[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 23, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57388-57400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18260]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Nine 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 nine 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 Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canis lupus ligoni),
Chihuahua catfish (Ictalurus sp. 1), Cooper's cave amphipod
(Stygobromus cooperi), Georgia blind salamander (Eurycea wallacei),
minute cave amphipod (Stygobromus parvus), Morrison's cave amphipod
(Stygobromus morrisoni), narrow-foot hygrotus diving beetle (Hygrotus
diversipes), pristine crayfish (Cambarus pristinus), and Tennessee
heelsplitter (Lasmigona holstonia). 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 August 23, 2023.
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Archipelago wolf... FWS-R7-ES-2023-0109
Chihuahua catfish............ FWS-R2-ES-2023-0110
Cooper's cave amphipod....... FWS-R5-ES-2023-0120
Georgia blind salamander..... FWS-R4-ES-2023-0117
Minute cave amphipod......... FWS-R5-ES-2023-0121
Morrison's cave amphipod..... FWS-R5-ES-2023-0122
Narrow-foot hygrotus diving FWS-R6-ES-2023-0111
beetle.
Pristine crayfish............ FWS-R4-ES-2023-0115
Tennessee heelsplitter....... FWS-R4-ES-2023-0116
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Archipelago wolf.... Stewart Cogswell, Field Supervisor,
Anchorage Field Office,
[email protected], 907-271-2888.
Chihuahua catfish............. Michael Warriner, Supervisory Fish and
Wildlife Biologist, Austin Ecological
Services Field Office,
[email protected], 512-490-0057.
Cooper's cave amphipod, minute Jennifer Norris, Field Supervisor, West
cave amphipod, Morrison's Virginia Field Office,
cave amphipod. [email protected], 304-704-
0655.
Georgia blind salamander...... Peter Maholland, Field Supervisor,
Georgia Ecological Services Field
Office, [email protected], 706-
208-7512.
Narrow-foot hygrotus diving Tyler Abbott, Field Supervisor, Wyoming
beetle. Field Office, [email protected], 307-
757-3707.
Pristine crayfish............. Dan Elbert, Field Supervisor, Tennessee
Field Office, [email protected],
571-461-8964.
Tennessee heelsplitter........ Janet Mizzi, Field Supervisor, Asheville
Ecological Services Field Office,
[email protected], 828-258-
3939x42223.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 should use the relay services offered within
their country to make
[[Page 57389]]
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 that we have
determined contains substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (hereafter a
``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 we 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' 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 Alexander
Archipelago wolf, Cooper's cave amphipod, Georgia blind salamander,
minute cave amphipod, Morrison's cave amphipod, narrow-foot hygrotus
diving beetle, pristine crayfish, and Tennessee heelsplitter meet 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
Chihuahua catfish, we determined that it does not meet the definition
of a ``species'' under the Act, and, as a result, we conclude that it
is not a listable entity. We reviewed the petitions, information
available in our files, and other available published and unpublished
information for all 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.
In accordance with the regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)(i), this
document announces the not-warranted findings on petitions to list nine
species. We have also elected to include brief summaries of the
analyses on which these findings are based. We provide the full
analyses, including the reasons and data on which the findings are
based, in the decisional file for each of the nine actions included in
this document. The following is a description of the documents
containing these analyses:
The species assessment forms for Alexander Archipelago wolf,
Cooper's cave amphipod, Georgia blind salamander, minute cave amphipod,
Morrison's cave amphipod, narrow-foot hygrotus diving beetle, pristine
crayfish, and Tennessee heelsplitter contain more detailed biological
information, a thorough analysis of the listing factors, a list of
literature cited, and an explanation of why we determined that
[[Page 57390]]
each species does not meet the Act's definition of an ``endangered
species'' or a ``threatened species.'' To inform our status reviews, we
completed species status assessment (SSA) reports for the Alexander
Archipelago wolf, Cooper's cave amphipod, Georgia blind salamander,
minute cave amphipod, Morrison's cave amphipod, narrow-foot hygrotus
diving beetle, pristine crayfish, and Tennessee heelsplitter. Each SSA
report contains a thorough review of the taxonomy, life history,
ecology, current status, and projected future status for each species.
The species assessment form for the Chihuahua catfish contains more
detailed taxonomic information, a list of literature cited, and an
explanation of why we determined that the species does 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).
Alexander Archipelago Wolf
Previous Federal Actions
On July 15, 2020, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity, Alaska Rainforest Defenders, and Defenders of
Wildlife, requesting that the Alexander Archipelago wolf subspecies in
Southeast Alaska be listed as a threatened species or an endangered
species and critical habitat be designated for this species under the
Act. The petitioners requested that we recognize Alexander Archipelago
wolves in Southeast Alaska as a distinct population segment (DPS), and
evaluate this DPS for listing as threatened or endangered. The
petitioners also requested that we evaluate the Alexander Archipelago
wolf subspecies for listing where Southeast Alaska constitutes a
significant portion of the range. On July 27, 2021, we published a 90-
day finding (86 FR 40186) that the petition contained substantial
information indicating that listing may be warranted for the species.
This document constitutes our 12-month finding on the July 15, 2020,
petition to list the Alexander Archipelago wolf under the Act.
We evaluated the Southeast Alaska population of AA wolf under our
1996 DPS policy (61 FR 4722) and found that it met both the
discreteness and significance criteria. The population is discrete
based on the international governmental boundary between the United
States (Alaska) and Canada (British Columbia) within which significant
differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, and
regulatory mechanisms exist. The population meets the significance
criteria because the loss of the Alexander Archipelago wolves in
Southeast Alaska would result in a significant gap in the range of the
taxon because an extensive area would be without Alexander Archipelago
wolves if the Southeast Alaska population were lost. For a more
detailed discussion of our DPS analysis, please see the species
assessment form.
Given the best available information related to the DPS Policy's
discreteness and significance criteria, we determined that the
Southeast Alaska segment of the Alexander Archipelago wolf population
meets the DPS Policy criteria for both the discreteness criteria and
the significance criteria. Thus, in addition to our listing evaluation
and finding on the Alexander Archipelago wolf range-wide, we also
evaluated the Southeast Alaska DPS, as requested by the petition.
Summary of Finding for the Alexander Archipelago Wolf
The Alexander Archipelago wolf is a subspecies of gray wolf that
occurs along the coastal mainland and islands of Southeast Alaska and
British Columbia. Based on the best available information, the current
distribution of the species is similar to its historical distribution.
There are gaps in our understanding of the life history of the
Alexander Archipelago wolf; thus, when appropriate, we have applied
information from gray wolves and other gray wolf subspecies. Alexander
Archipelago wolves breed between 22 to 34 months of age, and litters
range from 1 to 8 pups. Denning typically occurs from mid-April through
early July; throughout the rest of the year Alexander Archipelago
wolves are traveling, hunting, or dispersing. Alexander Archipelago
wolves are capable of dispersing long distances, both on land and
water, although there are many examples of these wolves avoiding water
crossings. Pack sizes typically range between 2 and 12 wolves, although
much larger groups have been observed. Alexander Archipelago wolves are
opportunistic predators that eat a variety of prey species, yet, like
gray wolves, ungulates compose most of their diet. Across the range of
the species, Sitka black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis)
and moose (Alces americanus) make up 75 percent of the wolf's diet.
Alexander Archipelago wolves are habitat generalists, typically
utilizing whatever habitat their preferred prey use and avoiding areas
of intense human activity. Old-growth forests, which Alexander
Archipelago wolves select for, make up a majority of home range areas,
and areas near freshwater are also selected by wolves during denning.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Alexander Archipelago wolf, and we evaluated all relevant
factors under the five listing factors, including any regulatory
mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these threats. The
primary threats affecting the Alexander Archipelago wolf's biological
status include timber harvest and associated road development, harvest
of wolves, and genetic inbreeding. Although disease and climate change
may not be currently impacting the species, the best available
information indicates that these factors could have impacts on the
species' viability in the future.
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we
assessed the current status of the Alexander Archipelago wolf to
determine if it meets the definition of an endangered species or
threatened species. Our assessment of Alexander Archipelago wolf
current viability included the primary threats of timber harvest and
associated road development, harvest of wolves, and genetic inbreeding.
To evaluate overall current population resiliency of the Alexander
Archipelago wolf, we ranked each population into a current condition
category (i.e., high, moderately-high, moderate, moderately-low, low,
or functionally extirpated) based on estimates of population growth,
and the species' needs which include dietary diversity, area of old-
growth forest available, and remoteness (i.e., space from human
activity; Table 3 of the SSA Report). Despite past and ongoing threats,
Alexander Archipelago wolf currently occupies five analysis units that
span its historical range, three of which exhibit high resiliency
(Northern and Southern Coastal British Columbia and Northern Southeast
Alaska), one with moderately high resiliency (Southern Southeast
Alaska), and one with moderately low resiliency (Prince of Wales Island
Complex). Currently, Alexander Archipelago wolves appear to have high
adaptive capacity, and we expect most populations to be able to adapt
to near-term changes in their physical and biological environments. The
exception to this is the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit.
Within the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit, high
levels of inbreeding have been documented, and
[[Page 57391]]
ungulate prey is limited compared to the rest of the range. These
characteristics limit the adaptive capacity of wolves within this
analysis unit. Nonetheless, based on the best available information,
the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit demonstrates stable
population trends. Overall, the Alexander Archipelago wolf is widely
distributed across its current and historical range indicating that it
has high redundancy (ability to withstand catastrophic events) and
overall high representation (adaptive capacity), contributing to its
overall viability. Thus, after assessing the best available
information, we conclude that the Alexander Archipelago wolf is not in
danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
To assess future viability of the Alexander Archipelago wolf, we
considered the foreseeable future out approximately 30 years (to 2050)
and projected the influence of three future scenarios that included
disease and climate change and the other primary threats included in
the assessment of current viability. The Alexander Archipelago wolf is
projected to retain high to moderate levels of resiliency within four
of the five analysis units, and no significant loss in distribution is
predicted across its range. The exception is the Prince of Wales Island
Complex analysis unit, which is projected to decline in resiliency
under most scenarios, and under one scenario, projections indicate
possible extirpation. However, the Prince of Wales Island Complex
analysis unit represents a relatively small area (approximately 4.5
percent; Service 2023, p. 110) compared to the overall geographic range
of the species, and a relatively small proportion of the rangewide
population estimate (17 percent; Service 2023, pp. 90-91). Thus, after
assessing the best available information, we conclude that the
Alexander Archipelago wolf is not likely to become endangered within
the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
We evaluated the range of the Alexander Archipelago wolf to
determine if the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to
become so in the foreseeable future in any portion of its range. The
Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit has moderately low
resiliency now and ranges from moderate resiliency to functionally
extirpated into the future. We found that this analysis unit may have a
different status compared to the rest of the range. Within the Prince
of Wales Island Complex analysis unit, high levels of old-growth timber
harvest, road development, and inbreeding have been documented, and
wolf harvest rates (reported and unreported) may also exceed
sustainable levels in some years (Service 2023, p. 62). Additionally,
ungulate prey is limited to just one species, the Sitka black-tailed
deer, limiting adaptive capacity for wolves in this analysis unit.
Although other analysis units may also face one or two threats from
timber harvest, road development, inbreeding, wolf harvest, or prey
availability, the Prince of Wales Island Complex is the only analysis
unit that experiences all of these threats.
However, we did not find that the Prince of Wales Island Complex
analysis unit represents a significant portion of the range for the
Alexander Archipelago wolf. The Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis
unit represents approximately 4.5 percent of the overall geographic
range of the species (Service 2023, p. 110). Additionally, the Prince
of Wales Island Complex analysis unit does not have high-quality
habitat relative to the rest of the range. Contiguous patches of old-
growth forest (at least 75 square kilometers) have been identified as
the preferred habitat for this species and are considered high-quality
habitat. The Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit contains 10.9
percent of the total preferred old-growth habitat that is available to
the species rangewide (Service 2023, p. 110). Lastly, the habitat
within the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit is not
considered unique for any specific life-history functions (e.g.,
availability of denning habitat or ungulate prey); the species'
preferred denning habitat is found in all other analysis units, and
ungulate prey diversity is greater in the other analysis units. Thus,
we do not consider the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit to
represent a large geographic area relative to the range of the species
as a whole, to have higher quality habitat relative to the remaining
portions of the range, or to represent uniquely valuable habitat for
the species. We do not find that the Prince of Wales Island Complex
analysis unit is significant. Therefore, the Prince of Wales Island
Complex analysis unit does not represent a significant portion of its
range, and we find that the Alexander Archipelago wolf is not in danger
of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in
any significant portion of its range.
After assessing the best available information, we conclude that
the Alexander Archipelago wolf is not in danger of extinction or likely
to become in danger of extinction throughout all of its range or in any
significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the
Alexander Archipelago wolf as an endangered species or threatened
species under the Act is not warranted.
Summary of Finding for the Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago Wolf
DPS
The Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS occurs along
the coastal mainland and islands of Southeast Alaska. Based on the best
available information, the current distribution of the species is
similar to its historical distribution.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS, and we
evaluated all relevant factors under the five listing factors,
including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures
addressing these threats. The primary threats affecting the Southeast
Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS's biological status include
timber harvest and associated road development, harvest of wolves, and
genetic inbreeding. Although disease and climate change may not be
currently impacting the species, the best available information
indicates that these factors could have impacts on the species'
viability in the future.
Our assessment of the current viability of the Southeast Alaska
Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS included the primary threats of timber
harvest and associated road development, harvest of wolves, and genetic
inbreeding. Currently, one analysis unit exhibits high resiliency
(Northern Southeast), one analysis unit exhibits moderately high
resiliency (Southern Southeast), and one analysis unit exhibits
moderately low resiliency (Prince of Wales Island Complex). Alexander
Archipelago wolves in the Northern Southeast Alaska analysis unit and
the Southern Southeast Alaska analysis unit appear to have high
adaptive capacity, and we expect wolves in these analysis units to be
able to adapt to near-term changes in their physical and biological
environments. Even though the Southern Southeast Alaska analysis unit
exhibits signs of recent and historical inbreeding, there is no
evidence of a reduction in fitness related to inbreeding. Additionally,
the Southern Southeast Alaska analysis unit has a greater potential for
connectivity and therefore, gene flow, with other analysis units on the
mainland, and it has a greater diversity of ungulate prey. Within the
Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit, high levels of
[[Page 57392]]
inbreeding have been documented and ungulate prey is limited compared
to the rest of the range of the DPS. These characteristics limit the
current adaptive capacity of wolves within the Prince of Wales Island
Complex analysis unit. However, even with this additional stress, the
population estimates for Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit
indicate it is currently stable. Within the Southeast Alaska Alexander
Archipelago wolf DPS, the species is distributed across its current and
historical range, indicating that it has high redundancy (ability to
withstand catastrophic events) and high representation (adaptive
capacity), contributing to its overall viability. Thus, after assessing
the best available information, we conclude that the Southeast Alaska
Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS is not in danger of extinction
throughout its range.
To assess future viability of the Southeast Alaska Alexander
Archipelago wolf DPS, we considered the foreseeable future out
approximately 30 years (to 2050) and projected the influence of three
future scenarios that included disease and climate change, and the
other primary threats included in the assessment of current viability.
The Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS is projected to
have high to moderate resiliency within the Northern Southeast Alaska
analysis unit, moderately high resiliency in the Southern Southeast
Alaska analysis unit, and moderate resiliency to a functionally
extirpated status within the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis
unit. However, the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit
represents a relatively small percentage of the total geographic area
of the Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS (approximately
13.2 percent) and approximately 30 percent of the overall Southeast
Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS population. Thus, after assessing the
best available information, we conclude that the Southeast Alaska
Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS is not likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
We then evaluated the range of the Southeast Alaska Alexander
Archipelago wolf DPS to determine if the species is in danger of
extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in any
significant portion of its range. We looked at the entire range of the
Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS and found that the
Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit has moderately low
resiliency now and ranges from moderately resilient to functionally
extirpated into the future. We found that the Prince of Wales Island
Complex may have a different status compared to the rest of the DPS
range. Within the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit, high
levels of old-growth timber harvest, road development, and inbreeding
have been documented, and wolf harvest rates (reported and unreported)
may exceed sustainable levels in some years (Service 2023, p. 62).
Additionally, ungulate prey is limited to just one species, Sitka
black-tailed deer, limiting adaptive capacity for wolves in this
analysis unit. Although the other analysis units may also face one or
two threats from either timber harvest, road development, inbreeding,
wolf harvest, or prey availability, the Prince of Wales Island Complex
is the only analysis unit that experiences all of these threats.
However, we did not find the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis
unit to represent a significant portion of the range of the Southeast
Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf. The Prince of Wales Island Complex
analysis unit represents a relatively small portion of the geographic
area of the Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS
(approximately 13.2 percent). Additionally, the Prince of Wales Island
Complex analysis unit does not have high-quality habitat relative to
the rest of the range. Contiguous patches of old-growth forest have
been identified as the preferred habitat for this species and are
considered high-quality habitat. The Prince of Wales Island Complex
analysis unit contains approximately 22.8 percent of high-quality
habitat compared to the rest of the DPS range (Service 2023, p. 110).
Lastly, the habitat on the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit
is not considered unique for any specific life-history functions (e.g.,
denning habitat or prey diversity); denning habitat is found in the
other analysis units within the DPS, and the other two analysis units
have greater ungulate prey diversity compared to the Prince of Wales
Island Complex. Thus, we do not consider the Prince of Wales Island
Complex analysis unit to represent a large geographic area relative to
the range of the DPS, to have higher quality habitat relative to the
rest of the DPS, or to represent uniquely valuable habitat for the DPS.
Therefore, the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit does not
represent a significant portion of the Southeast Alaska Alexander
Archipelago wolf DPS range, and the Southeast Alaska Alexander
Archipelago wolf DPS is not in danger of extinction now or likely to
become so in the foreseeable future in any significant portion of its
range.
After assessing the best available information, we concluded that
the Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS is not in danger of
extinction or likely to become in danger of extinction throughout all
of its range or in any significant portion of its range. Therefore, we
find that listing the Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS
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 Alexander Archipelago wolf species assessment form and
other supporting documents at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket
No. FWS-R7-ES-2023-0109.
Peer Review
In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR
34270; July 1, 1994) and the Service's August 22, 2016, Director's Memo
on the Peer Review Process we solicited independent scientific reviews
of the information contained in the Alexander Archipelago wolf SSA
report. The Service sent the SSA report to 10 independent peer
reviewers and received 4 responses. Results of this structured peer
review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket
No. FWS-R7-ES-2023-0109 and https://www.fws.gov/library/categories/peer-review-plans. We incorporated the results of these reviews, as
appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this
finding.
Chihuahua Catfish
Previous Federal Actions
On June 25, 2007, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
received a petition dated June 18, 2007, from Forest Guardians (now
WildEarth Guardians) requesting that the Service list 475 species,
including the Chihuahua catfish, as threatened or endangered species
and designate critical habitat under the Act. All 475 species occur
within the Southwest Region and were ranked as G1 or G1G2 species by
NatureServe at the time. In a July 11, 2007, letter to the petitioner,
the Service acknowledged receipt of the petition and stated that the
petition was under review by staff in the Southwest Regional Office. On
December 16, 2009, the Service published a partial 90[hyphen]day
finding on the petition, including the Chihuahua catfish and 191 other
species, stating that the petition presented substantial scientific
information indicating that listing may be warranted for 67 of the 192
species (74 FR 66866).
[[Page 57393]]
Summary of Finding
In assessing the best available scientific information for the
status of a species, the Service generally relies on information
published in peer-reviewed journals and other reports. Particularly
related to taxonomic determinations, we defer to the scientific
literature and to professional authorities for taxonomical assignments.
However, when that information is in question, the Service conducts its
own analysis, and we exercise our best scientific judgment.
For a taxon to be listed under the Act, it must be a listable
entity; that is, it must be either formally described and accepted as a
species or subspecies or there must be credible scientific evidence
that the entity should qualify as a valid species or subspecies. The
Chihuahua catfish has never been formally described in peer-reviewed
literature as a valid taxonomic entity. A draft species description
from 1998 proposed to describe the species as distinct but was never
finalized. Recent morphological and genetic analyses found no evidence
that this putative species exists in New Mexico and Texas.
To date, no peer-reviewed publications have supported a distinct
species status of the Chihuahua catfish or provided evidence of its
existence. We have reviewed the best available information regarding
the taxonomic status of the putative Chihuahua catfish and conclude
that there is insufficient credible scientific evidence that the entity
qualifies as a valid species or subspecies. Therefore, it is not
warranted for listing because we find that there is not credible
scientific evidence that the Chihuahuan catfish is a listable entity
under Act. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be
found in the Chihuahua catfish species assessment form and other
supporting documents at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS-R2-ES-2023-0110.
Peer Review
In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR
34270; July 1, 1994) and the Service's August 22, 2016, Director's Memo
on the Peer Review Process, we solicited independent scientific reviews
of the information contained in our report titled ``Review of the
Chihuahua catfish (Ictalurus sp. 1)''. The Service sent the report to
seven independent peer reviewers and received four responses. We
incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the
report, which is the foundation for this finding. Results of this
structured peer review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2023-0110.
Cooper's Cave Amphipod, Minute Cave Amphipod, and Morrison's Cave
Amphipod
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 to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland
species, including Stygobromus cooperi, S. parvus, and S. morrisoni
(referred to by the common names ``Cooper's cave amphipod,'' ``minute
cave amphipod,'' and ``Morrison's cave amphipod,'' respectively, in the
petition), as endangered or threatened species under the Act. On
September 27, 2011, we published a 90-day finding in which we announced
that the petition contained substantial information indicating that
listing may be warranted for the species (76 FR 59836). This document
constitutes our 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to
list Cooper's, minute, and Morrison's cave amphipods under the Act.
Summary of Finding
Cooper's, minute, and Morrison's cave amphipods are specialized for
subterranean karst habitat characterized by relatively stable
physiochemical conditions compared to surface environments and have
limited or patchily distributed food resources. Karst landscapes are
geologic features or landforms characterized by distinctive permeable
underground drainage systems, caves, and sinkholes that have been
formed through the dissolving of soluble rock, particularly limestone
(Simms 2005, p. 678). Due to the absence of light and primary producers
in subterranean environments, these species are likely detritivores or
omnivores that feed on organic matter (i.e., dead plant and animal
material) originating from the surface. Morrison's cave amphipod is
restricted to Virginia and West Virginia, and Cooper's cave and minute
cave amphipods are restricted to West Virginia, with limited
distributions.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Cooper's, minute, and Morrison's cave amphipods, and we
evaluated all relevant factors under the five listing factors,
including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures
addressing these threats. The primary threats affecting Cooper's,
minute, and Morrison's cave amphipods are: (1) groundwater
contamination by sediments and toxic compounds, (2) disruption of food
supply due to deforestation/surface alteration, and (3) direct
modification of habitats due to cave visitation and urban development
of karst areas. Protection, management, and conservation measures that
may improve the species' viability are summarized below.
After evaluating the best available scientific and commercial
information on potential stressors acting individually or in
combination, we found no indication that the combined effects are
currently causing a population-level decline or degrading the habitat
of the Cooper's, minute, or Morrison's cave amphipod, or that the
combined effects are likely to do so within a foreseeable future of 20
years, based on the projected species' response to future stressors.
Despite impacts from the primary threats, the best data and
information available indicate Cooper's, minute, and Morrison's cave
amphipod species have maintained resilient populations throughout their
respective ranges. Although we predict some continued impacts from
these threats in the future, we anticipate each species will continue,
in the foreseeable future (that is roughly 20 years), to maintain
resilient populations throughout their ranges that are distributed
throughout each of their representative units.
After evaluating threats to the species under the section 4(a)(1)
factors listed above and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats
of these factors, we evaluated Cooper's, minute, and Morrison's cave
amphipod viability to determine if these species meet the definition of
an endangered or threatened species. The Cooper's, minute, and
Morrison's cave amphipod redundancy and representation are limited due
to their narrow ranges; however, this situation is likely similar to
historical conditions. We find that the Cooper's, minute, and
Morrison's cave amphipods have sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and
representation in light of the best available potential stressor data
and information, both currently and into the foreseeable future, such
that they do not meet the definition of an endangered or threatened
species throughout their range.
We evaluated the range of the Cooper's cave amphipod to determine
if the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in
the foreseeable future in any portion of its
[[Page 57394]]
range. The Cooper's cave amphipod is a narrow endemic that functions as
a single, contiguous population and occurs within a very small area of
27 square kilometers (km\2\) (10.5 square miles [mi\2\]). Thus, there
is no biologically meaningful way to break this limited range into
portions, and the threats that the species faces affect the species
comparably throughout its entire range. As a result, there are no
portions of the species' range where the species has a different
biological status from its rangewide biological status. Therefore, we
conclude that there are no portions of the species' range that warrant
further consideration, and the species is not in danger of extinction
or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in any significant
portion of its range.
We evaluated the range of the minute and Morrison's cave amphipods
to determine if the species are in danger of extinction now or likely
to become so in the foreseeable future in any portion of their ranges
(1,467 km\2\ or 566 mi\2\ and 2,266 km\2\ or 876 mi\2\, respectively).
The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an
infinite number of ways. We focused our analysis on portions of the
species' range that may meet the definition of an endangered species or
a threatened species. For minute and Morrison's cave amphipods, we
considered whether the threats or their effects on the species are
greater in any biologically meaningful portion of the species' range
than in other portions such that the species is in danger of extinction
now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in that portion.
We examined the following threats: (1) groundwater contamination, (2)
disruption of food supply due to deforestation or surface alteration,
and (3) direct modification of habitat due to cave visitation and urban
development.
After evaluating the best available scientific and commercial
information on potential stressors acting individually or in
combination, we found no indication that the combined effects are
currently causing a population-level decline or degrading the habitat
of the minute or the Morrison's cave amphipods. These factors are not
occurring at a substantial level in any portion for either the minute
or Morrison's cave amphipods to contribute to the risk of extinction.
We found no biologically meaningful portion of the minute or Morrison's
cave amphipod ranges where threats are impacting individuals
differently from how they are affecting the species elsewhere in its
range, or where the biological condition of the species differs from
its condition elsewhere in its range such that the status of the
species in that portion differs from its status in any other portion of
the species' range. Refer to the species assessment form in the docket
for this action for additional details.
After assessing the best available information, we concluded that
Cooper's, minute, and Morrison's cave amphipods are not in danger of
extinction or likely to become in danger of extinction throughout all
of their ranges or in any significant portion of their ranges.
Therefore, we find that listing the Cooper's, minute, or Morrison's
cave amphipods as 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 Cooper's, minute, and Morrison's cave
amphipods species assessment form and other supporting documents on
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket Nos. FWS-R5-ES-2023-0120
(Cooper's cave amphipod), FWS-R5-ES-2023-0121 (minute cave amphipod),
and FWS-R5-ES-2023-0122 (Morrison's cave amphipod.
Peer Review
In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR
34270; July 1, 1994) and the Service's August 22, 2016, Director's Memo
on the Peer Review Process we solicited independent scientific reviews
of the information contained in the Cooper's, minute, and Morrison's
cave amphipod SSA report. The Service sent the SSA report to four
independent peer reviewers and received four responses. Results of this
structured peer review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket Nos. FWS-R5-ES-2023-0120 (Cooper's
cave amphipod), FWS-R5-ES-2023-0121 (minute cave amphipod), and FWS-R5-
ES-2023-0122 (Morrison's cave amphipod). We incorporated the results of
these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the
foundation for this finding.
Georgia Blind Salamander
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 to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland
species, including Eurycea wallacei (formerly known as, and identified
by petitioners as, Haideotriton wallacei), as an endangered or
threatened species under the Act. On September 27, 2011, we published a
90-day finding (76 FR 59836) that the petition contained substantial
information indicating that listing may be warranted for the species.
This document constitutes our 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010,
petition to list the Georgia blind salamander under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The Georgia blind salamander is a relatively small, pinkish-white,
blind salamander with visible external gills. Eyes are entirely
lacking, except for dark eyespots. The bodies of juveniles exhibit many
small pigment spots uniformly distributed along the dorsal and lateral
surfaces but are otherwise translucent. Adults are similar in
appearance but lack body pigmentation, leaving them almost pure white
apart from their gills. Lungs are also absent. Common prey items of the
Georgia blind salamander mainly include crustaceans (ostracods,
amphipods, copepods, and isopods), though insects and arachnids have
also been found in salamander digestive tracts. Habitat of the Georgia
blind salamander consists primarily of caves within the Upper Floridan
Aquifer System, an extensively karstified aquifer system. Currently,
locations where Georgia blind salamander have been found include
Jackson County, Florida, as well as Dougherty and Decatur Counties,
Georgia, in the Marianna Lowlands-Dougherty Plain physiographic region.
The best available science indicates there is a high likelihood of
Georgia blind salamander co-occurring with the Dougherty Plain cave
crayfish (Cambarus cryptodytes), resulting in up to 58 extant sites. It
is important to note that the identified sites are only those that are
accessible to humans and do not necessarily represent the entire
distribution of the species. Also, many sites of co-occurrence are
isolated wells, indicating that both species are likely more widely
distributed throughout the aquifer and associated springsheds than is
evidenced by direct sightings alone. It is likely the species is
present in the Dougherty Plain portion of the Upper FAS.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Georgia blind salamander, and we evaluated all relevant factors
under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these threats. Existing threats
related to water quality and water quantity are present, though there
are extant sites. In addition, water quantity
[[Page 57395]]
currently does not appear to have a large impact on this aquifer, as
drawdowns even in drought conditions were not impacting water levels in
the aquifer. Since aquifers have relatively stable conditions over
space and time, particularly compared to other terrestrial or even
aquatic habitats, the species' broad occurrence across the 4.4-million-
acre aquifer likely ensures it has adequate representation and
redundancy currently.
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we
assessed the current status of the Georgia blind salamander to
determine if it meets the definition of an endangered species or
threatened species. The Georgia blind salamander currently has moderate
to high resilience (78 percent of sites); water quality and quantity
are the primary factors influencing the species rangewide, although the
underlying aquifer has exhibited relatively stable conditions over
time, and the species is presumed to occur across the aquifer. There
are extant sites where existing threats related to water quality and
water quantity still occur, and drawdowns in drought conditions were
not impacting water levels in the aquifer. Thus, the threats appear to
have low imminence and magnitude such that they are not significantly
affecting the species' current viability. Accordingly, we determined
that the Georgia blind salamander is not in danger of extinction
throughout its range.
We then considered whether the species is likely to become in
danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout its
range. The analysis of future condition to 2070, considered in the SSA
report, encompasses the best available information for future
projections of land-use change under two different scenarios (worst
case--A1B and best case--B2), as well as pollutant discharge permits
and effects of climate change (for example, sea level rise and
drought). The timeframe considered enabled us to analyze the threats/
stressors acting on the species and draw reliable predictions about the
species' response to these factors. Land use changes may impact water
quality, and thus could influence species viability.
Given the future scenarios, the resiliency of the Georgia blind
salamander population is predicted to decline or remain approximately
the same in the future. However, given the vast size (4,400,162 acres
of surface area) and stability of habitat, as well as the species'
broad occurrence across the aquifer, and projected limited future
threats, we determined that the scale of impacts projected in the
future will not impact the species such that the species is likely to
become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future. Thus,
after assessing the best available information, we determined that the
Georgia blind salamander is not in danger of extinction now or likely
to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
We next considered 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--that is, whether there is any portion
of the species' range for which it is true that both (1) the portion is
significant and (2) the species is in danger of extinction now or
likely to become so in the foreseeable future in that portion. Because
the range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an
infinite number of ways, we focused our analysis on portions of the
species' range that contribute to the conservation of the species in a
biologically meaningful way. For the Georgia blind salamander, we
considered whether the threats or their effects on the species are
greater in any portion of the species' range than in other portions
such that the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to
become so in the foreseeable future in that portion.
Because this species occupies a habitat that is not easily
accessible or sampled, with few existing records, it is assumed to be
well distributed evenly across its interconnected 4.4 million-acre
range. While it is considered one population, we identified sinkhole
hotspots around Albany, Georgia, and Marianna, Florida, to be most
vulnerable to the threats due to their close proximity to developed
areas and potential lingering effects from Superfund sites. These
portions of the range are also vulnerable to potential catastrophic
chemical spills compared to the overall range. The fact that spills
have occurred and the salamander remains in high to moderate condition
in these areas indicates that the threats to water quality and quantity
are not impacting the species such that it has a different status in
these portions compared to the rest of the range. For these reasons,
the sinkhole hotspot portions around Albany, GA, and Marianna, FL, were
not determined to have a different status now or in the foreseeable
future. Further, these portions also comprise a small portion of the
total range, and therefore we conclude that these areas are not
significant.
After assessing the best available information, we concluded that
Georgia blind salamander is not in danger of extinction or likely to
become in danger of extinction throughout all of its range or in any
significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the
Georgia blind salamander 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 Georgia blind salamander species
assessment form and other supporting documents at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2023-0117.
Peer Review
In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR
34270; July 1, 1994) and the Service's August 22, 2016, Director's Memo
on the Peer Review Process, we solicited independent scientific reviews
of the information contained in the Georgia blind salamander SSA
report. The Service sent the SSA report to eight independent peer
reviewers and received three responses. Results of this structured peer
review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket
No. FWS-R4-ES-2023-0117. We incorporated the results of these reviews,
as appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this
finding.
Narrow-Foot Hygrotus Diving Beetle
Previous Federal Actions
On July 17, 2013, we received a petition from WildEarth Guardians
to list the narrow-foot hygrotus diving beetle, henceforth ``diving
beetle,'' as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. On
January 12, 2016, we published a 90-day finding (81 FR 1368) that the
petition contained substantial information indicating that listing may
be warranted for the species. On April 21, 2020, WildEarth Guardians
filed suit (Case No. 1:20-cv-1035) to compel us to complete a 12-month
finding. We subsequently agreed to submit a 12-month finding for the
diving beetle to the Federal Register by August 15, 2023. This document
constitutes our 12-month finding on the July 17, 2013, petition to list
the diving beetle under the Act.
Summary of Finding
Narrow-foot hygrotus diving beetles are small aquatic beetles found
in central Wyoming within a specific geology of Cody Shale substrates
or soils derived from Cody Shale in Fremont, Johnson, Natrona, and
Washakie Counties. This beetle has likely never
[[Page 57396]]
had a wider distribution than the narrow range it currently occupies.
Diving beetles develop through egg, larval, pupal, and adult stages
and rely on small, transitory, saline pools that form during the drying
down of ephemeral streams in summer, with all life stages either
occurring in or adjacent to these pools. Diving beetles require refugia
and prey in pools and hydrologically intact areas surrounding pools,
which support higher water quality and seasonally appropriate timing
and quantities of water in pools. Diving beetle sites appear to
function as a metapopulation, and as such, connectivity among pools is
essential for diving beetles. Pools need to be near enough to each
other so that, when local conditions in one pool become unsuitable,
either adults can fly overland to another pool or individuals at any
life stage can flow downstream to another pool with suitable habitat.
The frequency across years with which pools are occupied by diving
beetles is also important for diving beetles' resiliency. More
frequently occupied pools reliably provide for the needs of diving
beetles, and while infrequently occupied pools do not support diving
beetles in most years, they do support diving beetles in years with
extreme weather conditions that make other sites unsuitable.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the diving beetle, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the
five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these threats. After evaluating
threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the
threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we assessed the current
status of the diving beetle to determine if it meets the definition of
an endangered species or threatened species. The primary threats
affecting the diving beetle's biological status include climate change,
inadequate water availability, flooding, anthropogenic disturbance, and
insecticide spraying.
Our assessment of current viability included all primary threats to
the diving beetle. Despite past and ongoing stressors, the diving
beetle has multiple populations in high and moderate condition. To
assess future viability of this species, we considered the foreseeable
future out to 2050 and projected the influence under three future
scenarios of stressors that included climate change, inadequate water
availability, flooding, anthropogenic disturbance, and insecticide
spraying. Within the SSA, we evaluated the viability of diving beetles,
including a review of ongoing and future threats. The best available
information indicates that this species' life-history traits are
conducive to surviving projected climate changes and other increases in
evaluated stressors now and into the foreseeable future.
Diving beetles also have a metapopulation structure with
connectivity between sites that supports resiliency among all sites
throughout the entire range, and the distribution of the species across
three different river basins within central Wyoming helps support
redundancy. Therefore, we expect all diving beetle sites to be
maintained into the foreseeable future.
We then evaluated the range of the diving beetle to determine if
the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in
the foreseeable future in any portion of its range. The range of a
species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite
number of ways. We focused our analysis on portions of the species'
range that may meet the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species. For the diving beetle, we considered whether the
threats or their effects on the species are greater in any biologically
meaningful portion of the species' range than in other portions such
that the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future in that portion. We found no portion of the
diving beetle's range where threats are impacting individuals
differently from how they are affecting the species elsewhere in its
range, or where the biological condition of the species differs from
its condition elsewhere in its range such that the status of the
species in that portion differs from its status in any other portion of
the species' range. Therefore, we find that the species is not in
danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable
future in any significant portion of its range; refer to the species
assessment form in the docket for this action for additional details.
After assessing the best available information, we concluded that
the diving beetle is not in danger of extinction or likely to become in
danger of extinction throughout all of its range or in any significant
portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the diving beetle
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 diving beetle species assessment form and other supporting
documents at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-
2023-0111.
Peer Review
In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR
34270; July 1, 1994) and the Service's August 22, 2016, Director's Memo
on the Peer Review Process, we solicited independent scientific reviews
of the information contained in the diving beetle SSA report. The
Service solicited review of the SSA report from six potential peer
reviewers and received one review. Results of this structured peer
review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket
No. FWS-R6-ES-2023-0111. We incorporated the results of the review, as
appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this
finding.
Pristine 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 the pristine crayfish, 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. This
document constitutes our 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010,
petition to list pristine crayfish under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The pristine crayfish is a small, freshwater crayfish endemic to
the Cumberland Plateau in Tennessee. The species occurs in small- to
medium-sized streams and rivers in the Caney Fork and Sequatchie River
systems in central Tennessee. Pristine crayfish are known to occur in
27 streams in 8 subwatersheds (HUC12) in the region. Two distinct forms
of the pristine crayfish are recognized based on body characteristics
and genetics: the Caney Fork form and the Sequatchie form. The Caney
Fork form of pristine crayfish occurs in five northern subwatersheds
(17 streams), and the Sequatchie form occurs in three southern
subwatersheds (10 streams). The pristine crayfish requires good water
quality in first- to fourth-order perennial streams with cool water,
shallow pools with slow to moderate flow, slab rock substrate with
cobble, and low levels of sedimentation.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information
[[Page 57397]]
available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the
pristine crayfish, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five
listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation
measures addressing these threats. After evaluating threats to the
species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the
section 4(a)(1) factors, we assessed the current status of the pristine
crayfish to determine if it meets the definition of an endangered
species or threatened species. The threats affecting the pristine
crayfish's biological status include habitat destruction or
modification, future effects of climate change, disease, and the effect
of small, isolated populations. Of these threats, habitat destruction
or modification and the future effects of climate change were
identified as key drivers of the species' viability. Habitat
destruction or modification is currently the primary threat to pristine
crayfish viability. Impacts to the pristine crayfish's habitat
rangewide are caused by sedimentation, decreased water quality, and the
effects of impoundments. These impacts occur at the individual and
population levels across the species' distribution, but the best
available information indicates that these localized impacts have not
affected pristine crayfish at the species level. Climate change has the
potential to impact the species through increased magnitude and
frequency of drought and increased temperature, and this threat is
ongoing and projected to increase in the future. Although drought and
increased temperatures may result in a decrease or lack of recruitment
in some portions of its range during some years, there have been no
documented species-level declines as a result of consecutive years of
drought. The threats of disease and small population size may
exacerbate the effects of the primary threats but are not expected to
affect population resiliency, representation, and redundancy alone.
The best available information indicates that the range of the
pristine crayfish has not contracted since described in 1965 and, in
fact, its range was recently expanded into an additional river system.
The species is naturally patchily distributed within its range and is
known to occur in 27 streams across 8 HUC12 analysis units (AUs). Seven
of the eight AUs exhibit moderate current resiliency. Although we
identified habitat destruction or modification and climate change as
the key drivers of species' viability, the species' current condition
does not indicate species-level impacts from these or other cumulative
factors that have led to reductions in AU resiliency. The species'
representation and redundancy are moderate, and the species occurs in
multiple analysis units with sufficient resiliency across its
historical and current range. Overall, no current threat is acting at
an extent or severity such that the pristine crayfish is at risk of
extinction throughout all of its range. Thus, after assessing the best
available information, we conclude that the pristine crayfish is not in
danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
Therefore, we proceed with determining whether the pristine
crayfish is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. To evaluate the future
viability of the pristine crayfish, we considered the relevant threats
currently acting on the species, those threats expected to act on the
species in the foreseeable future, and the species' response to those
threats. The primary threats to the pristine crayfish in the future are
habitat destruction or modification and climate change. The three
plausible future scenarios we examined included projections of
urbanization, land use change (evergreen forest cover), impoundments,
the effects of climate change, and the cumulative effect of these
threats. Our analysis of the species' condition under future scenarios
at two time steps (2036 and 2051) encompasses the best available
information for future projections of modeled parameters under a range
of plausible threat levels. We selected these time steps based on the
pristine crayfish's lifespan of approximately 4 years and the
reliability of the data and models used in the future threat
projections and analyses. Therefore, we determined 30 years to be the
foreseeable future for which we can reasonably predict the threats to
the pristine crayfish and the species' response to those threats.
In this timeframe, there are minor projected increases in some
threats that may affect the availability of suitable habitat across the
species' range. Urbanization is projected to increase an average of 6
to 11 percent over current levels and evergreen forest cover
(representing land use change) is projected to decrease by 1 percent in
the same timeframes. The pristine crayfish is distributed across eight
AUs (HUC12 subwatersheds) and is expected to remain extant in all
future scenarios across the AUs. Our future condition analysis
projected declines in resiliency in six or seven of the AUs in all
scenarios except the increased impact scenario in 2051, when all eight
AUs are projected to decline in resiliency. Based on our analysis, the
projected effects of climate change and impoundments may have a greater
effect on species' resiliency compared to current impacts, but the
magnitude and imminence of the threats and the species' responses are
more uncertain.
We expect that the species' representation and redundancy will
decline slightly but will largely be maintained in moderate condition
in the future with all AUs remaining on the landscape in all scenarios.
We projected future redundancy as moderate with no AUs projected to be
extirpated, and the distribution of the species across the range is
projected to remain at the current level. Likewise, representation is
expected to remain moderate as both forms of the pristine crayfish are
present on the landscape, although some parameters used to assess
representation are projected to decline as resiliency declines. Impacts
from current and ongoing threats will reduce population resiliency and
affect the species' representation and redundancy in the foreseeable
future but are not projected to lead to the species' decline such that
the pristine crayfish is likely to become in danger of extinction in
the modeled scenarios. The best available information does not indicate
that the pristine crayfish's viability will decline so much that the
species is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout its range.
We then evaluated the range of the pristine crayfish to determine
if the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in
the foreseeable future in any significant portion of its range.
Although threats are similar throughout the range of the species, the
species' response is more pronounced in the Piney Creek AU. Due to
lower current resiliency, threats are having a greater impact in the
Piney Creek AU than elsewhere in the range. The Piney Creek AU exhibits
low current resiliency driven primarily by a low extent of occupancy
(few sites known within the stream) and lack of information regarding
reproduction in the species. Given the species' condition within the
Piney Creek AU, we have identified the unit as an area that may be in
danger of extinction due to the low extent of occupancy and low
reproduction/recruitment.
We then proceeded to the significance question, asking whether this
portion of the range is significant. Although the Piney Creek AU
contributes to the overall species-level representation and redundancy,
it does not contain any high-quality or high-value habitat or any
habitat or resources unique to that area
[[Page 57398]]
and necessary to the pristine crayfish's life history. In addition,
only 1 of the 27 known streams with species occurrence is located in
the Piney Creek AU. So this area does not contribute substantively to
the species' viability. This portion does not make up a large
geographic area of the range or contain a high proportion of the
species' habitat or populations. Accordingly, we do not find this
portion to be a significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find
the pristine crayfish is not currently in danger of extinction in a
significant portion of its range.
We next considered whether the pristine crayfish may be likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future in a
significant portion of its range. As discussed above, we determined 30
years to be the foreseeable future for which we can reasonably predict
the threats to the pristine crayfish and the species' response to those
threats.
Habitat destruction or modification and climate change are the
primary factors currently acting on or expected to act on the species
in the future at a rangewide scale. The species currently exhibits
moderate resiliency in seven of eight AUs and moderate species' level
representation and redundancy. Although threats are projected to impact
the species similarly across the range, the species' response is more
pronounced in some AUs due to lower resiliency where threats are having
a greater impact than elsewhere in the range. One AU (Caney Fork River-
Clifty Creek) is projected to remain in moderate resiliency in all but
the increased impact scenario in 2051. The remaining seven AUs are
projected to exhibit low or very low resiliency under scenarios 2 and 3
in 2036 and 2051. We considered whether the seven AUs that are
projected to exhibit low or very low resiliency in future scenarios may
be a portion of the range that could become in danger of extinction
within the foreseeable future. Although the future condition analyses
projects overall declines in AU resiliency, stream catchments with
species' occurrences are projected to remain in good condition within
each AU. Within the high-condition catchments, we expect that habitat
conditions will support sufficient pristine crayfish abundance and
reproduction. Although projections indicate low or very low future
resiliency in seven AUs, the remaining stream catchments in high
condition indicate that the pristine crayfish in these AUs will remain
on the landscape with sufficient viability. In addition, although some
declines in representation and redundancy are projected in the future,
we expect that the pristine crayfish will have sufficient adaptive
capacity and ability to withstand catastrophic change in the
foreseeable future. Accordingly, we determined that the pristine
crayfish is not likely to become an endangered species within a
significant portion of its range.
We found no portion of the pristine crayfish's range where the
biological condition of the species differs from its condition
elsewhere in its range such that the status of the species in that
portion warrants listing under the Act. Therefore, we find that the
species is not in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in
the foreseeable future in any significant portion of its range.
After assessing the best available information, we concluded that
the pristine crayfish is not in danger of extinction or likely to
become in danger of extinction throughout all of its range or in any
significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the
pristine 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 pristine crayfish species assessment form
and other supporting documents at https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2023-0115.
Peer Review
In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR
34270; July 1, 1994) and the Service's August 22, 2016, Director's Memo
on the Peer Review Process, we solicited independent scientific reviews
of the information contained in the pristine crayfish SSA report. The
Service sent the SSA report to four independent peer reviewers and
received one response. Results of this structured peer review process
can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2023-0115. We incorporated the results of these reviews, as
appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this
finding.
Tennessee Heelsplitter
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 to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland
species, including Tennessee heelsplitter (Lasmigona holstonia), as
endangered or threatened species under the Act. On September 27, 2011,
we published a 90-day finding (76 FR 59836) that the petition contained
substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted for
the species. This document constitutes our 12-month finding on the
April 20, 2010, petition to list the Tennessee heelsplitter under the
Act.
Summary of Finding
The Tennessee heelsplitter is a small freshwater mussel usually
less than 50 millimeters (2 inches) long. The species is a freshwater
mussel native to the New, Cumberland, and Tennessee River basins in
Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, and historically North Carolina.
The Tennessee heelsplitter predominantly inhabits spring-fed creeks and
small headwater streams with stable substrates and good water quality.
The species needs water with low to moderate flow, appropriate
temperatures for life-history functions, and presence of fish hosts for
successful reproduction.
Resources influencing the successful completion of each life stage
for Tennessee heelsplitter individuals include abundant host fish,
stable substrate, proximity to breeding individuals, small or headwater
streams, water with neutral pH and little to no contaminants, spring-
fed streams with low to moderate water flow, and a water temperature
range that allows for life-history functions (Service 2016a, p. 12).
Successful completion of each life stage affects the ability of
populations to withstand stochastic events (resiliency) and the
species' ability to withstand catastrophic events (redundancy) as well
as adapt to changing environmental conditions by way of genetic
exchange or respond to environmental diversity between occupied streams
(representation).
The population- and species-level resource needs of the Tennessee
heelsplitter include sufficient juvenile and breeding adult abundances
with broad distributions, suitable and abundant host fish, and habitat
connectivity. Resiliency of Tennessee heelsplitter populations (which
we defined as occupied stream reaches within analysis units (AUs)), as
well as representation and redundancy of the species, are influenced by
access to necessary resources.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Tennessee heelsplitter, and we evaluated all relevant factors
under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these threats. The threats affecting
the Tennessee heelsplitter's
[[Page 57399]]
biological status include siltation and sedimentation, pollution and
toxic spills, drought and floods, aquatic nuisance species, and
impoundments. These threats appear to have mostly localized extent and
moderate impact. The current risk of extinction is low. Further, the
Tennessee heelsplitter's current distribution has not substantially
changed from its known historical distribution. Sixty percent of AUs
are categorized as ``high'' or ``most'' habitat suitability and these
AUs are distributed throughout each river basin. Redundancy is high, as
our analysis indicates that suitable habitat exists throughout the
range of the Tennessee heelsplitter. Representation is maintained
across the range of historical and current occurrence in the
Cumberland, New, and Tennessee River basins. Additionally, available
information indicates the species' adaptive capacity will ensure
survival despite predicted climate impacts, particularly because of the
strong association with spring-fed streams that can act as cold-water
and drought refugia in the face of climate change. Therefore, after
assessing the best available information, we conclude that the
Tennessee heelsplitter is not in danger of extinction throughout all of
its range.
Based on projected habitat suitability for the two future
scenarios, future resiliency for the Tennessee heelsplitter is expected
to decrease slightly, but overall there will be 77 percent to 91
percent of suitable habitat available to the species, depending on the
modeled scenario. Multiple AUs maintain resiliency, or levels of
suitable habitat, in future-condition projections across the range and
are likely to help buffer changes in environmental conditions through
2040 and 2060. Further, the concentration of AUs with high resiliency
in the southwestern Virginia and northeastern Tennessee strongholds are
projected to remain intact. Connectivity of these high resiliency AUs
within the upper Tennessee representation unit (RU) bolster the
likelihood of persistence into the future.
In the future, stochastic events associated with threats to the
species will likely affect population resilience in parts of the range,
and these are more likely to occur or be observed in developed areas.
However, our future condition projections indicate Tennessee
heelsplitter resiliency is sufficient to withstand disturbance and
environmental stochasticity, due to prevalent suitable habitat and
life-history traits that reduce risk currently and into the future. The
Tennessee heelsplitter has several life-history traits that allow it to
adapt to changing conditions, such as the capability to transform on a
wide variety of common host fish species, occurring in varying stream
sizes, as well as tolerance of silty and sandy substrates and
depositional areas with low flows. Spring-fed streams where the
Tennessee heelsplitter is most frequently located are ubiquitous
throughout the species' range and have year-round groundwater
contributions with continuous flow and comparatively stable temperature
regimes. These characteristics are expected to bolster Tennessee
heelsplitter resilience in most AUs throughout the range into the
future and withstand projected climate effects. After assessing the
best available information, we conclude that the Tennessee heelsplitter
is not likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range.
We also evaluated the range of the Tennessee heelsplitter to
determine if the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to
become so in the foreseeable future in any significant portion of its
range. We identified the three RUs--Cumberland, New, and Tennessee
drainages--for evaluation. As described above, the threats are present
across all AUs within the range, but some are localized in effect,
though most threats have a low to moderate level of impact on the
species. The New and Cumberland RUs currently have large percentages
(100 percent and 75 percent, respectively) of suitable habitat, thus
these areas have high estimated current resiliency. Our future
conditions analysis indicates that none of the AUs in the New RU, and
only one of the AUs in the Cumberland RU, is projected to no longer
have suitable habitat to support the species. As such, the amount and
distribution of suitable habitat in high resiliency AUs are projected
to be maintained 40 years in the future in both the New and Cumberland
RUs, and we determined that the Tennessee heelsplitter is not in danger
of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in
the New or Cumberland RU.
The Tennessee RU comprises 132 AUs with varying levels of suitable
habitat; 57 percent of the AUs have a current condition level of high
or most resilience, and 43 percent are in a condition of moderate
resilience. Our future conditions analysis indicates that 4 to 14
percent of the AUs in the Tennessee RU could lose habitat suitability
within the next 40 years. Despite this potential loss of habitat
suitability, between 86 and 96 percent of the AUs are projected to
maintain suitable habitat, with widespread distribution throughout the
Tennessee RU portion of the range. The Tennessee heelsplitter is
expected to have sufficient resiliency in this RU for many decades.
Thus, we found that the Tennessee heelsplitter is not in danger of
extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in the
Tennessee RU.
After assessing the best available information, we concluded that
Tennessee heelsplitter is not in danger of extinction or likely to
become in danger of extinction throughout all of its range or in any
significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the
Tennessee heelsplitter 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 Tennessee heelsplitter species
assessment form and other supporting documents at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2023-0116.
Peer Review
In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR
34270; July 1, 1994) and the Service's August 22, 2016, Director's Memo
on the Peer Review Process we solicited independent scientific reviews
of the information contained in the Tennessee heelsplitter SSA report.
The Service sent the SSA report to five independent peer reviewers and
received two responses. Results of this structured peer review process
can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2023-0116. We incorporated the results of these reviews, as
appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this
finding.
New Information
We request that you submit any new information concerning the
taxonomy, biology, ecology, or status of, or stressors to, the
Alexander Archipelago wolf, Chihuahua catfish, Cooper's cave amphipod,
Georgia blind salamander, minute cave amphipod, Morrison's cave
amphipod, narrow-foot hygrotus diving beetle, pristine crayfish, or
Tennessee heelsplitter 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.
[[Page 57400]]
References Cited
A list of the references cited in each 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.).
Wendi Weber,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-18260 Filed 8-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P