46618 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

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 blackbacked 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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 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 CascadesCalifornia 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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
46620 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

(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 shortand 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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 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 mostrecent 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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
46622 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

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 mostrecent 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’ 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
46624 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

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 freeflowing 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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 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 rangewide 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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
46626 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

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 courtapproved 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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
46628 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 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 waterquality 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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
46630 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

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. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 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 blackbacked 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 blackbacked 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 blackbacked 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 OregonCascades/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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
46632 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

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 OregonCascades/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 OregonCascades/California population and the 

Black Hills population of the blackbacked 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 southcentral 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 pinonjuniper, 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). 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
46634 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 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 notwarranted 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 midelevation 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 largediameter 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 km2—the approximate size of a 

male fisher home range and area needed 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
46636 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

to sustain individual fishers. The larger 

scale habitat patch is 2,500 km2—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 homerange scale (100 km2) (Service 2017g, p. 

52). In addition, two of the three fisher 

spatial units have three or more MCAs 

(2,500 km2), 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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
46638 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

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, 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 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 sealevel-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 sealevel 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 Statedesignated Threatened species in 2010. 

While the Florida Keys mole skink 

meets at least one criterion of a Statedesignated 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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
46640 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

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 selfsustaining 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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 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, nonvenomous 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-ofway, 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. Roadkilled 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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
46642 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

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 flipperfooted 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 icefree 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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 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 landaccessible 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. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
46644 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 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 blackbacked 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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS