Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Twelve Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species, 53336-53343 [2019-21605]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
53336
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
Dated: September 19, 2019.
Michael Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
■
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
2. In § 180.586, add alphabetically the
entry ‘‘Rice, grain’’ to the table in
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■
PART 180—[AMENDED]
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
§ 180.586 Clothianidin; tolerances for
residues.
*
*
*
*
Parts per
million
Commodity
*
*
*
*
*
Rice, grain ................................................................................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
ACTION:
[FR Doc. 2019–21540 Filed 10–4–19; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[4500090022]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Twelve Species Not
Warranted for Listing as Endangered
or Threatened Species
AGENCY:
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
Notice of findings.
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce
findings that 12 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
Berry Cave salamander, cobblestone
tiger beetle, Florida clamshell orchid,
longhead darter, Ocala vetch, Panamint
alligator lizard, Peaks of Otter
salamander, redlips darter, Scott riffle
beetle, southern hognose snake, yellow
anise tree, and yellow-cedar. However,
SUMMARY:
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
0.5
*
12/31/2024
The findings in this document
were made on October 7, 2019.
DATES:
Detailed descriptions of the
basis for each of these findings are
available on the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov under the
following docket numbers:
ADDRESSES:
Docket No.
Berry Cave salamander .............................................................................................................................................
Cobblestone tiger beetle ............................................................................................................................................
Florida clamshell orchid .............................................................................................................................................
Longhead darter .........................................................................................................................................................
Ocala vetch ................................................................................................................................................................
Panamint alligator lizard .............................................................................................................................................
Peaks of Otter salamander ........................................................................................................................................
Redlips darter .............................................................................................................................................................
Scott riffle beetle ........................................................................................................................................................
Southern hognose snake ...........................................................................................................................................
Yellow anise tree ........................................................................................................................................................
Yellow-cedar ...............................................................................................................................................................
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with RULES
*
Expiration date
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.
Species
Supporting information used to
prepare these findings is available for
public inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours, by
contacting the appropriate person, as
*
specified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. Please
submit any
new information, materials, comments,
or questions concerning these findings
to the appropriate person, as specified
FWS–R4–ES–2019–0048
FWS–R5–ES–2019–0074
FWS–R4–ES–2019–0075
FWS–R5–ES–2019–0076
FWS–R4–ES–2019–0077
FWS–R8–ES–2015–0105
FWS–R5–ES–2015–0106
FWS–R4–ES–2019–0078
FWS–R6–ES–2015–0114
FWS–R4–ES–2015–0063
FWS–R4–ES–2019–0079
FWS–R7–ES–2015–0025
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Species
Contact information
Berry Cave salamander ..................
Lee Andrews, Field Supervisor, Tennessee and Kentucky Ecological Services Field Offices, 502–695–
0468, ext. 108.
Tom Chapman, Supervisor, New England Field Office, 603–223–2541.
Roxanna Hinzman, Field Supervisor, South Florida Field Office, 772–469–4310.
John Schmidt, Project Leader, West Virginia Field Office, 304–636–6586.
Jay Herrington, Field Supervisor, North Florida Field Office, 904–731–3191.
Gjon Hazard, Biologist, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 760–431–9440, ext. 287.
Cindy Schulz, Supervisor, Virginia Field Office, 804–824–2426.
Lee Andrews, Field Supervisor, Tennessee and Kentucky Ecological Services Field Offices, 502–695–
0468, ext. 108.
Gibran Suleiman, Biologist, Kansas Ecological Services Field Office, 785–539–3474, ext. 114.
Cobblestone tiger beetle .................
Florida clamshell orchid ..................
Longhead darter ..............................
Ocala vetch .....................................
Panamint alligator lizard .................
Peaks of Otter salamander .............
Redlips darter ..................................
Scott riffle beetle .............................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
04:48 Oct 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
Species
Contact information
Southern hognose snake ................
Yellow anise tree ............................
Yellow-cedar ...................................
Tom McCoy, Field Supervisor, South Carolina Ecological Service Field Office, 843–727–4707, ext. 227.
Jay Herrington, Field Supervisor, North Florida Field Office, 904–731–3191.
Stewart Cogswell, Field Supervisor, Anchorage Field Office, 907–271–2787.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), please call the
Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with RULES
Background
Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we are required to
make a finding whether or not a
petitioned action is warranted within 12
months after receiving any petition for
which we have determined contained
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. ‘‘Warranted
but precluded’’ means that (a) the
petitioned action is warranted, but the
immediate proposal of a regulation
implementing the petitioned action is
precluded by other pending proposals to
determine whether species are
endangered or threatened species, and
(b) expeditious progress is being made
to add qualified species to the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants (Lists) and to remove from
the Lists species for which the
protections of the Act are no longer
necessary. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act
requires that we treat a petition for
which the requested action is found to
be warranted but precluded as though
resubmitted on the date of such finding,
that is, requiring that a subsequent
finding be made within 12 months of
that date. We must publish these 12month 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. 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
04:48 Oct 05, 2019
53337
Jkt 250001
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.
In considering whether a species may
meet the definition of an endangered
species or a threatened species because
of any of the five factors, we must look
beyond the mere exposure of the species
to the stressor to determine whether the
species responds to the stressor in a way
that causes actual impacts to the
species. If there is exposure to a stressor,
but no response, or only a positive
response, that stressor does not cause a
species to meet the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened
species. If there is exposure and the
species responds negatively, we
determine whether that stressor drives
or contributes to the risk of extinction
of the species such that the species
warrants listing as an endangered or
threatened species. The mere
identification of stressors that could
affect a species negatively is not
sufficient to compel a finding that
listing is or remains warranted. For a
species to be listed or remain listed, we
require evidence that these stressors are
operative threats to the species and its
habitat, either singly or in combination,
to the point that the species meets the
definition of an endangered or a
threatened species under the Act.
In conducting our evaluation of the
five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of
the Act to determine whether the Berry
Cave salamander (Gyrinophilus
gulolineatus), cobblestone tiger beetle
(Cicindela marginipennis), Prosthechea
cochleata var. triandra (Florida
clamshell orchid), longhead darter
(Percina macrocephala), Vicia ocalensis
(Ocala vetch), Panamint alligator lizard
(Elgaria panamintina), Peaks of Otter
salamander (Plethodon hubrichti),
redlips darter (Etheostoma maydeni),
Scott riffle beetle (Optioservus phaeus),
southern hognose snake (Heterodon
simus), Illicium parviflorum (yellow
anise tree), and Callitropsis nootkatensis
(yellow-cedar) meet the definition of
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
‘‘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. We reviewed the
petitions, information available in our
files, and other available published and
unpublished information. These
evaluations may include information
from recognized experts; Federal, State,
and tribal governments; academic
institutions; foreign governments;
private entities; and other members of
the public.
The species assessments for the Berry
Cave salamander, cobblestone tiger
beetle, Florida clamshell orchid,
longhead darter, Ocala vetch, Panamint
alligator lizard, Peaks of Otter
salamander, redlips darter, Scott riffle
beetle, southern hognose snake, yellow
anise tree, and yellow-cedar contain
more detailed biological information, a
thorough analysis of the listing factors,
and an explanation of why we
determined that these species do not
meet the definition of an endangered
species or a threatened 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
informational summaries for each of the
findings in this document.
Berry Cave Salamander
Previous Federal Actions
On January 22, 2003, we received a
petition from Dr. John Nolt requesting
that the Berry Cave salamander be listed
as an endangered species under the Act.
On March 18, 2010, we published a 90day finding in the Federal Register (75
FR 13068), concluding that the petition
presented substantial information
indicating that listing the Berry Cave
salamander may be warranted. On
March 22, 2011, we published a 12month finding in the Federal Register
(76 FR 15919) in which we stated that
listing the Berry Cave salamander as
endangered or threatened was
warranted primarily due to habitat
modification. However, listing was
precluded at that time by higher priority
actions, and the species was added to
the candidate species list. From 2011
through 2016, we addressed the status
of the Berry Cave salamander annually
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with RULES
53338
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
in our candidate notice of review, with
the determination that listing was
warranted, but precluded (see 76 FR
66370, October 26, 2011; 77 FR 69994,
November 21, 2012; 78 FR 70104,
November 22, 2013; 79 FR 72450,
December 5, 2014; 80 FR 80584,
December 24, 2015; 81 FR 87246,
December 2, 2016).
Therefore, we find that listing the
Berry Cave 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 Berry
Cave salamander species assessment
and other supporting documents (see
ADDRESSES, above).
Summary of Finding
Cobblestone Tiger Beetle
The Berry Cave salamander is a
member of the Tennessee cave
salamander species complex. It is
differentiated from other species by a
distinctive dark spot or stripe on the
anterior portion of the throat, a wider
head, and flatter snout. The species is
endemic to eastern Tennessee, where it
was known historically from ten caves.
The current range of the species is
similar to its historical range, and recent
surveys indicate the species currently
occurs in nine caves.
Water quality and availability are
fundamental to the survival of the Berry
Cave salamander. The underground
streams inhabited by Berry Cave
salamanders are dynamic and vary in
depth and velocity depending on local
precipitation. The Berry Cave
salamander is typically found resting on
the bottom of pools and underneath
cover, such as rocks, logs, and other
organic debris either in low-velocity
pools with mud substrate or in pools
with gravel or cobble substrate.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the Berry Cave
salamander, and we evaluated all
relevant factors under the five listing
factors, including any regulatory
mechanisms and conservation measures
addressing these stressors. The primary
stressors affecting the species’ biological
status include decreased substrate and
water quality. Since our previous 12month findings, additional surveys and
analysis of those data have provided a
better understanding of the Berry Cave
salamander. The surveys provided new
information regarding the species’
range, population dynamics and life
history. We incorporated this new
information into our status review and
found that despite impacts from
stressors, the species continues to
persist across most of its historical range
and has been found in additional caves
outside its known historical range.
Although we predict some continued
impacts from these stressors in the
foreseeable future, we anticipate the
species will remain viable with resilient
populations distributed within its
representative physiographic province.
Previous Federal Actions
VerDate Sep<11>2014
04:48 Oct 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
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 cobblestone tiger beetle,
as 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 information indicating that
listing the cobblestone tiger beetle may
be warranted. This notice constitutes
our 12-month finding on the April 20,
2010, petition to list the cobblestone
tiger beetle under the Act.
Summary of Finding
Cobblestone tiger beetles are
approximately 11 to 14 millimeters (0.4
to 0.6 inches) in length and have large
mandibles used to capture prey. Their
hardened forewings are dull olive with
a cream-colored border. When the
forewings are spread, their bright redorange abdomens are exposed.
The species occurs in several States
throughout the eastern United States
and into New Brunswick, Canada, and
lives in riverine or shoreline habitats
with cobble substrates. While there is no
overall population estimate of the
cobblestone tiger beetle, the species
likely functions within a
metapopulation structure. Its cobble bar
habitat is found in hydrological regimes
that undergo periods of intense scouring
or flooding that create, maintain, and
occasionally destroy the habitat.
Vegetation is also an important
component of the beetle’s habitat,
although plant species composition,
structure, and density parameters will
vary throughout the species’ range.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the cobblestone
tiger beetle, and we evaluated all
relevant factors under the five listing
factors, including any regulatory
mechanisms and conservation measures
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
addressing these stressors. The primary
stressors affecting the species’ biological
status include those related to changes
in the natural hydrological regime and
the effects of climate change, including
increased temperatures, flooding, and
storms. Our review indicates that
despite these stressors, the continued
persistence of occupied areas across the
species’ range provides sufficient
resiliency, redundancy, and
representation to sustain the species
beyond the near term. Despite some
reduction in its range, there is currently
representation across the majority of the
species’ historical range. Where extant,
the species has sufficient resiliency and
redundancy to withstand environmental
or demographic stochastic events as
well as catastrophic events. Therefore,
the risk of extinction is currently
extremely low. In the future, the species
is expected to retain its resiliency,
redundancy, and representation to a
sufficient degree such that the species
will not be in danger of extinction in the
foreseeable future.
Therefore, we find that listing the
cobblestone tiger 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
cobblestone tiger beetle species
assessment and other supporting
documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Florida Clamshell Orchid
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 Florida clamshell orchid,
as 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 information indicating that
listing the Florida clamshell orchid may
be warranted. This notice constitutes
our 12-month finding on the April 20,
2010, petition to list the Florida
clamshell orchid under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The Florida clamshell orchid is a
showy, flowering plant endemic to
southern Florida. The species grows
with the presence of a symbiotic fungus
attached to tree limbs or snags. The
orchid is found high in the tree canopy
of a variety of south Florida habitat
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
types: Pond apple slough, strand
swamp, dome swamp, rockland
hammock, coastal buttonwood
hammock, and mesic (moderately wet)
and hydric (wet) prairie hammock.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the Florida
clamshell orchid, and we evaluated all
relevant factors under the five listing
factors, including any regulatory
mechanisms and conservation measures
addressing these stressors. The primary
stressors affecting the species’ biological
status include habitat modification and
destruction due to sea level rise,
saltwater intrusion, and increasing
hurricane storm surge.
Despite these past and ongoing
stressors, the Florida clamshell orchid
remains extant in 15 of its 18 historical
populations, which provides
redundancy for the species. In addition,
these populations are highly resilient
because they exist in favorable habitat
conditions with host trees and adequate
hydrology and moisture regimes. In
addition, all populations (together
extending approximately 809,000
hectares (2,000,000 acres)) are on public
lands managed for conservation. Among
numerous conservation efforts, the
species is protected by the State of
Florida under the Regulated Plant Index
(which defines the categories of
regulated plants in the state and lists the
species in each category) and is the
subject of successful propagation and
reintroduction programs on the Florida
Panther National Wildlife Refuge. In the
foreseeable future, we anticipate sea
level rise will reduce the resiliency of
some populations and overall species
redundancy; however, we predict
inland populations to remain protected
and resilient such that the species will
not become endangered within the
foreseeable future.
Therefore, we find that listing the
Florida clamshell orchid 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 Florida
clamshell orchid species assessment
and other supporting documents (see
ADDRESSES, above).
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with RULES
Longhead Darter
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
04:48 Oct 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
aquatic, riparian, and wetland species,
including the longhead darter, as
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 information indicating that
listing the longhead darter may be
warranted. This notice constitutes our
12-month finding on the April 20, 2010,
petition to list the longhead darter
under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The longhead darter is a small
freshwater fish, approximately 10
centimeters (4 inches) long, with a
sharply pointed snout; brown, tan,
olive, or straw-colored back and upper
sides; a white or light yellow lower and
underside; and a black, blotchy lateral
line. The longhead darter is found in six
states throughout the eastern United
States. Rivers within the longhead
darter’s range are ecologically diverse.
River gradients range from low to high,
with variable substrate (e.g., rocky,
sandy with cobble, sandy with glacial
till) and variable alkalinity. Five of 10
historical populations are extant; the
species is relatively common in some of
these populations, and the distribution
is expanding in others. Of the remaining
five historical populations, three are
extirpated, and the statuses of two are
unknown. However, there are ongoing
reintroduction efforts in central Ohio,
and fish have already been reintroduced
in one extirpated population.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the longhead
darter, and we evaluated all relevant
factors under the five listing factors,
including any regulatory mechanisms
and conservation measures addressing
these stressors. The primary stressors
affecting the species’ biological status
include sedimentation, poor water
quality, habitat fragmentation, and, to a
lesser extent, effects of invasive species
and effects of climate change, including
increases in temperature, extreme
precipitation, and drought. Despite
these stressors and some level of decline
in abundance, including the loss of at
least three of its historical populations,
the species continues to maintain
resilient populations over time.
Although we predict some continued
impacts from these stressors in the
foreseeable future, we anticipate this
species will continue to have resilient
populations that are distributed widely
throughout its range.
Therefore, we find that listing the
longhead darter as an endangered
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
53339
species or threatened species under the
Act is not warranted. A detailed
discussion of the basis for this finding
can be found in the longhead darter
species assessment and other supporting
documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Ocala Vetch
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 Ocala vetch, as
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 information indicating that
listing the Ocala vetch may be
warranted. This notice constitutes our
12-month finding on the April 20, 2010,
petition to list the Ocala vetch under the
Act.
Summary of Finding
The Ocala vetch is an herbaceous,
relatively robust perennial vine found in
open marshy, shoreline habitats in
Marion, Lake, and Volusia Counties in
Florida. Four of the five areas where
Ocala vetch occur are along Alexander
Springs, Juniper Creek, Salt Springs,
and Silver Glen Springs within Ocala
National Forest, and the fifth area is
along Lake Dexter within Lake Woodruff
National Wildlife Refuge. The Ocala
vetch has nearly hairless stems attaining
lengths of 1.2 meters (3.9 feet) or more.
The flowers are 10 to 12 millimeters (0.4
to 0.5 inches) long, with lavender blue
to white petals and a faintly striped
banner petal. As with most plants, the
Ocala vetch requires sunlight, carbon
dioxide, water, soil, and essential
nutrients to survive and grow. It is a
dicot flowering plant that requires
insect pollination for seed production.
Adult plants produce flowers from
March to June.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the Ocala vetch,
and we evaluated all relevant factors
under the five listing factors, including
any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these
stressors. The primary stressor we
identified in our analysis was sea level
rise, which will likely have an impact
on the future condition of the species.
Historically, the species was known
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
53340
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
from three locations, but two additional
populations were discovered in 2018,
expanding its current number of
populations to five. In the future, we
anticipate sea level rise will result in
inundation of one of the species’ five
populations. Despite this primary
stressor, the remaining populations of
the Ocala vetch will continue to
maintain adequate resiliency, and
provide redundancy and representation
for the species to remain viable in the
foreseeable future.
Therefore, we find that listing the
Ocala vetch 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
Ocala vetch species assessment and
other supporting documents (see
ADDRESSES, above).
Panamint Alligator Lizard
Previous Federal Actions
On July 11, 2012, we received a
petition from the Center for Biological
Diversity to list 53 species of reptiles
and amphibians, including the
Panamint alligator lizard, as endangered
or threatened species under the Act. On
September 18, 2015, we published a 90day finding in the Federal Register (80
FR 56423), concluding that the petition
presented substantial information
indicating that listing the Panamint
alligator lizard may be warranted. This
notice constitutes our 12-month finding
on the July 11, 2012, petition to list the
Panamint alligator lizard under the Act.
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with RULES
Summary of Finding
The Panamint alligator lizard is a
secretive species known only from a
remote region in eastern California.
Individuals can grow to be about 15
centimeters (6 inches) long from snout
to vent, but have a tail that may extend
up to twice that length. Dorsally, they
range in color from beige to brown and
have seven to eight darker cross bands;
ventrally, they are whitish with gray
splotches. The basic life cycle of the
Panamint alligator lizard is typical of
most oviparous (egg-laying) lizards: Eggs
hatch to become nonbreeding juveniles,
which then grow and mature to become
breeding adults. Specifically, Panamint
alligator lizards are known from six
desert mountain ranges in Mono and
Inyo Counties, California (roughly north
to south): White, Inyo, Nelson, Coso,
Argus, and Panamint. There is little
information to suggest the species’
historical range differs from its current
range. Panamint alligator lizards are
typically associated with the region’s
few riparian areas, but the species also
VerDate Sep<11>2014
04:48 Oct 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
occurs in the more plentiful talus
(sloping) areas.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the Panamint
alligator lizard, and we evaluated all
relevant factors under the five listing
factors, including any regulatory
mechanisms and conservation measures
addressing these stressors. The primary
stressors affecting the species’ biological
status include reduced surface water,
degraded riparian vegetation, impacts to
refugia, crushing and other direct
mortality, collecting, disease, predation,
barriers to dispersal, small population
effects, and the effects of climate
change, including drought. While these
stressors are likely impacting
individuals, we do not have evidence of
population-level impacts. In addition,
while stressors caused by effects of
climate change could occur over time,
we do not expect them to be severe
enough to impact the overall viability of
the species. Lastly, ongoing Federal land
management actions and existing
regulatory mechanisms, which protect
lizards and their habitat in at least 98.7
percent of the species’ range, will
continue to ameliorate threats into the
foreseeable future.
Therefore, we find that listing the
Panamint alligator lizard 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
Panamint alligator lizard species
assessment and other supporting
documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Peaks of Otter Salamander
Previous Federal Actions
On July 11, 2012, we received a
petition from the Center for Biological
Diversity to list 53 species of reptiles
and amphibians, including the Peaks of
Otter salamander, as endangered or
threatened species under the Act. On
September 18, 2015, we published a 90day finding in the Federal Register (80
FR 56423), concluding that the petition
presented substantial information
indicating that listing the Peaks of Otter
salamander may be warranted. This
notice constitutes our 12-month finding
on the July 11, 2012, petition to list the
Peaks of Otter salamander under the
Act.
Summary of Finding
The Peaks of Otter salamander is a
narrow-ranging, endemic, terrestrial
salamander. It occurs in approximately
116 square kilometers (45 square miles)
of mature forested habitats of the
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
mountaintops and high-elevation areas
between Flat Top Mountain and White
Oak Ridge in Bedford and Botetourt
Counties, Virginia. The species’ habitat
is almost entirely restricted to the
Glenwood Ranger District of the George
Washington and Jefferson National
Forests and primarily between mile 77
and 84 of the National Park Service’s
Blue Ridge Parkway, with some limited
occurrences on adjacent private lands.
While there is no overall population
estimate for the Peaks of Otter
salamander, the best available
information indicates the species
historically and currently functions as a
single population; we subdivided this
population into 20 analytical units to
assess the species’ current and future
condition.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the Peak of Otter
salamander, and we evaluated all
relevant factors under the five listing
factors, including any regulatory
mechanisms and conservation measures
addressing these stressors. The primary
stressors affecting the species’ biological
status include activities (primarily
timber harvest) that disrupt or remove
the forest canopy, understory
vegetation, and cover objects;
competition with red-backed
salamanders; and changing climate
patterns of increasing temperatures and
changes in precipitation patterns.
Except for one of its 20 analytical units,
the Peaks of Otter salamander continues
to occupy most of its known historical
range. The species is well distributed
throughout its range, across a variety of
elevations and habitat types, and it
appears that there are some local
adaptations, which may be important to
the species’ ability to adapt to future
changes in environmental conditions.
The species currently has good
representation, redundancy, and
resiliency.
In the foreseeable future, a number of
potential threats could negatively affect
demographics or habitat, including
habitat degradation or loss, competition,
hybridization, and disease, all of which
may be exacerbated by effects of
changing climatic conditions. Our
future predictions of resiliency indicate
that the Peaks of Otter salamander is not
likely to be significantly affected by the
modelled threats and its analytical units
are not particularly vulnerable to
extirpation from stochastic events.
Because conservation measures that
protect the species and its habitat are
currently being implemented and have
been shown to be effective, it is likely
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
that the species will remain resilient
throughout its range in the future.
Therefore, we find that listing the
Peaks of Otter 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 Peaks
of Otter salamander species assessment
and other supporting documents (see
ADDRESSES, above).
Redlips Darter
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 ashy darter (Etheostoma
cinereum), as 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 information indicating that
listing the ashy darter may be
warranted. Since publication of the 90day finding, the redlips darter was
taxonomically split from the ashy darter
species complex based on
morphological and genetic differences.
On April 4, 2019, we published a 12month finding in the Federal Register
(84 FR 13237), concluding that listing
the ashy darter was not warranted.
However, we found it appropriate to
conduct a discretionary status review of
the redlips darter to determine whether
it warrants listing.
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with RULES
Summary of Finding
The redlips darter is a small (about 11
centimeters (4.5 inches) long), colorful
freshwater fish. This species is endemic
to the Cumberland River drainage and
occurs in four of its tributary systems in
Kentucky and Tennessee: The Obey
River, South Fork Cumberland River,
Buck Creek, and Rockcastle River. The
redlips darter is found on or near the
stream bottom, in clear pools or eddies
of medium to large upland streams, with
silt-free sand or gravel substrates
interspersed with large cobble, boulders,
and, often, stands of water willow.
Males and females become sexually
mature between 1 and 2 years of age.
Spawning occurs annually, starting as
early as January and ending in early
April, with peak activity in mid-March.
Aquatic macroinvertebrates, including
midge larvae, burrowing mayfly larvae,
and worms are the primary prey items
of the redlips darter. The maximum
VerDate Sep<11>2014
04:48 Oct 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
reported age of individuals is 52
months.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the redlips darter,
and we evaluated all relevant factors
under the five listing factors, including
any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these
stressors. The primary stressors affecting
the species’ biological status include
water quality degradation from siltation
and contaminants, and impoundments.
In spite of water quality threats that
have acted on the species historically
and impoundments that have and will
continue to limit connectivity between
its populations, the redlips darter has
expanded its range in each of the four
river or stream systems it inhabits. In
two of these systems, populations are
composed of tens of thousands of
individuals and have high resilience to
environmental perturbations. Only one
population currently has low resilience,
although it is improving. Based on these
population attributes, we found the
species is not in danger of extinction
currently or in the foreseeable future.
Therefore, we find that listing the
redlips darter as endangered or
threatened is not warranted. A detailed
discussion of the basis for this finding
can be found in the redlips darter
species assessment form and other
supporting documents (see ADDRESSES,
above).
Scott Riffle Beetle
Previous Federal Actions
On September 20, 2013, we received
a petition from WildEarth Guardians,
requesting that the Scott riffle beetle be
listed as an endangered or threatened
species under the Act. On January 12,
2016, we published a 90-day finding in
the Federal Register (81 FR 1368),
concluding that the petition presented
substantial information indicating that
listing the Scott riffle beetle may be
warranted. This notice constitutes our
12-month finding on the September 20,
2013, petition to list the Scott riffle
beetle under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The Scott riffle beetle is a small, dark
brown to black, aquatic beetle, 2.62 to
2.90 millimeters (0.10 to 0.11 inches) in
length. The Scott riffle beetle occurs in
only one known historical location at
Historic Lake Scott State Park in Kansas.
The beetle relies on the spring where it
lives for consistent groundwater
discharge; relatively shallow,
unpolluted, oxygenated water; coarse
substrate, such as medium sized rocks
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
53341
or broken concrete; an abundance of
aquatic macrophytes, algae, and
periphyton; and the availability of
adjacent terrestrial habitat.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the Scott riffle
beetle, and we evaluated all relevant
factors under the five listing factors,
including any regulatory mechanisms
and conservation measures addressing
these stressors. The primary stressors
affecting the species’ biological status
include decreased groundwater flow
related to regional water usage (which is
also affected by drought due to climate
change), water contamination, terrestrial
invasive plant species, and loss of
spring habitat. Our review found that,
currently, the Scott riffle beetle has
sufficient resiliency to withstand
stochastic events. Also, as far as we
know given past and recent survey
efforts, there has been no known
reduction in the species’ redundancy or
representation from historical
conditions. The species and spring
habitat itself are well protected from the
effects of potential stochastic and
catastrophic events because the spring
has unique characteristics including its
topographic location, elevation,
geographic location within the aquifer,
and direction of groundwater flow,
which provide a high level of resilience
to the biggest concern for the species:
Diminished spring discharge and flow.
In addition, the park surrounding the
species and spring habitat are managed
for their conservation by the State.
Thus, the key habitat features the beetle
relies on are currently present and will
likely continue to be present in the
foreseeable future.
Therefore, we find that listing the
Scott riffle 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 Scott riffle beetle
species assessment and other supporting
documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Southern Hognose Snake
Previous Federal Actions
On July 11, 2012, we received a
petition from the Center for Biological
Diversity to list 53 species of reptiles
and amphibians, including the southern
hognose snake, as endangered or
threatened species under the Act. On
July 1, 2015, we published a 90-day
finding in the Federal Register (80 FR
37568), concluding that the petition
presented substantial information
indicating that listing the southern
hognose snake may be warranted. This
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
53342
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
notice constitutes our 12-month finding
on the July 11, 2012, petition to list the
southern hognose snake under the Act.
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with RULES
Summary of Finding
The southern hognose snake is the
smallest of the hognose snakes and is
associated with xeric (dry) longleaf pine
savannah, flatwoods, and sandhills from
southeastern North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. The
species occupies upland habitat with
well-drained, sandy soils, characterized
by pine-dominated or pine-oak
woodland where the canopy is open
with a grassy understory.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the southern
hognose snake, and we evaluated all
relevant factors under the five listing
factors, including any regulatory
mechanisms and conservation measures
addressing these stressors. The primary
stressor affecting the species’ biological
status is habitat loss due to fire
suppression, timber harvesting, sea level
rise, conversion of land to agriculture,
and urbanization. We found that the
species’ resilience may be reduced into
the future, primarily due to loss of high
quality and quantity habitat. However,
populations persist across much of the
species’ historical range and 70 percent
are likely to remain on the landscape,
demonstrating a fairly high level of
resilience. In addition, the species has
sufficient redundancy and
representation with more than two
populations in six of its nine
representative units.
In the future, while the species is
expected to decline and some
populations are likely to become
extirpated, the species is expected to
retain viability with resilient
populations across much of its current
range. Despite loss of redundancy and
representation across its current range,
representation will remain relatively
high with seven of nine representative
units remaining occupied with multiple
populations. Redundancy and
representation will likely decline from
current conditions; however, the
southern hognose snake is expected to
remain viable into the foreseeable
future.
Therefore, we find that listing the
southern hognose snake 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
southern hognose snake species
assessment and other supporting
documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
04:48 Oct 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
Yellow Anise Tree
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 yellow anise tree, as
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 information indicating that
listing the yellow anise tree may be
warranted. This notice constitutes our
12-month finding on the April 20, 2010,
petition to list the yellow anise tree
under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The yellow anise tree is a large,
aromatic, perennial, evergreen shrub or
a small tree that can reach up to 6
meters (20 feet) in height. It is a
facultative wetland species found in
spring-fed wetlands, seepage slopes or
seepage streams, basin swamps,
baygalls, bottomland forests, and hydric
hammocks, from which they may
extend to mesic hammocks, xeric
hammocks, and wet or bottom
flatwoods. The species is endemic to
eastern Florida and occurs in three
metapopulations.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the yellow anise
tree, and we evaluated all relevant
factors under the five listing factors,
including any regulatory mechanisms
and conservation measures addressing
these stressors. The primary stressors
affecting the species’ biological status
include habitat destruction, water use,
over-harvest, and the effects of climate
change, including increased
temperatures, changes in precipitation
patterns, increased hurricanes and
storms, and sea level rise. Currently,
there is little evidence that these
stressors are limiting the growth and
reproduction of the species, and
populations have maintained moderate
to high resiliency. In addition, the life
history and adaptive capacity of the
species allows it to persist during times
of drought and wet conditions, as well
as during hurricane and storm events.
Although we project that changes in
climate patterns and habitat destruction
due to development will impact yellow
anise tree populations over the next 50
years, we predict that these impacts will
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
be minimal. Lastly, we anticipate the
species will continue to maintain
moderate to high resiliency populations
that are distributed across the historical
range of the species.
Therefore, we find that listing the
yellow anise tree 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 yellow anise tree
species assessment and other supporting
documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Yellow-Cedar
Previous Federal Actions
On June 24, 2014, we received a
petition from the Center for Biological
Diversity, The Boat Company, Greater
Southeast Alaska Conservation
Community, and Greenpeace to list
yellow-cedar as an endangered or
threatened species under the Act. On
April 10, 2015, we published a 90-day
finding in the Federal Register (80 FR
19259), concluding that the petition
presented substantial information
indicating yellow-cedar may warrant
listing. This notice constitutes our 12month finding on the June 24, 2014,
petition to list yellow-cedar under the
Act.
Summary of Finding
Yellow-cedar is a slow growing tree
that can live 500 to 700 years with
individuals documented up to 1,600
years old. Yellow-cedar has a
moderately broad geographic range,
extending from southern Alaska to
northern California, and occupies a
wide variety of ecological niches. It
reaches its largest size on well-drained
soils but can employ a strategy of slow,
shrub-like growth on the fringes of bogs
and other poorly drained soils where
nutrient availability is low. Yellowcedar reproduces sexually through seed
and asexually through vegetative
layering (rooting of branches that grow
into independent clones), but
regeneration through layering is more
common.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the yellow-cedar,
and we evaluated all relevant factors
under the five listing factors, including
any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these
stressors. The primary stressors affecting
the species’ biological status include the
effects of climate change (including
changes in temperature and
precipitation patterns), timber harvest,
fire, and herbivory. We found that
yellow-cedar is experiencing a decline
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
primarily caused by a changing climate
in the core of its range; therefore, it has
somewhat reduced resiliency. However,
the area affected represents less than 6
percent of the species’ range, and there
are still high levels of representation
and redundancy as demonstrated by its
high levels of genetic diversity and wide
distribution on the landscape,
respectively. Despite impacts from
effects of climate change, timber
harvest, fire, and other stressors, the
species is expected to persist in
thousands of stands across its range, in
a variety of ecological niches, with no
predicted decrease in overall genetic
diversity into the foreseeable future.
Therefore, we find that listing the
yellow-cedar 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 yellow-cedar species assessment
and other supporting documents (see
ADDRESSES, above).
Dated: September 16, 2019.
Margaret E. Everson,
Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Exercising the Authority of
the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
New Information
AGENCY:
We request that you submit any new
information concerning the taxonomy
of, biology of, ecology of, status of, or
stressors to the Berry Cave salamander,
cobblestone tiger beetle, Florida
clamshell orchid, longhead darter, Ocala
vetch, Panamint alligator lizard, Peaks
of Otter salamander, redlips darter,
Scott riffle beetle, southern hognose
snake, yellow anise tree, and yellowcedar 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
Lists of the references cited in the
petition findings are available on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov
in the dockets provided above in
ADDRESSES and upon request from the
appropriate person, as specified under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with RULES
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.).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
04:48 Oct 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
[FR Doc. 2019–21605 Filed 10–4–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 180831813–9170–02]
RIN 0648–XY024
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by
Catcher Vessels Less Than 50 Feet
Length Overall Using Hook-and-Line
Gear in the Central Regulatory Area of
the Gulf of Alaska
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed
fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels
less than 50 feet length overall (LOA)
using hook-and-line gear in the Central
Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska
(GOA). This action is necessary to
prevent exceeding the 2019 Pacific cod
total allowable catch apportioned to
catcher vessels less than 50 feet LOA
using hook-and-line gear in the Central
Regulatory Area of the GOA.
DATES: Effective 1200 hours, Alaska
local time (A.l.t.), October 3, 2019,
through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31,
2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josh
Keaton, 907–586–7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS
manages the groundfish fishery in the
GOA exclusive economic zone
according to the Fishery Management
Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of
Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council
under authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act. Regulations governing
fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance
with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50
CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
Regulations governing sideboard
protections for GOA groundfish
fisheries appear at subpart B of 50 CFR
part 680.
The 2019 Pacific cod total allowable
catch (TAC) apportioned to catcher
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
53343
vessels less than 50 feet LOA using
hook-and-line gear in the Central
Regulatory Area of the GOA is 831
metric tons (mt), as established by the
final 2019 and 2020 harvest
specifications for groundfish of the GOA
(84 FR 9416, March 14, 2019).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i),
the Administrator, Alaska Region,
NMFS (Regional Administrator) has
determined that the 2019 Pacific cod
TAC apportioned to catcher vessels less
than 50 feet LOA using hook-and-line
gear in the Central Regulatory Area of
the GOA will soon be reached.
Therefore, the Regional Administrator is
establishing a directed fishing
allowance of 821 mt and is setting aside
the remaining 10 mt as bycatch to
support other anticipated groundfish
fisheries. In accordance with
§ 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional
Administrator finds that this directed
fishing allowance has been reached.
Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting
directed fishing for Pacific cod by
catcher vessels less than 50 feet LOA
using hook-and-line gear in the Central
Regulatory Area of the GOA. While this
closure is effective the maximum
retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f)
apply at any time during a trip.
Classification
This action responds to the best
available information recently obtained
from the fishery. The Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA
(AA), finds good cause to waive the
requirement to provide prior notice and
opportunity for public comment
pursuant to the authority set forth at 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is
impracticable and contrary to the public
interest. This requirement is
impracticable and contrary to the public
interest as it would prevent NMFS from
responding to the most recent fisheries
data in a timely fashion and would
delay the directed fishing closure of
Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than
50 feet LOA using hook-and-line gear in
the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA.
NMFS was unable to publish a notice
providing time for public comment
because the most recent, relevant data
only became available as of October 1,
2019.
The AA also finds good cause to
waive the 30-day delay in the effective
date of this action under 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3). This finding is based upon
the reasons provided above for waiver of
prior notice and opportunity for public
comment.
This action is required by § 679.20
and is exempt from review under
Executive Order 12866.
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 194 (Monday, October 7, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53336-53343]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21605]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[4500090022]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Twelve Species Not
Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of findings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce
findings that 12 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 Berry Cave salamander, cobblestone tiger beetle, Florida
clamshell orchid, longhead darter, Ocala vetch, Panamint alligator
lizard, Peaks of Otter salamander, redlips darter, Scott riffle beetle,
southern hognose snake, yellow anise tree, and yellow-cedar. 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 October 7, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Detailed descriptions of the basis for each of these
findings are available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov
under the following docket numbers:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Docket No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Berry Cave salamander.......... FWS-R4-ES-2019-0048
Cobblestone tiger beetle....... FWS-R5-ES-2019-0074
Florida clamshell orchid....... FWS-R4-ES-2019-0075
Longhead darter................ FWS-R5-ES-2019-0076
Ocala vetch.................... FWS-R4-ES-2019-0077
Panamint alligator lizard...... FWS-R8-ES-2015-0105
Peaks of Otter salamander...... FWS-R5-ES-2015-0106
Redlips darter................. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0078
Scott riffle beetle............ FWS-R6-ES-2015-0114
Southern hognose snake......... FWS-R4-ES-2015-0063
Yellow anise tree.............. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0079
Yellow-cedar................... FWS-R7-ES-2015-0025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supporting information used to prepare these findings is available
for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, by
contacting the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any new information, materials,
comments, or questions concerning these findings to the appropriate
person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Contact information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Berry Cave salamander............. Lee Andrews, Field Supervisor,
Tennessee and Kentucky Ecological
Services Field Offices, 502-695-
0468, ext. 108.
Cobblestone tiger beetle.......... Tom Chapman, Supervisor, New England
Field Office, 603-223-2541.
Florida clamshell orchid.......... Roxanna Hinzman, Field Supervisor,
South Florida Field Office, 772-469-
4310.
Longhead darter................... John Schmidt, Project Leader, West
Virginia Field Office, 304-636-
6586.
Ocala vetch....................... Jay Herrington, Field Supervisor,
North Florida Field Office, 904-731-
3191.
Panamint alligator lizard......... Gjon Hazard, Biologist, Carlsbad
Fish and Wildlife Office, 760-431-
9440, ext. 287.
Peaks of Otter salamander......... Cindy Schulz, Supervisor, Virginia
Field Office, 804-824-2426.
Redlips darter.................... Lee Andrews, Field Supervisor,
Tennessee and Kentucky Ecological
Services Field Offices, 502-695-
0468, ext. 108.
Scott riffle beetle............... Gibran Suleiman, Biologist, Kansas
Ecological Services Field Office,
785-539-3474, ext. 114.
[[Page 53337]]
Southern hognose snake............ Tom McCoy, Field Supervisor, South
Carolina Ecological Service Field
Office, 843-727-4707, ext. 227.
Yellow anise tree................. Jay Herrington, Field Supervisor,
North Florida Field Office, 904-731-
3191.
Yellow-cedar...................... Stewart Cogswell, Field Supervisor,
Anchorage Field Office, 907-271-
2787.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please
call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
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 whether or not a petitioned action is
warranted within 12 months after receiving any petition for which we
have determined contained 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. ``Warranted but precluded'' means that (a) the petitioned
action is warranted, but the immediate proposal of a regulation
implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other pending
proposals to determine whether species are endangered or threatened
species, and (b) expeditious progress is being made to add qualified
species to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants
(Lists) and to remove from the Lists species for which the protections
of the Act are no longer necessary. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act
requires that we treat a petition for which the requested action is
found to be warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date
of such finding, that is, requiring that a subsequent finding be made
within 12 months of that date. We must publish these 12-month findings
in the Federal Register.
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations at part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing
species from, or reclassifying species on the Lists. 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.
In considering whether a species may meet the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the five
factors, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the
stressor to determine whether the species responds to the stressor in a
way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to
a stressor, but no response, or only a positive response, that stressor
does not cause a species to meet the definition of an endangered
species or a threatened species. If there is exposure and the species
responds negatively, we determine whether that stressor drives or
contributes to the risk of extinction of the species such that the
species warrants listing as an endangered or threatened species. The
mere identification of stressors that could affect a species negatively
is not sufficient to compel a finding that listing is or remains
warranted. For a species to be listed or remain listed, we require
evidence that these stressors are operative threats to the species and
its habitat, either singly or in combination, to the point that the
species meets the definition of an endangered or a threatened species
under the Act.
In conducting our evaluation of the five factors provided in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether the Berry Cave
salamander (Gyrinophilus gulolineatus), cobblestone tiger beetle
(Cicindela marginipennis), Prosthechea cochleata var. triandra (Florida
clamshell orchid), longhead darter (Percina macrocephala), Vicia
ocalensis (Ocala vetch), Panamint alligator lizard (Elgaria
panamintina), Peaks of Otter salamander (Plethodon hubrichti), redlips
darter (Etheostoma maydeni), Scott riffle beetle (Optioservus phaeus),
southern hognose snake (Heterodon simus), Illicium parviflorum (yellow
anise tree), and Callitropsis nootkatensis (yellow-cedar) meet the
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. We reviewed the petitions, information available in our
files, and other available published and unpublished information. These
evaluations may include information from recognized experts; Federal,
State, and tribal governments; academic institutions; foreign
governments; private entities; and other members of the public.
The species assessments for the Berry Cave salamander, cobblestone
tiger beetle, Florida clamshell orchid, longhead darter, Ocala vetch,
Panamint alligator lizard, Peaks of Otter salamander, redlips darter,
Scott riffle beetle, southern hognose snake, yellow anise tree, and
yellow-cedar contain more detailed biological information, a thorough
analysis of the listing factors, and an explanation of why we
determined that these species do not meet the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened 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
informational summaries for each of the findings in this document.
Berry Cave Salamander
Previous Federal Actions
On January 22, 2003, we received a petition from Dr. John Nolt
requesting that the Berry Cave salamander be listed as an endangered
species under the Act. On March 18, 2010, we published a 90-day finding
in the Federal Register (75 FR 13068), concluding that the petition
presented substantial information indicating that listing the Berry
Cave salamander may be warranted. On March 22, 2011, we published a 12-
month finding in the Federal Register (76 FR 15919) in which we stated
that listing the Berry Cave salamander as endangered or threatened was
warranted primarily due to habitat modification. However, listing was
precluded at that time by higher priority actions, and the species was
added to the candidate species list. From 2011 through 2016, we
addressed the status of the Berry Cave salamander annually
[[Page 53338]]
in our candidate notice of review, with the determination that listing
was warranted, but precluded (see 76 FR 66370, October 26, 2011; 77 FR
69994, November 21, 2012; 78 FR 70104, November 22, 2013; 79 FR 72450,
December 5, 2014; 80 FR 80584, December 24, 2015; 81 FR 87246, December
2, 2016).
Summary of Finding
The Berry Cave salamander is a member of the Tennessee cave
salamander species complex. It is differentiated from other species by
a distinctive dark spot or stripe on the anterior portion of the
throat, a wider head, and flatter snout. The species is endemic to
eastern Tennessee, where it was known historically from ten caves. The
current range of the species is similar to its historical range, and
recent surveys indicate the species currently occurs in nine caves.
Water quality and availability are fundamental to the survival of
the Berry Cave salamander. The underground streams inhabited by Berry
Cave salamanders are dynamic and vary in depth and velocity depending
on local precipitation. The Berry Cave salamander is typically found
resting on the bottom of pools and underneath cover, such as rocks,
logs, and other organic debris either in low-velocity pools with mud
substrate or in pools with gravel or cobble substrate.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Berry Cave salamander, and we evaluated all relevant factors
under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressors
affecting the species' biological status include decreased substrate
and water quality. Since our previous 12-month findings, additional
surveys and analysis of those data have provided a better understanding
of the Berry Cave salamander. The surveys provided new information
regarding the species' range, population dynamics and life history. We
incorporated this new information into our status review and found that
despite impacts from stressors, the species continues to persist across
most of its historical range and has been found in additional caves
outside its known historical range. Although we predict some continued
impacts from these stressors in the foreseeable future, we anticipate
the species will remain viable with resilient populations distributed
within its representative physiographic province.
Therefore, we find that listing the Berry Cave 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 Berry Cave salamander species assessment and other
supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Cobblestone Tiger Beetle
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 cobblestone tiger beetle, as
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 information
indicating that listing the cobblestone tiger beetle may be warranted.
This notice constitutes our 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010,
petition to list the cobblestone tiger beetle under the Act.
Summary of Finding
Cobblestone tiger beetles are approximately 11 to 14 millimeters
(0.4 to 0.6 inches) in length and have large mandibles used to capture
prey. Their hardened forewings are dull olive with a cream-colored
border. When the forewings are spread, their bright red-orange abdomens
are exposed.
The species occurs in several States throughout the eastern United
States and into New Brunswick, Canada, and lives in riverine or
shoreline habitats with cobble substrates. While there is no overall
population estimate of the cobblestone tiger beetle, the species likely
functions within a metapopulation structure. Its cobble bar habitat is
found in hydrological regimes that undergo periods of intense scouring
or flooding that create, maintain, and occasionally destroy the
habitat. Vegetation is also an important component of the beetle's
habitat, although plant species composition, structure, and density
parameters will vary throughout the species' range.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the cobblestone tiger beetle, and we evaluated all relevant factors
under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressors
affecting the species' biological status include those related to
changes in the natural hydrological regime and the effects of climate
change, including increased temperatures, flooding, and storms. Our
review indicates that despite these stressors, the continued
persistence of occupied areas across the species' range provides
sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and representation to sustain the
species beyond the near term. Despite some reduction in its range,
there is currently representation across the majority of the species'
historical range. Where extant, the species has sufficient resiliency
and redundancy to withstand environmental or demographic stochastic
events as well as catastrophic events. Therefore, the risk of
extinction is currently extremely low. In the future, the species is
expected to retain its resiliency, redundancy, and representation to a
sufficient degree such that the species will not be in danger of
extinction in the foreseeable future.
Therefore, we find that listing the cobblestone tiger 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 cobblestone tiger beetle species assessment and other
supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Florida Clamshell Orchid
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 Florida clamshell orchid, as
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 information
indicating that listing the Florida clamshell orchid may be warranted.
This notice constitutes our 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010,
petition to list the Florida clamshell orchid under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The Florida clamshell orchid is a showy, flowering plant endemic to
southern Florida. The species grows with the presence of a symbiotic
fungus attached to tree limbs or snags. The orchid is found high in the
tree canopy of a variety of south Florida habitat
[[Page 53339]]
types: Pond apple slough, strand swamp, dome swamp, rockland hammock,
coastal buttonwood hammock, and mesic (moderately wet) and hydric (wet)
prairie hammock.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Florida clamshell orchid, and we evaluated all relevant factors
under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressors
affecting the species' biological status include habitat modification
and destruction due to sea level rise, saltwater intrusion, and
increasing hurricane storm surge.
Despite these past and ongoing stressors, the Florida clamshell
orchid remains extant in 15 of its 18 historical populations, which
provides redundancy for the species. In addition, these populations are
highly resilient because they exist in favorable habitat conditions
with host trees and adequate hydrology and moisture regimes. In
addition, all populations (together extending approximately 809,000
hectares (2,000,000 acres)) are on public lands managed for
conservation. Among numerous conservation efforts, the species is
protected by the State of Florida under the Regulated Plant Index
(which defines the categories of regulated plants in the state and
lists the species in each category) and is the subject of successful
propagation and reintroduction programs on the Florida Panther National
Wildlife Refuge. In the foreseeable future, we anticipate sea level
rise will reduce the resiliency of some populations and overall species
redundancy; however, we predict inland populations to remain protected
and resilient such that the species will not become endangered within
the foreseeable future.
Therefore, we find that listing the Florida clamshell orchid 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 Florida clamshell orchid species assessment and other
supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Longhead Darter
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 longhead darter, as 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 information indicating that listing
the longhead darter may be warranted. This notice constitutes our 12-
month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to list the longhead
darter under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The longhead darter is a small freshwater fish, approximately 10
centimeters (4 inches) long, with a sharply pointed snout; brown, tan,
olive, or straw-colored back and upper sides; a white or light yellow
lower and underside; and a black, blotchy lateral line. The longhead
darter is found in six states throughout the eastern United States.
Rivers within the longhead darter's range are ecologically diverse.
River gradients range from low to high, with variable substrate (e.g.,
rocky, sandy with cobble, sandy with glacial till) and variable
alkalinity. Five of 10 historical populations are extant; the species
is relatively common in some of these populations, and the distribution
is expanding in others. Of the remaining five historical populations,
three are extirpated, and the statuses of two are unknown. However,
there are ongoing reintroduction efforts in central Ohio, and fish have
already been reintroduced in one extirpated population.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the longhead darter, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the
five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressors
affecting the species' biological status include sedimentation, poor
water quality, habitat fragmentation, and, to a lesser extent, effects
of invasive species and effects of climate change, including increases
in temperature, extreme precipitation, and drought. Despite these
stressors and some level of decline in abundance, including the loss of
at least three of its historical populations, the species continues to
maintain resilient populations over time. Although we predict some
continued impacts from these stressors in the foreseeable future, we
anticipate this species will continue to have resilient populations
that are distributed widely throughout its range.
Therefore, we find that listing the longhead darter 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 longhead darter species assessment and other supporting
documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Ocala Vetch
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 Ocala vetch, as 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 information indicating that listing
the Ocala vetch may be warranted. This notice constitutes our 12-month
finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to list the Ocala vetch under
the Act.
Summary of Finding
The Ocala vetch is an herbaceous, relatively robust perennial vine
found in open marshy, shoreline habitats in Marion, Lake, and Volusia
Counties in Florida. Four of the five areas where Ocala vetch occur are
along Alexander Springs, Juniper Creek, Salt Springs, and Silver Glen
Springs within Ocala National Forest, and the fifth area is along Lake
Dexter within Lake Woodruff National Wildlife Refuge. The Ocala vetch
has nearly hairless stems attaining lengths of 1.2 meters (3.9 feet) or
more. The flowers are 10 to 12 millimeters (0.4 to 0.5 inches) long,
with lavender blue to white petals and a faintly striped banner petal.
As with most plants, the Ocala vetch requires sunlight, carbon dioxide,
water, soil, and essential nutrients to survive and grow. It is a dicot
flowering plant that requires insect pollination for seed production.
Adult plants produce flowers from March to June.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Ocala vetch, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the
five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressor
we identified in our analysis was sea level rise, which will likely
have an impact on the future condition of the species. Historically,
the species was known
[[Page 53340]]
from three locations, but two additional populations were discovered in
2018, expanding its current number of populations to five. In the
future, we anticipate sea level rise will result in inundation of one
of the species' five populations. Despite this primary stressor, the
remaining populations of the Ocala vetch will continue to maintain
adequate resiliency, and provide redundancy and representation for the
species to remain viable in the foreseeable future.
Therefore, we find that listing the Ocala vetch 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
Ocala vetch species assessment and other supporting documents (see
ADDRESSES, above).
Panamint Alligator Lizard
Previous Federal Actions
On July 11, 2012, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity to list 53 species of reptiles and amphibians,
including the Panamint alligator lizard, as endangered or threatened
species under the Act. On September 18, 2015, we published a 90-day
finding in the Federal Register (80 FR 56423), concluding that the
petition presented substantial information indicating that listing the
Panamint alligator lizard may be warranted. This notice constitutes our
12-month finding on the July 11, 2012, petition to list the Panamint
alligator lizard under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The Panamint alligator lizard is a secretive species known only
from a remote region in eastern California. Individuals can grow to be
about 15 centimeters (6 inches) long from snout to vent, but have a
tail that may extend up to twice that length. Dorsally, they range in
color from beige to brown and have seven to eight darker cross bands;
ventrally, they are whitish with gray splotches. The basic life cycle
of the Panamint alligator lizard is typical of most oviparous (egg-
laying) lizards: Eggs hatch to become nonbreeding juveniles, which then
grow and mature to become breeding adults. Specifically, Panamint
alligator lizards are known from six desert mountain ranges in Mono and
Inyo Counties, California (roughly north to south): White, Inyo,
Nelson, Coso, Argus, and Panamint. There is little information to
suggest the species' historical range differs from its current range.
Panamint alligator lizards are typically associated with the region's
few riparian areas, but the species also occurs in the more plentiful
talus (sloping) areas.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Panamint alligator lizard, and we evaluated all relevant factors
under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressors
affecting the species' biological status include reduced surface water,
degraded riparian vegetation, impacts to refugia, crushing and other
direct mortality, collecting, disease, predation, barriers to
dispersal, small population effects, and the effects of climate change,
including drought. While these stressors are likely impacting
individuals, we do not have evidence of population-level impacts. In
addition, while stressors caused by effects of climate change could
occur over time, we do not expect them to be severe enough to impact
the overall viability of the species. Lastly, ongoing Federal land
management actions and existing regulatory mechanisms, which protect
lizards and their habitat in at least 98.7 percent of the species'
range, will continue to ameliorate threats into the foreseeable future.
Therefore, we find that listing the Panamint alligator lizard 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 Panamint alligator lizard species assessment and other
supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Peaks of Otter Salamander
Previous Federal Actions
On July 11, 2012, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity to list 53 species of reptiles and amphibians,
including the Peaks of Otter salamander, as endangered or threatened
species under the Act. On September 18, 2015, we published a 90-day
finding in the Federal Register (80 FR 56423), concluding that the
petition presented substantial information indicating that listing the
Peaks of Otter salamander may be warranted. This notice constitutes our
12-month finding on the July 11, 2012, petition to list the Peaks of
Otter salamander under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The Peaks of Otter salamander is a narrow-ranging, endemic,
terrestrial salamander. It occurs in approximately 116 square
kilometers (45 square miles) of mature forested habitats of the
mountaintops and high-elevation areas between Flat Top Mountain and
White Oak Ridge in Bedford and Botetourt Counties, Virginia. The
species' habitat is almost entirely restricted to the Glenwood Ranger
District of the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests and
primarily between mile 77 and 84 of the National Park Service's Blue
Ridge Parkway, with some limited occurrences on adjacent private lands.
While there is no overall population estimate for the Peaks of Otter
salamander, the best available information indicates the species
historically and currently functions as a single population; we
subdivided this population into 20 analytical units to assess the
species' current and future condition.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Peak of Otter salamander, and we evaluated all relevant factors
under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressors
affecting the species' biological status include activities (primarily
timber harvest) that disrupt or remove the forest canopy, understory
vegetation, and cover objects; competition with red-backed salamanders;
and changing climate patterns of increasing temperatures and changes in
precipitation patterns. Except for one of its 20 analytical units, the
Peaks of Otter salamander continues to occupy most of its known
historical range. The species is well distributed throughout its range,
across a variety of elevations and habitat types, and it appears that
there are some local adaptations, which may be important to the
species' ability to adapt to future changes in environmental
conditions. The species currently has good representation, redundancy,
and resiliency.
In the foreseeable future, a number of potential threats could
negatively affect demographics or habitat, including habitat
degradation or loss, competition, hybridization, and disease, all of
which may be exacerbated by effects of changing climatic conditions.
Our future predictions of resiliency indicate that the Peaks of Otter
salamander is not likely to be significantly affected by the modelled
threats and its analytical units are not particularly vulnerable to
extirpation from stochastic events. Because conservation measures that
protect the species and its habitat are currently being implemented and
have been shown to be effective, it is likely
[[Page 53341]]
that the species will remain resilient throughout its range in the
future.
Therefore, we find that listing the Peaks of Otter 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 Peaks of Otter salamander species assessment and other
supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Redlips Darter
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 ashy darter (Etheostoma cinereum),
as 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 information
indicating that listing the ashy darter may be warranted. Since
publication of the 90-day finding, the redlips darter was taxonomically
split from the ashy darter species complex based on morphological and
genetic differences. On April 4, 2019, we published a 12-month finding
in the Federal Register (84 FR 13237), concluding that listing the ashy
darter was not warranted. However, we found it appropriate to conduct a
discretionary status review of the redlips darter to determine whether
it warrants listing.
Summary of Finding
The redlips darter is a small (about 11 centimeters (4.5 inches)
long), colorful freshwater fish. This species is endemic to the
Cumberland River drainage and occurs in four of its tributary systems
in Kentucky and Tennessee: The Obey River, South Fork Cumberland River,
Buck Creek, and Rockcastle River. The redlips darter is found on or
near the stream bottom, in clear pools or eddies of medium to large
upland streams, with silt-free sand or gravel substrates interspersed
with large cobble, boulders, and, often, stands of water willow. Males
and females become sexually mature between 1 and 2 years of age.
Spawning occurs annually, starting as early as January and ending in
early April, with peak activity in mid-March. Aquatic
macroinvertebrates, including midge larvae, burrowing mayfly larvae,
and worms are the primary prey items of the redlips darter. The maximum
reported age of individuals is 52 months.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the redlips darter, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the
five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressors
affecting the species' biological status include water quality
degradation from siltation and contaminants, and impoundments. In spite
of water quality threats that have acted on the species historically
and impoundments that have and will continue to limit connectivity
between its populations, the redlips darter has expanded its range in
each of the four river or stream systems it inhabits. In two of these
systems, populations are composed of tens of thousands of individuals
and have high resilience to environmental perturbations. Only one
population currently has low resilience, although it is improving.
Based on these population attributes, we found the species is not in
danger of extinction currently or in the foreseeable future.
Therefore, we find that listing the redlips darter as endangered or
threatened is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for
this finding can be found in the redlips darter species assessment form
and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Scott Riffle Beetle
Previous Federal Actions
On September 20, 2013, we received a petition from WildEarth
Guardians, requesting that the Scott riffle beetle be listed as an
endangered or threatened species under the Act. On January 12, 2016, we
published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (81 FR 1368),
concluding that the petition presented substantial information
indicating that listing the Scott riffle beetle may be warranted. This
notice constitutes our 12-month finding on the September 20, 2013,
petition to list the Scott riffle beetle under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The Scott riffle beetle is a small, dark brown to black, aquatic
beetle, 2.62 to 2.90 millimeters (0.10 to 0.11 inches) in length. The
Scott riffle beetle occurs in only one known historical location at
Historic Lake Scott State Park in Kansas. The beetle relies on the
spring where it lives for consistent groundwater discharge; relatively
shallow, unpolluted, oxygenated water; coarse substrate, such as medium
sized rocks or broken concrete; an abundance of aquatic macrophytes,
algae, and periphyton; and the availability of adjacent terrestrial
habitat.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Scott riffle beetle, and we evaluated all relevant factors under
the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressors
affecting the species' biological status include decreased groundwater
flow related to regional water usage (which is also affected by drought
due to climate change), water contamination, terrestrial invasive plant
species, and loss of spring habitat. Our review found that, currently,
the Scott riffle beetle has sufficient resiliency to withstand
stochastic events. Also, as far as we know given past and recent survey
efforts, there has been no known reduction in the species' redundancy
or representation from historical conditions. The species and spring
habitat itself are well protected from the effects of potential
stochastic and catastrophic events because the spring has unique
characteristics including its topographic location, elevation,
geographic location within the aquifer, and direction of groundwater
flow, which provide a high level of resilience to the biggest concern
for the species: Diminished spring discharge and flow. In addition, the
park surrounding the species and spring habitat are managed for their
conservation by the State. Thus, the key habitat features the beetle
relies on are currently present and will likely continue to be present
in the foreseeable future.
Therefore, we find that listing the Scott riffle 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 Scott riffle beetle species assessment and other
supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Southern Hognose Snake
Previous Federal Actions
On July 11, 2012, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity to list 53 species of reptiles and amphibians,
including the southern hognose snake, as endangered or threatened
species under the Act. On July 1, 2015, we published a 90-day finding
in the Federal Register (80 FR 37568), concluding that the petition
presented substantial information indicating that listing the southern
hognose snake may be warranted. This
[[Page 53342]]
notice constitutes our 12-month finding on the July 11, 2012, petition
to list the southern hognose snake under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The southern hognose snake is the smallest of the hognose snakes
and is associated with xeric (dry) longleaf pine savannah, flatwoods,
and sandhills from southeastern North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, and Florida. The species occupies upland habitat with well-
drained, sandy soils, characterized by pine-dominated or pine-oak
woodland where the canopy is open with a grassy understory.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the southern hognose snake, and we evaluated all relevant factors
under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressor
affecting the species' biological status is habitat loss due to fire
suppression, timber harvesting, sea level rise, conversion of land to
agriculture, and urbanization. We found that the species' resilience
may be reduced into the future, primarily due to loss of high quality
and quantity habitat. However, populations persist across much of the
species' historical range and 70 percent are likely to remain on the
landscape, demonstrating a fairly high level of resilience. In
addition, the species has sufficient redundancy and representation with
more than two populations in six of its nine representative units.
In the future, while the species is expected to decline and some
populations are likely to become extirpated, the species is expected to
retain viability with resilient populations across much of its current
range. Despite loss of redundancy and representation across its current
range, representation will remain relatively high with seven of nine
representative units remaining occupied with multiple populations.
Redundancy and representation will likely decline from current
conditions; however, the southern hognose snake is expected to remain
viable into the foreseeable future.
Therefore, we find that listing the southern hognose snake 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 southern hognose snake species assessment and other
supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Yellow Anise Tree
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 yellow anise tree, as 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 information indicating that listing
the yellow anise tree may be warranted. This notice constitutes our 12-
month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to list the yellow anise
tree under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The yellow anise tree is a large, aromatic, perennial, evergreen
shrub or a small tree that can reach up to 6 meters (20 feet) in
height. It is a facultative wetland species found in spring-fed
wetlands, seepage slopes or seepage streams, basin swamps, baygalls,
bottomland forests, and hydric hammocks, from which they may extend to
mesic hammocks, xeric hammocks, and wet or bottom flatwoods. The
species is endemic to eastern Florida and occurs in three
metapopulations.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the yellow anise tree, and we evaluated all relevant factors under
the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressors
affecting the species' biological status include habitat destruction,
water use, over-harvest, and the effects of climate change, including
increased temperatures, changes in precipitation patterns, increased
hurricanes and storms, and sea level rise. Currently, there is little
evidence that these stressors are limiting the growth and reproduction
of the species, and populations have maintained moderate to high
resiliency. In addition, the life history and adaptive capacity of the
species allows it to persist during times of drought and wet
conditions, as well as during hurricane and storm events. Although we
project that changes in climate patterns and habitat destruction due to
development will impact yellow anise tree populations over the next 50
years, we predict that these impacts will be minimal. Lastly, we
anticipate the species will continue to maintain moderate to high
resiliency populations that are distributed across the historical range
of the species.
Therefore, we find that listing the yellow anise tree 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 yellow anise tree species assessment and other supporting
documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Yellow-Cedar
Previous Federal Actions
On June 24, 2014, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity, The Boat Company, Greater Southeast Alaska
Conservation Community, and Greenpeace to list yellow-cedar as an
endangered or threatened species under the Act. On April 10, 2015, we
published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (80 FR 19259),
concluding that the petition presented substantial information
indicating yellow-cedar may warrant listing. This notice constitutes
our 12-month finding on the June 24, 2014, petition to list yellow-
cedar under the Act.
Summary of Finding
Yellow-cedar is a slow growing tree that can live 500 to 700 years
with individuals documented up to 1,600 years old. Yellow-cedar has a
moderately broad geographic range, extending from southern Alaska to
northern California, and occupies a wide variety of ecological niches.
It reaches its largest size on well-drained soils but can employ a
strategy of slow, shrub-like growth on the fringes of bogs and other
poorly drained soils where nutrient availability is low. Yellow-cedar
reproduces sexually through seed and asexually through vegetative
layering (rooting of branches that grow into independent clones), but
regeneration through layering is more common.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the yellow-cedar, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the
five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressors
affecting the species' biological status include the effects of climate
change (including changes in temperature and precipitation patterns),
timber harvest, fire, and herbivory. We found that yellow-cedar is
experiencing a decline
[[Page 53343]]
primarily caused by a changing climate in the core of its range;
therefore, it has somewhat reduced resiliency. However, the area
affected represents less than 6 percent of the species' range, and
there are still high levels of representation and redundancy as
demonstrated by its high levels of genetic diversity and wide
distribution on the landscape, respectively. Despite impacts from
effects of climate change, timber harvest, fire, and other stressors,
the species is expected to persist in thousands of stands across its
range, in a variety of ecological niches, with no predicted decrease in
overall genetic diversity into the foreseeable future.
Therefore, we find that listing the yellow-cedar 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
yellow-cedar species assessment 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 the
Berry Cave salamander, cobblestone tiger beetle, Florida clamshell
orchid, longhead darter, Ocala vetch, Panamint alligator lizard, Peaks
of Otter salamander, redlips darter, Scott riffle beetle, southern
hognose snake, yellow anise tree, and yellow-cedar 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
Lists of the references cited in the petition findings are
available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov in the dockets
provided above in ADDRESSES and upon request from the appropriate
person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
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.).
Dated: September 16, 2019.
Margaret E. Everson,
Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising
the Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-21605 Filed 10-4-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
