[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 192 (Thursday, October 5, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46618-46645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21352]



[[Page 46617]]

Vol. 82

Thursday,

No. 192

October 5, 2017

Part II





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Findings on 
Petitions To List 25 Species as Endangered or Threatened Species; 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 46618]]


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

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 25 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 25 species as endangered or 
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(Act). After a thorough review of the best available scientific and 
commercial information, we find that listing 14 Nevada springsnail 
species, Barbour's map turtle, Bicknell's thrush, Big Blue Springs cave 
crayfish, the Oregon Cascades--California population and Black Hills 
population of the black-backed woodpecker, the eastern population of 
the boreal toad, the Northern Rocky Mountains population of the fisher, 
Florida Keys mole skink, Great Sand Dunes tiger beetle, Kirtland's 
snake, Pacific walrus, and San Felipe gambusia 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 species listed above or their habitats.

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on October 5, 
2017.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Species                            Docket No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 Nevada springsnails....................           FWS-R8-ES-2011-0001
Barbour's map turtle......................           FWS-R4-ES-2017-0065
Bicknell's thrush.........................           FWS-R5-ES-2012-0056
Big Blue Springs cave crayfish............           FWS-R4-ES-2017-0066
Black-backed woodpecker...................           FWS-R8-ES-2013-0034
Boreal toad...............................           FWS-R6-ES-2012-0003
Fisher....................................           FWS-R6-ES-2015-0104
Florida Keys mole skink...................           FWS-R4-ES-2017-0067
Great Sand Dunes tiger beetle.............           FWS-R6-ES-2017-0068
Kirtland's snake..........................           FWS-R3-ES-2017-0039
Pacific walrus............................           FWS-R7-ES-2017-0069
San Felipe gambusia.......................           FWS-R2-ES-2017-0024
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 Nevada springsnails............  For bifid duct pyrg: Carolyn Swed,
                                     Field Supervisor, Northern Nevada
                                     (Reno) Fish and Wildlife Office,
                                     775-861-6337
                                    For all other species: Glen Knowles,
                                     Field Supervisor, Southern Nevada
                                     Fish and Wildlife Office, 702-515-
                                     5230.
Barbour's map turtle..............  Catherine Phillips, Field
                                     Supervisor, Panama City Ecological
                                     Services Field Office, 850-769-
                                     0552.
Bicknell's thrush.................  Krishna Gifford, Listing
                                     Coordinator, Region 5 Regional
                                     Office, 413-253-8619.
Big Blue Springs cave crayfish....  Catherine Phillips, Field
                                     Supervisor, Panama City Ecological
                                     Services Field Office, 850-769-
                                     0552.
Black-backed woodpeckers..........  Oregon Cascades--California
                                     population: Jenn Norris, Field
                                     Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and
                                     Wildlife Office, 916-414-6600
                                    Black Hills population: Scott
                                     Larson, Field Supervisor, South
                                     Dakota Ecological Services Office,
                                     605-224-8693.
Boreal toad.......................  Drue DeBerry, Field Supervisor,
                                     Colorado and Nebraska Field Office,
                                     303-236-4774.
Fisher............................  Jodi Bush, Field Supervisor, Montana
                                     Ecological Services Field Office,
                                     406-449-5225, ext. 205.
Florida Keys mole skink...........  Roxanna Hinzman, Field Supervisor,
                                     South Florida Ecological Services
                                     Field Office, 772-469-4309.
Great Sand Dunes tiger beetle.....  Drue DeBerry, Field Supervisor,
                                     Colorado and Nebraska Field Office,
                                     303-236-4774.
Kirtland's snake..................  Dan Everson, Field Supervisor, Ohio
                                     Ecological Services Field Office,
                                     614-416-8993.
Pacific walrus....................  Patrick Lemons, Chief Marine Mammals
                                     Management, Region 7, 907-786-3668.
San Felipe gambusia...............  Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor,
                                     Austin Ecological Services Field
                                     Office, 512-490-0057, ext. 248.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Within 12 months after receiving any petition to revise the Federal 
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, we are required 
to make a finding whether or not the petitioned action is warranted 
(``12-month finding''), unless we determined that the petition did not 
contain substantial scientific or commercial information indicating 
that the petitioned action may be warranted (section 4(b)(3)(B) of the 
Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)). We must make a finding that the 
petitioned action is: (1) Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) 
warranted but precluded. ``Warranted but precluded'' means that (a) the 
immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action 
is precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether species 
are endangered or threatened

[[Page 46619]]

species, and (b) expeditious progress is being made to add qualified 
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants (Lists) and to remove from the Lists species for which the 
protections of the Act are no longer necessary. 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 that a subsequent finding 
be made within 12 months of that date. 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 at 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 species 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 14 Nevada springsnail species, Barbour's map turtle, 
Bicknell's thrush, Big Blue Springs cave crayfish, Oregon Cascades-
California and Black Hills populations of the black-backed woodpecker, 
eastern population of the boreal toad, Northern Rocky Mountains 
population of the fisher, Florida Keys mole skink, Great Sand Dunes 
tiger beetle, Kirtland's snake, Pacific walrus, and San Felipe gambusia 
meet the definition of ``endangered species'' 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 
indicate that the species may meet the definition of a threatened or 
endangered species, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the 
species to the stressor to determine whether the species responds to 
the stressor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If 
there is exposure to a stressor, but no response, or only a positive 
response, that stressor does not cause a species to meet the definition 
of a threatened or endangered species. If there is exposure and the 
species responds negatively, the stressor may be significant. In that 
case, we determine whether that stressor drives or contributes 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 impacts to a species. The combination of exposure and some 
corroborating evidence of how the species is likely affected could 
suffice. The mere identification of stressors that could affect a 
species negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that listing 
is appropriate; similarly, the mere identification of stressors that do 
not affect a listed species negatively is insufficient to compel a 
finding that delisting is appropriate. For a species to be listed or 
remain listed, 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 these 12-month findings, we considered and thoroughly 
evaluated the best scientific and commercial information available 
regarding the past, present, and future stressors and threats. We 
reviewed the petitions, information available in our files, and other 
available published and unpublished information. These evaluations may 
include information from recognized experts; Federal, State, and tribal 
governments; academic institutions; foreign governments; private 
entities; and other members of the public.
    14 Nevada Springsnails: Spring Mountains Pyrg (Pyrgulopsis 
deaconi), Corn Creek Pyrg (Pyrgulopsis fausta), Moapa Pebblesnail 
(Pyrgulopsis avernalis), Moapa Valley Pyrg (Pyrgulopsis carinifera), 
Grated Tryonia (Tryonia clathrata), Blue Point Pyrg (Pyrgulopsis 
coloradensis), Hubbs Pyrg (Pyrgulopsis hubbsi), Pahranagat Pebblesnail 
(Pyrgulopsis merriami), White River Valley Pyrg (Pyrgulopsis sathos), 
Butterfield Pyrg (Pyrgulopsis lata), Hardy Pyrg (Pyrgulopsis marcida), 
Flag Pyrg (Pyrgulopsis breviloba), Lake Valley Pyrg (Pyrgulopsis 
sublata), Bifid Duct Pyrg (Pyrgulopsis peculiaris).

Previous Federal Actions

    On February 17, 2009, we received a petition from the Center for 
Biological Diversity (the Center), the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation 
Society, Dr. James Deacon, and Don Duff requesting that 42 species of 
Great Basin springsnails from Nevada, Utah, and California be listed as 
endangered or threatened species under the Act. Three of those 
springsnail species were addressed in an August 18, 2009, 90-day 
finding (74 FR 41649). The remaining 39 springsnail species, which 
includes the 14 springsnails addressed in this 12-month finding, were 
addressed in a September 13, 2011, ``substantial'' 90-day finding (76 
FR 56608).
    On April 25, 2012, we received from the Center a notice of intent 
to file suit to compel us to issue 12-month findings for four of the 
2009-petitioned species (i.e., Hardy pyrg, flag pyrg, Lake Valley pyrg, 
and bifid duct pyrg). Subsequently, on September 13, 2012, the Center 
filed a complaint to compel us to issue findings for the four 
springsnails. On April 29, 2013, we reached a stipulated settlement 
agreement with the Center, agreeing to publish 12-month findings for 
the four species by September 30, 2017. This 12-month finding satisfies 
the requirements of that stipulated settlement agreement for Hardy 
pyrg, flag pyrg, Lake Valley pyrg, and bifid duct pyrg. A detailed 
discussion of the basis for these findings can be found in the Species 
Assessment Form and the SSA Report that we used in preparing this 
finding (see ADDRESSES above).

Background

    All 14 of the species that this finding addresses fall within 
either the genus Pyrgulopsis or the genus Tryonia. To inexperienced and 
unaided eyes, species within each genus Pyrgulopsis and Tryonia appear 
relatively similar to one another, but have been collected, described, 
and differentiated based on subtle morphological characteristics using 
methods described by Hershler and Sada (1987, pp. 780-785) and Hershler 
(1989, pp. 176-179; 1994, pp. 2-4; 1998, pp. 3-11; 2001, p. 2). In 
general, species of Pyrgulopsis and Tryonia are similarly sized. The 
shell heights of adult Pyrgulopsis may range between approximately 1 
and 5 mm

[[Page 46620]]

(0.04 and 0.2 in) and have 3 to 5 whorls (Hershler 1998, pp. 4-9), 
whereas shell heights of adult grated tryonia may be approximately 3 to 
7 mm (0.1 to 0.3 in) and have between 5 to 9 whorls (Hershler 2001, p. 
7).
    The 14 springsnail species occur in a portion of the Great Basin, 
which is a contiguous watershed area of closed drainage basins that 
retain water and allow no outflow to other external bodies of water, 
such as rivers or oceans. The range and distribution of the 14 
springsnail species within the Great Basin overlap 11 hydrographic 
basins (i.e., drainage areas of streams) in Clark, Lincoln, Nye, and 
White Pine Counties, Nevada, and three hydrographic basins in Millard 
County, Utah.
    Springsnails occur in springs, which are relatively small aquatic 
and riparian systems that flow onto the land surface through natural 
processes and are maintained by groundwater. They range widely in size, 
water chemistry, morphology, landscape setting, and persistence. They 
occur from mountain tops to valley floors, some of which occur in 
clusters known as spring provinces, and are predominantly isolated from 
other aquatic and riparian systems. Springs occur where subterranean 
water under pressure reaches the earth's surface through fault zones, 
rock cracks, or orifices that occur when water creates a passage by 
dissolving rock. Most springs are considered unique based on the 
province influences of aquifer geology, morphology, discharge rates, 
and regional precipitation (Sada and Pohlmann 2002, pp. 3-5). Details 
regarding the subject springs' size, water transport or flow system, 
and environmental characteristics (such as temperature, dissolved 
oxygen, and other water chemistry conditions) are described in the 
supporting SSA Report for these species (Service 2017, pp. 40-42).
    The genetic diversity of springsnails is not well understood, 
particularly as it relates to their ability to adapt to short- and 
long-term environmental changes. Based on their restricted 
distributions within a springbrook (water outflow from a spring 
source), they seem to be limited to a range of physical and biological 
parameters that exist within that occupied area (Sada 2017, p. 13), one 
known parameter being their dependency on perennial water (Hershler and 
Liu 2008, p. 92). Overall, the best available information indicates 
that the 14 Nevada springsnails' physical and ecological needs include 
sufficient water quality, adequate substrate and vegetation, free-
flowing water, and adequate spring discharge (Service 2017, pp. 42-45).

Summary of Status Review

    These findings constitute our completion of our review of the 
petitioned action. However, we intend that any listing determination 
for the 14 Nevada springsnails be as accurate as possible. Therefore, 
we will continue to accept additional information and comments from all 
concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or 
any other interested party concerning these findings.
    A species status assessment (SSA) was completed for these species 
and summarized in an SSA Report (Service 2017). Below are summary 
discussions for each species, primarily focusing on impacts to species' 
needs within and among populations both currently and in the future. We 
focused on the overall condition of the species' needs here as they 
relate to a species' ability to withstand disturbances and stochastic 
events (resiliency), the distribution of populations across the 
landscape to withstand disturbances and stochastic events (redundancy), 
and the ability for each species to adapt to changing environmental 
conditions (representation). For detailed scientific information on 
current and potential future conditions of these species, including 
full discussions of resiliency, redundancy, and representation for each 
species, please see the SSA Report. As explained further in the SSA 
Report, for all of these springsnails we considered the foreseeable 
future to be 50 years because: (1) It is within the range of the 
available hydrological and climate change model forecasts; and (2) 
because of the short generation time of these springsnails 
(approximately 1 year), 50 years encompassed approximately 30 to 40 
generations, which is a relatively high number of generations over 
which to observe effects to the species.
    Spring Mountains Pyrg--The Spring Mountains pyrg has been reported 
to occur historically at a total of nine springs in the Spring 
Mountains area of Clark and Nye Counties, Nevada; however, subsequently 
its presence has been confirmed at only eight of the nine springs. 
Surveys at six of these locations indicate that the downstream extent 
and abundance of this species fluctuates during and between years. 
Populations of Spring Mountains pyrg have typically been abundant or 
common during surveys in recent years. A variety of stressors have been 
negatively affecting the springs both historically and currently, and 
individuals continue to occupy those seven springs at similar abundance 
levels (i.e., scarce, common, or abundant) across its range as compared 
to past survey results. Stressors present include vegetation and soil 
disturbance from ungulate activity (all three springs at Horse Springs 
Province; Factor A) and recreation (Red Spring and Willow Spring; 
Factor A), potential crushing of individuals from ungulates and 
recreationists (all springs except Crystal Spring; Factor E), and 
residual impacts associated with historical spring modification 
(surface water diversion) (Kiup Spring and Horse Springs Province; 
Factor A). Although these stressors are present, they are not resulting 
in significant adverse effects to the Spring Mountains pyrg or its 
habitat. Projected future conditions include a possible decrease in 
spring discharge and insignificant impacts to substrate and vegetation. 
However, the populations of Spring Mountains pyrg continue to persist 
with an appropriate population size, growth rate, and occupied habitat, 
and the best available information does not indicate any reason why the 
expected condition of the springs and spring provinces within the 
species' range would not continue to meet the species' needs in the 
foreseeable future. We also looked for significant portions of the 
Spring Mountain pyrg's range that might be endangered or threatened, 
and we determined that there are no geographic concentration of 
stressors (see our Species Assessment Form, Section 15.1.3 available on 
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-
2011-0001).
    Corn Creek Pyrg--There are three populations of the Corn Creek pyrg 
that continue to occupy the entirety of its known historical range, 
including five spring source locations in Clark County, Nevada, which 
are within the Desert National Wildlife Refuge managed by the Service 
(Sada 2017, pp. 76-79). The relative abundance of Corn Creek pyrg has 
varied between sites and surveys. Residual impacts associated with 
historical spring modification (surface water diversion, channel 
modification, and impoundment) occur at Corn Creek Springs Province 
(Factor A). Additionally, there are insignificant residual impacts from 
beneficial habitat restoration (Factor A) at four of the five springs. 
Projected future conditions include a possible decrease in spring 
discharge, which is a result of future changing climate conditions in 
conjunction with a possible increase in groundwater withdrawal 
(although, if it occurs, this is not expected to be significant across 
the species' range). We project that, at a minimum, four

[[Page 46621]]

springs total (two populations) are likely to remain viable in the 
foreseeable future even with the potential stressor of ground water 
withdrawal effects, particularly given the significant protections and 
management afforded the springs due to their presence within the Desert 
National Wildlife Refuge both currently and into the future (the 
Species Assessment form describes in more detail our analysis of these 
protections). We also looked for significant portions of the Corn Creek 
pyrg's range that might be endangered or threatened, and we determined 
that there was a geographic concentration of stressors but that portion 
was not significant, and thus did not meet the criteria of an SPR (see 
our Species Assessment Form, Section 15.1.3 available on the Internet 
at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0001).
    Moapa Pebblesnail and Moapa Valley Pyrg--The Moapa pebblesnail and 
Moapa Valley pyrg are endemic springsnails that co-occur at 6 locations 
(springs and spring provinces, totaling 16 springs) in Clark County, 
Nevada, which is the entirety of their historical ranges. Their 
abundance and distribution vary temporally and in response to 
restoration (documented to be scarce to abundant over survey periods), 
and the best available data indicate that the populations for both 
species are stable. Moapa Valley pyrg typically appears more abundant 
than Moapa pebblesnail. The primary impacts are at one spring that is 
currently low-flow--Cardy Lamb Spring--which represents residual 
impacts from historical spring modifications (surface diversion, 
channel modification, and impoundment) (Factor A), as well as presence 
of invasive species (mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) and red-rimmed 
melania (Melanoides tuberculate)) that may predate upon the species 
(Factor C) or compete with resource needs (Factor E) of the Moapa 
pebblesnail. Baldwin Spring also harbors invasive species (Factors C 
and E) and experiences residual impacts from historical spring 
modifications (surface diversion and channel modification) (Factor A). 
Additionally, residual historical impacts are evident to an 
insignificant degree from spring modifications and restoration (Factor 
A) at Apcar Springs Province, Pederson Springs Province, and Plummer 
Springs Province. The species' needs (adequate water quality and 
discharge, substrate and vegetation, and free-flowing water) are being 
met throughout its range, although water flow is low at one spring 
(Cardy Lamb). The best available data indicate that various stressors 
have been negatively affecting the springs both historically and 
currently, although it appears not to the degree that the entire 
populations have been affected over time. Overall, the likelihood that 
5 of the 6 populations (15 springs) for each species will continue to 
persist with appropriate population sizes and growth rates appears high 
based on both species' demonstrated ability to persist with 
disturbances in the past, as well as the future expected conditions, 
and the best available information does not indicate any reason why the 
expected condition of the springs and spring provinces within the 
species' range would not continue to meet the species' needs in the 
foreseeable future. We also looked for significant portions of the 
Moapa pebblesnail and Moapa Valley pyrg ranges that might be endangered 
or threatened, and we determined that there was a geographic 
concentration of stressors but that portion was not significant, and 
thus did not meet the criteria of an SPR (see our Species Assessment 
Form, Section 15.1.3 available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0001).
    Grated Tryonia--The grated tryonia is an endemic springsnail that 
occurs in 5 springs and 6 spring provinces, totaling greater than 31 
springs in Clark, Lincoln, and Nye Counties, Nevada: 3 springs exhibit 
common relative abundance, 6 exhibit scarce abundance (which 
historically is the most-frequent relative abundance value recorded 
across its range, suggesting the species' abundance is inherently 
scarce), and for 3 springs the presence of the species must be presumed 
because there was no access to the springs during the most-recent 
surveys in 2016. This occupied area is the entirety of its known 
historical range (multiple springs at multiple locations). The primary 
stressors are invasive species (Factors C and E) and residual impacts 
from spring modification and habitat restoration activities (Factor A), 
which have been negatively affecting the springs historically and 
currently to varying degrees. Invasive species occur at a greater 
abundance at Baldwin Spring and Ash Spring Province as compared to 
Cardy Lamb Spring, Moorman Spring, and Hot Creek Springs Province; 
however, invasive species do not occur in high numbers or densities 
such that population- or rangewide-level effects are evident. Residual 
impacts from historical spring modifications (surface diversions, 
channel modifications, or impoundments) or from past restoration 
activities are evident throughout the species' range, although surveys 
do not indicate that the activities have had significant impacts on the 
species across its range. Projected future conditions include a 
possible decrease in spring discharge that, if manifested, could result 
in the loss of the Cardy Lamb Spring population. However, the best 
available information indicates that there is a high likelihood that 10 
of the 11 populations of grated tryonia will continue to persist in the 
foreseeable future with an appropriate population size and growth rate. 
We also looked for significant portions of the grated tryonia's range 
that might be endangered or threatened, and we determined that there 
are no geographic concentration of stressors (see our Species 
Assessment Form, Section 15.1.3 available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0001).
    Blue Point Pyrg--The Blue Point pyrg's range has always been 
limited to Blue Point Spring (Hershler 1998, p. 29), which is owned and 
managed by the National Park Service (Lake Mead National Recreation 
Area) in Clark County, Nevada. The species' abundance is known to vary 
over time: Scarce in the early 1990s, potentially extinct prior to 
2001, rediscovered in 2006, common or abundant in 2012, scarce in 2014, 
common or abundant in 2015, and again common in 2017 (Service 2017, p. 
137). The primary stressor for this species is aquatic invasive 
predation (Factor C), although other stressors that may negatively 
affect the species to a lesser degree are vegetation and substrate 
damage from ungulate use and roads (Factor A), as well as residual 
impacts from historical spring modification (Factor A). Although 
invasive species are the primary stressors for Blue Point pyrg, they do 
not occur in high numbers or densities such that population- or 
rangewide-level effects are evident. Overall, although stressors are 
present at Blue Point Spring, they do not appear to be resulting in 
significant adverse effects to Blue Point pyrg or its habitat (i.e., 
the species' needs continue to be met, and there is no information to 
indicate declining population trends). Given the continued disturbance 
from some of these stressors, and the continued presence of the species 
at this spring, Blue Point pyrg appears resilient over the long term in 
the face of these impacts. The spring modification that occurred 
historically is not expected to be restored to its natural condition, 
although springsnails continue to persist now and are expected to 
persist

[[Page 46622]]

into the future, despite this surface modification. Additionally, the 
spring is expected to continue to experience an insignificant level of 
impacts from soil and vegetation disturbances. Even with both these 
residual, historical impacts and the potential addition of ground water 
withdrawal if it occurs, there is no evidence to suggest that these 
stressors are likely to increase in magnitude to such a degree that the 
population of Blue Point pyrg would be lost, or decline to a 
significant degree as a result in the foreseeable future. We also 
looked for significant portions of the Blue Point pyrg's range that 
might be endangered or threatened, and we determined that there are no 
geographic concentration of stressors (see our Species Assessment Form, 
Section 15.1.3 available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 
under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0001).
    Hubbs Pyrg--Hubbs pyrg has been reported from two spring areas on 
private land in Lincoln County, Nevada: Hiko Spring and Crystal Springs 
Province (two springs) (Service 2017, Figure 5.5; Hershler 1998, pp. 
35-37; Sada 2017, pp. 80-81). The species is likely extirpated from 
Hiko Spring; in 2000, Sada (2017, p. 80) observed that the spring box 
was significantly modified, and the pyrg has not been observed since. 
Hubb's pyrg is presumed extant at Crystal Springs Province where it has 
been found to be common or abundant from surveys conducted between 1992 
and 2015 (see Table 5.35 in the SSA Report (Service 2017, p. 140)). The 
best available information indicates that the primary stressor for this 
species is residual impacts associated with historical spring 
modifications (surface diversion, channel modification, and 
impoundment) (Factor A). It is reasonable to assume that some residual 
temporary negative impacts associated with historical spring 
modifications currently exist. However, there is no evidence to suggest 
that the Hubbs pyrg is not continuing to occupy Crystal Springs 
Province at similar abundance levels (i.e., common or abundant) as 
recorded previously. Thus, although spring modifications still exist at 
Crystal Springs Province, the best available information indicates 
there are no significant adverse effects to Hubbs pyrg or its habitat 
(i.e., the species' needs continue to be met, and there is no 
information to indicate declining population trends). Potential future 
changes in climate conditions (increases in temperature or decreases in 
precipitation) are not likely to cause significant impacts to the 
regional carbonate aquifer that Crystal Springs Province relies on. 
Although the species is now found in only one spring, we concluded in 
the Species Assessment Form that the resiliency of the species within 
that spring is sufficiently high that the species is not in danger of 
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. Therefore, 
at this time, there is no evidence to suggest that the stressors 
discussed herein are likely to increase in magnitude into the future to 
such a degree that the population of Hubbs pyrg would be lost, or 
decline to a significant degree as a result in the foreseeable future. 
We also looked for significant portions of the Hubbs pyrg's range that 
might be endangered or threatened, and we determined that there are no 
geographic concentrations of stressors (see our Species Assessment 
Form, Section 15.1.3 available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0001).
    Pahranagat Pebblesnail--This springsnail is consistently found to 
be common or abundant within four springs and spring provinces (greater 
than nine springs) in Lincoln and Nye Counties, Nevada. This area is 
the entirety of its known historical range. Although none of its 
springs are in natural condition or resemble natural characteristics, 
physical alteration of these habitats has all been historical, and the 
springs have naturalized to a stable condition. Relative abundance and 
springbrook data have varied by spring and year, although the most-
recent survey information indicates it is currently abundant to common 
throughout its range. There are no stressors that are significantly 
affecting the species, although some presence of invasive species 
(Factor C) and residual impacts from historical spring modifications 
(Factor A) are likely resulting in insignificant effects. Although 
these stressors are present, they do not appear to be resulting in 
significant adverse effects to Pahranagat pebblesnail or its habitat 
(i.e., the species' needs continue to be met at affected springs, and 
there is no information to indicate declining population trends across 
the species' range). Future conditions are projected to include the 
continued presence of invasive species. There is also potential for 
future decreased flow or ground water withdrawals across this species' 
range if climate change or pressures from oil or gas development occur; 
however, if any such reduction in flow or reduced substrate and 
vegetation conditions occur, impacts are predicted to be insignificant; 
thus, even if springsnail individuals may be impacted, the species' 
needs would still be met in the foreseeable future. We also looked for 
significant portions of the Pahranagat pebblesnail's range that might 
be endangered or threatened, and we determined that there are no 
geographic concentration of stressors (see our Species Assessment Form, 
Section 15.1.3 available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 
under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0001).
    White River Valley pyrg--The White River Valley pyrg occurs in 
seven populations at nine springs or provinces in Nye and White Pine 
Counties, Nevada. Although some historical habitat was lost for this 
species, it currently occupies multiple springs at multiple locations 
throughout its known historical range. Two additional springs that 
could possibly contain the species have not been accessed since 1999 
and 2007; there is no evidence to suggest that the species no longer 
occurs at those locations. The White River Valley pyrg in Flag Springs, 
Camp Spring, Lund Spring, and Preston Big Spring appears to be 
thriving. The primary stressor affecting the species is residual 
impacts from historical spring modifications (Factor A), primarily at 
Cold Spring and Nicholas Spring, although these residual impacts are 
also evident to a lesser degree at three other springs and one spring 
province. Although no significant effects were noted, invasive species 
(Factor C) occur at Preston Big Spring, and vegetation and substrate 
impacts (Factor A) from roads, ungulate use, and recreation were also 
evident at four springs.
    The best available information indicates that the current stressors 
(spring modification, vegetation and soil disturbance from ungulates, 
invasive aquatic species) have existed historically across the species' 
range, resulting in a likelihood of some continued residual impacts to 
individuals or populations, but on a limited scale that does not affect 
the entire range of the species; no current impacts appear to exist at 
the Flag Springs Province (three springs). Thus, the best available 
information indicates that White River Valley pyrg continues to occupy 
multiple springs at abundance levels (common or abundant) similar to 
historical levels (albeit presumed occupancy for three of the 
populations). At this time, although stressors are present, they do not 
appear to be resulting in any significant adverse effects to White 
River Valley pyrg or its habitat (i.e., the species' needs continue to 
be met at affected springs, and there is no information to indicate 
declining population trends across the species'

[[Page 46623]]

range). Four populations--Flag Springs Province, Camp Spring, Lund 
Spring, and Preston Big Spring--consisting of five to eight springs are 
likely to continue to provide for the species' needs into the 
foreseeable future. Existing stressors (i.e., presumed invasive species 
(nonnative fish), vegetation and soil disturbance from roads, and 
historical spring modifications) are likely to continue but only to 
affect individuals of the species or to result in insignificant effects 
to populations. Additionally, abundance levels are expected to continue 
at this same status (abundant or common), having persisted over time 
regardless of the historical surface water diversions. We also looked 
for significant portions of the White River Valley pyrg's range that 
might be endangered or threatened, and we determined that there are no 
geographic concentrations of stressors (see our Species Assessment 
Form, Section 15.1.3 available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0001).
    Butterfield Pyrg--Butterfield pyrg occurs as two populations 
(likely five springs) at the Butterfield Springs Province in Nye 
County, Nevada, which is the likely historical range. Although two of 
the five springs could not be located during recent survey efforts, 
there is no evidence to suggest that the springs no longer exist. We 
determined that the species' needs are being met (or presumed to be 
met, noting additional surveys are necessary to locate two of the five 
spring sources). The primary stressors, although insignificant where 
they occur, are vegetation and soil disturbance from ungulate use 
(Factor A), invasive species (Factor C), and residual impacts from 
historical spring modifications (Factor A). The best available data 
indicate that residual impacts occur at the springs from past surface 
water diversions and disturbance of substrate and vegetation from 
ungulate activity, in addition to invasive plants present at two of the 
springs. Regardless of these historical and current impacts, the 
species was found to be both scarce and abundant (the latter at the 
largest spring in the province) at the three springs surveyed in 2016.
    We are also unaware of any projects or activities occurring that 
would result in significant negative effects to the species' needs. 
Although there are stressors present, they are not resulting in 
significant adverse effects to Butterfield pyrg or its habitat (i.e., 
the species' needs continue to be met at affected springs, and there is 
no information to indicate declining population trends across the 
species' range). It is likely that all populations will continue to 
persist into the future. The most probable impacts to the species' 
needs are potential reduced aquifer levels if climate change 
predictions (minimal increase in temperature and decrease in 
precipitation) come to fruition. If flow does decrease, it is not 
expected to affect the species' needs negatively to such a degree that 
springsnail abundance would decrease or springs would be lost in the 
foreseeable future. We also looked for significant portions of the 
Butterfield pyrg's range that might be endangered or threatened, and we 
determined that there was a geographic concentration of stressors; 
however, we found those stressors were not likely to cause the species 
in that portion to be in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable 
future. Therefore, no portion of the Butterfield pyrg's range meets the 
criteria of an SPR (see our Species Assessment Form, Section 15.1.3 
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket 
No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0001).
    Hardy Pyrg--The Hardy pyrg occurs in White River Valley, Nye 
County, Nevada. Although some historical habitat was lost for this 
species, it currently occupies multiple springs at multiple locations 
(8 populations within 24 springs) throughout its known historical 
range. The species' abundance in some springs varies, including recent 
surveys showing the species' abundance to range from none to common or 
abundant. The most common stressors across the range of the species 
include vegetation and soil disturbance from ungulate use (Factor A), 
as well as potential for crushed springsnails (seven populations; 
Factor E), and residual impacts from historical spring modifications 
(surface diversions, channel modifications, or impoundments at six 
populations; Factor A). Additionally, three populations are subject to 
vegetation and soil disturbance from roads (Factor A), and two also 
contain invasive species (Factor C). Although these stressors are 
present, they are not resulting in significant adverse effects to Hardy 
pyrg or its habitat (i.e., the species' needs continue to be met at 
affected springs, and there is no information to indicate declining 
population trends across the species' range). A decrease in spring 
discharge in the future, if it occurs, may result in reduced Hardy pyrg 
population resiliency (possibly loss of the Ruppes Boghole Springs). 
Based on the current spring characteristics, stressors, and habitat 
conditions, we believe at least 6 populations (11 springs) would be 
able to withstand future stochastic events, regardless of the lowered 
resiliency. Overall, we expect habitat conditions may be reduced to 
some extent, but overall conditions will remain suitable for the Hardy 
pyrg in the foreseeable future. We also looked for significant portions 
of the Hardy pyrg's range that might be endangered or threatened, and 
we determined that there are no geographic concentrations of stressors 
(see our Species Assessment Form, Section 15.1.3 available on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-
0001).
    Flag Pyrg--Flag pyrg occurs in two populations (four springs) in 
Nye County, Nevada: Meloy Spring and Flag Springs Province. Both of 
these areas represent the entirety of the species' known historical 
range. They both contain large populations that have historically and 
currently been classified as common or abundant (with the exception of 
Flag Spring C where none were found in 2016 (Service 2017, p. 190). 
Although this pyrg may be present in low numbers or absent at Flag 
Spring C, all remaining populations appear to be thriving. The overall 
condition of these four springs is high, with the only stressor known 
to affect these populations being residual impacts from historical 
spring modifications (surface diversions at both locations, and an 
impoundment at Meloy Spring) (Factor A). Although residual effects from 
this stressor are present, the spring modifications are not resulting 
in significant adverse effects to the Flag pyrg or its habitat (i.e., 
the species' needs continue to be met at affected springs, and there is 
no information to indicate declining population trends across the 
species' range). There is potential for future reduced flow and 
possibly reduced substrate and vegetation conditions at both locations 
if climate change projections are realized; however, if any such 
reduction in flow or reduced substrate and vegetation conditions occur, 
impacts to this species are expected to be insignificant; even if 
springsnail individuals may be impacted, the species' needs would still 
be met. Because the springs have substantially high rates of free-
flowing water, we expect habitat conditions may be reduced, but overall 
conditions are likely to remain suitable for the Flag pyrg in the 
foreseeable future. We also looked for significant portions of the Flag 
pyrg's range that might be endangered or threatened, and we determined 
that there are no geographic concentrations of stressors (see our

[[Page 46624]]

Species Assessment Form, Section 15.1.3 available on the Internet at 
http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0001).
    Lake Valley Pyrg--Although some historical habitat was lost for 
this species, Lake Valley pyrg currently occupies multiple springs at 
multiple locations throughout its known historical range. Specifically, 
Lake Valley pyrg is known from four springs at Wambolt Springs Province 
(Lake Valley, Lincoln County, Nevada), where it occurs as two 
populations. Surveys in 2009 found Lake Valley pyrg in three of the 
four springs surveyed--Wambolt Springs A, C, and D--which closely align 
in a meadow, whereas surveys in 2016 found the species in Wambolt 
Springs B, C, and D where Sada (2017, pp. 112-113) considered them 
abundant. With regards to stressors, spring modification (surface 
diversion; Factor A) and cattle disturbance to vegetation and substrate 
(Factor A) are evident. The Wambolt Springs Province has historically 
experienced some spring modifications and ungulate use that disturbs 
substrate and vegetation; ungulate use continues currently, although 
Lake Valley pyrg's relative abundance numbers do not appear 
significantly affected. At this time, although these stressors are 
present, they are not resulting in significant adverse effects to Lake 
Valley pyrg or its habitat (i.e., the species' needs continue to be met 
at affected springs, and there is no information to indicate declining 
population trends across the species' range).
    With regard to our future conditions analysis, the most probable 
impacts to the species' needs are associated with reduced aquifer 
levels if climate change predictions (minimal increase in temperature 
and decrease in precipitation) come to fruition, as well as with 
vegetation and soil disturbance from ungulate activity. Additionally, 
there are no proposed projects that are likely to impact the species or 
its habitat in the future. The greatest potential future impacts--
ground water withdrawal or changes in climate conditions--may result in 
future reductions in spring discharge and free-flowing water; however, 
the best available information suggests that any realized negative 
effects would not result in significant population- or rangewide-level 
effects. In other words, Lake Valley pyrg's resiliency, redundancy, or 
representation is not likely to be reduced to a significant degree in 
the foreseeable future. We also looked for significant portions of the 
Lake Valley pyrg's range that might be endangered or threatened, and we 
determined that there are no geographic concentrations of stressors 
(see our Species Assessment Form, Section 15.1.3 available on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-
0001).
    Bifid Duct Pyrg--The bifid duct pyrg occurs in White Pine County, 
Nevada, and Millard County, Utah. Although some historical habitat was 
lost for this species, it currently occupies a wide distribution within 
multiple springs at multiple locations throughout its known historical 
range (11 extant bifid duct pyrg populations in 18 springs), which can 
help protect the species against potential catastrophic events. 
Abundance varies across the species' range. During 2016 surveys, it was 
common or abundant in the majority of springs where it was found. It 
also appears that it consistently demonstrates relatively high 
abundance numbers in all but one of the 18 springs, and that the 
species has been both historically and currently scarce in the 
remaining spring. The most significant stressors across the species' 
range include residual impacts associated with historical spring 
modification (eight populations; Factor A), damaged substrate and 
vegetation from ungulate use (Factor A), the potential for crushed 
springsnails from ungulate use (Factor E), and, to a significantly 
lesser extent, potential vegetation and substrate impacts (Factor A) 
from roads (three springs) and recreation (three springs). 
Additionally, one spring (Maple Grove Springs) has invasive species 
(Factor C) present, although at insignificant abundance levels. The 
best available data indicate that there are no projects or activities 
occurring or proposed that would result in significant negative effects 
to the species' needs.
    At this time, although these stressors are present, they are not 
resulting in significant adverse effects to bifid duct pyrg or its 
habitat (i.e., the species' needs continue to be met at affected 
springs, and there is no information to indicate declining population 
trends across the species' range). A decrease in spring discharge, if 
it occurs in the future, may result in a reduction in resiliency for 
all populations of bifid duct pyrg. The degree to which reduction in 
discharge would affect resiliency would vary among populations, based 
on the current size of the population, the amount of flow at each 
spring site, the extent of habitat, and uncertainties associated with 
management on private land and proposed groundwater development 
projects. The best available information indicates that the bifid duct 
pyrg's resiliency, redundancy, or representation is not likely to be 
reduced to a significant degree in the foreseeable future. This 
conclusion is based on: (1) There are no proposed projects or negative 
changes in management practices expected in the foreseeable future, and 
(2) any future reduction in discharge or other species needs is not 
likely to be significant given the overall adequacy of current 
conditions (particularly spring discharge; see Service 2017, Table 
6.13, p. 268) throughout the majority of the species' range such that 
springs or populations would be lost. We also looked for significant 
portions of the bifid duct pyrg's range that might be endangered or 
threatened, and we determined that there was a geographic concentration 
of stressors but that portion was not significant, and thus did not 
meet the criteria of an SPR (see our Species Assessment Form, Section 
15.1.3 available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under 
Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0001).

Finding

    Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information pertaining to the five factors, as well as the number and 
distribution of springs and spring provinces for each of the 14 
springsnail species, the continued presence of adequate resources to 
meet the species' needs, and our consideration of the species' 
continued redundancy, resiliency, and representation, we conclude that 
the impacts on the 14 species and their habitat are not of such 
imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate that any of the 14 
springsnail species are in danger of extinction (an endangered 
species), or likely to become so within the foreseeable future (a 
threatened species), throughout all or a significant portion of their 
ranges. We conclude there is no evidence of any significant impacts to 
the species such that there is or would be in the foreseeable future a 
loss of the resources needed to meet the species' physical and 
ecological needs across all 14 of the species' ranges. Nor is there any 
evidence that there are any significant portions of the species' ranges 
where the species could be in danger of extinction or likely to become 
so in the foreseeable future. Thus, our future analysis reveals a low 
risk of extirpation in the foreseeable future for all 14 species.

Barbour's Map Turtle (Graptemys barbouri)

Previous Federal Actions

    On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center to list 
404

[[Page 46625]]

aquatic, riparian, and wetland species from the southeastern United 
States as endangered or threatened species under the Act, including 
Barbour's map turtle. On September 27, 2011, we published a 90-day 
finding in the Federal Register (76 FR 59836) concluding that the 
petition presented substantial information indicating that listing the 
Barbour's map turtle may be warranted. As a result of the Service's 
2012 settlement agreement with the Center, the Service is required to 
submit a proposed listing rule or not-warranted 12-month finding for 
the Barbour's map turtle to the Federal Register by September 30, 2017. 
This notice satisfies the requirements of that settlement agreement for 
the Barbour's map turtle, and constitutes the Service's 12-month 
finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to list the Barbour's map 
turtle as an endangered or threatened species.

Background

    The Barbour's map turtle is a freshwater riverine turtle found in 
the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) Rivers and their major 
tributaries--Choctawhatchee, Pea, Ochlockonee, and Wacissa Rivers in 
southeastern Alabama, southwestern Georgia, and the Florida panhandle. 
Barbour's map turtles are mostly found in riverine habitats, although 
they may also be found in creeks, streams, and impoundments. These map 
turtles are historically known from the ACF River drainage (to include 
Chattahoochee, Flint, and Chipola Rivers) of southeastern Alabama, 
southwestern Georgia, and the Florida panhandle and some of their 
tributaries. Stream geomorphology in the ACF River basin is 
characterized by steep, sandy banks and Ocala limerock outcrops with 
alternating shallow, rocky shoals and deep, sandy pools. The abundance 
of Barbour's map turtles in the ACF River basin has led researchers to 
believe the limestone substrate and water depth are important elements 
of the species' habitat. Barbour's map turtles have recently been found 
outside the known historical range in the Wacissa and Ochlockonee 
Rivers in the Florida panhandle and the Choctawhatchee and Pea Rivers 
in Alabama and Florida panhandle.
    Map turtles are avid baskers, basking up to 6 or more hours a day 
from March through October. In Florida and southern Alabama, map 
turtles will bask during every month of the year as long as the ambient 
temperature is above water temperature. In the northern portion of 
their range in Georgia and during cold spells throughout the region, 
turtles become lethargic in the cooler water temperatures but do not 
hibernate. Basking is required for thermoregulation, prevention and 
destruction of parasites and fungi that may grow on the carapace or 
skin, and exposure to ultraviolet radiation for absorption of vitamin 
D. Map turtles are easily startled and will dive into the water for 
protection.
    River sinuosity, meaning the amount and type of curves and bends, 
plays an important part in providing habitat, shelter, and food for 
this species. The more bends and curves a river or creek has, the more 
riparian area that could be present to provide woody vegetation and 
snags for basking and sheltering, increased diversity of water depth 
and flow, more exposed open sandbars to provide advantageous nesting 
areas, and habitat for food sources consumed by all life stages of 
Barbour's map turtle.

Summary of Status Review

    In completing the status review for the Barbour's map turtle, we 
considered and evaluated the best scientific and commercial information 
available, and evaluated the potential stressors that could be 
affecting the Barbour's map turtle, including the Act's five threat 
factors. This evaluation includes information from all sources, 
including Federal, State, tribal, academic, and private entities and 
the public. The Species Status Assessment Report (Service 2017b, 
entire) for the Barbour's map turtle summarizes and documents the 
biological information we assembled, reviewed, and analyzed as the 
basis for our finding. While the petition stated concerns regarding 
impacts to the species from stressors within the five factors, we 
concluded that the species is resilient to the stressors and current 
impacts to the species do not rise to a level that would warrant 
listing under the Act.
    Our review of the best available science indicates that the 
Barbour's map turtle continues to occupy most of its historical range 
in the ACF River basin and additional locations beyond the historical 
range. Although the Barbour's map turtle faces a variety of impacts 
from reduced water flow from dams, fluctuating levels of water quality 
and habitat availability, dredging, and deadhead logging, the species 
has continued to persist and the magnitude of these threats is not 
expected to significantly change in the near future. Furthermore, the 
impacts from any of the stressors--either individually or 
cumulatively--are not likely to affect the species at a population- or 
range-wide level in the near term.
    To evaluate the current and future viability of the Barbour's map 
turtle, we assessed a range of future conditions to allow us to 
consider the species' resiliency, redundancy, and representation. 
Resiliency describes the ability of a population to withstand 
stochastic disturbance effects. Redundancy describes the ability of the 
species to withstand catastrophic disturbance events. Representation 
characterizes a species' adaptive potential by assessing geographic, 
genetic, ecological, and niche variability. Together, resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation comprise the key characteristics that 
contribute to a species' ability to sustain populations in the wild 
over time.
    A species with multiple resilient populations distributed across 
its range is more likely to persist into the future and avoid 
extinction than a species with fewer, less-resilient populations. For 
the purposes of this assessment, populations were delineated using HUC8 
watersheds that Barbour's map turtles have historically occupied or 
currently occupy. The Barbour's map turtle currently occupies 16 HUC8 
watersheds within the ACF River basin and the Choctawhatchee, 
Ochlockonee, and Wacissa River basins. Overall, estimates of current 
resiliency, representation, and redundancy for Barbour's map turtle are 
considered to be moderate to high, with the exception of the Upper 
Choctawhatchee River, and we did not find any evidence that these 
conditions may change in the future. Our estimation of the species' 
moderate to high resiliency, redundancy, and representation throughout 
the majority of its range suggest that it has the ability to sustain 
its populations into a 30-year time horizon. This timeframe captures 
the time period of 2-3 generations of Barbour's map turtles, as well as 
our best professional judgment of the projected future conditions 
related to either environmental stressors (e.g., water management, 
deadhead logging, dredging or channel maintenance for commerce and 
public use of the waterways) or systematic changes (e.g., climate 
change, riparian management or regulatory mechanisms, human 
consumption, and pet trade collection). We evaluated the current range 
of the Barbour's map turtle to determine if there are any apparent 
geographic concentrations of potential threats to the species. The risk 
factors that occur throughout the Barbour's map turtle's range include 
reduction of water flow from dams (Factor A), climate change (Factor 
A), deadhead logging (Factor A), dredging (Factor A), and human 
exploitation (Factor B). There was no concentration of threats 
identified

[[Page 46626]]

across its range. Therefore, there is no portion of the species' range 
where the species could be in danger of extinction or likely to become 
so in the foreseeable future, and the Barbour's map turtle is not in 
danger of extinction currently, nor is it likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future, in a significant portion of its range.

Finding

    Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information pertaining to the five factors, as well as the number and 
distribution of populations, the continued presence of adequate 
resources to meet the species' needs, and our consideration of the 
species' continued redundancy, resiliency, and representation, we 
conclude that the impacts on the species and its habitat are not of 
such imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate that the Barbour's 
map turtle is in danger of extinction (an endangered species), or 
likely to become so within the foreseeable future (a threatened 
species), throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
    We conclude there is no evidence of any significant loss of the 
resources needed to meet the species' physical and ecological needs 
across the species' range, nor is there any evidence of declining 
numbers of turtles at any of the locations. Rather, recent surveys 
(1990s-2000s) have resulted in a larger species range than that which 
was previously known.
    Therefore, we find that listing the Barbour's map turtle as a 
threatened or an endangered species or maintaining the species as a 
candidate is not warranted throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be 
found in the Barbour's map turtle species-specific assessment form and 
other supporting documents available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2017-0065.

Bicknell's Thrush (Catharus bicknelli)

Previous Federal Actions

    In 1994, the Bicknell's thrush was determined to be a category 2 
species of concern and we announced that finding in the Animal 
Candidate Review for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species (59 FR 
58982, November 15, 1994). Category 2 was defined as including taxa for 
which the Service had information indicating that proposing to list as 
endangered or threatened was possibly appropriate, but for which 
persuasive data on biological vulnerability and threats were not 
currently available to support proposed rules. In 1996, the Service 
discontinued the list of category 2 candidate species, resulting in the 
removal of the Bicknell's thrush from candidate status (61 FR 64481, 
December 5, 1996).
    On August 26, 2010, we received a petition dated August 24, 2010, 
from the Center, requesting that the Bicknell's thrush be listed as an 
endangered or threatened species under the Act and that critical 
habitat be designated. Included in the petition was supporting 
information regarding the species' natural history and ecology, 
population status, and threats to the species, including: Habitat loss 
and climate change (Factor A); disease and predation (Factor C); the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); and exposure 
to mercury, acid deposition, interspecific competition, and disturbance 
by recreationists (Factor E).
    On September 9, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of 
Columbia approved two settlement agreements: One agreement between the 
Service and the Center and a second agreement between the Service and 
WildEarth Guardians (Guardians). The agreements enabled the Service to 
systematically, over a period of 6 years, review and address the needs 
of more than 250 species listed on the 2010 Candidate Notice of Review 
(75 FR 69222, November 10, 2010). The agreements also included 
additional scheduling commitments for a small subset of the actions in 
the 6-year work plan that were consistent with the Service's objectives 
and biological priorities. For the Bicknell's thrush, the settlement 
agreement with Guardians specified that we would complete a 90-day 
petition finding by the end of fiscal year 2012. On August 15, 2012, we 
published a 90-day finding for the Bicknell's thrush (77 FR 48934) 
indicating that the petition provided substantial information 
indicating that listing the species because of Factors A, D, and E may 
be warranted, and initiated a status review.
    In 2013, the Center filed a complaint against the Service for 
failure to complete a 12-month finding for the Bicknell's thrush within 
the statutory timeframe. The Service entered into a settlement 
agreement with the Center to address the complaint; the court-approved 
settlement agreement specified a 12-month finding for the Bicknell's 
thrush would be delivered to the Federal Register by September 30, 
2017. This notice constitutes the 12-month finding on the August 26, 
2010, petition to list the Bicknell's thrush as an endangered or 
threatened species.

Background

    This information is summarized from the Service's Bicknell's Thrush 
Biological Species Report (Species Report) (Service 2017c, entire); for 
more detail, please see the Bicknell's Thrush Species Report available 
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R5-
ES-2012-0056. The Bicknell's thrush is a migratory bird: The smallest 
of North American Catharus thrushes in the family Turdidae, which 
includes all birds related to the robins. Due to similar morphometric 
(related to size and shape) characteristics, positively identifying a 
Bicknell's thrush from other North American Catharus thrushes, 
especially the gray-cheeked thrush (C. minimus), requires close 
scrutiny. However, trained biologists can tell similar species apart. 
We have carefully reviewed the available taxonomic information and 
conclude that the Bicknell's thrush (Catharus bicknelli) is a valid 
taxonomic species.
    The Bicknell's thrush breeds during the summer (May to August) in 
areas of the northeastern United States and southeastern Canada. 
Individuals start migrating in late September or early October by 
following a coastal route south to Virginia, where most birds depart, 
flying across the ocean to the Bahamas and Cuba, before finally 
arriving in the Greater Antilles (i.e., the grouping of larger islands 
in the Caribbean, including but not limited to the Bicknell's thrush's 
wintering areas in Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and 
Puerto Rico) sometime during mid-October through early November. 
Wintering occurs in the Greater Antilles (October to March), and 
migration occurs back overland through the Southeast United States in 
spring (April to May) to reach its breeding grounds.
    Breeding habitat for the Bicknell's thrush consists of dense 
tangles of both living and dead ``stunted'' trees that are 
predominately balsam fir (Abies balsamea) with lesser amounts of red 
spruce (Picea rubens) and white birch (Betula papyrifera var. 
cordifolia) (Wallace 1939, p. 285; Ouellet 1993, p. 561; Rimmer et al. 
2001, p. 7; McKinnon et al. 2014, p. 2). Except in the case of the 
Canadian provinces, where the species has been found at lower 
elevations along the coast and in regenerating industrial forests at 
higher elevations, the species breeds mostly in stunted high-elevation 
or montane spruce-fir forests located close to, but below, timberline 
(i.e., at elevations

[[Page 46627]]

above 700 m (2,300 ft)) (Wallace 1939, pp. 248, 286; Ouellet 1993, pp. 
560, 561; Atwood et al. 1996, p. 652; Nixon et al. 2001, p. 38; Rimmer 
et al. 2001, p. 7; Glennon and Seewagen 2016, p. 134; Aubry et al. 
2016, p. 304). Although the Bicknell's thrush exhibits some flexibility 
in the elevation of its breeding habitats, the species demonstrates a 
strong preference for a specific, dense vegetation structure.
    While there is more suitable breeding habitat in Canada than in the 
United States, the species is not evenly distributed throughout the 
habitat. Based on breeding density information, the best available data 
indicate that the current Bicknell's thrush global population is 
approximately 97,358 to 139,477, with approximately 66 percent of the 
population breeding in the United States and 33 percent breeding in 
Canada.
    During migration, the Bicknell's thrush appears to be a habitat 
generalist and can be found in dense woodlots composed of variable tree 
species, or along well-vegetated beaches, orchards, and gardens 
(Wallace 1939, p. 259; Wilson and Watts 1997, pp. 520-521). Wintering 
occurs exclusively in the Greater Antilles, with the majority of 
Bicknell's thrushes on the island of Hispaniola, in Haiti and the 
Dominican Republic; however, the species can also be found on the 
islands of Cuba, Jamaica, and Puerto Rico (Rimmer et al. 2001, pp. 3-
4). In Jamaica, the Bicknell's thrush is considered ``extremely rare'' 
and observed in old growth forests (Strong in litt. 2016). The species' 
information for Puerto Rico is scant (Rivera in litt. 2017), with 
surveys conducted in the winter of 2015 and 2016 finding a total of 10 
birds (Rimmer 2016, entire). In the Dominican Republic, where the 
majority of wintering information about the species is derived, the 
Bicknell's thrush can be found from sea level to 2,200 m (7,200 ft), 
although most occur in moderately wet to wet broadleaf montane forests 
above 1,000 m (3,300 ft) elevation (i.e., cloud forest) (Rimmer et al. 
2001, p. 8). The Bicknell's thrush can also be found in dry pine-
dominated forests at lower elevations (Rimmer et al. 2001, p. 6). The 
species prefers wintering in dense thicket vegetation (Townsend et al. 
2010, p. 520), similar to the habitat structure selected during the 
breeding season.

Summary of Status Review

    This information is summarized from the Species Report (Service 
2017c, entire); for more detail, please see the report. Due to the lack 
of specific data regarding survival rates by life stage or fecundity 
rates, we evaluated existing stressor-related data and qualitatively 
assessed the individual and cumulative effects of those stressors on 
individual Bicknell's thrush, aggregates of Bicknell's thrush in the 
breeding or wintering grounds, and at the species level. From this 
assessment, we conclude that habitat loss in the wintering range has 
most likely been a significant driver of the species' decreased 
viability, particularly when combined with low productivity in some 
years due to nest predation from red squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris), 
which also contributes to annual variation in the abundance of the 
Bicknell's thrush.
    Activities that contribute to loss of the species' habitat include 
some forestry practices such as precommercial thinning and clearcutting 
in the Canadian portion of the species' range, which may result in the 
loss and fragmentation of important breeding habitat. However, the 
regeneration of young dense stands of conifers that follows cutting can 
provide breeding habitat for the species for approximately 5 to 12 
years after clearcutting (International Bicknell's Thrush Conservation 
Group 2010, p. 12; McKinnon et al 2014, pp. 264, 268). The development 
of ski areas, wind turbines, telecommunication facilities, and their 
associated infrastructure (i.e., roads and transmission lines) has also 
resulted in the loss and fragmentation of Bicknell's thrush habitat 
(International Bicknell's Thrush Conservation Group 2010, p. 12), but 
these activities have affected a relatively small proportion of the 
available Bicknell's thrush breeding habitat and associated 
individuals.
    Looking forward, the best available information suggests that, as a 
result of climate change, the spruce-fir habitat that supports breeding 
Bicknell's thrushes may be substantially reduced, with the potential to 
be nearly eliminated, from the species' current range in the 
northeastern United States and may decline in Canada by the end of this 
century, depending on the amount of greenhouse gases emitted to the 
atmosphere, habitat type (i.e., low vs. high elevation), and forest 
harvest management strategies. The effects of climate change may also 
result in an increase in competition between the Bicknell's and 
Swainson's thrushes (Catharus ustulatus), at the expense of the 
Bicknell's thrush, and an increase in predation from red squirrels.
    On the wintering grounds, the consequences of climate change will 
likely include a drying of the Caribbean region and an associated 
decline in the wet montane and cloud forest habitats where most 
Bicknell's thrushes are found. It is also likely that socioeconomic and 
development pressures, especially in the Dominican Republic and Haiti, 
will result in further losses of the species' preferred habitat, as 
forests are converted to other land uses.
    The stressors we evaluated in detail in our Bicknell's Thrush 
Report (Service 2017c, entire) that fall under Factors A, C, and E of 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act are habitat loss and degradation due to 
incompatible forestry practices (e.g., precommercial thinning), 
conversion to agriculture, atmospheric acid and nitrogen deposition, 
recreational and wind energy development, and the effects of climate 
change (Factor A); predation from red squirrels and Norway rats (Rattus 
norvegicus) (Factor C); and effects of mercury, effects of acid 
deposition, collision and disturbance by stationary and moving 
structures, disturbance by recreationalists, and competition with 
Swainson's thrush (Factor E). An examination of existing regulatory 
mechanisms (Factor D) for both the Bicknell's thrush and its habitat in 
general reveals that some mechanisms exist that may provide a 
conservation benefit to the species. Where relevant, the adequacy of 
those mechanisms is discussed in context in the relevant sections of 
the Species Report.
    We have no information indicating that habitat degradation due to 
atmospheric acid and nitrogen deposition (Factor A), disease (Factor 
C), or the effects of mercury and acid deposition (Factor E) are 
currently affecting the Bicknell's thrush or its habitat. In addition, 
we concluded that recreational and wind energy development (Factor A), 
as well as collision and disturbance by stationary/moving structures 
and disturbance by recreationalists (Factor E) may be affecting 
individual Bicknell's thrush but were not significant stressors to 
aggregates of individuals or at the species level.
    Our review of the best available information indicates that the 
Bicknell's thrush continues to occupy most of its historical breeding, 
migration, and wintering range. Although there are some stressors that 
are expected to result in the loss of suitable breeding and wintering 
habitat for the Bicknell's thrush, as well as directly affect the 
species through reduced reproduction and overwintering mortality, we 
have no evidence to suggest that the species is currently at risk of 
extinction; in other words, the risk of the Bicknell's thrush 
significantly declining in the near term is very low given that it has 
persisted despite historical levels of habitat loss

[[Page 46628]]

and predation throughout its range. Furthermore, neither the loss of 
wintering habitat nor predation levels nor any other stressors, either 
individually or cumulatively, are likely to cause species-level effects 
such that the species is currently at risk of extinction; thus the 
Bicknell's thrush does not meet the definition of an endangered 
species.
    The stressors likely to have the greatest influence on the 
Bicknell's thrush's viability over time include: (1) For the breeding 
range, changes in habitat suitability (e.g., changes in tree species 
composition, forest pests, and fire regime), increased red squirrel 
predation, and increased interspecific competition due to the effects 
of climate change; and (2) for the wintering range, direct habitat loss 
due to agriculture conversion and the effects of climate change. We 
considered whether we could reliably predict the extent to which these 
stressors might affect the status of the species in the future. Our 
ability to make reliable predictions into the future for the Bicknell's 
thrush is limited by the variability in not only the quantity and 
quality of available data across the species' range regarding the 
species' occurrence and the potential impacts to the species from 
ongoing and predicted stressors, but also by the high amount of 
uncertainty in how the Bicknell's thrush may respond to those effects.
    The future timeframe for this analysis is approximately 30 years, 
which is a reasonably long time to consider as the foreseeable future 
given the Bicknell's thrush's life history and the temporal scale 
associated with the patterns of the past and current stressors outlined 
in the best available information. For example, the foreseeable future 
is twice as long as the 15-year data set (from 2001 to 2014) showing 
the extent of decline in tree cover on four Caribbean islands occupied 
by wintering Bicknell's thrushes (Hansen et al. 2017, entire). This 
timeframe also captures the range of time periods for continued habitat 
loss in the wintering range as a result of incompatible forestry 
practices and conversion to agricultural lands (i.e., using the 
previous 15 years of data to project the same rate of the decline over 
the next 15 to 30 years), climate models, as well as our best 
professional judgment of the reliability of data on, and the projected 
range of future conditions related to the effects, including cumulative 
effects, of climate change (i.e., the period in which there is reliable 
data upon which to base a prediction of the species' response to the 
potential effects of climate change).
    Since the analysis of potential effects from climate change was an 
important consideration in our status assessment and the effects of 
climate change take place over a period of time, we sought to consider 
a timeframe that was long enough to evaluate those potential effects 
adequately. However, in evaluating the status of the species, we did 
not extend our forecast out as far as all existing climate change 
models discussed in the Bicknell's Thrush Report. Those models extend 
to approximately 100 years, and we concluded that such an extended 
forecast was not sufficiently reliable for the listing determination 
due to the: (1) Increased uncertainty in the model results (i.e., the 
confidence intervals associated with temperature and precipitation 
projections); (2) increasing uncertainty in the magnitude and imminence 
of the predicted changes; (3) higher level of uncertainty of how the 
species may respond to any potential changes in its habitat that may 
result from changes in temperature and precipitation patterns; and (4) 
uncertainty associated with how society will respond to the predicted 
change in climate (e.g., take actions that will mediate or accelerate 
global emissions) that far into the future. As an example of biological 
uncertainty, there are significant questions regarding the point at 
which the predicted shifts (i.e., tree species composition, 
interspecific competition with Swainson's thrush) make the habitat 
unsuitable for the Bicknell's thrush, as well as the extent to which 
the Bicknell's thrush has the adaptive capacity to use any changes in 
what we now understand to be suitable habitat or to find other habitat 
to be suitable. These uncertainties are additive and undermine the 
Service's confidence in making a risk assessment projection beyond 30 
years into the future. Therefore, the Service concluded that an 
approximate 30-year projection of threats and effects to the species 
represents the timeframe in which a reliable prediction is possible.
    Based on the species' abundance and distribution in its breeding 
and wintering locations, the continued presence of adequate habitat 
quality and quantity to meet the species' breeding and overwintering 
needs, and our consideration of the species' future distribution, 
abundance, and diversity, we conclude that the Bicknell's thrush is 
likely to remain at a sufficiently low risk of extinction that it will 
not become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future (i.e., 
approximately 30 years) and thus does not meet the definition of a 
threatened species under the Act.
    We evaluated the current range of the Bicknell's thrush to 
determine if there are any apparent geographic concentrations of 
potential threats to the species. The risk factors that occur 
throughout the Bicknell's thrush's range include the loss of habitat 
due to the effects of climate change. The loss of habitat due to 
illegal logging, conversion to subsistence farming, and slash and burn 
agriculture, however, is occurring both currently and in the 
foreseeable future, at a rate of approximately 5 percent reduction in 
tree cover over 15 years (based on Hansen et al.'s (2017, entire) 
analysis), solely in the Dominican Republic and Haiti. Thus, this one 
area of the species' wintering range is subject to a type of habitat 
loss that is not affecting the species uniformly throughout its range. 
While the human-mediated loss of suitable habitat in the wintering 
grounds appears to be concentrated in areas within the Dominican 
Republic and Haiti, the risk is low that the current rate of loss that 
we project to continue, is sufficient to cause the Bicknell's thrush to 
be in danger of extinction (i.e., be an endangered species) or likely 
to cause the species to become endangered within the foreseeable future 
period of approximately 30 years (i.e., be a threatened species) in a 
portion of its range.

Finding

    Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the stressors 
acting on the species and its habitat, either singly or in combination, 
are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate 
that the Bicknell's thrush 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 request that 
you submit any new information concerning the status of, or threats to, 
the Bicknell's thrush to our New England Fish and Wildlife Office (see 
ADDRESSES) whenever it becomes available.

Big Blue Springs Cave Crayfish (Procambarus horsti)

Previous Federal Actions

    On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center to list 
404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species from the southeastern United 
States as threatened or endangered species under the Act, including the 
Big Blue Springs cave crayfish. The 90-day finding was

[[Page 46629]]

published on September 27, 2011; it determined that the petition 
contained substantial information indicating the species may warrant 
listing, and initiated a status review (76 FR 59836). As a result of 
the Service's 2012, settlement agreement with the Center, the Service 
is required to submit a 12-month finding to the Federal Register by 
September 30, 2017. This notice satisfies the requirements of that 
settlement agreement for the Big Blue Springs cave crayfish, and 
constitutes the Service's 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, 
petition to list the Big Blue Springs cave crayfish as an endangered or 
threatened species.

Background

    The Big Blue Springs cave crayfish is a subterranean species of 
crayfish endemic to several freshwater springs and sink caves within 
the panhandle of Florida. It has been collected from aquatic caves and 
limestone springs associated with the Woodville Karst Plain near and 
south of a geomorphological feature of karst limestone known as the 
Cody Scarp, paralleling riverine karst areas of the Wakulla, St. Marks, 
and Wacissa Rivers in Jefferson, Leon, and Wakulla Counties, Florida. 
It has been found in the boil area of springs, depths of 21-26 m (70-80 
ft), and a sinkhole near the surface. The principal habitat feature 
supporting this species appears to be a flowing, freshwater, 
subterranean environment; however, specific water-quality requirements 
for the species are currently unknown.
    The Big Blue Springs cave crayfish was historically found in three 
locations: A well in Leon County, Big Blue Spring in Jefferson County, 
and Shepherd Spring on St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge in Wakulla 
County, Florida. In 2017, the species was found in three aquatic cave 
sites within 12 mi (19 km) of each other--Big Blue Spring and nearby 
Garner Spring on the east side of the Wacissa River (Jefferson County) 
and Horsehead Spring on the west side of the Wacissa River (Jefferson 
County)--which included locations where the species had not previously 
been found.

Summary of Status Review

    In completing our status review for the Big Blue Springs cave 
crayfish, we reviewed the best available scientific and commercial 
information and compiled the information in the Species Status 
Assessment Report (Service 2017d, entire) for the Big Blue Springs cave 
crayfish. We evaluated all known potential impacts to the Big Blue 
Springs cave crayfish, including the Act's five threat factors. As 
explained further below, we also used a time period of 35-50 years for 
the foreseeable future. This evaluation included information from all 
sources, including Federal, State, tribal, academic, and private 
entities and the public.
    The Big Blue Springs cave crayfish were recently (March 2017) 
observed in two of three historical locations. No population estimates 
exist for the species; however, at least 90 individuals were observed 
across three locations during the 2017 surveys. The primary stressors 
to the Big Blue Springs cave crayfish currently and into the future are 
loss of freshwater within the karst system and saltwater intrusion.
    The petition stated that the species is at risk from present or 
future destruction, modification, or curtailment of its range by 
extensive degradation of aquatic and riparian habitats due to land-use 
activities and the direct alterations of waterways. In addition, 
populations are prone to potential pollution and detrital change, and 
there is concern that the aquifer system may be receiving pollutants 
from the Tallahassee area. We also evaluated the extent to which 
overutilization and climate change (including saltwater intrusion 
resulting from sea-level rise) may be affecting the species negatively.
    Land Use Activities and Direct Alteration of Waterways: In general, 
crayfish species experience degradation of aquatic and riparian 
habitats in the Southeast due to land-use activities--such as 
development, agriculture, logging, and mining--and direct alterations 
of waterways--such as impoundment, diversion, dredging and 
channelization, and draining of wetlands (Benz and Collins 1997, p. 
273; Shute et al. 1997, pp. 445-446). However, information on whether 
these activities represent actual or active threats to the Big Blue 
Springs cave crayfish is inconclusive.
    Population Increases and Water Pollution: According to the U.S. 
Census Bureau, the human population in the southeastern United States 
has grown at an average annual rate of 37.9 percent since 2000 (U.S. 
Census Bureau 2017, pp. 1-4), by far the most rapidly growing region in 
the country. This rapid growth has resulted in expanding urbanization, 
sometimes referred to as ``urban sprawl.'' Urban sprawl increases the 
connectivity of urban habitats while simultaneously fragmenting non-
urban habitats such as forests and grasslands (Terando et al. 2014, p. 
1). In turn, species and ecosystems are negatively affected by the 
increased sprawl because of water pollution, local climate conditions, 
and disturbance dynamics (Terando et al. 2014, p. 1).
    Population projections for Leon County, Florida, are expected to 
increase, leading to potential ground water impacts associated with 
greater water demands for the city of Tallahassee. However, the 
Northwest Florida Water Management District indicated that ground water 
pumping was not an issue in the watershed; more freshwater is staying 
in the system due to improvements in storm water and stream flow 
management. This is based on observed increases in discharge that could 
be related to the release of water from underground stream openings and 
sinks connected to the regional karst system (Coates 2017, pers. 
comm.). With more freshwater staying in the system due to improvements 
in storm water and stream flow management, we concluded that the best 
available scientific and commercial information does not indicate that 
ground water changes are having a negative impact on the species at a 
population level.
    Overutilization: The petition also discussed the potential threat 
of overutilization of crayfish from collection for bait or food; 
however, the freshwater cave habitat for this species is difficult to 
access, which offers the crayfish some protection from collection. This 
threat is not causing population- or species-level impacts; therefore, 
the best available information does not indicate overutilization is an 
operative threat to this species.
    Climate Change: Our analyses under the Act include consideration of 
ongoing and projected changes in climate. Various types of changes in 
climate can have direct or indirect effects on the species. These 
effects may be positive, neutral, or negative and they may change over 
time. In our analyses, we use the best available scientific and 
commercial data and modeling available and our expert judgment to weigh 
relevant information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of 
various aspects of climate change.
    One impact from climate change that may be a factor for the Big 
Blue Springs cave crayfish is sea-level rise due to its proximity to 
the Gulf coast of Florida. Annual rates of sea-level rise at 
Apalachicola, Florida (southwest of areas inhabited by Big Blue Springs 
cave crayfish) have averaged approximately 1.96 mm (0.08 in) since the 
1970s (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2017). The 
projected sea-level rise for coastal Wakulla County in 2080 is 0.32 m 
(1.05 ft) (Harrington and Walton 2008, p. 12). Sea-level rise may 
result in an increase in saltwater

[[Page 46630]]

intrusion into the karst freshwater aquifer system as a result of 
associated increases in hydraulic pressure on the aquifer; however, the 
mechanics of the coastal aquifer system are complex and dynamic. 
Generally, seawater is kept out of the conduit system by freshwater 
hydraulic pressure resisting against seawater intrusion (Werner and 
Simmons 2009, pp. 197-198). However, Xu et al. (2016, p. 2) documented 
seawater intrusion into the Woodville Karst Plain conduit network 
during periods of low precipitation. Their analysis of precipitation 
and electrical conductivity data indicates that seawater intrusion into 
the karst system does occur, traveling 11 mi (18 km) against the 
prevailing regional hydraulic gradient to Wakulla Spring (Xu et al. 
2016, p. 2).
    This increase in seawater intrusion into the karst conduit system 
may be contributing to the increased freshwater discharge rates 
periodically observed in some springs (e.g., Wakulla Springs) in recent 
years. Sea-level rise would result in increased hydraulic pressure and, 
therefore, the potential for increased saltwater intrusion into the 
conduit system. However, we are unable to conclude that the current 
predicted rates of sea-level rise will significantly affect the cave 
crayfish's habitat within the foreseeable future. First, the species is 
able to move vertically within spring systems and can quickly adapt to 
changes in the availability of freshwater within the conduit system 
(Moler 2016, pers. comm.). Saltwater is also denser than freshwater 
and, therefore, descends as it intrudes inland through the aquifer, 
reducing the likelihood that it will affect the availability of 
freshwater in the conduit system as distance from the ocean increases. 
The flow of seawater from the Gulf of Mexico interacts with the force 
of a seaward hydraulic pressure of freshwater creating a diffusion zone 
at the freshwater-saltwater interface (Zhang et al. 2002, p. 233). This 
interface is a dynamic zone that is dictated by the flow of the water 
in each direction; further inland, there is less pressure from the 
introduced seawater and more pressure from the freshwater system 
flowing into the ocean.
    Finally, habitats occupied by the Big Blue Springs cave crayfish 
are located 3 to 43 km (2 to 27 mi) from the coast, at elevations of 
1.5 to 15 m (5 to 50 ft) above sea level, though occupied habitats 
within the conduit system are below sea level. Although seawater 
intrusion and transport in karst aquifers can occur over extremely long 
distances, increases in conductivity noted at the vent of Wakulla 
Spring are small in an absolute sense. An increase in conductivity is 
indicative of saltwater intrusion inland (Xu et al. 2016, p. 9). 
Conductivity would likely be similar or less at the two furthest sites 
occupied by Big Blue Springs cave crayfish (Big Blue Spring and Garner 
Spring). Seawater intrusion could be a more important issue at Shepherd 
Spring, which is located within 3 km (2 mi) of the Gulf of Mexico.
    Overall, based on historical data along with current and future 
conditions of the species and habitat, we anticipate that Big Blue 
Springs cave crayfish populations will remain resilient. The locations 
where the crayfish have been observed at the surface can be thought of 
as ``windows'' into the karst system. The species has the ability to 
move throughout the system in response to environmental conditions in 
order to relocate to suitable habitat or areas of refugia. The species 
is expected to continue to be resilient in response to stochastic 
events. A survey from March 2017 detected the species in areas where 
they hadn't previously been detected, and many individuals were found 
in Garner Springs, indicating that the species is persisting there. 
Management actions on public lands can provide protection and 
improvement for springs. Portions of the Aucilla Wildlife Management 
Area are designated as Outstanding Florida Waters by the Florida 
Department of Environmental Protection; such a designation restricts 
degradation of water quality and water withdrawal (Florida Fish and 
Wildlife Conservation Commission 2016, p. 57). As explained further in 
the Species Assessment Form, we evaluated ongoing management of the 
springs within the range of the Big Blue Springs cave crayfish will 
reduce impacts to the species by maintaining water flow to the springs 
thus allowing the persistence of suitable habitat.
    Foreseeable future for this species was determined to be a 35-50-
year timeframe based on the biology of the species, the threats 
identified, and ongoing water management practices that include actions 
that are beneficial to the species, with the 50-year outer limit as the 
conservative amount of time to apply when evaluating its status as 
threatened. The lifespan of cave crayfish is typically around 20 years, 
so the range of 35-50 years encompasses 2-3 generations, allowing 
sufficient time for population response to stressors to be detected, 
with the major stressor to the species being a decline or loss of 
freshwater availability. The climate model used included projections 
beyond 50 years; however, a longer timeframe would lead to too much 
uncertainty in evaluating the response of the species to habitat 
changes or the impacts from sea-level rise, drought, or overall water 
availability.
    We evaluated the current range of the Big Blue Springs cave 
crayfish to determine if there are any apparent geographic 
concentrations of potential threats to the species. There was no 
concentration of threats identified across its range. Therefore, we 
find there could be no significant portion of the species' range where 
the species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future. Therefore, we find that the Big Blue Springs cave 
crayfish is not endangered or threatened throughout a significant 
portion of its range.

Finding

    Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information pertaining to the five factors, we evaluated relevant 
stressors, including land-use activities and direct alterations of 
waterways (Factor A), water withdrawal (Factor A), sea-level rise 
(Factor A), and overutilization (Factor B), and concluded 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 Big Blue Springs cave crayfish is in danger of 
extinction (an endangered species), or likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future (a threatened species), throughout all or 
a significant portion of its range.
    The most important factor that may affect Big Blue Springs cave 
crayfish resiliency is ground water decline. We expect that ground 
water levels may decline over time, but there is significant 
uncertainty over how that will affect freshwater availability. If 
freshwater availability is reduced due to lower aquifer levels caused 
by ground water pumping or prolonged drought, we expect populations 
would likely be minimally affected, since the species has been found at 
significant spring and sink depths and can move as ground water levels 
decrease (Moler 2016, pers. comm.).
    A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in 
the Big Blue Springs cave crayfish species-specific assessment form and 
other supporting documents available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2017-0066.

[[Page 46631]]

Black-Backed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus)

Previous Federal Actions

    On May 8, 2012, we received a petition dated May 2, 2012, from the 
John Muir Project of the Earth Island Institute, the Center for 
Biological Diversity, the Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project, and the 
Biodiversity Conservation Alliance (Earth Island Institute et al. 2012, 
pp. 1-16) (petitioners), requesting that the Oregon-Cascades/California 
population and the Black Hills population of the black-backed 
woodpecker each be listed as an endangered or threatened subspecies, 
and that critical habitat be designated concurrent with listing under 
the Act. The petition also requested that, should we not recognize 
either population as a subspecies, we consider listing each population 
as an endangered or threatened distinct population segment (DPS) under 
our policy published in the Federal Register for determining distinct 
vertebrate population segments under the Act (61 FR 4721; February 7, 
1996). Included in the petition was information regarding the species' 
ecology, genetic sampling information, distribution, present status, 
and suggested actual and potential causes of decline. Our positive 90-
day finding for the petition was published in the Federal Register on 
April 9, 2013 (78 FR 21086).
    On September 24, 2014, the United States District Court for the 
District of Columbia issued a court order for a stipulated settlement 
agreement in the case of Center for Biological Diversity v. S.M.R. 
Jewell, No.1: 14-cv-0 1021-EGS. The order and stipulated settlement 
agreement required the Service to complete a 12-month finding for the 
``California-Oregon and South Dakota populations'' of the black-backed 
woodpecker by September 30, 2017. This notice constitutes the 12-month 
finding on the May 2, 2012, petition to list the Oregon-Cascades/
California population and Black Hills population as endangered or 
threatened species under the Act.

Background

    The black-backed woodpecker is similar in size to the more-common 
American robin (Turdus migratorius) and is heavily barred with black 
and white sides (Dawson 1923, pp. 1007-1008). Males and young have a 
yellow crown patch, while the female crown is entirely black. Its 
sooty-black dorsal plumage camouflages it against the black, charred 
bark of the burned trees upon which it preferentially forages (Murphy 
and Lehnhausen 1998, p. 1366; Tremblay et al. 2016, p. 1). The black-
backed woodpecker has only three toes on each foot instead of the usual 
four. Black-backed woodpeckers have a narrow diet, consisting mainly of 
larvae of wood-boring beetles and bark beetles (Cerambycidae, 
Buprestidae, Tenebrionidae, and Scolytidae) (Goggans et al. 1989, pp. 
20, 34; Villard and Beninger 1993, p. 73; Murphy and Lehnhausen 1998, 
pp. 1366-1367; Powell 2000, p. 31; Dudley and Saab 2007, p. 593), which 
are available following large-scale disturbances, especially high-
severity fire (Nappi and Drapeau 2009, p. 1382). The black-backed 
woodpecker is a cavity-nesting bird. It nests in late spring, with nest 
excavation generally occurring from April to June, depending on 
location and year.
    The black-backed woodpecker occurs across dense, closed-canopy 
boreal and montane coniferous forests of North America from Alaska, 
Canada, Washington, Oregon, California, Northern Rockies, South Dakota, 
Minnesota and east to New England (Winkler et al. 1995, p. 296; 
Tremblay et al. 2016, pp. 10-11). This includes the Black Hills of 
western South Dakota (Drilling et al. 2016, pp. 251-252) and adjacent 
counties of northeastern Wyoming (Orabona et al. 2012, p. 76). It also 
includes the area of eastern Washington and Oregon where the species is 
found in the Cascade Range, south through throughout the Blue Mountains 
and Wallowa Mountains and into the Siskiyou Mountains in southwestern 
Oregon. From Oregon, the range continues south into California along 
the higher elevation slopes of the Siskiyou, Cascades, Klamath, and 
Sierra Nevada Mountains to eastern Tulare County, California (Dawson 
1923, p. 1007; Grinnell and Miller 1944, p. 248; Tremblay et al. 2016, 
pp. 10-11). The black-backed woodpecker's breeding range generally 
corresponds with the location of boreal and montane coniferous forests 
throughout its range.
    At the landscape scale, while not tied to any particular tree 
species, the black-backed woodpecker generally is found in older 
conifer forests that comprise high densities of larger snags (Bock and 
Bock 1973, p. 400; Russell et al. 2007, p. 2604; Nappi and Drapeau 
2009, p. 1388; Siegel et al. 2012, pp. 34-42). The species is closely 
associated with standing dead timber that contains an abundance of 
snags (Tremblay et al. 2016, pp. 13-16). Black-backed woodpeckers 
appear to be most abundant in stands of trees recently killed by fire 
(Hutto 1995, pp. 1047, 1050; Smucker et al. 2005, pp. 1540-1543) and in 
areas where beetle infestations have resulted in high tree mortality 
(Bonnot et al. 2009, p. 220).
    The black-backed woodpecker was first described in 1831 (Swainson 
and Richardson 1831, p. 313; American Ornithologists' Union (AOU) 1983, 
p. 392). The scientific community recognizes the black-backed 
woodpecker as a valid species (AOU 1983, pp. 392-393), and no 
subspecies of the black-backed woodpecker were included at the time 
that AOU, the scientific authority responsible for bird classification, 
last published subspecies classifications in 1957 (AOU 1957, p. 330). 
In addition, no other taxonomic authority has recognized any subspecies 
for the black-backed woodpecker (Tremblay et al. 2016, p. 9).

Summary of Status Review

    A recent genetic study identified some genetic differences between 
individuals found in three areas within the black-backed woodpecker's 
range. The three areas include: (1) The boreal forest of Canada, 
Washington, Northern Rockies, and northeastern United States, (2) the 
Oregon-Cascades/California (Sierra Nevada Mountains), and (3) the area 
around the Black Hills (southwestern South Dakota and northeastern 
Wyoming) (Pierson et al. 2010, entire; Pierson et al. 2013, entire). 
The petitioners have relied on the Pierson et al. (2010) study results 
to propose that this new genetic information may warrant a revised 
interpretation of the taxonomic description of the species into three 
subspecies (EII et al. 2012, pp. 13-16). However, based on our review 
of the best available scientific and commercial information, as well as 
the expert opinion of the scientific community, we find that the 
Oregon-Cascades/California and Black Hills populations are not 
subspecies. Also in our analysis, we could not find significant 
differences in behavior, morphology, or habitat use for the species 
across its range, or that any genetic differences have yet manifested 
themselves into differences that can be pointed at that would support 
separation of the populations into subspecies.
    We also reviewed whether the Black Hills population or the Oregon-
Cascades/California population were distinct vertebrate population 
segments (DPSs) under our 1996 DPS policy (61 FR 4721, February 7, 
1996). Based on a review of the best available information, we have 
determined that the Black Hills population and the Oregon-Cascades/
California population are not significant in relation to the remainder 
of the taxon because they do not exist in an ecological setting unique 
or unusual to

[[Page 46632]]

the taxon; the loss of the populations would not result in a 
significant gap in the range of the taxon; they are not the only 
surviving natural occurrences of the taxon; and the genetic makeup of 
neither population contains unique genetic characteristics not found 
elsewhere in the larger boreal population. Therefore, we have 
determined that neither the Black Hills population nor the Oregon-
Cascades/California population qualifies as a DPS under our 1996 DPS 
policy, and neither is a listable entity under the Act. Because the 
Black Hills and Oregon-Cascades/California populations of the black-
backed woodpecker are not listable entities, we did not perform a 
status assessment under the five factors found in section 4(a) of the 
Act.

Finding

    Based on our thorough review of the best available scientific and 
commercial information as summarized in our Species Assessment (Service 
2017f, entire), we find that the petitioned entities identified as the 
Oregon-Cascades/California population and the Black Hills population of 
the black-backed woodpecker are not subspecies and neither meets our 
criteria for being a DPS under our February 7, 1996, DPS policy (61 FR 
4722). Therefore the Oregon-Cascades/California and Black Hills 
populations of the black-backed woodpecker do not meet the definition 
of listable entities under the Act and, as a result, cannot warrant 
listing under the Act. Our complete rationale and supporting 
information for our subspecies and DPS determinations are outlined in 
our Species Assessment document (Service 2017f, entire; available on 
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-
2013-0034).

Boreal Toad (Anaxyrus boreas boreas)

Previous Federal Actions

    On September 30, 1993, the Service received a petition from the 
Biodiversity Legal Foundation and Dr. Peter Hovingh. The petitioners 
requested that the Service list the Southern Rocky Mountains population 
of the ``western boreal toad'' (an alternate common name sometimes used 
in the past for Anaxyrus boreas boreas) as endangered. The petitioners 
also requested that the Service designate critical habitat. On July 22, 
1994, we published a notice of a 90-day finding on the petition in the 
Federal Register (59 FR 37439), indicating that the petition and other 
readily available scientific and commercial information presented 
substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be 
warranted.
    On March 23, 1995, the Service announced a 12-month finding that 
listing the Southern Rocky Mountains population of the boreal toad as 
an endangered DPS was warranted but precluded by other higher priority 
actions (60 FR 15281). At that time, a listing priority number of 3 was 
assigned. When we find that listing a species is warranted but 
precluded, we refer to it as a candidate species. Section 4(b)(3)(B) of 
the Act directs that, when we make a ``warranted but precluded'' 
finding on a petition, we are to treat the petition as being one that 
is resubmitted annually on the date of the finding; thus, the Act 
requires us to reassess the petitioned actions and to publish a finding 
on the resubmitted petition on an annual basis. Several resubmitted 
candidate assessments for the boreal toad were completed. The most 
recent of these was published in the Federal Register on May 11, 2005 
(70 FR 24870).
    On September 29, 2005, we determined that the Southern Rocky 
Mountains population of the boreal toad did not warrant listing because 
it was not a listable entity according to the DPS criteria and, 
therefore, should be withdrawn from the candidate list (70 FR 56880). 
When the boreal toad was put on the candidate list in 1995, the DPS 
Policy did not yet exist, so the determination that the toad was a 
listable entity was not based on the current criteria. The combination 
of using the DPS criteria developed in 1996 and incorporating genetic 
and other information available during development of the 2005 finding 
led to determinations that the Southern Rocky Mountains population of 
the boreal toad was discrete, but not significant. Therefore, we 
determined in the 2005 finding that it was not a listable entity.
    On May 25, 2011, we received a petition from the Center, the Center 
for Native Ecosystems, and the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, 
requesting that either the Eastern or Southern Rocky Mountains 
population of the boreal toad be listed as an endangered or threatened 
DPS, and that critical habitat be designated under the Act. Please note 
that the Southern Rocky Mountains population is a subset of what we now 
call the Eastern Population of the boreal toad. We published a notice 
of a 90-day finding for the petition in the Federal Register on April 
12, 2012 (77 FR 21920). In that finding we concluded that the petition 
presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating 
that listing the Eastern Population of the boreal toad as a DPS may be 
warranted. The finding announced that we were initiating a review of 
the status of the Eastern Population to determine if listing it as a 
DPS is warranted. The 90-day finding further announced that we did not 
find substantial information that listing the Southern Rocky Mountains 
population of the boreal toad as a DPS may be warranted. Although the 
Southern Rocky Mountains population appears geographically discrete, we 
did not find substantial information to suggest that it may be 
significant according to the criteria in our DPS Policy. We concluded 
that there is not substantial information in the petition and in our 
files to suggest that the Southern Rocky Mountains population of boreal 
toads may be a valid listable entity (i.e., a DPS) (77 FR 21920, April 
12, 2012).
    On June 27, 2013, the Center filed a complaint (1:13-cv-00975-EGS) 
to compel the Service to issue 12-month findings as to whether listing 
under the Act was warranted for nine species, including the Eastern 
Population of the boreal toad. On September 23, 2013, the Service and 
the Center filed a stipulated settlement agreement, agreeing that the 
Service would submit to the Federal Register a 12-month finding for the 
Eastern DPS of the boreal toad by September 30, 2017 (Center for 
Biological Diversity v. Jewell 2013, case 1:13-cv-00975-EGS). This 
notice constitutes the Service's 12-month finding on the 2011 petition 
to list the Eastern DPS of boreal toad as an endangered or threatened 
species.

Background

    The boreal toad is a subspecies of the Western toad (Anaxyrus 
boreas, formerly Bufo boreas), which occurs throughout much of the 
western United States. Current and ongoing genetic analyses suggest the 
occurrence of an eastern group of boreal toads that are distinct from 
the rest of the subspecies. Genetic studies have helped clarify the 
boundaries of this group, which we now understand to include boreal 
toads in southeastern Idaho, western and south-central Wyoming, most of 
Utah (except western Box Elder County), Colorado, and north-central New 
Mexico. This group, which we refer to as the ``Eastern Population,'' is 
the focus of this finding.
    The boreal toad occurs between 2,000 m (6,550 ft) and 3,670 m 
(12,232 ft) in areas with suitable breeding habitat within a landscape 
containing a variety of vegetation types, including pinon-juniper, 
lodgepole pine, spruce-fir forests, mountain shrubs, and alpine meadows 
(Service 2017f, p. 13). Breeding takes place in shallow, quiet water in 
lakes, marshes, bogs, ponds, and wet meadows (Service 2017f, p. 13).

[[Page 46633]]

We are not aware of any total population size estimates for the Eastern 
Population of the boreal toad. We lack information to define or 
precisely map all individual breeding populations of boreal toads, 
because some recent location data are limited to incidental sightings 
of individual toads. Therefore, for the purposes of our analysis, the 
range of the species was depicted by watershed, at the 12-digit 
hydrologic unit code (HUC-12) level, where a HUC-12 may include one or 
more current or historical breeding sites (Service 2017f, pp. 11-13). 
We considered these HUC-12s to be proxies for ``populations'' within 
the larger Eastern Population, because the 12-digit HUC is the finest 
grained sub-watershed delineated in the National Watershed Boundary 
Dataset, representing areas of 10,000-40,000 ac (4,000-16,000 ha) (USGS 
2009). This approach allowed us to rely upon consistent units for 
analysis across the range of the boreal toad. We do not believe that 
the current range has changed substantially from the historical range, 
although some HUC-12s with documented presence of toads are now 
considered extirpated (Service 2017f, pp. 11-13).
    We evaluated the Eastern Population of boreal toads under the 
Service's Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate 
Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act (61 FR 4722; 
February 7, 1996). Our complete DPS evaluation can be found in the 
Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form for the boreal 
toad (available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under 
Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2012-0003) and is summarized here. The Eastern 
Population of the boreal toad is markedly separated from the rest of 
the boreal toad subspecies, based on the collective results of genetic 
studies that provide evidence of this discontinuity, and in particular 
the nuclear DNA evidence clarifying the boundaries of the Eastern 
Population. As a result, the Eastern Population of the boreal toad is 
considered a discrete population according to the DPS policy. In 
addition, the extirpation of this group would mean the loss of the 
genetic variation in this distinct group, and the loss of the future 
evolutionary potential (i.e., representation) that goes with it. Thus, 
the genetic data support the conclusion that the Eastern Population of 
the boreal toad represents a unique and irreplaceable biological 
resource of the type the Act was intended to preserve. Thus, we 
conclude that the Eastern Population of the boreal toad differs 
markedly in its genetic characteristics relative to the rest of the 
taxon. Therefore, we consider the Eastern Population of the boreal toad 
significant to the taxon to which it belongs under the DPS policy. 
Because the Eastern Population of the boreal toad is both discrete and 
significant, it qualifies as a DPS under the Act. From here on in this 
document, we refer to this entity as the Eastern DPS of the boreal 
toad.

Summary of Status Review

    We completed a Species Status Assessment (SSA) Report for the 
Eastern DPS of the boreal toad (Service 2017f, entire), which reports 
the results of the comprehensive biological status review by the 
Service for the Eastern DPS of the boreal toad, and provides a thorough 
account of the species' overall viability and, therefore, extinction 
risk. To evaluate the biological status of the boreal toad both 
currently and into the future, we assessed a range of conditions to 
allow us to consider the population's resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation as proxies for evaluating overall viability. The boreal 
toad needs multiple resilient populations (redundancy) widely 
distributed (representation) across its range to maintain its 
persistence into the future and to avoid extinction. A number of 
factors may increase a boreal toad population's resilience to 
stochastic events. These factors include (1) sufficient population size 
(abundance), (2) recruitment of toads into the population, as evidenced 
by the presence of all life stages at some point during the year, and 
(3) connectivity between breeding populations. As explained further in 
the SSA Report (Service 2017f), we used a time period of up to 50 years 
for the foreseeable future.
    We evaluated a number of potential stressors that could influence 
the health and resilience of boreal toad populations (Service 2017f, p. 
22), corresponding to the five factors under section 4(a)(1) of the 
Act. We found that the main factor influencing the status of 
populations is the presence of chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium 
dendrobatidis (Bd); however, the response of boreal toads to Bd varies 
across the species' range (Service 2017f, p. 24). Toads in the Southern 
Rocky Mountains subpopulation area appear to respond most negatively 
when exposed to Bd, resulting in drastic declines in toad numbers at 
breeding sites, or the extirpation of toads at some sites. Toads in 
Utah do not appear to be significantly affected by Bd, and toads in 
western Wyoming display slow population declines through time. We 
consider occupied sites where Bd infection is absent to be the most 
resilient; some populations exist where Bd is present and are highly 
resistant to Bd infection, and we also consider these populations 
highly resilient (Service 2017f, p. 29). Other areas display moderate 
resistance to Bd and are, therefore, moderately resilient; low-
resiliency populations are those that have little or no resistance to 
Bd and suffer severe population declines or extirpation (Service 2017f, 
p. 33).
    The historical range of the Eastern DPS of boreal toad includes 439 
known HUC-12s across the range of this subspecies. Currently, 
approximately 194 HUC-12s are considered occupied. Of these, 
approximately 83 HUC-12s are positive for Bd infection (Service 2017f, 
pp. 31-32). Occupancy within the remaining approximately 245 HUC-12s is 
currently unknown due primarily to the lack of recent survey effort. 
However, this number includes approximately 62 HUC-12s within the 
Southern Rocky Mountains subpopulation area that are considered 
unoccupied and may have been extirpated by Bd (Service 2017f, pp. 31-
32). We recognize that the 439 known HUC-12s within the range of the 
species likely represents a minimum number of possible breeding sites, 
since surveys done to date have not included every area that could 
possibly support boreal toads (Service 2017f, p. 11).
    The variability in the toads' response to Bd infection informs our 
understanding of the future of the boreal toad. As part of the Southern 
Rocky Mountains Recovery Team's update of its conservation plan, 
Converse et al. (2016, entire) and Gerber et al. (in review) as cited 
in Crockett (2017a, p. 2) developed a population persistence model, 
which provides a statistically rigorous assessment of viability of 
boreal toads in the Southern Rocky Mountains (Crockett 2017a, p. 2). 
The model, based on data on the occupancy of sites by toads and the 
presence of Bd, is described in greater detail in our SSA Report 
(Service 2017f, pp. 24, 34-35). This model predicts a greater-than-95 
percent probability of persistence of toads within the Southern Rocky 
Mountains over the next 50 years, but with lower population levels, 
fewer breeding sites, and reduced geographic distribution. Given that 
boreal toads in other geographic areas display higher levels of 
resistance to Bd infection (and there is no information to suggest that 
situation will change), we believe this model represents a worst-case 
scenario when considering the future condition of the Eastern DPS as a 
whole (Service 2017f, pp. 35-36). If we anticipate that

[[Page 46634]]

this high level of persistence will occur within an area most 
susceptible to Bd infection (with possible reductions in resilience, 
representation, or redundancy), toads in other population areas are 
likely to fare even better, maintaining robust breeding populations 
into the future, although there is uncertainty regarding how climate 
change may factor into the future condition of the Eastern DPS (Service 
2017f, p. 36).
    In summary, boreal toad populations are currently experiencing 
variability in their response to Bd infection, which we consider to be 
the primary stressor on boreal toad population resilience. The most-
susceptible population to Bd infection experiences high population 
losses and localized extirpations, but some breeding sites continue to 
persist despite significant population declines. Some populations 
within the range show little or no evidence of impacts caused by Bd 
infection and remain robust despite the presence of Bd. Other areas 
show some population decline, but at much lower severity than observed 
in the Southern Rocky Mountains. This analysis is described in greater 
detail in our SSA Report (Service 2017f, entire). Therefore, we have 
concluded that the Eastern DPS of boreal toad is not in danger of 
extinction because it will likely continue to maintain self-sustaining 
populations distributed across its range over the next 50 years.
    Having determined that the Eastern DPS of boreal toad is not 
currently in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future throughout all of its range, we next considered 
whether there are any significant portions of the range where the 
species is in danger of extinction or is likely to become endangered in 
the foreseeable future. Given the apparent greater vulnerability to Bd 
of boreal toads in the Southern Rocky Mountains (Service 2017f, p. 24), 
we evaluated whether the population could be considered endangered or 
threatened in this portion of its range. We found that in this portion 
of the range, 51 percent of HUC-12s are in the high or moderate 
resilience category, and these are spread throughout the Southern Rocky 
Mountains, providing adaptive capacity (representation) and redundancy 
in the face of catastrophic events (Service 2017f, p. 30). Looking into 
the foreseeable future, we considered the best data available--the only 
existing model of population persistence focused on the Southern Rocky 
Mountains. That model predicted a 95-percent probability of persistence 
for toads in this geographic area in 50 years (Service 2017f, p. 35). 
Despite the possible reductions in breeding sites and occupied mountain 
ranges in the foreseeable future, the current and projected future 
conditions indicate a low risk of extinction for boreal toads in the 
Southern Rocky Mountains. Therefore, Eastern boreal toads are not in 
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future 
in the Southern Rocky Mountains portion of its range.

Finding

    We reviewed the best available scientific and commercial 
information pertaining to the Eastern DPS of the boreal toad, 
corresponding to the Act's five threat factors. Because boreal toads in 
the Eastern DPS are distributed across the majority of their historical 
range, with a large percentage of populations in a moderate or high 
resiliency category in the face of Bd, which is the primary stressor 
influencing the species (Service 2017f, pp. 11-12, 33-34), we find that 
the species retains adaptive capacity and has a very low risk of 
extirpation due to stochastic or catastrophic events that could 
plausibly occur in the future. Therefore, we conclude that the current 
risk of extinction is low, such that the Eastern DPS of boreal toads is 
not in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
    In addition, because we project a high probability of persistence 
in the face of Bd across the majority of the range of the Eastern DPS 
in 50 years, even under a worst-case scenario (Service 2017f, pp. 35-
36), we find that the species has a low future risk of extirpation due 
to plausible stochastic or catastrophic events in the foreseeable 
future and that, due to the high probability of persistence and the low 
risk of extirpation, the species is expected to retain most of its 
adaptive capacity. Therefore, we conclude that the risk of extinction 
in the foreseeable future is low, and the Eastern DPS of boreal toad is 
not likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable 
future throughout all of its range.
    Finally, we considered whether there are any significant portions 
of the range where the population is in danger of extinction or is 
likely to become so in the foreseeable future. We evaluated the 
Southern Rocky Mountains portion of the range, where the population has 
evidenced the least ability to resist Bd, the primary stressor, and 
found a low risk of extirpation of the Eastern boreal toad even in that 
portion of its range. Based on this analysis, we concluded that there 
is not a significant portion of the DPS's range where the species is in 
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the Eastern DPS of the boreal toad. Because the species is neither 
in danger of extinction now nor likely to become so in the foreseeable 
future throughout all or any significant portion of its range, the 
species does not meet the definition of an endangered species or 
threatened species. Therefore, we find that listing the Eastern DPS of 
boreal toad as an endangered or threatened species under the Act is not 
warranted at this time. This document constitutes the Service's 12-
month finding on the 2011 petition to list the Eastern DPS of boreal 
toad as an endangered or threatened species. A detailed discussion of 
the basis for this finding can be found in the Eastern DPS of boreal 
toad's species-specific Species Assessment and Listing Priority 
Assignment Form, SSA Report, and other supporting documents (available 
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-
ES-2012-0003).

Fisher (Pekania pennanti)

Previous Federal Actions

    On December 29, 1994, we received a petition dated December 22, 
1994, from the Biodiversity Legal Foundation requesting that two fisher 
populations in the western United States, including the States of 
Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, be listed 
as threatened under the Act. Based on our review, we found that the 
petition did not present substantial information indicating that 
listing the two western United States fisher populations as DPSs was 
warranted (61 FR 8016; March 1, 1996).
    On March 6, 2009, we received a petition dated February 24, 2009, 
from the Defenders of Wildlife, Center, Friends of the Bitterroot, and 
Friends of the Clearwater requesting that the fisher population in the 
Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) of the United States be considered a DPS 
and listed as endangered or threatened, and critical habitat be 
designated under the Act. We published a 90-day finding on April 16, 
2010, stating that the petition presented substantial information that 
listing a DPS of fisher in the NRMs may be warranted, and initiated a 
status review of the species (75 FR 19925). The next annual Candidate 
Notice of Review (CNOR), published on November 10, 2010, also included 
a notice of the 90-day finding and commencement of a 12-month status 
review for the fisher NRM

[[Page 46635]]

DPS (75 FR 69222). In our June 30, 2011, 12-month finding, we concluded 
that the fisher in the U.S. Northern Rocky Mountains of western Montana 
and north-central to northern Idaho constitutes a DPS (hereafter 
referred to as NRM fisher). However, we concluded that listing the NRM 
fisher as an endangered or threatened species was not warranted.
    On September 23, 2013, the Center, Defenders of Wildlife, Friends 
of the Bitterroot, Friends of the Clearwater, Western Watersheds 
Project, and Friends of the Wild Swan petitioned the Service to list 
the NRM fisher as threatened or endangered under the Act. We published 
a positive 90-day finding on the petition on January 12, 2016 (81 FR 
1368). We published a notice of commencement of a status review for the 
NRM fisher on January 13, 2017 (82 FR 4404). In August 2016, the 
Service entered into a settlement agreement with the Center, requiring 
the Service to submit a proposed listing rule or not-warranted 12-month 
finding for the NRM fisher to the Federal Register by September 30, 
2017. This notice satisfies the requirements of that settlement 
agreement for the NRM fisher and constitutes the Service's 12-month 
finding on the 2013 petition to list the NRM fisher as an endangered or 
threatened species.

Background

    The fisher is a forest-dwelling, medium-sized mammal, light brown 
to dark blackish-brown in color, found throughout many forested areas 
in Canada and the United States. The fisher has a long body with short 
legs and a long bushy tail. The fisher is classified in the order 
Carnivora, family Mustelidae, a family that also includes weasels, 
mink, martens, and otters (Anderson 1994, p. 14). The distribution of 
NRM fishers includes forested areas of western Montana and north-
central to northern Idaho, and potentially northeastern Washington 
(Service 2017g, p. 15). Genetic analyses confirm the presence of a 
remnant native population of fishers in the NRM that escaped presumed 
extirpation early in the 20th century (Vinkey et al. 2006 p. 269; 
Schwartz 2007, p. 924; Knaus et al. 2011, p. 7). The population was 
supplemented with reintroductions of fisher from the Midwest and Canada 
in the mid to late 1900's (Service 2017g, p. 12). Some fishers in the 
NRM still reflect the genetic legacy of the remnant native population, 
with unique genetic identity found nowhere else in the range of fishers 
(Service 2017g, p. 14).
    Fisher habitat includes low- to mid-elevation environments of mesic 
(moderately moist), coniferous and mixed conifer and hardwood forests 
(reviewed by Hagmeier 1956, entire; Arthur et al. 1989a, pp. 683-684; 
Banci 1989, p. v; Aubry and Houston 1992, p. 75; Jones and Garton 1994, 
pp. 377-378; Powell 1994, p. 354; Powell et al. 2003, p. 641; Weir and 
Harestad 2003, p. 74). Fishers are associated more commonly with mature 
forest cover and late-seral forests with greater physical complexity 
than other habitats (reviewed by Powell and Zielinski 1994, p. 52). In 
the NRM, fishers select for landscapes with abundant large trees 
(Schwartz et al. 2013, p. 109; Olsen et al. 2014, p. 93) and greater 
than 50 percent mature forest (Sauder and Rachlow 2014, pp. 79-80) 
arranged in a contiguous, complex mosaic (Sauder and Rachlow 2014, p. 
79). These features occur in regions of the NRM receiving greater mean 
annual precipitation (Olson et al. 2104, p. 93) and having mid-range 
values for mean temperature in the coldest month (Olson et al. 2104, p. 
93). Within areas of low- and mid-elevation forests, the most-
consistent predictor of fisher occurrence at larger spatial scales is 
moderate to high levels of contiguous canopy cover rather than any 
particular forest plant community (Buck 1982, p. 30; Arthur et al. 
1989b, pp. 681-682; Powell 1993, p. 88; Jones and Garton 1994, p. 41; 
Weir and Corbould 2010, p. 408).
    NRM fishers select heterogeneous areas with intermediate abundance 
of habitat edge and high canopy cover within home ranges, not 
necessarily areas containing more-mature forest (Sauder and Rachlow 
2015, pp. 52-53). In general, composition of individual fisher home 
ranges is usually a mosaic of different forested environments and 
successional stages (Sauder and Rachlow 2015, pp. 52-53; reviewed by 
Lofroth et al. 2010, p. 94). Cavities and branches in trees, snags, 
stumps, rock piles, and downed timber are used as resting sites, while 
cavities in large-diameter live or dead trees are selected more often 
for natal and maternal dens (Powell and Zielinski 1994, pp. 47, 56). A 
unique aspect of the landscapes that fishers use in the NRM is the 
presence of an ash layer in the soil profile--which is linked to 
increased forest productivity and potential resilience to drought 
(McDaniel and Wilson 2007, p. 32).

Summary of Status Review

    We completed a Species Status Assessment (SSA) Report for the NRM 
fisher, which reports the results of the comprehensive biological 
status review and provides a thorough account of the species' overall 
viability and, therefore, extinction risk. To assess the NRM fisher's 
current and future statuses, we used the three conservation biology 
principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation. Specifically, 
we identified the species' ecological requirements at the individual, 
population, and species levels and described the stressors influencing 
the species' viability. The NRM fisher needs multiple, resilient 
populations distributed across its range in a variety of ecological 
settings to persist into the future and to avoid extinction.
    The biological information we reviewed and analyzed as the basis 
for our findings and projections for the future condition of the 
species is documented in the SSA Report (Service 2017g, entire). The 
potential stressors we evaluated in detail in the SSA Report (Service 
2017g, entire) include climate change (Factor A), development/roads 
(Factor A), forestry (Factor A), fire (Factor A), trapping (Factor B), 
poisoning (Factor E), and predation (Factor C) (Service 2017g, chapter 
3.5). For the reasons described in the SSA Report, there is no evidence 
to suggest that climate change, development, forestry, fire, trapping, 
poisoning, or predation are having population-level impacts to the NRM 
fisher, either individually or cumulatively with any other potential 
threats (Service 2017g, chapter 3.5 and chapter 4.9).
    The NRM fisher currently exhibits a level of viability 
(characterized using resiliency, redundancy, and representation) that 
allows them to occur across their historical range (Service 2017h, 
chapter 3.6). A species distribution model estimates about 30,000 sq km 
(78,000 sq mi) of potential habitat for fisher in the NRM (Service 
2017g, p. 25). Fisher habitat is inherently resistant to stochastic 
events (resilient) such as localized fire and drought (Service 2017g, 
p. 51) because the effects of such events on fisher habitat are 
mediated by the wetter, maritime climate and diverse topography across 
much of the NRM, as evidenced by the longer fire-return intervals that 
characterize most of the modeled fisher habitat (Service 2017g, p. 51). 
In order to characterize spatial distribution of potential fisher 
habitat, we divided the area of the NRM into three spatial units. In 
addition, since population size of the NRM fisher has not been 
estimated, we rely on describing the amount and distribution of modeled 
habitat patches at two scales to make inferences about the NRM fisher. 
The smaller scale habitat patch is 100 km\2\--the approximate size of a 
male fisher home range and area needed

[[Page 46636]]

to sustain individual fishers. The larger scale habitat patch is 2,500 
km\2\--a minimum critical area (MCA) needed to sustain 50 breeding 
fisher and avoid the effects of inbreeding depression.
    Within the NRM, there is redundancy of modeled habitat patches at 
the home-range scale (100 km\2\) (Service 2017g, p. 52). In addition, 
two of the three fisher spatial units have three or more MCAs (2,500 
km\2\), thereby lowering the risk that even a large, catastrophic event 
could eliminate all larger, contiguous habitat patches (Service 2017g, 
p. 52). Representation of suitable fisher habitat across the NRM 
appears high, and fisher have been able to adapt to shifting habitat in 
the past as glacial ice sheets melted and habitat distribution changed 
(Service 2017g, p. 52). A native genotype is still present in the NRM, 
along with individuals with genetic signatures presumably from past 
reintroductions (Service 2017g, p. 14). Fishers can utilize a wide 
variety of prey, thereby minimizing the influence of changing 
environmental conditions on prey abundance and distribution (Service 
2017g, p. 52).
    We assessed the future condition of the NRM fisher by analyzing the 
number and distribution of potential habitat patches at the home-range 
scale (100 sq km) and MCA scale (2500 sq km) among fisher spatial units 
in the NRM at three future time points (years 2030, 2060, and 2090) and 
under two future scenarios incorporating stressor trajectories derived 
from the scientific literature (Service 2017g, chapter 4.8). In both 
future scenarios, modeled fisher habitat is expected to be widely 
distributed across its range and, in some cases, increase (Service 
2017g, pp. 57-58). Under these modeled future scenarios, we expect 
resiliency to remain stable or increase in the future (Service 2017g, 
pp. 65-67). Redundancy of habitat patches capable of supporting 
multiple fisher (100 sq km) and the number of MCAs (2500 sq km) are 
expected to increase under Scenario 1 and be widely distributed among 
all fisher spatial units (Service 2017g, p. 68). Fewer habitat patches 
capable of supporting multiple fishers (100 sq km) and slightly fewer 
MCAs (2500 sq km) are expected in the future under Scenario 2 than 
Scenario 1; however, habitat patches are expected to remain well 
distributed among fisher spatial units (Service 2017g, p. 68). 
Regarding representation, the full genetic diversity of fisher in the 
NRM is unknown; however, four different genetic haplotypes exist in the 
NRM (Service 2017g, p. 68). The native haplotype, along with three 
other haplotypes presumed to be from historical fisher reintroductions, 
indicate some level of genetic variability within the fisher population 
in the NRM; this variability is expected to persist into the future 
(Service 2017g, p. 68). Both modeled future scenarios predict that 
adequate distribution of patches among fisher spatial units will remain 
into the future (Service 2017g, p. 68). Thus, representation is 
expected to remain high in the future (Service 2017g, p. 68). This 
analysis is described in greater detail in our SSA Report (Service 
2017g, entire).

Finding

    We evaluated the NRM fisher under the Service's Policy Regarding 
the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments (DPS) Under 
the Endangered Species Act (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). Based on the 
best scientific and commercial information available, we find that the 
fisher in the NRM is both discrete and significant to the taxon to 
which it belongs. Fishers in the NRM are markedly separated from other 
populations of the same taxon as a result of physical factors, further 
supported by quantitative differences in genetic identity. The loss of 
the fisher in the NRM would result in the loss of markedly different 
genetic characteristics relative to the rest of the taxon and a 
significant gap in the range of the taxon; therefore, we consider the 
NRM fisher to be significant to the taxon to which it belongs (Service 
2017h, pp. 12-14). Because the fisher in the NRM is both discrete and 
significant, it qualifies as a DPS under the Act.
    We reviewed the best available scientific and commercial 
information pertaining to the status of the NRM fisher, corresponding 
to the Act's five threat factors. Currently, based on modeled habitat, 
there is a high-level (in both quantity and distribution) condition of 
individual home ranges (100 sq km) and a moderate-level condition of 
MCAs (2,500 sq km) across the NRM (Service 2017g, chapter 3.6). Habitat 
patches are widespread in distribution and occupy a part of the NRM 
that has a distinct ash cap in the soil left from the eruption of Mount 
Mazama, thereby increasing the soils' water retention properties and 
making NRM fisher habitat relatively resilient to future environmental 
change stemming from climate change (Service 2017g, p. 4). Modeled 
habitat patches that are currently present throughout the NRM indicate 
that they are likely to sustain fisher in the short and long term and 
to persist throughout the NRM through at least 2090 (Service 2017g, 
chapter 3.6). Modeled habitat patches are redundant among the three 
fisher spatial units, and this redundancy is expected to remain into 
the future (Service 2017g, p. 68). Representation, both currently and 
in the future, is predicted to remain high among all three fisher 
spatial units because of connectivity across the NRM, the mobile nature 
of dispersing fisher, and the continued existence of the native 
genotype (Service 2017g, p. 68). Although there is inherently some 
level of uncertainty to any model, we conclude that the potential 
stressors that the NRM fisher is facing do not place the species in 
danger of extinction. Therefore, we conclude that the current risk of 
extinction is low, such that the NRM fisher is not in danger of 
extinction throughout all of its range, i.e., not an endangered species 
throughout its range at this time.
    To evaluate the status of the species in the future, we considered 
two overall future scenarios out to 2030, 2060, and 2090. We used these 
timeframes because the best available science (Olsen et al. 2014, p. 
92), used these timeframes to synthesize and project the effects of 
potential stressors on viability of NRM fisher (Service 2017g, chapter 
4.8) in the future. We expect fisher habitat to shift north and east, 
with widely distributed habitat across its range under both future 
scenarios (Service 2017g, pp. 65-68). Fishers have good overall 
dispersal capability and, given that canopy cover is expected to be 
adequate across much of the NRM, are expected to adapt to habitat 
shifts in the future (Service 2017g, p. 65). NRM fisher resiliency is 
expected to be maintained or increase in future scenarios (Service 
2017g, pp. 65-67). In terms of redundancy, under both modeled future 
scenarios, we predict that the NRM fisher modeled habitat will remain 
or increase in distribution and amount across its range and that 
redundancy will be in a moderate to high condition (Service 2017g, p. 
68). We expect fisher in the NRM to retain their ability to withstand 
catastrophic events (Service 2017g, p. 68). In terms of representation, 
in both future scenarios, we predict the NRM fisher will continue to 
occupy the full extent of its range and ecological settings and will 
maintain its current level (high) of representation (Service 2017g, p. 
68) through 2090.
    We conclude that, despite the uncertainties inherent in any 
modeling of future scenarios, the risk of extinction of the NRM fisher 
in the foreseeable future is low, such that the NRM fisher is not 
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all of its range. Overall, resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation are expected to be stable or increasing into the future 
at both

[[Page 46637]]

scales (100 sq km and 2500 sq km) (Service 2017g, chapters 3.6 and 
4.9). Under both future scenarios, and based on our modeled habitats, 
we expect adequate available habitat distributed across the NRM to 
support multiple individual home ranges (100 sq km) and MCAs (2500 sq 
km) to provide resiliency (to tolerate environmental and demographic 
stochasticity), redundancy (to withstand catastrophic events), and 
representation (to allow for future adaptive capacity) (Service 2017g, 
chapter 4.9). Thus, after assessing the best available information, we 
conclude that the NRM fisher is not in danger of extinction throughout 
all of its range nor is it likely to become so in the foreseeable 
future, i.e., not a threatened species throughout its range.
    Having determined that the NRM fisher does not meet the definition 
of a threatened or endangered species throughout all of its range, we 
next considered whether there are any significant portions of the range 
where the species is in danger of extinction or is likely to become 
endangered in the foreseeable future. The SSA Report did not identify 
any areas of the species' range where stressors are currently having 
any population-level negative impacts to the NRM fisher (Service 2017g, 
chapter 3.5). There is no evidence to suggest that climate change, 
development, forestry, fire, trapping, poisoning, or predation are 
having population-level impacts to the species either individually or 
cumulatively with any other potential threats (Service 2017g, chapter 
3.5). We conclude there are no concentrations of threats in any portion 
of the range such that the species could be in danger of extinction now 
or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in a particular 
portion (Service 2017h, pp. 26-27). Therefore, no portion warrants 
further consideration to determine whether the species may be in danger 
of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in a 
significant portion of its range (Service 2017h, pp. 26-27).
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the NRM fisher. Because the species is neither in danger of 
extinction now nor likely to become so in the foreseeable future 
throughout all or any significant portion of its range, the species 
does not meet the definition of an endangered species or threatened 
species. Therefore, we find that listing the NRM fisher as an 
endangered or threatened species under the Act is not warranted at this 
time. This notice constitutes the Service's 12-month finding on the 
petition to list the NRM fisher as an endangered or threatened species. 
A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the 
NRM fisher's Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form, 
SSA Report, and other supporting documents (available on the Internet 
at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2015-0104).

Florida Keys Mole Skink (Plestiodon egregius egregius)

Previous Federal Actions

    On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center to list 
404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species from the southeastern United 
States--including the Florida Keys mole skink--as endangered or 
threatened species under the Act. On September 27, 2011, we published a 
90-day finding, which determined that the petition contained 
substantial information indicating the Florida Keys mole skink may 
warrant listing, and initiated a status review for the subspecies (76 
FR 59836). As a result of the Service's 2013 settlement agreement with 
the Center, the Service is required to submit a 12-month finding to the 
Federal Register by September 30, 2017. This notice satisfies the 
requirements of that settlement agreement for the Florida Keys mole 
skink and constitutes the Service's 12-month finding on the April 20, 
2010, petition to list the Florida Keys mole skink as an endangered or 
threatened species.

Background

    The Florida Keys mole skink is one of five distinct subspecies of 
mole skinks, all in the genus Plestiodon (previously referred to as 
Eumeces) (Brandley et al. 2005, pp. 387-388). The Florida Keys mole 
skink is isolated from the mainland and limited to islands of the 
Florida Keys. This subspecies is a slender, small, brownish lizard with 
smooth scales, two to four pairs of light stripes, and a brilliantly 
colored tail. This subspecies is semi-fossorial (adapted to digging and 
living underground) and cryptic in nature, but has also been seen 
running along the substrate surface when exposed. Adults reach a total 
length of approximately 13 cm (5 in) (Florida Natural Areas Inventory 
2001, p. 1).
    Historically, the Florida Keys mole skink has been found in low 
numbers across the range from Key Largo to Dry Tortugas (north to 
south). Current surveys documented the subspecies from Long Key 
southwest to the Marquesas Keys, but no current records have been 
documented as far west as the Dry Tortugas or in the Upper Keys in the 
Key Largo area. The Florida Keys mole skink occurs in the beach berm 
(50 to 80 cm [20 to 31 in] above sea level) and coastal hammock 
habitats and relies on dry, unconsolidated soils for movement, cover, 
and nesting. The dry, unconsolidated soils allow for the Florida Keys 
mole skink to dig nest cavities. Because of the predominantly 
limestone, prehistoric coral reef, and rocky composition of the Florida 
Keys, only a few areas [137 to 191 ha (340 to 472 ac)] provide the 
suitable soils needed for Florida Keys mole skink nesting. This 
subspecies needs detritus, leaves, wrack, and other ground cover over 
loose substrate as cover and to locate the insects that serve as a food 
source. These ground cover and substrate conditions also provide 
reproductive and thermoregulatory refugia.
    The Florida Keys mole skink subspecies was listed as a threatened 
species by the State of Florida in 1974 under the Florida Endangered 
and Threatened Species Act but was changed to a species of concern in 
1978. In 2010, after a subspecies status review, the Florida Fish and 
Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) determined the Florida Keys mole 
skink warranted listing as a State-designated threatened species. Under 
the Florida Endangered and Threatened Species Act, ``threatened 
species'' means ``any species of fish and wildlife naturally occurring 
in Florida which may not be in immediate danger of extinction, but 
which exists in such small populations as to become endangered if it is 
subjected to increased stress as a result of further modification of 
its environment.'' The FWC uses a system to rank and evaluate species 
and subspecies according to biological vulnerability. If the species or 
subspecies meets at least one of the criteria for listing as a State-
designated Threatened species based on International Union for 
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) guidelines and criteria in Rule 68A-
27.001, F.A.C., then the FWC makes a determination whether listing a 
species or subspecies is warranted. The criteria in the Guidelines for 
Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (Version 13) are (A) 
population size reduction, (B) geographic range size, (C) population 
size and trend, (D) population very small or restricted, and (E) 
quantitative analysis of extinction risk (IUCN 2017, p. 15). The FWC 
justified the listing as a State-designated Threatened species for the 
Florida Keys mole skink based on criterion D, which is met when a 
population has a very

[[Page 46638]]

restricted area of occupancy (estimated at 20.3 sq km) (7.8 sq mi) of 
potential habitat) such that it is prone to the effects of human 
activities or stochastic events within a short time period in an 
uncertain future (FWC 2011, pp. 10, 14). In 2013, a Florida Keys mole 
skink State Action Plan was developed with the goal of improving the 
conservation status of the Florida Keys mole skink to the point at 
which the subspecies is secure within its historical range (FWC 2013).

Summary of Status Review

    In completing our status review for the Florida Keys mole skink, we 
reviewed the best available scientific and commercial information and 
compiled the information in the Species Status Assessment Report (SSA 
Report) (Service 2017i) for the Florida Keys mole skink. We evaluated 
all known potential impacts to the Florida Keys mole skink, including 
the Act's five threat factors. This evaluation included information 
from all sources, including Federal, State, academic, and private 
entities, and the public.
    Historical observations documented the Florida Keys mole skink from 
Key Largo, Plantation Key, Upper Matecumbe Key, Indian Key, Long Key, 
Grassy Key, Boot Key, Key Vaca, Saddlebunch, West Summerland Key, 
Sawyer Key, Bahia Honda, Big Pine Key, Boca Chica, Middle Torch Key, 
East Rockland Key, Stock Island, Key West, Mooney Harbor (Marquesas), 
and Dry Tortugas (north to south) (Florida Museum of Natural History 
2011; Florida Natural Areas Inventory 2011; Mays and Enge 2016, entire; 
Mount 1965, p. 208). Currently, no population estimates exist for the 
subspecies; however, recent (2014-present) targeted and opportunistic 
surveys for the Florida Keys mole skink have documented 127 records 
from Long Key to Marquesas (north to south) (Emerick and FWC 2017; Mays 
and Enge 2016, entire). Of these, 104 observations or captures have 
been documented during targeted surveys at one location, the Long Beach 
site on Big Pine Key. An approximate 1:1 ratio of male to female was 
observed although the sex was undeterminable for 40 percent of the Long 
Beach captures. A second location, Ohio Key, has existing suitable 
habitat; however, targeted searches by Service staff have yielded zero 
observations at this location. From November 2016 to January 2017, 
opportunistic searches at 10 locations yielded 8 skinks from 4 
additional locations: Long Key, Content Key, Cook Island, and Big 
Munson Key.
    Preliminary genetic research on the five Plestiodon egregius 
subspecies has recently identified at least four genetically distinct 
populations within the Florida Keys mole skink subspecies (Parkinson et 
al. 2016). These preliminary findings should be taken with caution as 
the study used small sample sizes from a limited number of locations, 
and additional samples collected from other Keys are still to be 
processed. We did not explore the possibility of these genetically 
distinct populations as qualifying as distinct population segments 
under the Act, because we were not petitioned to do so. The preliminary 
genetic evidence suggests that little to no breeding is taking place 
between the four genetically distinct populations, suggesting that the 
structure of the subspecies is that of discrete, minimally to non-
interbreeding populations (Parkinson et al. 2016). It is likely that 
some level of stochastic passive dispersal of individuals, primarily 
via rafting (carried by floating debris and seaweed wrack), is 
occurring, but the degree of success for the Florida Keys mole skink in 
establishing new populations on unoccupied islands is uncertain (Branch 
et al. 2003, p. 207; Adler et al. 1995, pp. 535-537).
    The Florida Keys mole skink has limited genetic and environmental 
variation (subspecies representation) within the Keys, and there is no 
behavioral or morphological variation within the subspecies. Despite 
the subspecies' occurrence across many Keys (subspecies redundancy), 
there are gaps in the data on the subspecies' actual range-wide 
distribution and abundance. Based on preliminary research, there are 
four genetically distinct populations and additional individuals (not 
yet identified into populations) occurring across separate Keys; 
however, little information exists on the abundance or growth rate of 
these populations (population resiliency).The largest and most 
consistently surveyed area, Long Beach on Big Pine Key, indicates that 
all life stages, including breeding and nesting, are occurring in this 
area.
    The primary stressors affecting the current and future condition of 
the Florida Keys mole skink are sea-level rise; climate-change-
associated shifts in rainfall, temperature, and storm intensities; and 
human development. These stressors account for indirect and direct 
effects at some level to all life stages and the habitat and soils 
across the subspecies' range. The beach berm and coastal hammock 
habitat upon which the subspecies relies for food, nesting, and shelter 
are susceptible to flooding, inundation, and saltwater intrusion from 
sea-level rise and climate-change-associated factors. We geospatially 
assessed potentially available suitable habitat (beach berm and coastal 
hammock) for the Florida Keys mole skink, and the current total acreage 
of available suitable habitat in the Florida Keys from Key Largo to the 
Dry Tortugas is approximately 3,700 ha (9,100 ac). In addition, we 
assessed potentially available suitable dry, unconsolidated soils 
(Bahia fine sand, beach, and unconsolidated soils) from Monroe County 
Soil maps for this same range with some overlap of the suitable habitat 
identified, and the current suitable soils total approximately 138 to 
191 ha (340 to 472 ac) and mainly occur on six of the Keys in Monroe 
County: Lower Matecumbe, Long Key, Boot Key, Bahia Honda, Big Pine, and 
Key West (Monroe County 2016). There are small patches of 
unconsolidated soils that occur intermixed within other habitats across 
the islands, primarily in the coastal hammock. The long-term trend in 
sea-level rise at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA) Key West Station shows a 2.4 mm (0.09 in) increase of the mean 
high water line per year from 1913 to 2015, and the NOAA Vaca Key 
Station shows a 35 mm (0.14 in) increase per year from 1971 to 2015 
(NOAA 2017a).
    Our analyses include consideration of ongoing and projected changes 
in climate within the next 83 years. We analyzed suitable habitats 
(beach berm and coastal hammock) and soils (beach sand and Bahia fine 
sand) across the range of the Florida Keys mole skink to predict 
inundation from three regional climate-change sea-level rise 
projections at 2040, 2060, and 2100. However, foreseeable future for 
this subspecies was determined to be a 30-40-year timeframe. This 
determination considered the biology of the subspecies, the stressors 
identified, and the consistency in the sea-level rise projections to 
2060. This includes the expectation that sea-level rise will increase 
over time, but there is also uncertainty about how the Florida Keys 
mole skink will respond and how suitable habitats may transition. The 
generation time of the Florida Keys mole skink is typically 3 to 4 
years, so the foreseeable future range of 30-40 years encompasses 10-13 
generations, which allows sufficient time for any population-level 
response to stressors to be detected. Although our analyses predicted 
inundation out to 2100, we did not extend our foreseeable future beyond 
30-40 years due to too much uncertainty in the projections that far out 
and the divergence among the Low,

[[Page 46639]]

Medium, and High sea-level rise projections beyond 2060.
    Based on this range-wide geospatial analysis, we projected that by 
2040 the subspecies could experience the loss of 2 to 17 percent of its 
suitable habitat rangewide (a loss of 81 to 631 ha (200 to 1,559 ac)) 
of the 3,669 ha (9,066 ac) of suitable habitat estimated to be 
available currently. By 2040, suitable soils are projected to decline 
by 19 to 37 percent (30 to 58 ha (74 to 143 ac)) of the 155 ha (383 ac) 
of suitable soils estimated to be available currently. Under 2060 
projections, the amount of suitable habitat and soils loss is expected 
to be 4 to 44 percent and 25 to 50 percent, respectively. The sea-
level-rise projections predict inundation only and do not model the 
complex set of shifts that are anticipated to be triggered over time as 
the effects of sea-level rise are experienced.
    Overall, the Florida Keys mole skink may experience reductions in 
population resiliency, subspecies redundancy, and subspecies 
representation due to sea-level rise and climate-change-associated 
factors. However, although we expect some habitat loss and inundation 
across the range of the Florida Keys mole skink, the best scientific 
and commercial data available indicate that 56 to 98 percent of the 
suitable habitat and 50 to 81 percent of the suitable soils will remain 
into the foreseeable future.

Finding

    Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information pertaining to the five factors, as well as the continued 
presence of adequate resources to meet the subspecies' needs, we find 
that the stressors acting on the subspecies and its habitat, either 
singly or in combination, are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, 
or magnitude to indicate that the Florida Keys mole skink 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.
    The main stressors that may affect Florida Keys mole skink 
resiliency are sea-level rise, climate-change-associated factors, and 
development (all under Factor A). The Florida Keys has experienced sea-
level rise rates equivalent to the global rate (Service 2017i, p. 5), 
with no indication that these factors are currently acting on the 
subspecies. The persistence of occupied habitat (as well as potentially 
occupied suitable habitat) across the subspecies' range demonstrates 
resiliency, redundancy, and representation to sustain the subspecies 
beyond the near term. Continued occurrence of the Florida Keys mole 
skink across most of the historical range indicates a level of 
resiliency to the stressors that have been acting upon it in the past 
and are currently acting on it. Strong rainstorms, tropical storms, and 
hurricanes are all natural parts of the tropical Florida Keys ecosystem 
and may be a contributing factor to the low historical and current 
observation data for the subspecies. Since the subspecies has persisted 
on multiple Keys with human development and activities over time, it is 
likely that development will not be a driving stressor on the future 
viability of the Florida Keys mole skink. Over time, the subspecies has 
persisted on different Keys providing a level of redundancy, which may 
help the Florida Keys mole skink withstand the increased potential for 
catastrophic events into the future. Finally, the subspecies should 
continue to exhibit a level of representation with suitable habitat and 
soils continuing to occur in multiple Keys across the range of the 
subspecies.
    As mentioned above, the FWC determined the Florida Keys mole skink 
met the criterion D as a very restricted population and, therefore, 
listed the Florida Keys mole skink as a State-designated Threatened 
species in 2010. While the Florida Keys mole skink meets at least one 
criterion of a State-designated Threatened species under the Florida 
Endangered and Threatened Species Act, in our analysis under the 
Federal Endangered Species Act, we find that the continued presence of 
occupied habitat (as well as potentially occupied suitable habitat) 
across most of the subspecies' range continues to provide a level of 
resiliency, redundancy, and representation to the subspecies in the 
near term and within the foreseeable future. Therefore, we conclude the 
Florida Keys mole skink is likely to remain at a sufficiently low risk 
of extinction and will not become in danger of extinction in the 
foreseeable future and, thus, does not meet the definition of an 
endangered species or threatened species under the Act.
    We evaluated the current range of the Florida Keys mole skink to 
determine if there are any apparent geographic concentrations of 
potential threats to the subspecies. The risk factors that occur 
throughout the Florida Keys mole skink's range include sea-level rise; 
climate-change-associated shifts in rainfall, temperature, and storm 
intensities; and human development. We did not find that there was a 
concentration of threats in a particular area that would cause the 
subspecies to be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future throughout any portion of its range. Therefore, we 
find that listing the Florida Keys mole skink as a threatened or an 
endangered species is not warranted in a significant portion of its 
range. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found 
in the Florida Keys mole skink species-specific assessment form and 
other supporting documents (available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2017-0067).

Great Sand Dunes Tiger Beetle (Cicindela theatina)

Previous Federal Actions

    As part of a multispecies petition in 2007, Guardians (which at the 
time was called ``Forest Guardians'') petitioned the Service to list 
the Great Sand Dunes tiger beetle (referred to in the petition as the 
``Colorado tiger beetle,'' an older common name for the species). The 
petition requested that we evaluate all full species in our Southwest 
Region (where the Great Sand Dunes tiger beetle was erroneously thought 
to occur) ranked as G1 or G2 by the organization NatureServe, and list 
each species under the Act as either endangered or threatened with 
critical habitat. In 2009, we published a 90-day finding, in which we 
concluded that the petition presented substantial information that 
listing the Great Sand Dunes tiger beetle may be warranted (74 FR 
66866, December 16, 2009).

Background

    The Great Sand Dunes tiger beetle is a medium-sized tiger beetle in 
the family Cicindelidae. The species occurs only in the Great Sand 
Dunes geological feature in southern Colorado. The life history of the 
Great Sand Dunes tiger beetle is closely tied to the sand dunes for all 
stages of the species' life cycle, including feeding, sheltering, and 
reproducing (Service 2017j, p. 13). Suitable habitat is considered to 
include active dunes, which may include sandy blowouts and shifting 
sands, with a vegetative cover between 0.20 to 15 percent cover 
(Service 2017j, p. 13).
    Three types of dune provinces, or areas, are present within the 
Great Sand Dunes complex--the main sand dune mass, sand sheet dunes, 
and playa lakes dunes. All three types provide suitable habitat for the 
Great Sand Dunes tiger beetle (Service 2017j, p. 8). The current 
estimated area of suitable habitat is approximately 12,770 ac (5,168 
ha), which consists of a combination of areas of verified occupied 
habitat and areas of likely suitable habitat, based on sand and 
vegetation conditions (Service

[[Page 46640]]

2017j, p. 8). There is neither a precise population estimate nor 
population monitoring data for the species.

Summary of Status Review

    We completed a Species Status Assessment (SSA) Report for the Great 
Sand Dunes tiger beetle (Service 2017j, entire), which provides the 
results of the Service's comprehensive biological status review for the 
Great Sand Dunes tiger beetle, and provides a thorough account of the 
species' overall viability and, therefore, risk of extinction. To 
evaluate the biological status of the Great Sand Dunes tiger beetle, 
the SSA Report assesses a range of conditions, both current and into 
the future, to allow us to consider the species' resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation as proxies for evaluating overall 
viability. The Great Sand Dunes tiger beetle needs multiple self-
sustaining subpopulations (redundancy) that are both widely distributed 
(representation) and connected across its range to maintain its 
viability into the future and to avoid extinction (Service 2017j, p. 
22). A number of factors influence whether the Great Sand Dunes tiger 
beetle will maintain large and stable subpopulations, which increases 
the resiliency of a population to stochastic events. These factors 
include (1) a relatively stable dune system maintained by a complex 
combination of hydrologic and wind conditions, (2) relatively 
undisturbed dunes, (3) the presence of suitable vegetation cover on the 
dunes (0.2 to 15 percent cover), and (4) connectivity between the sub-
populations (Service 2017j, p. 19).
    The SSA Report evaluates the Great Sand Dunes tiger beetle's 
subpopulations, and what is negatively and positively affecting those 
subpopulations, within the three dune provinces present at the Great 
Sand Dunes complex. The species is currently distributed across most of 
the known geographic extent of its range, including all three dune 
areas (Service 2017j, p. 27). The most significant potential stressor 
to the Great Sand Dunes tiger beetle would be the potential future loss 
of dune habitats that individuals need to complete their life cycle. 
Surface disturbances within areas of suitable habitat can result in 
loss of habitat and injury or mortality of individuals. Historical and 
current surface disturbances in areas of suitable habitat are estimated 
to be low, representing less than 5 percent of the suitable habitat 
(Service 2017j, pp. 29-32). Field observation data from 2000 to 2016 
indicate a continued occupancy of the dunes by the Great Sand Dunes 
tiger beetle (Service 2017j, p. 28).
    The SSA found that the Great Sand Dunes tiger beetle population is 
currently experiencing relatively stable dunes and minimal surface 
disturbances due to land management under the National Park System, The 
Nature Conservancy, and the Service's National Wildlife Refuge Program. 
Relative stability of the dune system is maintained by the existing 
hydrologic and wind conditions within the San Luis Valley. Hydrologic 
conditions in this area are further protected by the Great Sand Dunes 
Act of 2000 that maintains the surface and ground water rights at the 
Park.
    To assess the status of the species in the foreseeable future, the 
SSA Report forecasted future conditions for the Great Sand Dunes tiger 
beetle in terms of resiliency, redundancy, and representation under 
five plausible future scenarios for the years 2050 and 2100. We chose 
these years because they correspond to time periods that have been 
evaluated by the National Park Service and are within the range of the 
available hydrological and climate change model forecasts by the 
National Park Service (see Service 2017j, Appendix B). Additionally, 
because of the short generation time (3 years) of the Great Sand Dunes 
tiger beetle (Pineda 2002, p. 57), the year 2050 (33 years from now) 
and the year 2100 (83 years from now) encompass approximately 10 and 30 
generations, which is a relatively long time in which to observe 
effects to the species. Climate change models forecast warmer 
temperatures, but there is uncertainty regarding whether precipitation 
will increase or decrease within the range of the Great Sand Dunes 
tiger beetle, although the overall trend is expected to be increased 
aridity due to warming temperatures. Our scenarios accounted for the 
uncertainty regarding future precipitation by including both possible 
precipitation conditions, as well as a range of levels of future 
surface disturbances of tiger beetle habitat (Service 2017j, pp. 36-
49). Under all five scenarios we expect the subpopulations of Great 
Sand Dunes tiger beetle to continue to occupy at least the two largest, 
if not all three, of the dune areas. We anticipate that the future 
persistence of the Great Sand Dunes tiger beetle will be provided by 
the continued maintenance of the relatively undisturbed and relatively 
stable dune system at the Great Sand Dunes.

Finding

    In making this finding, we reviewed the best available scientific 
and commercial information pertaining to the Great Sand Dunes tiger 
beetle, as summarized in the SSA Report, corresponding to the Act's 
five threat factors, and we applied the standards within the Act, its 
implementing regulations, and Service policies.
    Because this species occupies the majority of its historical range, 
with evidence of continued occupancy and very limited impact from 
stressors across all three dune provinces, we find that the species has 
a very low risk of extirpation due to stochastic or catastrophic events 
that could plausibly occur in the future and that, due to these 
conditions, the species retains adaptive capacity. Therefore, we 
conclude that the current risk of extinction is low, such that the 
Great Sand Dunes tiger beetle is not in danger of extinction throughout 
all of its range.
    In addition, because we project continued occupancy and very 
limited impact from stressors across nearly all of the species' 
suitable habitat under all five future scenarios, we find that the 
species has a low future risk of extinction due to stochastic or 
catastrophic events that could plausibly occur in the future and that, 
due to these conditions, the species is expected to retain most of its 
adaptive capacity. Therefore, we conclude that the risk of extinction 
in the foreseeable future is low, such that the Great Sand Dunes tiger 
beetle is not likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
    Having determined that the Great Sand Dunes tiger beetle does not 
meet the definition of a threatened species or an endangered species, 
we next considered whether there are any significant portions of the 
range where the species is in danger of extinction or is likely to 
become endangered in the foreseeable future. The best available 
information indicates that the Great Sand Dunes tiger beetle habitat in 
the playa lakes dunes may have greater vulnerability to potential 
future stressors. We therefore evaluated whether the playa lakes dunes 
could be considered ``significant.'' The playa lake dunes provide only 
0.67 percent of the total Great Sand Dunes tiger beetle habitat. If all 
of the Great Sand Dunes tiger beetles within the playa lake dunes were 
to hypothetically be extirpated, the species would lose a very small 
amount of representation and redundancy. However, the loss of this 
portion of the species' range would still leave sufficient resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation in the remainder of the species' range 
such that it would not be

[[Page 46641]]

expected to increase the vulnerability of the entire species to 
extinction.
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the Great Sand Dunes tiger beetle. Because the species is neither in 
danger of extinction now nor likely to become so in the foreseeable 
future throughout all or any significant portion of its range, the 
species does not meet the definition of an endangered species or 
threatened species. Therefore, we find that listing the Great Sand 
Dunes tiger beetle as an endangered or threatened species under the Act 
is not warranted at this time. A detailed discussion of the basis for 
this finding on the 2007 petition to list the Great Sand Dunes tiger 
beetle as an endangered or threatened species can be found in the Great 
Sand Dunes tiger beetle's Species Assessment and Listing Priority 
Assignment Form, SSA Report, and other supporting documents (available 
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-
ES-2017-0068).

Kirtland's Snake (Clonophis kirtlandii)

Previous Federal Actions

    We first identified the Kirtland's snake as a candidate for listing 
under the Act in 1982 (47 FR 58454; December 30, 1982) as a category 2 
species. At that time, a category 2 candidate species was any species 
for which information in the possession of the Service indicated that 
proposing to list as endangered or threatened was possibly appropriate, 
but for which persuasive data on biological vulnerability and threat 
were not currently available to support a proposed rule to list as an 
endangered or threatened species. The species remained a category 2 
candidate in subsequent Candidate Notices of Review (50 FR 37958, 
September 18, 1985; 54 FR 554, January 6, 1989; 56 FR 58804, November 
21, 1991; 59 FR 58982, November 15, 1994). In 1996 (61 FR 7596, 
February 28, 1996), we discontinued recognition of category 2 
candidates in favor of maintaining a list that represented only those 
species for which we have on file sufficient information on biological 
vulnerability and threats to support a proposal to list as an 
endangered or threatened species, but for which preparation and 
publication of a proposal is precluded by higher priority listing 
actions.
    On April 20, 2010, we received a petition, dated April 20, 2010, 
from the Center, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood 
Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, and West 
Virginia Highlands Conservancy (the Petitioners), requesting that we 
list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species as threatened or 
endangered species under the Act, including Kirtland's snake. On 
September 27, 2011, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal 
Register (76 FR 59836), concluding that the petition presented 
substantial scientific information indicating that listing the 
Kirtland's snake may be warranted.
    On June 17, 2014, the Center filed a complaint against the Service 
(1:14-CV-01021) for failure to complete a 12-month finding for the 
Kirtland's snake in accordance with statutory deadlines. On September 
22, 2014, the Service and the Center filed stipulated settlements in 
the District of Columbia, agreeing that the Service would submit to the 
Federal Register a 12-month finding for the Kirtland's snake no later 
than September 30, 2017 (Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, case 
1:14-CV-01021-EGS).

Background

    The Kirtland's snake is a small, non-venomous snake in the water 
snake subfamily of the constrictor family. The species occurs close to 
permanent or seasonal water sources, including wetlands, streams, 
reservoirs, lakes, and ponds. The Kirtland's snake requires moist-soil 
environments and spends much of its time underground in or near 
crayfish burrows. When Kirtland's snake is above ground, it is almost 
always found under natural or artificial cover objects instead of 
basking or moving through open areas.
    The core of the Kirtland's snake's range includes Illinois, 
Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. The species has also been found in three 
counties in Kentucky, three counties in eastern Missouri, and one 
county in Tennessee. The status of some Kirtland's snake sites in 
western Pennsylvania is unknown. The species historically occurred in 
southern Wisconsin.
    We currently consider the species to be extant in 60 counties 
rangewide, with 43 percent of the historical counties having Kirtland's 
snake documented within the last 15 years. The species may be 
experiencing some range contraction in the east and northwest, but 
recent county records in the north and south have extended the range 
slightly in those directions.
    The Kirtland's snake is notoriously difficult to detect, even with 
focused survey effort, because they are primarily underground. Negative 
survey data available for most sites are not rigorous enough to 
document whether the species is extirpated. Of a total of 415 records 
of the Kirtland's snake, we determined 194 (47 percent) to be extant 
and 204 (49 percent) are unknown, primarily due to detection 
difficulties, lack of survey effort, and uncertainty regarding habitat 
requirements. We determined 17 records (4 percent) are extirpated.

Summary of Status Review

    In making this 12-month finding on the petition, we considered and 
evaluated the best scientific and commercial information available, and 
evaluated the potential stressors that could be affecting Kirtland's 
snake populations. This evaluation includes information from all 
sources, including Federal, State, tribal, academic, and private 
entities and the public. The Species Status Assessment (SSA) Report 
(service 2017k, entire) for the Kirtland's snake summarizes and 
documents the biological information we assembled, reviewed, and 
analyzed as the basis for our finding.
    We evaluated habitat loss and degradation from urbanization and 
development (Factor A) as a potential threat to the Kirtland's snake. 
However, we found that the Kirtland's snake occurs at a number of urban 
and suburban sites in vacant lots, parks, cemeteries, remnant wetlands, 
neighborhood yards, railroad rights-of-way, and trash dumps. The 
Kirtland's snake has persisted in these degraded habitats in seemingly 
high densities for decades and presumably is capable of reproducing in 
these otherwise marginal areas.
    Collection for the pet trade (Factor B) was also cited by the 
Petitioners as a potential threat. Six States list the Kirtland's snake 
as threatened or endangered under State laws, most of which regulate 
possession of listed species. We do not know to what extent illegal 
collection may still occur, but there are no data indicating that 
collection is affecting the species.
    We also considered road mortality (Factor E) and snake fungal 
disease (Factor C) as potential threats. Road-killed Kirtland's snakes 
have been documented at a number of sites, and three Kirtland's snakes 
have tested positive for snake fungal disease. However, such incidents 
are scattered and there are no data indicating that road mortality or 
snake fungal disease affects the species at a population level.
    Additionally, we investigated climate change as a potential threat. 
One modeling effort found that the Kirtland's snake will see greater 
changes to the climatic suitability in its range relative to other 
reptiles in the Great Lakes region. However, this study did not

[[Page 46642]]

address how the Kirtland's snake would respond to any changes in 
climate (for example, changes in temperature or precipitation 
patterns). There are no data to indicate how the Kirtland's snake is 
likely to respond to these changes, and we do not understand the 
habitat needs of the species or why it occurs or persists where it does 
so there is no basis on which to conclude that the species will decline 
as a result of changes to climatic suitability.

Finding

    We acknowledge that data regarding actual impacts of these 
stressors on the species is limited; however, the best available 
scientific and commercial information does not indicate that any of 
these stressors is occurring to a degree or magnitude that would result 
in population- or species-level impacts. While information regarding 
population abundance is limited, the species continues to be found over 
a wide area, suggesting that the species has at least some redundancy 
to guard against catastrophic events. Additionally, the species appears 
to tolerate a variety of habitat conditions and has persisted in 
degraded areas for decades and, thus, presumably is capable of 
reproducing in otherwise marginal areas, indicating the species is at 
least somewhat resilient. The information available regarding future 
trends of the stressors or the species' response does not allow us to 
reliably predict changes to the species' status; however, the best 
available scientific and commercial information does not indicate that 
these stressors are likely to result in population- or species-level 
impacts in the foreseeable future.
    Further, we found no portions of the Kirtland's snake's range where 
these stressors are concentrated or substantially greater than in other 
portions of its range. Therefore, there would not be any significant 
portions of the species' range where the species could have a higher 
level of risk than its status throughout all of its range (i.e., be in 
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future).
    Based on this information about resiliency and redundancy, as 
articulated in more detail in the underlying SSA Report, combined with 
a lack of operative threats now or in the future, we conclude that the 
Kirtland's snake is not in danger of extinction nor is it likely to 
become so in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the Kirtland's 
snake as an endangered or threatened species under the Act is not 
warranted at this time. The Kirtland's Snake SSA Report and other 
supporting documents provide a detailed discussion supporting the basis 
for this finding (available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2017-0039).

Pacific Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus ssp. divergens)

Previous Federal Actions

    On February 8, 2008, we received a petition dated February 7, 2008, 
from the Center, requesting that the Pacific walrus be listed as 
endangered or threatened under the Act and that critical habitat be 
designated. The petition included supporting information regarding the 
species' ecology and habitat use patterns and predicted changes in sea 
ice habitats and ocean conditions that may impact the Pacific walrus. 
We acknowledged receipt of the petition in a letter to the Center, 
dated April 9, 2008. In that letter, we stated that an emergency 
listing was not warranted and that all remaining available funds in the 
listing program for Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 had already been allocated to 
the Service's highest priority listing actions and that no listing 
funds were available to evaluate the Pacific walrus petition further in 
FY 2008.
    On December 3, 2008, the Center filed a complaint in U.S. District 
Court for the District of Alaska for declaratory judgment and 
injunctive relief, challenging the failure of the Service to make a 90-
day finding on their petition to list the Pacific walrus, pursuant to 
section 4(b)(3) of the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative 
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 706(1)). On May 18, 2009, a settlement 
agreement was approved in the case of Center for Biological Diversity 
v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, et al. (3:08-cv-00265- JWS), 
requiring us to submit our 90-day finding on the petition to the 
Federal Register by September 10, 2009. On September 10, 2009, we made 
our 90-day finding that the petition presented substantial scientific 
information indicating that listing the Pacific walrus may be warranted 
(74 FR 46548). On August 30, 2010, the Court approved an amended 
settlement agreement requiring us to submit our 12-month finding to the 
Federal Register by January 31, 2011. On February 10, 2011, we 
published a 12-month petition finding that listing the Pacific walrus 
as an endangered or threatened species was warranted; however, listing 
the Pacific walrus was precluded by higher priority actions to amend 
the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (76 FR 
7634). We added the Pacific walrus to the candidate list and assigned 
it a Listing Priority Number LPN of 9, based on the moderate magnitude 
and imminence of threats. The Pacific walrus was included in all of our 
subsequent annual candidate notices of review (76 FR 66370, October 26, 
2011; 77 FR 69994, November 21, 2012; 78 FR 70104; November 22, 2013; 
79 FR 72450, December 5, 2014; 80 FR 80584, December 24, 2015; 81 FR 
87246, December 2, 2016).
    On September 9, 2011, the Service entered into two settlement 
agreements with Guardians and the Center regarding species on the 
candidate list at that time (Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline 
Litigation, No. 10-377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 
2011)). The settlement agreement with the Center included a deadline to 
submit a proposed rule or not-warranted finding to the Federal Register 
for the Pacific walrus by September 30, 2017. This publication fulfills 
the requirement of the settlement agreement for the Pacific walrus.

Background

    The Pacific walrus is one of the largest extant pinnipeds (fin or 
flipper-footed marine mammals) in the world. The Pacific walrus is 
identified and managed as a single panmictic population (a population 
with random mating). The subspecies ranges across the shallow 
continental shelf waters of the Bering and Chukchi Seas, occasionally 
moving into the East Siberian Sea and Beaufort Sea. Pacific walruses 
are highly mobile, and their distribution varies markedly in response 
to seasonal and interannual variations in sea-ice cover. Pacific 
walruses undertake seasonal migrations between the Bering and Chukchi 
Seas and primarily rely on broken pack ice habitat to access offshore 
breeding and feeding areas.
    Most Pacific walruses spend the winter in the Bering Sea. As the 
Bering Sea ice deteriorates in the spring, adult females, juveniles, 
and some adult males migrate northward to summer feeding areas over the 
continental shelf in the Chukchi Sea, where sea ice has historically 
remained throughout the year. Calves are born each spring during the 
northward migration. Thousands of adult male Pacific walruses remain in 
the Bering Sea year round, where they forage from coastal haulouts 
during ice-free periods. In late September and October, walruses that 
summered in the Chukchi Sea typically begin moving south in advance of 
the developing sea ice.
    The size of the Pacific walrus population is uncertain. Preliminary

[[Page 46643]]

survey results from a mark-recapture survey undertaken by the Service 
estimate a total population size of 283,213 Pacific walruses with a 95 
percent credible interval of 93,000 to 478,975 individuals (Beatty 
2017). However, this abundance estimate should be interpreted with 
extreme caution due to the preliminary nature of the estimate and the 
low precision estimates in the model.

Summary of Status Review

    In making this 12-month finding, we considered and evaluated the 
best scientific and commercial information available, and evaluated the 
potential stressors that could be affecting the Pacific walrus. This 
evaluation includes information from all available sources, including 
Federal and State entities, Alaska natives, academics, private 
entities, and the public. The Species Status Assessment Report (SSA 
Report) (Service 2017l) for the Pacific walrus summarizes and documents 
the biological information we assembled, reviewed, and analyzed to 
inform our finding.
    We reviewed the potential stressors that could be affecting the 
Pacific walrus and assessed the viability of the Pacific walrus through 
an assessment of the resiliency, representation, and redundancy of the 
Pacific walrus population. Owing to the relatively wide geographic 
range of the subspecies, individual walruses may be impacted by a 
variety of stressors; however, concerns about the walrus' status as a 
whole revolve primarily around the following stressors associated with 
the effects of climate change: (1) Loss of sea ice; (2) ocean warming; 
and (3) ocean acidification. We reviewed the following additional 
stressors in the SSA Report (Service 2017l): Harvest; disease and 
parasites; predation; contaminants and biotoxins; oil and gas 
exploration, development, and production; commercial fisheries; and 
ship and air traffic. Although we acknowledge that these additional 
stressors may be affecting individual Pacific walruses, the best 
available information does not show that these activities or stressors 
are having an impact at the population level; further discussion can be 
found in the SSA Report (Service 2017l, entire).
    We found that the Pacific walrus population appears to possess 
degrees of resiliency, representation, and redundancy that have allowed 
it to cope with the changing environments of the last decade. Although 
changes in resiliency, representation, and redundancy of the subspecies 
during this time would be difficult to detect for a species with a 15-
year generational timeframe, few malnourished or diseased animals are 
observed, and reproduction is higher than in the 1970s-1980s, when the 
population was thought to have reached carrying capacity and 
subsequently declined. Consequently, the current prey base of Pacific 
walruses appears adequate to meet the energetic and physiological 
demands of the population. Survival rates are higher than in the 1970s-
1980s, and harvest levels have also decreased. These observations 
mirror those of Alaskan Native hunters, who assert that the population 
is large and stable; that Pacific walruses are intelligent, adaptable, 
and able to make the necessary adjustments needed to persist; and that 
Pacific walruses are not being negatively impacted in a significant way 
at this time.
    In considering the future as it relates to the status of the 
Pacific walrus, we considered the stressors acting on the species and 
looked to see if reliable predictions about the status of the species 
in response to those stressors could be drawn. We considered how far 
into the future we could reliably predict the extent to which threats 
might affect the status of the species, recognizing that our ability to 
make reliable predictions into the future is limited by the variable 
quantity and quality of the available data about impacts to the Pacific 
walrus and the response of the Pacific walrus to those impacts.
    For the Pacific walrus, the most significant risk factor looking 
into the future is the effects of climate change (sea-ice loss). While 
we have high certainty that sea-ice availability will decline as a 
result of climate change, we have less certainty, particularly further 
into the future, about the magnitude of effect that climate change will 
have on the full suite of environmental conditions (e.g., benthic 
productivity) or how the species will respond to those changes. We find 
that beyond 2060 the conclusions concerning the impacts of the effects 
of climate change on the Pacific walrus population are based on 
speculation, rather than reliable prediction.
    Our habitat analysis predicts that shifts in both seasonal 
distribution and availability of sea-ice habitat will occur across the 
range of the Pacific walrus. For example, we found that, across seasons 
and time, ice-accessible habitat will shift northward with the loss of 
pack ice in the northern areas of the subspecies' range, exposing more 
land-accessible habitat, especially in the Bering Sea. In winter, we 
project that ice-accessible habitat will shift from the central Bering 
Sea in 2015 to the Bering Strait, straddling the southern Chukchi and 
northern Bering Seas, in 2060. We detected large variations in the 
trajectories of potential habitat for the Pacific walrus across the 
Bering Sea and Chukchi Sea area. For example, our results demonstrate 
increases in potential habitat in spring and winter for both the U.S. 
and Russia Chukchi Sea areas, yet potential habitat declined 
dramatically in these areas in summer. Conversely, we predicted notable 
declines in potential habitat in spring and winter and a stable 
trajectory in summer. In all seasons, potential habitat in the Russia 
Bering Sea area varied little.
    We relied on monthly projections of sea-ice extent from a 13-model 
ensemble of the most-recent Global Circulation Models and three 
Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) to assess the response of 
Pacific walruses to changes in the number of ice-free months over time. 
Pacific walruses currently use sea ice for courtship and breeding from 
December to March with a core period occurring from January to 
February. In addition, Pacific walruses currently use sea ice for 
birthing in the spring from April to June with a core birthing period 
occurring in May. Furthermore, calves nurse on the sea ice exclusively 
for 2-4 weeks after birth, and this critical period in post-natal care 
occurs in May and June. Given our prediction that the areas where the 
Pacific walruses' occur will, in combination, provide sufficient sea 
ice to meet the species' breeding, birthing, and denning needs, we 
found that Pacific walruses habitat needs will be met during the core 
breeding and birthing portions of the annual cycle under all RCP 
scenarios out to 2060.
    Although Pacific walruses prefer sea ice habitat, they also use 
land habitat during the summer and fall, but likely not without 
tradeoffs related to energetic costs and other risks of using coastal 
haulouts (e.g., trampling events, predation, and disease). Nonetheless, 
if land habitat proves to be comparable in quality to ice habitat, 
including access to foraging sites, then it is likely that their 
habitat needs will be met. If land habitat is inferior to ice habitat 
for Pacific walruses in summer and fall, then survival and recruitment 
of Pacific walruses will likely decline and population-level effects 
would occur. However, while it is likely that the increased use of land 
habitat will have some negative effects on the population, the 
magnitude of effect is uncertain given the demonstrated ability of 
Pacific walruses to change their behavior or adapt to greater use of 
land.

[[Page 46644]]

    In our assessment of the Pacific walrus, we considered the future 
impacts of stressors such as shipping and oil and gas development, 
along with changes in potential suitable habitat, on the viability of 
the Pacific walrus population. As previously discussed, we find that 
beyond 2060 the conclusions concerning the impacts of the effects of 
climate change and other stressors on the Pacific walrus population are 
based on speculation, rather than reliable prediction. Therefore, while 
we included projections out to 2100 in our analysis, we considered 2060 
as the foreseeable future timeframe for this analysis. Due to future 
changes in suitable habitat, coupled with the impacts of the other 
stressors, we expect that the Pacific walrus's viability will be 
characterized by lower levels of resiliency and redundancy in the 
future, but we do not have reliable information showing that the 
magnitude of this change could be sufficient to put the subspecies in 
danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. In addition, we expect 
that representation will remain relatively unchanged.
    We evaluated the current range of the Pacific walrus to determine 
if there is any apparent geographic concentration of potential threats 
to the taxon. We examined potential threats from loss of sea ice, ocean 
warming, ocean acidification, energetics, change in habitat use 
patterns, harvest, disease and parasites, predation, contaminants and 
biotoxins, oil and gas exploration, development and production, 
commercial fisheries, and ship and air traffic. We found no portions of 
its range where potential threats are significantly concentrated or 
substantially greater than in other portions of its range, and that 
there was no higher concentration of threats in the Chukchi or the 
Bering Seas. We did not identify any portions where the species may be 
in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable 
future. Therefore, no portions warrant further consideration to 
determine whether the species may be in danger of extinction or likely 
to become so in the foreseeable future in a significant portion of its 
range.

Finding

    Our review of the best scientific and commercial information 
available indicates that the threats affecting the Pacific walrus are 
not, singly or in combination, of sufficient imminence, intensity, or 
magnitude that the species is in danger of extinction or is likely to 
become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. We conclude that, while the Pacific 
walrus will experience a future reduction in availability of sea ice, 
resulting in reduced resiliency and redundancy, we are unable to 
reliably predict the magnitude of the effect and the behavioral 
response of the Pacific walrus to this change, and we therefore do not 
have reliable information showing that the magnitude of this change 
could be sufficient to put the subspecies in danger of extinction now 
or in the foreseeable future. At this time, sufficient resources remain 
to meet the subspecies' physical and ecological needs now and into the 
future. Therefore, we find that listing the Pacific walrus as an 
endangered or threatened species under the Act is not warranted at this 
time. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found 
in the Pacific walrus species-specific assessment form and other 
supporting documents (available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2017-0069).

San Felipe Gambusia (Gambusia clarkhubbsi)

Previous Federal Actions

    On June 13, 2005, we received a petition, dated June 10, 2005, from 
Save Our Springs Alliance requesting that the San Felipe gambusia be 
listed as an endangered species under the Act. The West Texas Springs 
Alliance was also listed as a petitioner. On February 13, 2007, we 
published a 90-day finding (72 FR 6703) in the Federal Register that 
the 2005 petition from Save Our Springs Alliance did not present 
substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted.
    On June 18, 2007, Guardians (which at the time was called ``Forest 
Guardians'') petitioned the Service to list 475 species in the 
southwestern United States as endangered or threatened under the Act, 
including the San Felipe gambusia. On December 16, 2009, the Service 
published in the Federal Register a partial 90-day finding (74 FR 
66866) for 192 of the 475 species raised in Guardians' 2007 petition, 
including the San Felipe gambusia. In that finding, the Service found 
the 2007 petition presented substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that listing the San Felipe gambusia may be 
warranted. This 12-month finding satisfies the statutory requirement of 
section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act that the Service determine whether or not 
the San Felipe gambusia warrants listing.

Background

    The San Felipe gambusia is a small fish in the family Poeciliidae 
(order Cyprinodontiformes). It was first discovered in 1997 and 
described by Dr. Gary Garrett and Dr. Robert Edwards (2003, pp. 783-
788) as a species distinct from other gambusia species, including its 
closest believed relative, the spotfin gambusia (Gambusia krumholzi). 
Garrett and Edwards identified the San Felipe gambusia as a new species 
only known to occur from San Felipe Creek in Val Verde County, Texas. 
This distinction between the San Felipe gambusia and spotfin gambusia 
was based on morphological characteristics, primarily body pigmentation 
and aspects of the male gonopodium (modified anal fin that allows male 
fish of the families Anablepidae and Poeciliidae to briefly hook into 
the vent of a female fish to deposit sperm; Garrett and Edwards 2003, 
p. 783).

Summary of Status Review

    We have evaluated the best scientific and commercial information 
available, and based on that information we find that the San Felipe 
gambusia is not a distinct species, but rather the same species as the 
spotfin gambusia (Gambusia krumholzi). This section summarizes the 
information upon which we base this finding. The best available and 
most current scientific information indicates that the San Felipe 
gambusia is a junior synonym of the spotfin gambusia. In this context, 
a ``junior synonym'' refers to different scientific names for the same 
species, where the later name given is considered junior. The Service 
is not considering the spotfin gambusia for listing action at this 
time.
    Echelle et al. (2013, p. 72), including as co-authors Dr. Gary 
Garrett and Dr. Robert Edwards, who first identified San Felipe 
gambusia as a new species, described the genetic structure and species-
level taxonomy of three gambusia species: San Felipe gambusia, spotfin 
gambusia, and Tex-Mex gambusia (Gambusia speciosa). Echelle also 
reevaluated the morphological characteristics of the San Felipe 
gambusia and the spotfin gambusia. Echelle's work was published in 
Copeia, a peer-reviewed scientific journal published by The American 
Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists. The American Society of 
Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, in conjunction with the American 
Fisheries Society, is recognized as an authority in establishing the 
taxonomic status of fish.
    Echelle et al.'s, (2013, p. 77) study assessed variation in 
mitochondrial DNA and six nuclear microsatellite loci of the San Felipe 
gambusia and the spotfin gambusia. None of the six microsatellite loci 
showed fixed

[[Page 46645]]

differences between the populations of San Felipe gambusia and spotfin 
gambusia (Echelle et al. 2013, p. 77). In other words, this genetic 
analysis did not find statistically significant differences between San 
Felipe gambusia and spotfin gambusia to indicate that they were 
separate species. Additionally, morphological characteristics that 
Garrett and Edwards (2003, pp. 738-786) had originally used to describe 
the San Felipe gambusia were generally subtle, and reevaluation of 
these characteristics showed no statistically significant variance 
associated with species-level taxonomy (Echelle et al. 2013, p. 77). In 
other words, in the more recent peer-reviewed evaluation, the body 
characteristics that had been identified as potentially distinguishing 
between the San Felipe gambusia and the spotfin gambusia revealed no 
statistically significant differences to indicate that they were 
separate species. The only exception to this was degree of body 
crosshatching in males, which differed in direction, as noted by 
Garrett and Edwards (2003, p. 785). However, there was broad overlap in 
crosshatching pattern between the San Felipe gambusia and spotfin 
gambusia, and the difference was not detected in females (Echelle et 
al. 2013, p. 77). Based on the results of the genetics work and 
morphological reassessment, Echelle et al. (2013, entire) found that 
the San Felipe gambusia is not a new species, but is a junior synonym 
of (i.e., the same species as) the more widespread spotfin gambusia, 
endemic to river systems in Coahuila, Mexico (Echelle et al. 2013, p. 
77).
    Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information, the taxonomic entity that is known as the San Felipe 
gambusia is not a distinct species or subspecies, but rather the same 
species (a junior synonym) as the spotfin gambusia (Echelle et al. 
2013, p. 72).

Finding

    Under the Act, the term ``species'' includes ``any subspecies of 
fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any 
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature'' 
(16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Based on the best scientific and commercial 
information available, the San Felipe gambusia is not itself a species, 
subspecies, or distinct population segment, as those terms are defined 
in the Act. Therefore, the San Felipe gambusia is not a listable entity 
under the Act. We find the San Felipe gambusia is not a valid taxonomic 
entity, does not meet the definition of a species or subspecies under 
the Act, and, as a result, cannot warrant listing under the Act.

New Information

    We request that you submit any new information concerning the 
taxonomy, biology, ecology, status of, or stressors to, the 14 Nevada 
springsnail species, Barbour's map turtle, Bicknell's thrush, Big Blue 
Springs cave crayfish, Oregon Cascades-California population and Black 
Hills population of the black-backed woodpecker, eastern DPS of the 
boreal toad, Northern Rocky Mountains DPS of the fisher, Florida Keys 
mole skink, Great Sand Dunes tiger beetle, Kirtland's snake, Pacific 
walrus, and San Felipe gambusia 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 in the dockets 
listed above in ADDRESSES and upon request from the appropriate person, 
as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Authors

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

Authority

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

     Dated: September 15, 2017.
James W. Kurth,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-21352 Filed 10-4-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P