[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 6, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40172-40175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14296]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Three Species Not 
Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notification of findings.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 
findings that three species are not warranted for listing 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 it is not warranted at this 
time to list the evening fieldslug (Deroceras hesperium), Mammoth 
Spring crayfish (Faxonius marchandi), and Weber's Whitlow grass (Draba 
weberi). However, we ask the public to submit to us at any time any new 
information relevant to the status of any of the species mentioned 
above or their habitats.

DATES: The findings in this document were made on July 6, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Detailed descriptions of the bases for these findings are 
available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under the 
following docket numbers:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Species                             Docket No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evening fieldslug................  FWS-R1-ES-2022-0058
Mammoth Spring crayfish..........  FWS-R3-ES-2022-0059
Weber's Whitlow grass............  FWS-R6-ES-2022-0060
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Those descriptions are also available by contacting the appropriate 
person as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Please 
submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions 
concerning this finding to the appropriate person, as specified under 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Species                        Contact information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evening fieldslug.................  Brad Thompson, Field Supervisor,
                                     Washington Fish and Wildlife
                                     Office, [email protected],
                                     (360)-753-9440.
Mammoth Spring crayfish...........  Karen Herrington, Field Supervisor,
                                     Missouri Ecological Services Field
                                     Office, [email protected],
                                     (573)-234-2132.
Weber's Whitlow grass.............  Ann Timberman, Field Supervisor,
                                     Colorado Field Office,
                                     [email protected], (970)-
                                     ndash;7181.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of 
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals 
outside the United States

[[Page 40173]]

should use the relay services offered within their country to make 
international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we 
are required to make a finding on whether or not a petitioned action is 
warranted within 12 months after receiving any petition for which we 
have determined contains substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted 
(``12-month finding''). We must make a finding that the petitioned 
action is: (1) Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) warranted, but 
precluded by other listing activity. We must publish a notification of 
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 Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists). The Act defines ``species'' as 
including 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)). 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.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects.
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself. However, the mere 
identification of any threat(s) does not necessarily mean that the 
species meets the statutory definition of an ``endangered species'' or 
a ``threatened species.'' In determining whether a species meets either 
definition, we must evaluate all identified threats by considering the 
expected response by the species, and the effects of the threats--in 
light of those actions and conditions that will ameliorate the 
threats--on an individual, population, and species level. We evaluate 
each threat and its expected effects on the species, then analyze the 
cumulative effect of all of the threats on the species as a whole. We 
also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those 
actions and conditions that will have positive effects on the species, 
such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The 
Secretary determines whether the species meets the Act's definition of 
an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species'' only after 
conducting this cumulative analysis and describing the expected effect 
on the species now and in the foreseeable future.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term 
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as the 
Service can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the 
species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the 
foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable 
predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means 
sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the 
prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to 
depend on it when making decisions.
    It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future 
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future 
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should 
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the 
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history 
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the 
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as 
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and 
other demographic factors.
    In conducting our evaluation of the five factors provided in 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether the Mammoth Spring 
crayfish meets the Act's definition of ``endangered species'' or 
``threatened species,'' we considered and thoroughly evaluated the best 
scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, 
present, and future stressors and threats. In conducting our evaluation 
of the evening fieldslug and Weber's Whitlow grass, we determined that 
these species do not meet the definition of a ``species'' under the 
Act, and, as a result, we conclude that they are not listable entities. 
We reviewed the petitions, information available in our files, and 
other available published and unpublished information for all of these 
species. Our evaluation may include information from recognized 
experts; Federal, State, and Tribal governments; academic institutions; 
foreign governments; private entities; and other members of the public.
    The species assessment form for the Mammoth Springs crayfish 
contains more detailed biological information, a thorough analysis of 
the listing factors, a list of literature cited, and an explanation of 
why we determined that this species does not meet the Act's definition 
of an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' A thorough 
review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the Mammoth Spring 
crayfish is presented in the species' species status assessment (SSA) 
report. The species assessment forms for the evening fieldslug and 
Weber's Whitlow grass contain more detailed taxonomic information, a 
list of literature cited, and an explanation of why we determined that 
these species do not meet the Act's definition of a ``species.'' This 
supporting information can be found on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (see ADDRESSES, 
above). The following are

[[Page 40174]]

informational summaries of the findings in this document.

Evening Fieldslug

Previous Federal Actions
    On March 17, 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 
received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), 
Conservation Northwest, the Environmental Protection Information 
Center, the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, and Oregon Wild, 
requesting that the Service list 32 species and subspecies of mollusks 
in the Pacific Northwest, including the evening fieldslug (Deroceras 
hesperium), as endangered or threatened species under the Act. The 
petition also requested that the Service designate critical habitat 
concurrent with listing. In an April 13, 2009, email, CBD requested 
that the petition be amended to include only 29 species and subspecies, 
due to taxonomic revisions. The request was treated as an amendment to 
the original petition. In a 90-day finding published in the Federal 
Register on October 5, 2011 (76 FR 61826), the Service found that the 
petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information 
indicating that 26 of the 29 petitioned species or subspecies, 
including evening fieldslug, may be warranted for listing. This 
document constitutes our 12-month finding on the March 17, 2008, 
petition to list evening fieldslug under the Act.
Summary of Finding
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the evening fieldslug and evaluated the 
petitioners' claim that the species warrants listing under the Act. 
Subsequent to the 90-day finding, a genetic and morphometric analysis 
demonstrated that the evening fieldslug is not a unique species but is 
synonymous with the meadow fieldslug (D. laeve), a common species with 
a Holarctic distribution (Roth et al. 2013, entire). This study has 
been accepted by the relevant scientific community, The Xerces Society 
for Invertebrate Conservation, and Federal and State agencies. Given 
that the evening fieldslug is no longer recognized as a unique taxon, 
we conclude that it does not meet the definition of a species or 
subspecies under the Act. Consequently, it does not warrant listing 
under the Act. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can 
be found in the evening fieldslug species assessment form (see 
ADDRESSES, above).

Mammoth Spring Crayfish

Previous Federal Actions
    On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for 
Biological Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, 
Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, 
and West Virginia Highlands Conservancy to list 404 aquatic, riparian, 
and wetland species, including Mammoth Spring crayfish (Faxonius 
marchandi; then Orconectes marchandi), as an endangered or threatened 
species under the Act. On September 27, 2011, we published a 90-day 
finding in the Federal Register (76 FR 59836) concluding that the 
petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information 
indicating that listing may be warranted for 374 of the 404 species, 
including Mammoth Spring crayfish. This document constitutes our 12-
month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to list Mammoth Spring 
crayfish under the Act.
Summary of Finding
    The Mammoth Spring crayfish is a medium-sized, reddish-brown 
crayfish with blackish specks on its broad pincers. It has a very 
localized distribution in the central and eastern portion of the Spring 
River watershed in Fulton, Lawrence, Randolph, and Sharp Counties in 
northeastern Arkansas and in Howell and Oregon Counties in southern 
Missouri. The Mammoth Spring crayfish occurs in both intermittent and 
perennial streams but appears to occur in higher densities in 
intermittent streams. Small Mammoth Spring crayfish individuals occur 
in the highest densities in shallow (less than 35 centimeters (14 
inches)) stream margins of pools and runs in areas of emergent 
vegetation. Both small and large Mammoth Spring crayfish individuals 
are associated with a diverse composition of substrates dominated by 
cobble and pebble, and negatively associated with increasing current 
velocity.
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the Mammoth Spring crayfish, and we evaluated all relevant factors 
under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and 
conservation measures addressing these threats. The primary threats 
with potential to affect the Mammoth Spring crayfish's biological 
status include periodically degraded water quality, sedimentation, 
extreme events, and nonnative crayfish invasion of the gap ringed 
crayfish (Faxonius neglectus chaenodactylus). However, these threats 
have not reduced the species' resiliency, redundancy, or 
representation.
    The best available information indicates that the range of the 
Mammoth Spring crayfish has not contracted. Mammoth Spring crayfish 
density is higher in intermittent streams than in perennial streams, 
and based on surveys conducted in 1998-1999 and 2010-2011, occupancy of 
the Mammoth Spring crayfish was relatively unchanged between the 
periods of 1998-1999 and 2010-2011. In addition, density of the Mammoth 
Spring crayfish was also compared between time periods and increased 
significantly from 1998-1999 to 2010-2011. Therefore, we conclude that 
Mammoth Spring crayfish is not in danger of extinction throughout all 
of its range and does not meet the Act's definition of an endangered 
species.
    We then considered the primary threat to the species in the 
foreseeable future (potential invasion of the gap ringed crayfish) to 
determine if the Mammoth Spring crayfish meets the definition of a 
threatened species. The SSA report also considered the effects of other 
stressors such as climate change and land-use changes into the future 
for the Mammoth Spring crayfish. However, species experts only 
considered the potential invasion of the gap ringed crayfish as the 
primary species-level influence for the Mammoth Spring crayfish into 
the future. Therefore, the predictive modeling effort in the SSA only 
included the spread of gap ringed crayfish and its effect on the 
Mammoth Spring crayfish, although we considered the effect of other 
stressors qualitatively. The SSA's analysis of future scenarios over a 
50-year timeframe encompasses the best available information for future 
projections under reasonable worst, mostly likely, and reasonable best 
future scenarios. We determined that this 50-year timeframe enabled us 
to consider the threats and stressors acting on the species and draw 
reliable predictions about the species' response to these factors. 
Under the reasonable best and most likely future scenarios, we predict 
the gap ringed crayfish will not invade the range of the native Mammoth 
Spring crayfish within the 50-year timeframe, although under the 
reasonable worst scenario it may reach the edge of the Mammoth Spring 
crayfish's range in approximately 15 years, and continue to spread 
throughout the range. Although under the reasonably worst scenario, the 
gap ringed crayfish does invade the Mammoth Spring crayfish range, it 
will take greater than 100 years to invade the entire range of the 
species and 4 of the 6 representation units (RPUs) will not

[[Page 40175]]

be fully invaded. The reasonably worst scenario still leaves the 
species with ample redundancy and representation, such that the best 
available information does not indicate that the Mammoth Spring 
Crayfish's viability will decline within the foreseeable future such 
that the species meets the definition of a threatened species. Thus, 
after assessing the best available information, we determine that the 
Mammoth Spring crayfish is not likely to become in danger of extinction 
within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range and does not 
meet the Act's definition of a threatened species.
    We found no biologically meaningful portion of the Mammoth Spring 
crayfish range where threats are impacting individuals differently from 
how they are affecting the species elsewhere in its range, or where the 
condition of the species differs from its condition elsewhere in its 
range such that the status of the species in that portion differs from 
any other portion of the species' range. Thus, after assessing the best 
available information, we determine that Mammoth Spring crayfish is not 
in danger of extinction now or likely to become so within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.
    Therefore, we find that listing the Mammoth Spring crayfish as an 
endangered species or threatened species under the Act is not 
warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be 
found in the Mammoth Spring crayfish species assessment form and other 
supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).

Weber's Whitlow Grass

Previous Federal Actions
    On July 30, 2007, the Service received a petition from Forest 
Guardians (now WildEarth Guardians) requesting that the Service list 
206 species the Mountain-Prairie Region, including Weber's Whitlow 
grass (Draba weberi), as endangered or threatened species, and 
designate critical habitat, under the Act. On August 18, 2009, the 
Service published in the Federal Register (74 FR 41649) a partial 90-
day finding indicating that listing may be warranted for 29 species, 
including Weber's Whitlow grass. As a result, the Service initiated a 
status review for Weber's Whitlow grass. This document announces the 
12-month finding on the July 30, 2007, petition to list Weber's Whitlow 
grass under the Act.
Summary of Finding
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding Weber's Whitlow grass and evaluated the 
petition's claims that the species warrants listing under the Act. A 
new genetic analysis indicates that Weber's Whitlow grass is not a 
distinct species. Weber's Whitlow grass is not genetically 
distinguishable from another similar plant species (Colorado Divide 
Whitlow-grass, or alpine tundra draba (Draba streptobrachia)) in the 
Draba genus, which occurs in at least 16 counties in Colorado and has a 
wider range than Weber's Whitlow grass (Naibauer and McGlaughlin 2021, 
entire; NatureServe 2022a, entire). Therefore, Weber's Whitlow grass 
does not meet the definition of a ``species'' under the Act, and, as a 
result, does not warrant listing under the Act. A detailed discussion 
of the basis for this finding can be found in the Weber's Whitlow grass 
species assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, 
above).

New Information

    We request that you submit any new information concerning the 
taxonomy of, biology of, ecology of, status of, or stressors to evening 
fieldslug, Mammoth Spring crayfish, or Weber's Whitlow grass to the 
appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, 
whenever it becomes available. New information will help us monitor 
these species and make appropriate decisions about their conservation 
and status. We encourage local agencies and stakeholders to continue 
cooperative monitoring and conservation efforts.

References Cited

    A list of the references cited in this petition finding is 
available in the relevant species assessment form, which is available 
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov in the appropriate 
docket (see ADDRESSES, above) and upon request from the appropriate 
person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above).

Authors

    The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the 
Species Assessment 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.).

Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-14296 Filed 7-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P