Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Three Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species, 14227-14232 [2022-05331]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules
requirements for all appropriate
inquiries if such parties comply with
the procedures provided in the ASTM
E1527–21, ‘‘Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments: Phase
I Environmental Site Assessment
Process.’’ EPA determined that it is
reasonable to promulgate this
clarification as a direct final rule that is
effective immediately, rather than delay
promulgation of the clarification until
after receipt and consideration of public
comments. EPA made this
determination based upon the Agency’s
finding that the ASTM E1527–21
standard is compliant with the All
Appropriate Inquiries Rule, and the
Agency sees no reason to delay allowing
for its use in conducting all appropriate
inquiries.
The Agency notes that this action will
not require any party to use the ASTM
E1527–21 standard. Any party
conducting all appropriate inquiries to
comply with CERCLA’s bona fide
prospective purchaser, contiguous
property owner, and innocent
landowner liability protections may
continue to follow the provisions of the
All Appropriate Inquiries Rule at 40
CFR part 312, or continue to use either
the ASTM E1527–13 standard or use the
ASTM E2247–16 standard.
This proposed action merely will
allow for the use of the ASTM E1527–
21 ‘‘Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments: Phase
I Environmental Site Assessment
Process’’ for those parties purchasing
potentially contaminated properties
who want to use the ASTM E1527–21
standard in lieu of the following specific
requirements of the All Appropriate
Inquiries Rule.
The Agency notes that there are no
legally significant differences between
the regulatory requirements and the
ASTM E1527 standards. To facilitate an
understanding of the slight differences
between the All Appropriate Inquiries
Rule, the ASTM E1527–13 ‘‘Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment
Standard,’’ and the revised ASTM
E1527–21 ‘‘Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments: Phase
I Environmental Site Assessment
Process,’’ as well as the applicability of
the E1527–21 standard for certain types
of properties, EPA developed, and
placed in the docket for this proposed
action, the document ‘‘Comparison of
All Appropriate Inquiries Regulation,
the ASTM E1527–13 Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment Process,
and ASTM E1527–21 Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment
Process.’’ The document provides a
comparison of the two ASTM E1527
standards.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Mar 11, 2022
Jkt 256001
EPA’s proposed action includes no
changes to the All Appropriate Inquiries
Rule other than to add an additional
reference to the new ASTM E1527–21
standard. EPA is not seeking comments
on the standards and practices included
in the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule
published at 40 CFR part 312. Also, EPA
is not seeking comments on the ASTM
E1527–21 standard. EPA’s only action
with this proposed rule is recognition of
the ASTM E1527–21 standard as
compliant with the All Appropriate
Inquiries Rule and, therefore, it is only
this action on which the Agency is
seeking comment.
EPA is proposing this action because
the Agency wants to provide additional
flexibility for brownfields grant
recipients or other entities that may
benefit from the use of the ASTM
E1527–21 standard. We believe that this
proposed action will allow for the use
of a tailored standard that was
developed by a recognized standards
developing organization, reviewed by
EPA, and determined to be equivalent to
the Agency’s All Appropriate Inquiries
Rule. This action does not disallow the
use of the previously recognized
standards (ASTM E1527–13 or ASTM
E2247–16), and it will not alter the
requirements of the previously
promulgated All Appropriate Inquiries
Rule. In addition, this proposal
potentially will increase flexibility for
some parties who may make use of the
new standard, without placing any
additional burden on those parties who
prefer to use either the ASTM E1527–13
standard or the ASTM E2247–16 or to
follow the requirements of the All
Appropriate Inquiries Rule when
conducting all appropriate inquiries.
By proposing this action, EPA is
fulfilling the intent and requirements of
the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA), Public Law
104–113.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
For a complete discussion of all of the
administrative requirements applicable
to this action, see the discussion in the
‘‘Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews’’ section to the preamble for the
direct final rule that is published in the
‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section in this
issue of the Federal Register.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993) and Executive
Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011), this proposed action is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.
This action merely amends the All
Appropriate Inquiries Rule to reference
ASTM International’s E1527–21
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
14227
‘‘Standard Practice for Environmental
Site Assessments: Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment
Process’’ and allow for its use to satisfy
the requirements for conducting all
appropriate inquiries under CERCLA.
This action does not impose any
requirements on any entity, including
small entities. Therefore, pursuant to
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.), after considering the
economic impacts of this action on
small entities, I certify that this action
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 312
Administrative practice and
procedure, Hazardous substances.
Barry N. Breen,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of
Land and Emergency Management.
[FR Doc. 2022–05260 Filed 3–11–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Three Species Not
Warranted for Listing as Endangered
or Threatened Species
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notification of findings.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce
findings that three species are not
warranted for listing as endangered or
threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). After a thorough review
of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we find that it
is not warranted at this time to list
Blanco blind salamander (Eurycea
robusta), Georgia bully (Sideroxylon
thornei), and Rio Grande cooter
(Pseudemys gorzugi). 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 March 14, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Detailed descriptions of the
bases for these findings are available on
the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov under the
following docket numbers:
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
14228
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Species
Docket No.
Blanco blind salamander ................................................................................................................................................
Georgia bully ...................................................................................................................................................................
Rio Grande cooter ..........................................................................................................................................................
Those descriptions are also available
by contacting the appropriate person as
specified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any
new information, materials, comments,
or questions concerning this finding to
the appropriate person, as specified
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Species
Contact information
Blanco blind salamander and Rio Grande cooter ....................................
Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, adam_zerrenner@fws.gov, 512–490–0057 x248.
Peter Maholland, Deputy Field Supervisor, Georgia Ecological Services
Field Office, peter_maholland@fws.gov, 706–208–7512.
Georgia bully ............................................................................................
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
FWS–R2–ES–2021–0128
FWS–R4–ES–2021–0129
FWS–R2–ES–2021–0132
Individuals in the United States who
are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or
have a speech disability may dial 711
(TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services.
Individuals outside the United States
should use the relay services offered
within their country to make
international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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:
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 contains
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted
(‘‘12-month finding’’). We must make a
finding that the petitioned action is: (1)
Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3)
warranted, but precluded by other
listing activity. We must publish a
notification of these 12-month findings
in the Federal Register.
(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.
Summary of Information Pertaining to
the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and the implementing regulations at
part 424 of title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424)
set forth procedures for adding species
to, removing species from, or
reclassifying species on the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants (Lists). The Act defines
‘‘species’’ as including any subspecies
of fish or wildlife or plants, and any
distinct population segment of any
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife
which interbreeds when mature (16
U.S.C. 1532(16)). The Act defines
‘‘endangered species’’ as any species
that is in danger of extinction
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Mar 11, 2022
Jkt 256001
These factors represent broad
categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an
effect on a species’ continued existence.
In evaluating these actions and
conditions, we look for those that may
have a negative effect on individuals of
the species, as well as other actions or
conditions that may ameliorate any
negative effects or may have positive
effects.
We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in
general to actions or conditions that are
known to or are reasonably likely to
negatively affect individuals of a
species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes
actions or conditions that have a direct
impact on individuals (direct impacts),
as well as those that affect individuals
through alteration of their habitat or
required resources (stressors). The term
‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either
together or separately—the source of the
action or condition or the action or
condition itself. However, the mere
identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the statutory definition of an
‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened
species.’’ In determining whether a
species meets either definition, we must
evaluate all identified threats by
considering the expected response by
the species, and the effects of the
threats—in light of those actions and
conditions that will ameliorate the
threats—on an individual, population,
and species level. We evaluate each
threat and its expected effects on the
species, then analyze the cumulative
effect of all of the threats on the species
as a whole. We also consider the
cumulative effect of the threats in light
of those actions and conditions that will
have positive effects on the species,
such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The
Secretary determines whether the
species meets the Act’s definition of an
‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened
species’’ only after conducting this
cumulative analysis and describing the
expected effect on the species now and
in the foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term
‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in
the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened
species.’’ Our implementing regulations
at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a
framework for evaluating the foreseeable
future on a case-by-case basis. The term
‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far
into the future as the Service can
reasonably determine that both the
future threats and the species’ responses
to those threats are likely. In other
words, the foreseeable future is the
period of time in which we can make
reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not
mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to
provide a reasonable degree of
confidence in the prediction. Thus, a
prediction is reliable if it is reasonable
to depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary
to define foreseeable future as a
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules
particular number of years. Analysis of
the foreseeable future uses the best
scientific and commercial data available
and should consider the timeframes
applicable to the relevant threats and to
the species’ likely responses to those
threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically
relevant to assessing the species’
biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan,
reproductive rates or productivity,
certain behaviors, and other
demographic factors.
In conducting our evaluation of the
five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of
the Act to determine whether Georgia
bully and Rio Grande cooter meet the
Act’s definition of ‘‘endangered species’’
or ‘‘threatened species,’’ we considered
and thoroughly evaluated the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future stressors and threats. In
conducting our evaluation of the Blanco
blind salamander, we determined that it
either: (1) Does not meet the definition
of a ‘‘species’’ under the Act, and, as a
result, we conclude that it is not a
listable entity; or (2) is extinct. We
reviewed the petitions, information
available in our files, and other
available published and unpublished
information for all of these species. Our
evaluation may include information
from recognized experts; Federal, State,
and Tribal governments; academic
institutions; foreign governments;
private entities; and other members of
the public.
The species assessment forms for
these species contain more detailed
biological information, a thorough
analysis of the listing factors, a list of
literature cited, and an explanation of
why we determined that these species
do not meet the Act’s definition of an
‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened
species.’’ A thorough review of the
taxonomy, life history, and ecology of
the Georgia bully and Rio Grande cooter
is presented in each species’ species
status assessment (SSA) report. The
species assessment form and the review
report for the Blanco blind salamander
contain more detailed taxonomic
information, a list of literature cited,
and an explanation of why we
determined that the Blanco blind
salamander either does not meet the
Act’s definition of a ‘‘species’’ or is
extinct. 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 the
findings in this document.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Mar 11, 2022
Jkt 256001
Georgia Bully
Previous Federal Actions
On April 20, 2010, the Service
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 Georgia bully
(Sideroxylon thornei), as endangered or
threatened species under the Act. On
September 27, 2011, we published in
the Federal Register (76 FR 59836) a
partial 90-day finding that the petition
presented substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
listing may be warranted for 374 of the
species, including Georgia bully. The
finding stated that the petition
presented substantial information
indicating that listing Georgia bully may
be warranted due to disease or
predation. This document constitutes
the 12-month finding on the April 20,
2010, petition to list Georgia bully
under the Act.
Summary of Finding
A member of the Sapotaceae family,
Georgia bully is a shrub or small tree
that grows up to 6 meters (20 feet) in
height, and is sometimes multi-stemmed
but not extensively clonal. Georgia bully
is known to occur in Alabama, Georgia,
and Florida. The species has been found
in at least 29 counties and five
watersheds (Altamaha, Apalachicola,
Choctawhatchee-Escambia, Mobile BayTombigbee, and Ogeechee) in 3
southeastern States: Alabama, Georgia,
and Florida. The stronghold of the
distribution is in the Apalachicola
watershed in Georgia.
Georgia bully is restricted to riparian
forests and forested wetlands (i.e.,
swamps, bottomland forests, and
depressional wetlands), where the
species occurs most often in habitats
developed over limestone (i.e.,
calcareous substrates), particularly in
Georgia. Georgia bully requires shaded
to partly shaded habitat conditions
within a mostly intact forest overstory.
The species requires wet soils and
periodic inundation from flooding to
provide a competitive advantage to
Georgia bully since many other plant
species do not tolerate flooding
disturbance (e.g., decrease in oxygen,
carbon dioxide, and light). Georgia bully
reproduces sexually through pollination
and fruit set, and asexually through
vegetative means (e.g., shoots,
fragments, or clones).
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
14229
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to Georgia bully, and
we evaluated all relevant factors under
the five listing factors, including any
regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these
stressors. The primary threats affecting
Georgia bully’s biological status include
habitat destruction and modification
(including urbanization and land use
change), and impacts to hydrology from
climate change. We examined a number
of other factors, including inherent
factors (small population size),
nonnative and invasive species, disease
(insect damage), and predation (deer
herbivory), and found that these factors
may exacerbate the effects of the
primary factors, but do not rise to such
a level that affected the species as a
whole.
Causes of habitat destruction and
modification are urbanization and
conversion to agricultural and
silvicultural uses, including forest
structure alteration due to timber
harvest. Georgia bully is expected to be
influenced by changes to the hydrologic
regime, including periods of drought
and flooding. Extended periods of
drought may allow other species that
outcompete Georgia bully to become
established. Increased flooding events
may reduce the ability for Georgia bully
seedlings to become established if
habitat is saturated during the
germination period.
Despite impacts from the primary
stressors, the species has maintained the
majority of its historical occurrences
throughout its range. Georgia bully
currently has 16 moderately or highly
resilient populations across its range in
45 populations in 3 States. Each of the
five watersheds where Georgia bully
occurs contains at least two moderate or
highly resilient populations. Moderate
and highly resilient Georgia bully
populations are able to recover from
stochastic events and are characterized
by larger populations with recruitment
and/or reproduction in habitats with
intact mature overstory, wide riparian
vegetated buffers, and minimal
hydrological alteration. Existing
protections for the species are in place
with approximately 46 percent of
populations on protected lands,
including the two largest populations.
Threats continue to impact Georgia
bully and its habitat, and effects from
these impacts may result in a decrease
in habitat quality and quantity across
the species’ range; however, ongoing
conservation actions offer some
protection to the species.
Our future scenarios assessment
included four elements of change (e.g.,
urbanization, land use, climate-
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
14230
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules
influenced hydrology, and site-specific
habitat factors) to assess the viability of
Georgia bully at 30- and 60-year time
steps. Upon examining the current
trends and future forecast scenarios, we
expect that the primary threats (habitat
destruction and modification due to
urbanization and land use change, and
hydrology impacts associated with
climate change) will continue to impact
Georgia bully. Impacts to Georgia bully’s
population resiliency generally increase
over time and with increased threats,
including the threat of climate change
effects. The species’ representation has
not declined between historical and
most recent surveys, and the species’
representation is expected to decline
slightly under each future scenario. As
moderate or highly resilient populations
will persist across all watersheds, a
broad level of representation is likely to
be maintained over time. However, the
adaptive capacity of the species will be
reduced in the future as the projected
population extirpations reduce the
number of viable populations on the
landscape, thus reducing the species
potential ability to adjust to changing
conditions. Georgia bully has retained
redundancy based on multiple moderate
and highly resilient populations being
spread across its historical range in five
watersheds; however, into the future,
we expect the species’ redundancy to
decline as population resiliency is
reduced, thereby impairing the species’
ability to withstand and recover from
catastrophic events such as storms and
droughts. Although we predict some
continued impacts from stressors in the
future, we anticipate the species will be
represented by moderate and highly
resilient populations into the
foreseeable future throughout its range,
supported by the occurrence of 21 of the
45 known populations on protected
lands and the species’ ability to
reproduce vegetatively (e.g., shoots,
fragments, or clonal) and through
pollination and fruit set giving
populations additional opportunities to
maintain and expand. Given projections
for quality and quantity of habitat and
the number of healthy (moderate to high
resiliency) populations, we conclude
that the species is likely to maintain the
ability to withstand stochasticity,
catastrophic events, and novel changes
in its environment for the foreseeable
future. Based on these conditions,
Georgia bully’s current risk of extinction
is very low. Furthermore, we did not
find any evidence of a concentration of
threats at any biologically meaningful
scale in any portion of the species’
range.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Mar 11, 2022
Jkt 256001
Therefore, we find that listing Georgia
bully as an endangered species or
threatened species under the Act is not
warranted. A detailed discussion of the
basis for this finding can be found in the
Georgia bully species assessment and
other supporting documents (see
ADDRESSES, above).
Rio Grande Cooter
Previous Federal Actions
On July 11, 2012, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) received a
petition to list 53 amphibians and
reptiles, including the Rio Grande
cooter (Pseudemys gorzugi), as
endangered or threatened under the Act
and to designate critical habitat. On July
1, 2015, we published a 90-day finding
that the petition presented substantial
scientific or commercial information
indicating that listing may be warranted
for 21 species, including the Rio Grande
cooter (80 FR 37568). The finding stated
that the petition presented substantial
information indicating that listing the
Rio Grande cooter may be warranted
due to the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; and regulatory mechanisms
inadequate to address these threats. This
document constitutes the 12-month
finding on the July 11, 2012, petition to
list the Rio Grande cooter under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The Rio Grande cooter is a mediumto-large freshwater turtle (100–370
millimeters (3.9–14.6 inches)) that lives
in the spring pools, streams, and rivers
found within portions of the Rio
Grande/Rı´o Bravo watershed of the
United States and Mexico. The species’
range includes the Pecos River basin of
New Mexico and Texas; the Devils River
basin of Texas; the Rio Grande basin of
Texas (below the Big Bend region) and
Coahuila, Nuevo Leo´n, and Tamaulipas,
Mexico; the Rı´o Salado basin of
Coahuila, Nuevo Leo´n, and Tamaulipas,
Mexico; and the Rı´o San Juan basin of
Coahuila, Nuevo Leo´n, and Tamaulipas,
Mexico. Within these five major river
basins, Rio Grande cooter habitat
includes the freshwater systems and the
riparian habitat adjacent to them. The
current distribution of the species is
similar to its historical distribution.
As a mostly aquatic species, adequate
water quality and water quantity are
central to the Rio Grande cooter’s ability
to forage, survive, and reproduce. Water
must be of adequate depth to provide
protection from predation and within
temperature ranges that allow for
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
thermoregulation. Further,
contaminants and other harmful
constituents in water must be absent or
below thresholds that would cause
acute or chronic toxicity to Rio Grande
cooter or the resources upon which they
rely for survival, growth and
reproduction. The Rio Grande cooter
also requires water flows that allow for
individual movements for breeding,
nesting, and retreating from areas of
unsuitable habitat. Additionally, the Rio
Grande cooter requires upland nesting
habitat with loose soils near water
where eggs will be adequately
thermoregulated and safe from
inundation, predation, and other
disturbances during incubation.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the Rio Grande
cooter, 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 Rio Grande cooter’s
biological status include hydrological
alteration, pollution, climate change
(increasing demands on the surface and
ground water resources that provide or
support habitat for the species due to
effects on climate and weather
associated with rising temperatures),
and direct mortality. Rio Grande cooter
has limited abundance information
available across its range, with a few
exceptions. Therefore, we assessed
species viability based on presence-only
data and the condition of the species’
habitat.
Despite existing within an altered
system in the Rio Grande watershed and
the associated impacts from the primary
stressors, the Rio Grande cooter
currently has multiple resilient
population analysis units (10 of 16 units
characterized as Low or Moderate Risk)
distributed throughout its known
historical range. Because Rio Grande
cooter has maintained multiple resilient
population analysis units across a
diversity of habitat types and within all
five river basins in which it historically
occurred—except for the Devils River
basin, which contains a single unit
categorized as low risk—the species has
retained redundancy and representation
at the species level. Based on these
conditions, the current risk of extinction
for the Rio Grande cooter is low.
Although we project some continued
impacts from the identified stressors
into the foreseeable future under two
future scenarios, our analysis indicates
that the Rio Grande cooter will maintain
multiple, resilient population analysis
units distributed throughout its
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules
historical range within each of the five
major river basins. Overall, the Rio
Grande cooter is projected to either
maintain current levels of resiliency,
representation, and redundancy or have
a slight decrease in resiliency (nine of
16 population analysis units being
categorized as Low or Moderate Risk)
while maintaining current levels of
redundancy and representation into the
foreseeable future. Thus, the best
available information does not indicate
that the magnitude and scope of
individual stressors would cause the
species to be in danger of extinction in
the foreseeable future. Furthermore, we
did not find any evidence of a
concentration of threats at any
biologically meaningful scale in any
portion of the species’ range.
Therefore, we find that listing the Rio
Grande cooter 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 Rio Grande cooter’s species
assessment and other supporting
documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Blanco Blind Salamander
Previous Federal Actions
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
On June 25, 2007, the Service
received a petition from Forest
Guardians (now WildEarth Guardians)
requesting that the Service list 475
species in the Southwest Region as
endangered or threatened under the Act
with critical habitat. The Blanco blind
salamander (Eurycea robusta) was
included among the list of petitioned
species. On December 16, 2009, we
published in the Federal Register (74
FR 66866) a partial 90-day finding that
the petition presented substantial
scientific or commercial information
indicating that listing may be warranted
for 67 of the species, including the
Blanco blind salamander. The finding
stated that the petition presented
substantial information indicating that
listing the Blanco blind salamander may
be warranted due to the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range
resulting from water pollutants and
water withdrawal. This document
constitutes the 12-month finding on the
June 25, 2007, petition to list the Blanco
blind salamander under the Act.
Summary of Finding
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the Blanco blind
salamander and evaluated the petition’s
claims that the species warrants listing
under the Act. We determined the type
specimen on which the species’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Mar 11, 2022
Jkt 256001
description was based either represents
a historical occurrence of the federally
endangered Texas blind salamander
(Typhlomolge rathbuni) or it represents
a unique species that is no longer
extant.
To be considered an endangered or
threatened species under the Act, a
species’ taxonomy must be valid. In our
evaluation of the species’ status, we
found evidence that the Blanco blind
salamander does not exist as a current
taxonomic entity. Several morphological
characters of the Blanco blind
salamander overlap or are identical to
the Texas blind salamander; the Blanco
blind salamander specimen’s size may
have been influenced by chemical
fixation and preservation, and may not
reflect the original size of the living
individual; and hydrogeological
connectivity would likely facilitate
movement between the Blanco River
site and locations the Texas blind
salamander inhabits. Given this, we find
that the Blanco blind salamander type
specimen is likely a Texas blind
salamander individual. If it is a Texas
blind salamander, then the Blanco blind
salamander is not a valid taxonomic
entity and, therefore, is not a listable
entity under the Act.
While the best available science does
indicate that the specimen collected in
1951 is a Texas blind salamander, due
to the inability to conduct conclusive
genetic testing, we considered the status
of the Blanco blind salamander out of an
abundance of caution.
Based on the best available
information, if the Blanco blind
salamander was in fact a valid entity,
we conclude that it is now extinct.
When evaluating the possibility of
extinction, we attempted to minimize
the possibility of either (1) prematurely
determining that the species is extinct
where individuals exist but remain
undetected, or (2) assuming the species
is extant when extinction has already
occurred. Our determinations of
whether the best available information
indicates that a species is extinct
include an analysis of the following
criteria: Detectability of the species,
adequacy of survey efforts, and time
since last detection. All three criteria
require taking into account applicable
aspects of a species’ life history. Other
lines of evidence may also support the
determination and be included in our
analysis. In conducting our analysis of
whether the Blanco blind salamander is
extinct, we considered and thoroughly
evaluated the best scientific and
commercial data available. We reviewed
the information available in our files,
and other available published and
unpublished information. These
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
14231
evaluations include information from
recognized experts, Federal and State
governments, academic institutions, and
private entities.
The Edwards Aquifer, in the area of
southeastern Hays County, Texas, has
been and continues to be intensively
sampled for its diverse and unique
groundwater fauna. Beginning in the
late 19th century, caves, springs, and
wells in the area have yielded many
new species, including the Texas blind
salamander and a contingent of endemic
groundwater invertebrates.
Like species with similar
characteristics, the Blanco blind
salamander is likely to have a low
detectability. However, despite being
mostly subterranean, stygobitic (i.e.,
living exclusively in groundwater, such
as aquifers or caves) Eurycea
salamanders are often surveyed at
springs and caves. Surveys were
conducted in 2006 to re-detect the
Blanco blind salamander at the Blanco
River site and several groundwater wells
north of that site in Hays and Travis
Counties, Texas. Additionally,
researchers excavated three surface
fissures in the dry bed of the Blanco
River, but none of the excavations
extended to subterranean voids, and no
salamanders were observed.
Groundwater wells were surveyed north
of the Blanco River 8 to 25 kilometers
(5 to 15 miles) away from the locality of
the Blanco specimen and did not yield
stygobitic Eurycea salamanders,
although they did extend into
subterranean habitats. Recent survey
efforts of wells and springs in Hays
County in 2020 and 2021 have also not
resulted in discovery of Blanco blind
salamanders or other stygobitic Eurycea
salamanders to date. Conversely, Texas
blind salamanders are regularly
observed and collected during surveys
of caves, spring openings, and
groundwater wells by permitted
researchers from several localities in the
City of San Marcos, Texas.
Since 1951, no stygobitic Eurycea
salamanders have been collected from
the Blanco River or areas to the north of
the river in Hays County. Despite its low
detectability, given the combination of
surveys at the original locality and
repeated surveys from surface and
subterranean habitats nearby, we
conclude that these efforts were
adequate to detect the Blanco blind
salamander should individuals exist. If
the Blanco blind salamander was a valid
taxon, we have no evidence that the
species has remained extant for the past
70 years; thus, we conclude it is extinct.
In conclusion, based on the best
available information, we have
determined that the Blanco blind
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
14232
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules
salamander is not a valid taxonomic
entity and, accordingly, does not meet
the statutory definition of a listable
entity under the Act. Additionally, even
if our conclusion is incorrect and the
Blanco blind salamander was a valid
taxonomic entity, it has not been
collected in over 70 years despite survey
efforts; thus, we have no evidence it has
remained extant. Because the Blanco
blind salamander either does not meet
the definition of a listable entity or is
extinct, it does not warrant listing under
the Act. A detailed discussion of the
basis for this finding can be found in the
Blanco blind salamander species
assessment form and other supporting
documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
New Information
We request that you submit any new
information concerning the taxonomy
of, biology of, ecology of, status of, or
stressors to Blanco blind salamander,
Georgia bully, or Rio Grande cooter to
the appropriate person, as specified
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, whenever it becomes
available. New information will help us
monitor these species and make
appropriate decisions about their
conservation and status. We encourage
local agencies and stakeholders to
continue cooperative monitoring and
conservation efforts.
References Cited
A list of the references cited in this
petition finding is available in the
relevant species assessment form, which
is available on the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov in the appropriate
docket (see ADDRESSES, above) and upon
request from the appropriate person (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above).
Authors
The primary authors of this document
are the staff members of the Species
Assessment Team, Ecological Services
Program.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Authority
The authority for this action is section
4 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022–05331 Filed 3–11–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Mar 11, 2022
Jkt 256001
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 92
[Docket No. FWS–R7–MB–2021–0172;
FXMB12610700000–201–FF07M01000]
RIN 1018 BF65
Migratory Bird Subsistence Harvest in
Alaska; Harvest Regulations for
Migratory Birds in Alaska During the
2022 Season
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS),
are proposing changes to the migratory
bird subsistence harvest regulations in
Alaska. These regulations allow for the
continuation of customary and
traditional subsistence uses of migratory
birds in Alaska and prescribe regional
information on when and where the
harvesting of birds may occur. These
regulations were developed under a comanagement process involving the
Service, the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game, and Alaska Native
representatives. The proposed changes
would update the regulations to
incorporate revisions requested by these
partners.
DATES: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
April 13, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments to
Docket No. FWS–R7–MB–2021–0172.
• U.S. Mail: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R7–MB–2021–
0172, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: JAO/3W, 5275 Leesburg Place, Falls
Church, VA 22041 3803.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see the
Public Comment Procedures section,
below, for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric
J. Taylor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1011 E Tudor Road, Mail Stop 201,
Anchorage, AK 99503; (907) 903 7210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Public Comment Procedures
To ensure that any action resulting
from this proposed rule will be as
accurate and as effective as possible, we
request that you send relevant
information for our consideration. The
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
comments that will be most useful and
likely to influence our decisions are
those that you support by quantitative
information or studies and those that
include citations to, and analyses of, the
applicable laws and regulations. Please
make your comments as specific as
possible and explain the basis for them.
In addition, please include sufficient
information with your comments to
allow us to authenticate any scientific or
commercial data you include.
You must submit your comments and
materials concerning this proposed rule
by one of the methods listed above in
ADDRESSES. We will not accept
comments sent by email or fax or to an
address not listed in ADDRESSES. If you
submit a comment via https://
www.regulations.gov, your entire
comment—including any personal
identifying information, such as your
address, telephone number, or email
address—will be posted on the website.
When you submit a comment, the
system receives it immediately.
However, the comment will not be
publicly viewable until we post it,
which might not occur until several
days after submission.
If you mail a hardcopy comment
directly to us that includes personal
information, you may request at the top
of your document that we withhold this
information from public review.
However, we cannot guarantee that we
will be able to do so. All comments and
materials we receive will be available
for public inspection via https://
www.regulations.gov. Search for FWS–
R7–MB–2021–0172, which is the docket
number for this rulemaking.
Background
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918
(MBTA, 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.) was
enacted to conserve certain species of
migratory birds and gives the Secretary
of the Interior the authority to regulate
the harvest of these birds. The law
further authorizes the Secretary to issue
regulations to ensure that the
indigenous inhabitants of the State of
Alaska may take migratory birds and
collect their eggs for nutritional and
other essential needs during seasons
established by the Secretary so as to
provide for the preservation and
maintenance of stocks of migratory birds
(16 U.S.C. 712(1)).
The take of migratory birds for
subsistence uses in Alaska occurs
during the spring and summer, during
which timeframe when the annual fall/
winter harvest of migratory birds is not
allowed. Regulations governing the
subsistence harvest of migratory birds in
Alaska are located in title 50 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) in part 92.
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14227-14232]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05331]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Three Species Not
Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notification of findings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce
findings that three species are not warranted for listing as endangered
or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). After a thorough review of the best available scientific
and commercial information, we find that it is not warranted at this
time to list Blanco blind salamander (Eurycea robusta), Georgia bully
(Sideroxylon thornei), and Rio Grande cooter (Pseudemys gorzugi).
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 March 14, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Detailed descriptions of the bases for these findings are
available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under the
following docket numbers:
[[Page 14228]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Docket No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blanco blind salamander.......... FWS-R2-ES-2021-0128
Georgia bully.................... FWS-R4-ES-2021-0129
Rio Grande cooter................ FWS-R2-ES-2021-0132
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those descriptions are also available by contacting the appropriate
person as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Please
submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions
concerning this finding to the appropriate person, as specified under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Contact information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blanco blind salamander and Rio Grande Adam Zerrenner, Field
cooter. Supervisor, Austin Ecological
Services Field Office,
[email protected], 512-
490-0057 x248.
Georgia bully.......................... Peter Maholland, Deputy Field
Supervisor, Georgia Ecological
Services Field Office,
[email protected], 706-
208-7512.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in
the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we
are required to make a finding whether or not a petitioned action is
warranted within 12 months after receiving any petition for which we
have determined contains substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted
(``12-month finding''). We must make a finding that the petitioned
action is: (1) Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) warranted, but
precluded by other listing activity. We must publish a notification of
these 12-month findings in the Federal Register.
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations at part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing
species from, or reclassifying species on the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists). The Act defines ``species'' as
including any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any
distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or
wildlife which interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). The Act
defines ``endangered species'' as any species that is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16
U.S.C. 1532(6)), and ``threatened species'' as any species that is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C.
1532(20)). Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be
determined to be an endangered species or a threatened species because
of any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself. However, the mere
identification of any threat(s) does not necessarily mean that the
species meets the statutory definition of an ``endangered species'' or
a ``threatened species.'' In determining whether a species meets either
definition, we must evaluate all identified threats by considering the
expected response by the species, and the effects of the threats--in
light of those actions and conditions that will ameliorate the
threats--on an individual, population, and species level. We evaluate
each threat and its expected effects on the species, then analyze the
cumulative effect of all of the threats on the species as a whole. We
also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those
actions and conditions that will have positive effects on the species,
such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The
Secretary determines whether the species meets the Act's definition of
an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species'' only after
conducting this cumulative analysis and describing the expected effect
on the species now and in the foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as the
Service can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the
species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the
foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable
predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means
sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the
prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to
depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future
as a
[[Page 14229]]
particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future uses the
best scientific and commercial data available and should consider the
timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the species'
likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and
other demographic factors.
In conducting our evaluation of the five factors provided in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether Georgia bully and Rio
Grande cooter meet the Act's definition of ``endangered species'' or
``threatened species,'' we considered and thoroughly evaluated the best
scientific and commercial information available regarding the past,
present, and future stressors and threats. In conducting our evaluation
of the Blanco blind salamander, we determined that it either: (1) Does
not meet the definition of a ``species'' under the Act, and, as a
result, we conclude that it is not a listable entity; or (2) is
extinct. We reviewed the petitions, information available in our files,
and other available published and unpublished information for all of
these species. Our evaluation may include information from recognized
experts; Federal, State, and Tribal governments; academic institutions;
foreign governments; private entities; and other members of the public.
The species assessment forms for these species contain more
detailed biological information, a thorough analysis of the listing
factors, a list of literature cited, and an explanation of why we
determined that these species do not meet the Act's definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' A thorough review
of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the Georgia bully and Rio
Grande cooter is presented in each species' species status assessment
(SSA) report. The species assessment form and the review report for the
Blanco blind salamander contain more detailed taxonomic information, a
list of literature cited, and an explanation of why we determined that
the Blanco blind salamander either does not meet the Act's definition
of a ``species'' or is extinct. 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 the findings in this document.
Georgia Bully
Previous Federal Actions
On April 20, 2010, the Service 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 Georgia bully (Sideroxylon thornei), as
endangered or threatened species under the Act. On September 27, 2011,
we published in the Federal Register (76 FR 59836) a partial 90-day
finding that the petition presented substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that listing may be warranted for 374
of the species, including Georgia bully. The finding stated that the
petition presented substantial information indicating that listing
Georgia bully may be warranted due to disease or predation. This
document constitutes the 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010,
petition to list Georgia bully under the Act.
Summary of Finding
A member of the Sapotaceae family, Georgia bully is a shrub or
small tree that grows up to 6 meters (20 feet) in height, and is
sometimes multi-stemmed but not extensively clonal. Georgia bully is
known to occur in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. The species has been
found in at least 29 counties and five watersheds (Altamaha,
Apalachicola, Choctawhatchee-Escambia, Mobile Bay-Tombigbee, and
Ogeechee) in 3 southeastern States: Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. The
stronghold of the distribution is in the Apalachicola watershed in
Georgia.
Georgia bully is restricted to riparian forests and forested
wetlands (i.e., swamps, bottomland forests, and depressional wetlands),
where the species occurs most often in habitats developed over
limestone (i.e., calcareous substrates), particularly in Georgia.
Georgia bully requires shaded to partly shaded habitat conditions
within a mostly intact forest overstory. The species requires wet soils
and periodic inundation from flooding to provide a competitive
advantage to Georgia bully since many other plant species do not
tolerate flooding disturbance (e.g., decrease in oxygen, carbon
dioxide, and light). Georgia bully reproduces sexually through
pollination and fruit set, and asexually through vegetative means
(e.g., shoots, fragments, or clones).
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to Georgia bully, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five
listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation
measures addressing these stressors. The primary threats affecting
Georgia bully's biological status include habitat destruction and
modification (including urbanization and land use change), and impacts
to hydrology from climate change. We examined a number of other
factors, including inherent factors (small population size), nonnative
and invasive species, disease (insect damage), and predation (deer
herbivory), and found that these factors may exacerbate the effects of
the primary factors, but do not rise to such a level that affected the
species as a whole.
Causes of habitat destruction and modification are urbanization and
conversion to agricultural and silvicultural uses, including forest
structure alteration due to timber harvest. Georgia bully is expected
to be influenced by changes to the hydrologic regime, including periods
of drought and flooding. Extended periods of drought may allow other
species that outcompete Georgia bully to become established. Increased
flooding events may reduce the ability for Georgia bully seedlings to
become established if habitat is saturated during the germination
period.
Despite impacts from the primary stressors, the species has
maintained the majority of its historical occurrences throughout its
range. Georgia bully currently has 16 moderately or highly resilient
populations across its range in 45 populations in 3 States. Each of the
five watersheds where Georgia bully occurs contains at least two
moderate or highly resilient populations. Moderate and highly resilient
Georgia bully populations are able to recover from stochastic events
and are characterized by larger populations with recruitment and/or
reproduction in habitats with intact mature overstory, wide riparian
vegetated buffers, and minimal hydrological alteration. Existing
protections for the species are in place with approximately 46 percent
of populations on protected lands, including the two largest
populations. Threats continue to impact Georgia bully and its habitat,
and effects from these impacts may result in a decrease in habitat
quality and quantity across the species' range; however, ongoing
conservation actions offer some protection to the species.
Our future scenarios assessment included four elements of change
(e.g., urbanization, land use, climate-
[[Page 14230]]
influenced hydrology, and site-specific habitat factors) to assess the
viability of Georgia bully at 30- and 60-year time steps. Upon
examining the current trends and future forecast scenarios, we expect
that the primary threats (habitat destruction and modification due to
urbanization and land use change, and hydrology impacts associated with
climate change) will continue to impact Georgia bully. Impacts to
Georgia bully's population resiliency generally increase over time and
with increased threats, including the threat of climate change effects.
The species' representation has not declined between historical and
most recent surveys, and the species' representation is expected to
decline slightly under each future scenario. As moderate or highly
resilient populations will persist across all watersheds, a broad level
of representation is likely to be maintained over time. However, the
adaptive capacity of the species will be reduced in the future as the
projected population extirpations reduce the number of viable
populations on the landscape, thus reducing the species potential
ability to adjust to changing conditions. Georgia bully has retained
redundancy based on multiple moderate and highly resilient populations
being spread across its historical range in five watersheds; however,
into the future, we expect the species' redundancy to decline as
population resiliency is reduced, thereby impairing the species'
ability to withstand and recover from catastrophic events such as
storms and droughts. Although we predict some continued impacts from
stressors in the future, we anticipate the species will be represented
by moderate and highly resilient populations into the foreseeable
future throughout its range, supported by the occurrence of 21 of the
45 known populations on protected lands and the species' ability to
reproduce vegetatively (e.g., shoots, fragments, or clonal) and through
pollination and fruit set giving populations additional opportunities
to maintain and expand. Given projections for quality and quantity of
habitat and the number of healthy (moderate to high resiliency)
populations, we conclude that the species is likely to maintain the
ability to withstand stochasticity, catastrophic events, and novel
changes in its environment for the foreseeable future. Based on these
conditions, Georgia bully's current risk of extinction is very low.
Furthermore, we did not find any evidence of a concentration of threats
at any biologically meaningful scale in any portion of the species'
range.
Therefore, we find that listing Georgia bully as an endangered
species or threatened species under the Act is not warranted. A
detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the
Georgia bully species assessment and other supporting documents (see
ADDRESSES, above).
Rio Grande Cooter
Previous Federal Actions
On July 11, 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
received a petition to list 53 amphibians and reptiles, including the
Rio Grande cooter (Pseudemys gorzugi), as endangered or threatened
under the Act and to designate critical habitat. On July 1, 2015, we
published a 90-day finding that the petition presented substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing may be
warranted for 21 species, including the Rio Grande cooter (80 FR
37568). The finding stated that the petition presented substantial
information indicating that listing the Rio Grande cooter may be
warranted due to the present or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of its habitat or range; overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; and regulatory
mechanisms inadequate to address these threats. This document
constitutes the 12-month finding on the July 11, 2012, petition to list
the Rio Grande cooter under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The Rio Grande cooter is a medium-to-large freshwater turtle (100-
370 millimeters (3.9-14.6 inches)) that lives in the spring pools,
streams, and rivers found within portions of the Rio Grande/R[iacute]o
Bravo watershed of the United States and Mexico. The species' range
includes the Pecos River basin of New Mexico and Texas; the Devils
River basin of Texas; the Rio Grande basin of Texas (below the Big Bend
region) and Coahuila, Nuevo Le[oacute]n, and Tamaulipas, Mexico; the
R[iacute]o Salado basin of Coahuila, Nuevo Le[oacute]n, and Tamaulipas,
Mexico; and the R[iacute]o San Juan basin of Coahuila, Nuevo
Le[oacute]n, and Tamaulipas, Mexico. Within these five major river
basins, Rio Grande cooter habitat includes the freshwater systems and
the riparian habitat adjacent to them. The current distribution of the
species is similar to its historical distribution.
As a mostly aquatic species, adequate water quality and water
quantity are central to the Rio Grande cooter's ability to forage,
survive, and reproduce. Water must be of adequate depth to provide
protection from predation and within temperature ranges that allow for
thermoregulation. Further, contaminants and other harmful constituents
in water must be absent or below thresholds that would cause acute or
chronic toxicity to Rio Grande cooter or the resources upon which they
rely for survival, growth and reproduction. The Rio Grande cooter also
requires water flows that allow for individual movements for breeding,
nesting, and retreating from areas of unsuitable habitat. Additionally,
the Rio Grande cooter requires upland nesting habitat with loose soils
near water where eggs will be adequately thermoregulated and safe from
inundation, predation, and other disturbances during incubation.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Rio Grande cooter, 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 Rio Grande cooter's biological status include
hydrological alteration, pollution, climate change (increasing demands
on the surface and ground water resources that provide or support
habitat for the species due to effects on climate and weather
associated with rising temperatures), and direct mortality. Rio Grande
cooter has limited abundance information available across its range,
with a few exceptions. Therefore, we assessed species viability based
on presence-only data and the condition of the species' habitat.
Despite existing within an altered system in the Rio Grande
watershed and the associated impacts from the primary stressors, the
Rio Grande cooter currently has multiple resilient population analysis
units (10 of 16 units characterized as Low or Moderate Risk)
distributed throughout its known historical range. Because Rio Grande
cooter has maintained multiple resilient population analysis units
across a diversity of habitat types and within all five river basins in
which it historically occurred--except for the Devils River basin,
which contains a single unit categorized as low risk--the species has
retained redundancy and representation at the species level. Based on
these conditions, the current risk of extinction for the Rio Grande
cooter is low. Although we project some continued impacts from the
identified stressors into the foreseeable future under two future
scenarios, our analysis indicates that the Rio Grande cooter will
maintain multiple, resilient population analysis units distributed
throughout its
[[Page 14231]]
historical range within each of the five major river basins. Overall,
the Rio Grande cooter is projected to either maintain current levels of
resiliency, representation, and redundancy or have a slight decrease in
resiliency (nine of 16 population analysis units being categorized as
Low or Moderate Risk) while maintaining current levels of redundancy
and representation into the foreseeable future. Thus, the best
available information does not indicate that the magnitude and scope of
individual stressors would cause the species to be in danger of
extinction in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, we did not find any
evidence of a concentration of threats at any biologically meaningful
scale in any portion of the species' range.
Therefore, we find that listing the Rio Grande cooter 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 Rio Grande cooter's species assessment and other
supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Blanco Blind Salamander
Previous Federal Actions
On June 25, 2007, the Service received a petition from Forest
Guardians (now WildEarth Guardians) requesting that the Service list
475 species in the Southwest Region as endangered or threatened under
the Act with critical habitat. The Blanco blind salamander (Eurycea
robusta) was included among the list of petitioned species. On December
16, 2009, we published in the Federal Register (74 FR 66866) a partial
90-day finding that the petition presented substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that listing may be warranted for 67
of the species, including the Blanco blind salamander. The finding
stated that the petition presented substantial information indicating
that listing the Blanco blind salamander may be warranted due to the
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range resulting from water pollutants and water withdrawal.
This document constitutes the 12-month finding on the June 25, 2007,
petition to list the Blanco blind salamander under the Act.
Summary of Finding
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the Blanco blind salamander and
evaluated the petition's claims that the species warrants listing under
the Act. We determined the type specimen on which the species'
description was based either represents a historical occurrence of the
federally endangered Texas blind salamander (Typhlomolge rathbuni) or
it represents a unique species that is no longer extant.
To be considered an endangered or threatened species under the Act,
a species' taxonomy must be valid. In our evaluation of the species'
status, we found evidence that the Blanco blind salamander does not
exist as a current taxonomic entity. Several morphological characters
of the Blanco blind salamander overlap or are identical to the Texas
blind salamander; the Blanco blind salamander specimen's size may have
been influenced by chemical fixation and preservation, and may not
reflect the original size of the living individual; and hydrogeological
connectivity would likely facilitate movement between the Blanco River
site and locations the Texas blind salamander inhabits. Given this, we
find that the Blanco blind salamander type specimen is likely a Texas
blind salamander individual. If it is a Texas blind salamander, then
the Blanco blind salamander is not a valid taxonomic entity and,
therefore, is not a listable entity under the Act.
While the best available science does indicate that the specimen
collected in 1951 is a Texas blind salamander, due to the inability to
conduct conclusive genetic testing, we considered the status of the
Blanco blind salamander out of an abundance of caution.
Based on the best available information, if the Blanco blind
salamander was in fact a valid entity, we conclude that it is now
extinct. When evaluating the possibility of extinction, we attempted to
minimize the possibility of either (1) prematurely determining that the
species is extinct where individuals exist but remain undetected, or
(2) assuming the species is extant when extinction has already
occurred. Our determinations of whether the best available information
indicates that a species is extinct include an analysis of the
following criteria: Detectability of the species, adequacy of survey
efforts, and time since last detection. All three criteria require
taking into account applicable aspects of a species' life history.
Other lines of evidence may also support the determination and be
included in our analysis. In conducting our analysis of whether the
Blanco blind salamander is extinct, we considered and thoroughly
evaluated the best scientific and commercial data available. We
reviewed the information available in our files, and other available
published and unpublished information. These evaluations include
information from recognized experts, Federal and State governments,
academic institutions, and private entities.
The Edwards Aquifer, in the area of southeastern Hays County,
Texas, has been and continues to be intensively sampled for its diverse
and unique groundwater fauna. Beginning in the late 19th century,
caves, springs, and wells in the area have yielded many new species,
including the Texas blind salamander and a contingent of endemic
groundwater invertebrates.
Like species with similar characteristics, the Blanco blind
salamander is likely to have a low detectability. However, despite
being mostly subterranean, stygobitic (i.e., living exclusively in
groundwater, such as aquifers or caves) Eurycea salamanders are often
surveyed at springs and caves. Surveys were conducted in 2006 to re-
detect the Blanco blind salamander at the Blanco River site and several
groundwater wells north of that site in Hays and Travis Counties,
Texas. Additionally, researchers excavated three surface fissures in
the dry bed of the Blanco River, but none of the excavations extended
to subterranean voids, and no salamanders were observed. Groundwater
wells were surveyed north of the Blanco River 8 to 25 kilometers (5 to
15 miles) away from the locality of the Blanco specimen and did not
yield stygobitic Eurycea salamanders, although they did extend into
subterranean habitats. Recent survey efforts of wells and springs in
Hays County in 2020 and 2021 have also not resulted in discovery of
Blanco blind salamanders or other stygobitic Eurycea salamanders to
date. Conversely, Texas blind salamanders are regularly observed and
collected during surveys of caves, spring openings, and groundwater
wells by permitted researchers from several localities in the City of
San Marcos, Texas.
Since 1951, no stygobitic Eurycea salamanders have been collected
from the Blanco River or areas to the north of the river in Hays
County. Despite its low detectability, given the combination of surveys
at the original locality and repeated surveys from surface and
subterranean habitats nearby, we conclude that these efforts were
adequate to detect the Blanco blind salamander should individuals
exist. If the Blanco blind salamander was a valid taxon, we have no
evidence that the species has remained extant for the past 70 years;
thus, we conclude it is extinct.
In conclusion, based on the best available information, we have
determined that the Blanco blind
[[Page 14232]]
salamander is not a valid taxonomic entity and, accordingly, does not
meet the statutory definition of a listable entity under the Act.
Additionally, even if our conclusion is incorrect and the Blanco blind
salamander was a valid taxonomic entity, it has not been collected in
over 70 years despite survey efforts; thus, we have no evidence it has
remained extant. Because the Blanco blind salamander either does not
meet the definition of a listable entity or is extinct, it does not
warrant listing under the Act. A detailed discussion of the basis for
this finding can be found in the Blanco blind salamander species
assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
New Information
We request that you submit any new information concerning the
taxonomy of, biology of, ecology of, status of, or stressors to Blanco
blind salamander, Georgia bully, or Rio Grande cooter to the
appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
whenever it becomes available. New information will help us monitor
these species and make appropriate decisions about their conservation
and status. We encourage local agencies and stakeholders to continue
cooperative monitoring and conservation efforts.
References Cited
A list of the references cited in this petition finding is
available in the relevant species assessment form, which is available
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov in the appropriate
docket (see ADDRESSES, above) and upon request from the appropriate
person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above).
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Species Assessment Team, Ecological Services Program.
Authority
The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-05331 Filed 3-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
