological information we reviewed and 
analyzed as the basis for our findings is documented in the SSA Report. 
Our analysis of this information found that there has been no 
confirmation of the existence of the Stephan's riffle beetle in more 
than 23 years, despite multiple survey efforts since 2012 in known and 
potential habitat where other riffle beetles were documented, across 
multiple seasons, and using a variety of survey methods. The type 
locality consisting of a leaking pipeline to a water storage tank, 
where the largest number of Stephan's riffle beetle was collected, no 
longer exists. The Service surveyed the only remaining site at which 
Stephan's riffle beetle had been documented, Sylvester Spring, on 
numerous occasions with different survey methods. Despite these 
efforts, we have been unable to confirm the existence of the species.

Finding

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information leads us to believe that the Stephan's riffle beetle is 
extinct, and, as such, it is not eligible for listing as an endangered 
or threatened species under the Act. Although the Act does not directly 
address the situation of considering a species for listing where the 
best available information indicates that the species is likely already 
extinct, the purpose of the Act is to prevent species from becoming 
extinct. If we believe the species is already extinct, by definition, 
the species cannot be in danger of, or likely to become in danger of, 
extinction. Therefore, we did not further evaluate whether Stephan's 
riffle beetle is in danger of extinction throughout its range (an 
endangered species), is likely to become in danger of extinction 
throughout its range in the foreseeable future (a threatened species), 
or is an endangered or threatened species in a significant portion of 
its range. We find that listing Stephan's riffle beetle as an 
endangered or a threatened species under the Act is not warranted 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range, 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 Stephan's riffle beetle and 
constitutes the Service's 12-month finding on the May 4, 2004, petition 
to list the Stephan's riffle beetle as an endangered or threatened 
species. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be 
found in the Stephan's riffle beetle's species-specific assessment 
form, SSA Report, 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 Huachuca-
Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog, the Arkansas darter, black 
mudalia, Highlands tiger beetle, Dichanthelium (=panicum) hirstii 
(Hirst Brothers' panic grass), two Kentucky cave beetles (Louisville 
cave beetle and Tatum Cave beetle), relict leopard frog, sicklefin 
redhorse sucker, and Stephan's riffle beetle 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 any 
of these species, we will act to provide immediate protection.

References Cited

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

[[Page 69442]]

Authors

    The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the 
Unified Listing Team, Ecological Services Program.

Authority

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

    Dated: September 26, 2016.
 Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-24142 Filed 10-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P