Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Nine Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species, 57388-57400 [2023-18260]

Download as PDF 57388 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules the Commission limit these requirements to service providers that are currently receiving support? Federal Communications Commission. Marlene Dortch, Secretary. III. Procedural Matters [FR Doc. 2023–18084 Filed 8–22–23; 8:45 am] A. Paperwork Reduction Act 28. The document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). IV. Ordering Clauses 29. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 214, 218–220, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 214, 218– 220, 254, 303(r), and 403, and § 1.1 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.1, this Notice of Inquiry is adopted. The Notice of Inquiry will be effective upon publication in the Federal Register, with comment dates indicated therein. of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that it is not warranted at this time to list the Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canis lupus ligoni), Chihuahua catfish (Ictalurus sp. 1), Cooper’s cave amphipod (Stygobromus cooperi), Georgia blind salamander (Eurycea wallacei), minute cave amphipod (Stygobromus parvus), Morrison’s cave amphipod (Stygobromus morrisoni), narrow-foot hygrotus diving beetle (Hygrotus diversipes), pristine crayfish (Cambarus pristinus), and Tennessee heelsplitter (Lasmigona holstonia). However, we ask the public to submit to us at any time any new information relevant to the status of any of the species mentioned above or their habitats. BILLING CODE 6712–01–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Nine Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notification of findings. AGENCY: The findings in this document were made on August 23, 2023. DATES: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce findings that nine species are not warranted for listing as endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After a thorough review SUMMARY: Detailed descriptions of the bases for these findings are available on the internet at https:// www.regulations.gov under the following docket numbers: ADDRESSES: Species Docket No. Alexander Archipelago wolf ................................................................................................................................... Chihuahua catfish .................................................................................................................................................. Cooper’s cave amphipod ....................................................................................................................................... Georgia blind salamander ..................................................................................................................................... Minute cave amphipod .......................................................................................................................................... Morrison’s cave amphipod ..................................................................................................................................... Narrow-foot hygrotus diving beetle ........................................................................................................................ Pristine crayfish ..................................................................................................................................................... Tennessee heelsplitter ........................................................................................................................................... Those descriptions are also available by contacting the appropriate person as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding to the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Species Contact information Alexander Archipelago wolf ...................................................... Stewart Cogswell, Field Supervisor, Anchorage Field Office, Stewart_Cogswell@ fws.gov, 907–271–2888. Michael Warriner, Supervisory Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, Michael_warriner@fws.gov, 512–490–0057. Jennifer Norris, Field Supervisor, West Virginia Field Office, jennifer_l_norris@ fws.gov, 304–704–0655. Peter Maholland, Field Supervisor, Georgia Ecological Services Field Office, peter_maholland@fws.gov, 706–208–7512. Tyler Abbott, Field Supervisor, Wyoming Field Office, tyler_abbott@fws.gov, 307–757–3707. Dan Elbert, Field Supervisor, Tennessee Field Office, daniel_elbert@fws.gov, 571–461–8964. Janet Mizzi, Field Supervisor, Asheville Ecological Services Field Office, janet_ mizzi@fws.gov, 828–258–3939x42223. Chihuahua catfish ..................................................................... Cooper’s cave amphipod, minute cave amphipod, Morrison’s cave amphipod. Georgia blind salamander ........................................................ Narrow-foot hygrotus diving beetle .......................................... Pristine crayfish ........................................................................ lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 FWS–R7–ES–2023–0109 FWS–R2–ES–2023–0110 FWS–R5–ES–2023–0120 FWS–R4–ES–2023–0117 FWS–R5–ES–2023–0121 FWS–R5–ES–2023–0122 FWS–R6–ES–2023–0111 FWS–R4–ES–2023–0115 FWS–R4–ES–2023–0116 Tennessee heelsplitter ............................................................. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Aug 22, 2023 Jkt 259001 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 should use the relay services offered within their country to make E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Background Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we are required to make a finding on whether or not a petitioned action is warranted within 12 months after receiving any petition that we have determined contains substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (hereafter a ‘‘12-month finding’’). We must make a finding that the petitioned action is: (1) Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) warranted but precluded by other listing activity. We must publish a notification of these 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 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Aug 22, 2023 Jkt 259001 have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may have positive effects. We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in general to actions or conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively affect individuals of a species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either together or separately—the source of the action or condition or the action or condition itself. However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all identified threats by considering the expected response by the species, and the effects of the threats—in light of those actions and conditions that will ameliorate the threats—on an individual, population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether the species meets the Act’s definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only after conducting this cumulative analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the foreseeable future. The Act does not define the term ‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened species.’’ Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term ‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far into the future as we can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species’ responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to depend on it when making decisions. PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 57389 It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the species’ responses to those threats in view of its life-history characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the species’ biological response include species-specific factors such as lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and other demographic factors. In conducting our evaluation of the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether the Alexander Archipelago wolf, Cooper’s cave amphipod, Georgia blind salamander, minute cave amphipod, Morrison’s cave amphipod, narrow-foot hygrotus diving beetle, pristine crayfish, and Tennessee heelsplitter meet the Act’s definition of ‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened species,’’ we considered and thoroughly evaluated the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future stressors and threats. In conducting our evaluation of the Chihuahua catfish, we determined that it does not meet the definition of a ‘‘species’’ under the Act, and, as a result, we conclude that it is not a listable entity. We reviewed the petitions, information available in our files, and other available published and unpublished information for all these species. Our evaluation may include information from recognized experts; Federal, State, and Tribal governments; academic institutions; foreign governments; private entities; and other members of the public. In accordance with the regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)(i), this document announces the not-warranted findings on petitions to list nine species. We have also elected to include brief summaries of the analyses on which these findings are based. We provide the full analyses, including the reasons and data on which the findings are based, in the decisional file for each of the nine actions included in this document. The following is a description of the documents containing these analyses: The species assessment forms for Alexander Archipelago wolf, Cooper’s cave amphipod, Georgia blind salamander, minute cave amphipod, Morrison’s cave amphipod, narrow-foot hygrotus diving beetle, pristine crayfish, and Tennessee heelsplitter contain more detailed biological information, a thorough analysis of the listing factors, a list of literature cited, and an explanation of why we determined that E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 57390 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules each species does not meet the Act’s definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species.’’ To inform our status reviews, we completed species status assessment (SSA) reports for the Alexander Archipelago wolf, Cooper’s cave amphipod, Georgia blind salamander, minute cave amphipod, Morrison’s cave amphipod, narrow-foot hygrotus diving beetle, pristine crayfish, and Tennessee heelsplitter. Each SSA report contains a thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, current status, and projected future status for each species. The species assessment form for the Chihuahua catfish contains more detailed taxonomic information, a list of literature cited, and an explanation of why we determined that the species does not meet the Act’s definition of a ‘‘species.’’ This supporting information can be found on the internet at https:// www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (see ADDRESSES, above). lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Alexander Archipelago Wolf Previous Federal Actions On July 15, 2020, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, Alaska Rainforest Defenders, and Defenders of Wildlife, requesting that the Alexander Archipelago wolf subspecies in Southeast Alaska be listed as a threatened species or an endangered species and critical habitat be designated for this species under the Act. The petitioners requested that we recognize Alexander Archipelago wolves in Southeast Alaska as a distinct population segment (DPS), and evaluate this DPS for listing as threatened or endangered. The petitioners also requested that we evaluate the Alexander Archipelago wolf subspecies for listing where Southeast Alaska constitutes a significant portion of the range. On July 27, 2021, we published a 90-day finding (86 FR 40186) that the petition contained substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted for the species. This document constitutes our 12-month finding on the July 15, 2020, petition to list the Alexander Archipelago wolf under the Act. We evaluated the Southeast Alaska population of AA wolf under our 1996 DPS policy (61 FR 4722) and found that it met both the discreteness and significance criteria. The population is discrete based on the international governmental boundary between the United States (Alaska) and Canada (British Columbia) within which significant differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Aug 22, 2023 Jkt 259001 and regulatory mechanisms exist. The population meets the significance criteria because the loss of the Alexander Archipelago wolves in Southeast Alaska would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon because an extensive area would be without Alexander Archipelago wolves if the Southeast Alaska population were lost. For a more detailed discussion of our DPS analysis, please see the species assessment form. Given the best available information related to the DPS Policy’s discreteness and significance criteria, we determined that the Southeast Alaska segment of the Alexander Archipelago wolf population meets the DPS Policy criteria for both the discreteness criteria and the significance criteria. Thus, in addition to our listing evaluation and finding on the Alexander Archipelago wolf rangewide, we also evaluated the Southeast Alaska DPS, as requested by the petition. Summary of Finding for the Alexander Archipelago Wolf The Alexander Archipelago wolf is a subspecies of gray wolf that occurs along the coastal mainland and islands of Southeast Alaska and British Columbia. Based on the best available information, the current distribution of the species is similar to its historical distribution. There are gaps in our understanding of the life history of the Alexander Archipelago wolf; thus, when appropriate, we have applied information from gray wolves and other gray wolf subspecies. Alexander Archipelago wolves breed between 22 to 34 months of age, and litters range from 1 to 8 pups. Denning typically occurs from mid-April through early July; throughout the rest of the year Alexander Archipelago wolves are traveling, hunting, or dispersing. Alexander Archipelago wolves are capable of dispersing long distances, both on land and water, although there are many examples of these wolves avoiding water crossings. Pack sizes typically range between 2 and 12 wolves, although much larger groups have been observed. Alexander Archipelago wolves are opportunistic predators that eat a variety of prey species, yet, like gray wolves, ungulates compose most of their diet. Across the range of the species, Sitka black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis) and moose (Alces americanus) make up 75 percent of the wolf’s diet. Alexander Archipelago wolves are habitat generalists, typically utilizing whatever habitat their preferred prey use and avoiding areas of intense human PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 activity. Old-growth forests, which Alexander Archipelago wolves select for, make up a majority of home range areas, and areas near freshwater are also selected by wolves during denning. We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the Alexander Archipelago wolf, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these threats. The primary threats affecting the Alexander Archipelago wolf’s biological status include timber harvest and associated road development, harvest of wolves, and genetic inbreeding. Although disease and climate change may not be currently impacting the species, the best available information indicates that these factors could have impacts on the species’ viability in the future. After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we assessed the current status of the Alexander Archipelago wolf to determine if it meets the definition of an endangered species or threatened species. Our assessment of Alexander Archipelago wolf current viability included the primary threats of timber harvest and associated road development, harvest of wolves, and genetic inbreeding. To evaluate overall current population resiliency of the Alexander Archipelago wolf, we ranked each population into a current condition category (i.e., high, moderately-high, moderate, moderately-low, low, or functionally extirpated) based on estimates of population growth, and the species’ needs which include dietary diversity, area of old-growth forest available, and remoteness (i.e., space from human activity; Table 3 of the SSA Report). Despite past and ongoing threats, Alexander Archipelago wolf currently occupies five analysis units that span its historical range, three of which exhibit high resiliency (Northern and Southern Coastal British Columbia and Northern Southeast Alaska), one with moderately high resiliency (Southern Southeast Alaska), and one with moderately low resiliency (Prince of Wales Island Complex). Currently, Alexander Archipelago wolves appear to have high adaptive capacity, and we expect most populations to be able to adapt to near-term changes in their physical and biological environments. The exception to this is the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit. Within the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit, high levels of inbreeding have been documented, and E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules ungulate prey is limited compared to the rest of the range. These characteristics limit the adaptive capacity of wolves within this analysis unit. Nonetheless, based on the best available information, the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit demonstrates stable population trends. Overall, the Alexander Archipelago wolf is widely distributed across its current and historical range indicating that it has high redundancy (ability to withstand catastrophic events) and overall high representation (adaptive capacity), contributing to its overall viability. Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude that the Alexander Archipelago wolf is not in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. To assess future viability of the Alexander Archipelago wolf, we considered the foreseeable future out approximately 30 years (to 2050) and projected the influence of three future scenarios that included disease and climate change and the other primary threats included in the assessment of current viability. The Alexander Archipelago wolf is projected to retain high to moderate levels of resiliency within four of the five analysis units, and no significant loss in distribution is predicted across its range. The exception is the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit, which is projected to decline in resiliency under most scenarios, and under one scenario, projections indicate possible extirpation. However, the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit represents a relatively small area (approximately 4.5 percent; Service 2023, p. 110) compared to the overall geographic range of the species, and a relatively small proportion of the rangewide population estimate (17 percent; Service 2023, pp. 90–91). Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude that the Alexander Archipelago wolf is not likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. We evaluated the range of the Alexander Archipelago wolf to determine if the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in any portion of its range. The Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit has moderately low resiliency now and ranges from moderate resiliency to functionally extirpated into the future. We found that this analysis unit may have a different status compared to the rest of the range. Within the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit, high levels of old-growth timber harvest, road VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Aug 22, 2023 Jkt 259001 development, and inbreeding have been documented, and wolf harvest rates (reported and unreported) may also exceed sustainable levels in some years (Service 2023, p. 62). Additionally, ungulate prey is limited to just one species, the Sitka black-tailed deer, limiting adaptive capacity for wolves in this analysis unit. Although other analysis units may also face one or two threats from timber harvest, road development, inbreeding, wolf harvest, or prey availability, the Prince of Wales Island Complex is the only analysis unit that experiences all of these threats. However, we did not find that the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit represents a significant portion of the range for the Alexander Archipelago wolf. The Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit represents approximately 4.5 percent of the overall geographic range of the species (Service 2023, p. 110). Additionally, the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit does not have high-quality habitat relative to the rest of the range. Contiguous patches of old-growth forest (at least 75 square kilometers) have been identified as the preferred habitat for this species and are considered highquality habitat. The Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit contains 10.9 percent of the total preferred oldgrowth habitat that is available to the species rangewide (Service 2023, p. 110). Lastly, the habitat within the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit is not considered unique for any specific life-history functions (e.g., availability of denning habitat or ungulate prey); the species’ preferred denning habitat is found in all other analysis units, and ungulate prey diversity is greater in the other analysis units. Thus, we do not consider the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit to represent a large geographic area relative to the range of the species as a whole, to have higher quality habitat relative to the remaining portions of the range, or to represent uniquely valuable habitat for the species. We do not find that the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit is significant. Therefore, the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit does not represent a significant portion of its range, and we find that the Alexander Archipelago wolf is not in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in any significant portion of its range. After assessing the best available information, we conclude that the Alexander Archipelago wolf is not in danger of extinction or likely to become in danger of extinction throughout all of its range or in any significant portion of PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 57391 its range. Therefore, we find that listing the Alexander Archipelago wolf as an endangered species or threatened species under the Act is not warranted. Summary of Finding for the Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago Wolf DPS The Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS occurs along the coastal mainland and islands of Southeast Alaska. Based on the best available information, the current distribution of the species is similar to its historical distribution. We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these threats. The primary threats affecting the Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS’s biological status include timber harvest and associated road development, harvest of wolves, and genetic inbreeding. Although disease and climate change may not be currently impacting the species, the best available information indicates that these factors could have impacts on the species’ viability in the future. Our assessment of the current viability of the Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS included the primary threats of timber harvest and associated road development, harvest of wolves, and genetic inbreeding. Currently, one analysis unit exhibits high resiliency (Northern Southeast), one analysis unit exhibits moderately high resiliency (Southern Southeast), and one analysis unit exhibits moderately low resiliency (Prince of Wales Island Complex). Alexander Archipelago wolves in the Northern Southeast Alaska analysis unit and the Southern Southeast Alaska analysis unit appear to have high adaptive capacity, and we expect wolves in these analysis units to be able to adapt to near-term changes in their physical and biological environments. Even though the Southern Southeast Alaska analysis unit exhibits signs of recent and historical inbreeding, there is no evidence of a reduction in fitness related to inbreeding. Additionally, the Southern Southeast Alaska analysis unit has a greater potential for connectivity and therefore, gene flow, with other analysis units on the mainland, and it has a greater diversity of ungulate prey. Within the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit, high levels of E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 57392 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules inbreeding have been documented and ungulate prey is limited compared to the rest of the range of the DPS. These characteristics limit the current adaptive capacity of wolves within the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit. However, even with this additional stress, the population estimates for Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit indicate it is currently stable. Within the Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS, the species is distributed across its current and historical range, indicating that it has high redundancy (ability to withstand catastrophic events) and high representation (adaptive capacity), contributing to its overall viability. Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude that the Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS is not in danger of extinction throughout its range. To assess future viability of the Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS, we considered the foreseeable future out approximately 30 years (to 2050) and projected the influence of three future scenarios that included disease and climate change, and the other primary threats included in the assessment of current viability. The Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS is projected to have high to moderate resiliency within the Northern Southeast Alaska analysis unit, moderately high resiliency in the Southern Southeast Alaska analysis unit, and moderate resiliency to a functionally extirpated status within the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit. However, the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit represents a relatively small percentage of the total geographic area of the Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS (approximately 13.2 percent) and approximately 30 percent of the overall Southeast Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS population. Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude that the Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS is not likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. We then evaluated the range of the Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS to determine if the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in any significant portion of its range. We looked at the entire range of the Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS and found that the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit has moderately low resiliency now and ranges from moderately resilient to functionally VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Aug 22, 2023 Jkt 259001 extirpated into the future. We found that the Prince of Wales Island Complex may have a different status compared to the rest of the DPS range. Within the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit, high levels of old-growth timber harvest, road development, and inbreeding have been documented, and wolf harvest rates (reported and unreported) may exceed sustainable levels in some years (Service 2023, p. 62). Additionally, ungulate prey is limited to just one species, Sitka black-tailed deer, limiting adaptive capacity for wolves in this analysis unit. Although the other analysis units may also face one or two threats from either timber harvest, road development, inbreeding, wolf harvest, or prey availability, the Prince of Wales Island Complex is the only analysis unit that experiences all of these threats. However, we did not find the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit to represent a significant portion of the range of the Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf. The Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit represents a relatively small portion of the geographic area of the Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS (approximately 13.2 percent). Additionally, the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit does not have high-quality habitat relative to the rest of the range. Contiguous patches of oldgrowth forest have been identified as the preferred habitat for this species and are considered high-quality habitat. The Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit contains approximately 22.8 percent of high-quality habitat compared to the rest of the DPS range (Service 2023, p. 110). Lastly, the habitat on the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit is not considered unique for any specific life-history functions (e.g., denning habitat or prey diversity); denning habitat is found in the other analysis units within the DPS, and the other two analysis units have greater ungulate prey diversity compared to the Prince of Wales Island Complex. Thus, we do not consider the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit to represent a large geographic area relative to the range of the DPS, to have higher quality habitat relative to the rest of the DPS, or to represent uniquely valuable habitat for the DPS. Therefore, the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit does not represent a significant portion of the Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS range, and the Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS is not in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in any significant portion of its range. PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 After assessing the best available information, we concluded that the Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS is not in danger of extinction or likely to become in danger of extinction throughout all of its range or in any significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS as an endangered species or threatened species under the Act is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Alexander Archipelago wolf species assessment form and other supporting documents at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2023–0109. Peer Review In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 1994) and the Service’s August 22, 2016, Director’s Memo on the Peer Review Process we solicited independent scientific reviews of the information contained in the Alexander Archipelago wolf SSA report. The Service sent the SSA report to 10 independent peer reviewers and received 4 responses. Results of this structured peer review process can be found at https:// www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2023–0109 and https:// www.fws.gov/library/categories/peerreview-plans. We incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this finding. Chihuahua Catfish Previous Federal Actions On June 25, 2007, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received a petition dated June 18, 2007, from Forest Guardians (now WildEarth Guardians) requesting that the Service list 475 species, including the Chihuahua catfish, as threatened or endangered species and designate critical habitat under the Act. All 475 species occur within the Southwest Region and were ranked as G1 or G1G2 species by NatureServe at the time. In a July 11, 2007, letter to the petitioner, the Service acknowledged receipt of the petition and stated that the petition was under review by staff in the Southwest Regional Office. On December 16, 2009, the Service published a partial 90-day finding on the petition, including the Chihuahua catfish and 191 other species, stating that the petition presented substantial scientific information indicating that listing may be warranted for 67 of the 192 species (74 FR 66866). E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules Summary of Finding In assessing the best available scientific information for the status of a species, the Service generally relies on information published in peer-reviewed journals and other reports. Particularly related to taxonomic determinations, we defer to the scientific literature and to professional authorities for taxonomical assignments. However, when that information is in question, the Service conducts its own analysis, and we exercise our best scientific judgment. For a taxon to be listed under the Act, it must be a listable entity; that is, it must be either formally described and accepted as a species or subspecies or there must be credible scientific evidence that the entity should qualify as a valid species or subspecies. The Chihuahua catfish has never been formally described in peer-reviewed literature as a valid taxonomic entity. A draft species description from 1998 proposed to describe the species as distinct but was never finalized. Recent morphological and genetic analyses found no evidence that this putative species exists in New Mexico and Texas. To date, no peer-reviewed publications have supported a distinct species status of the Chihuahua catfish or provided evidence of its existence. We have reviewed the best available information regarding the taxonomic status of the putative Chihuahua catfish and conclude that there is insufficient credible scientific evidence that the entity qualifies as a valid species or subspecies. Therefore, it is not warranted for listing because we find that there is not credible scientific evidence that the Chihuahuan catfish is a listable entity under Act. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Chihuahua catfish species assessment form and other supporting documents at https:// www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2023–0110. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Peer Review In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 1994) and the Service’s August 22, 2016, Director’s Memo on the Peer Review Process, we solicited independent scientific reviews of the information contained in our report titled ‘‘Review of the Chihuahua catfish (Ictalurus sp. 1)’’. The Service sent the report to seven independent peer reviewers and received four responses. We incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the report, which is the foundation for this finding. Results of this structured peer review VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Aug 22, 2023 Jkt 259001 process can be found at https:// www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2023–0110. Cooper’s Cave Amphipod, Minute Cave Amphipod, and Morrison’s Cave Amphipod Previous Federal Actions On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, and West Virginia Highlands to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species, including Stygobromus cooperi, S. parvus, and S. morrisoni (referred to by the common names ‘‘Cooper’s cave amphipod,’’ ‘‘minute cave amphipod,’’ and ‘‘Morrison’s cave amphipod,’’ respectively, in the petition), as endangered or threatened species under the Act. On September 27, 2011, we published a 90-day finding in which we announced that the petition contained substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted for the species (76 FR 59836). This document constitutes our 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to list Cooper’s, minute, and Morrison’s cave amphipods under the Act. Summary of Finding Cooper’s, minute, and Morrison’s cave amphipods are specialized for subterranean karst habitat characterized by relatively stable physiochemical conditions compared to surface environments and have limited or patchily distributed food resources. Karst landscapes are geologic features or landforms characterized by distinctive permeable underground drainage systems, caves, and sinkholes that have been formed through the dissolving of soluble rock, particularly limestone (Simms 2005, p. 678). Due to the absence of light and primary producers in subterranean environments, these species are likely detritivores or omnivores that feed on organic matter (i.e., dead plant and animal material) originating from the surface. Morrison’s cave amphipod is restricted to Virginia and West Virginia, and Cooper’s cave and minute cave amphipods are restricted to West Virginia, with limited distributions. We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the Cooper’s, minute, and Morrison’s cave amphipods, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five listing factors, including any regulatory PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 57393 mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these threats. The primary threats affecting Cooper’s, minute, and Morrison’s cave amphipods are: (1) groundwater contamination by sediments and toxic compounds, (2) disruption of food supply due to deforestation/surface alteration, and (3) direct modification of habitats due to cave visitation and urban development of karst areas. Protection, management, and conservation measures that may improve the species’ viability are summarized below. After evaluating the best available scientific and commercial information on potential stressors acting individually or in combination, we found no indication that the combined effects are currently causing a population-level decline or degrading the habitat of the Cooper’s, minute, or Morrison’s cave amphipod, or that the combined effects are likely to do so within a foreseeable future of 20 years, based on the projected species’ response to future stressors. Despite impacts from the primary threats, the best data and information available indicate Cooper’s, minute, and Morrison’s cave amphipod species have maintained resilient populations throughout their respective ranges. Although we predict some continued impacts from these threats in the future, we anticipate each species will continue, in the foreseeable future (that is roughly 20 years), to maintain resilient populations throughout their ranges that are distributed throughout each of their representative units. After evaluating threats to the species under the section 4(a)(1) factors listed above and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats of these factors, we evaluated Cooper’s, minute, and Morrison’s cave amphipod viability to determine if these species meet the definition of an endangered or threatened species. The Cooper’s, minute, and Morrison’s cave amphipod redundancy and representation are limited due to their narrow ranges; however, this situation is likely similar to historical conditions. We find that the Cooper’s, minute, and Morrison’s cave amphipods have sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and representation in light of the best available potential stressor data and information, both currently and into the foreseeable future, such that they do not meet the definition of an endangered or threatened species throughout their range. We evaluated the range of the Cooper’s cave amphipod to determine if the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in any portion of its E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 57394 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules range. The Cooper’s cave amphipod is a narrow endemic that functions as a single, contiguous population and occurs within a very small area of 27 square kilometers (km2) (10.5 square miles [mi2]). Thus, there is no biologically meaningful way to break this limited range into portions, and the threats that the species faces affect the species comparably throughout its entire range. As a result, there are no portions of the species’ range where the species has a different biological status from its rangewide biological status. Therefore, we conclude that there are no portions of the species’ range that warrant further consideration, and the species is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in any significant portion of its range. We evaluated the range of the minute and Morrison’s cave amphipods to determine if the species are in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in any portion of their ranges (1,467 km2 or 566 mi2 and 2,266 km2 or 876 mi2, respectively). The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of ways. We focused our analysis on portions of the species’ range that may meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. For minute and Morrison’s cave amphipods, we considered whether the threats or their effects on the species are greater in any biologically meaningful portion of the species’ range than in other portions such that the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in that portion. We examined the following threats: (1) groundwater contamination, (2) disruption of food supply due to deforestation or surface alteration, and (3) direct modification of habitat due to cave visitation and urban development. After evaluating the best available scientific and commercial information on potential stressors acting individually or in combination, we found no indication that the combined effects are currently causing a population-level decline or degrading the habitat of the minute or the Morrison’s cave amphipods. These factors are not occurring at a substantial level in any portion for either the minute or Morrison’s cave amphipods to contribute to the risk of extinction. We found no biologically meaningful portion of the minute or Morrison’s cave amphipod ranges where threats are impacting individuals differently from how they are affecting the species elsewhere in its range, or where the biological condition of the species differs from its condition elsewhere in VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Aug 22, 2023 Jkt 259001 its range such that the status of the species in that portion differs from its status in any other portion of the species’ range. Refer to the species assessment form in the docket for this action for additional details. After assessing the best available information, we concluded that Cooper’s, minute, and Morrison’s cave amphipods are not in danger of extinction or likely to become in danger of extinction throughout all of their ranges or in any significant portion of their ranges. Therefore, we find that listing the Cooper’s, minute, or Morrison’s cave amphipods as endangered species or threatened species under the Act is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Cooper’s, minute, and Morrison’s cave amphipods species assessment form and other supporting documents on https:// www.regulations.gov under Docket Nos. FWS–R5–ES–2023–0120 (Cooper’s cave amphipod), FWS–R5–ES–2023–0121 (minute cave amphipod), and FWS–R5– ES–2023–0122 (Morrison’s cave amphipod. Peer Review In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 1994) and the Service’s August 22, 2016, Director’s Memo on the Peer Review Process we solicited independent scientific reviews of the information contained in the Cooper’s, minute, and Morrison’s cave amphipod SSA report. The Service sent the SSA report to four independent peer reviewers and received four responses. Results of this structured peer review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket Nos. FWS–R5–ES–2023– 0120 (Cooper’s cave amphipod), FWS– R5–ES–2023–0121 (minute cave amphipod), and FWS–R5–ES–2023– 0122 (Morrison’s cave amphipod). We incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this finding. Georgia Blind Salamander Previous Federal Actions On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, and West Virginia Highlands to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species, including Eurycea wallacei (formerly known as, and identified by petitioners as, Haideotriton wallacei), as an endangered or threatened species under PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 the Act. On September 27, 2011, we published a 90-day finding (76 FR 59836) that the petition contained substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted for the species. This document constitutes our 12month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to list the Georgia blind salamander under the Act. Summary of Finding The Georgia blind salamander is a relatively small, pinkish-white, blind salamander with visible external gills. Eyes are entirely lacking, except for dark eyespots. The bodies of juveniles exhibit many small pigment spots uniformly distributed along the dorsal and lateral surfaces but are otherwise translucent. Adults are similar in appearance but lack body pigmentation, leaving them almost pure white apart from their gills. Lungs are also absent. Common prey items of the Georgia blind salamander mainly include crustaceans (ostracods, amphipods, copepods, and isopods), though insects and arachnids have also been found in salamander digestive tracts. Habitat of the Georgia blind salamander consists primarily of caves within the Upper Floridan Aquifer System, an extensively karstified aquifer system. Currently, locations where Georgia blind salamander have been found include Jackson County, Florida, as well as Dougherty and Decatur Counties, Georgia, in the Marianna Lowlands-Dougherty Plain physiographic region. The best available science indicates there is a high likelihood of Georgia blind salamander co-occurring with the Dougherty Plain cave crayfish (Cambarus cryptodytes), resulting in up to 58 extant sites. It is important to note that the identified sites are only those that are accessible to humans and do not necessarily represent the entire distribution of the species. Also, many sites of cooccurrence are isolated wells, indicating that both species are likely more widely distributed throughout the aquifer and associated springsheds than is evidenced by direct sightings alone. It is likely the species is present in the Dougherty Plain portion of the Upper FAS. We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the Georgia blind salamander, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these threats. Existing threats related to water quality and water quantity are present, though there are extant sites. In addition, water quantity E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules currently does not appear to have a large impact on this aquifer, as drawdowns even in drought conditions were not impacting water levels in the aquifer. Since aquifers have relatively stable conditions over space and time, particularly compared to other terrestrial or even aquatic habitats, the species’ broad occurrence across the 4.4million-acre aquifer likely ensures it has adequate representation and redundancy currently. After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we assessed the current status of the Georgia blind salamander to determine if it meets the definition of an endangered species or threatened species. The Georgia blind salamander currently has moderate to high resilience (78 percent of sites); water quality and quantity are the primary factors influencing the species rangewide, although the underlying aquifer has exhibited relatively stable conditions over time, and the species is presumed to occur across the aquifer. There are extant sites where existing threats related to water quality and water quantity still occur, and drawdowns in drought conditions were not impacting water levels in the aquifer. Thus, the threats appear to have low imminence and magnitude such that they are not significantly affecting the species’ current viability. Accordingly, we determined that the Georgia blind salamander is not in danger of extinction throughout its range. We then considered whether the species is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout its range. The analysis of future condition to 2070, considered in the SSA report, encompasses the best available information for future projections of land-use change under two different scenarios (worst case— A1B and best case—B2), as well as pollutant discharge permits and effects of climate change (for example, sea level rise and drought). The timeframe considered enabled us to analyze the threats/stressors acting on the species and draw reliable predictions about the species’ response to these factors. Land use changes may impact water quality, and thus could influence species viability. Given the future scenarios, the resiliency of the Georgia blind salamander population is predicted to decline or remain approximately the same in the future. However, given the vast size (4,400,162 acres of surface area) and stability of habitat, as well as the species’ broad occurrence across the VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Aug 22, 2023 Jkt 259001 aquifer, and projected limited future threats, we determined that the scale of impacts projected in the future will not impact the species such that the species is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future. Thus, after assessing the best available information, we determined that the Georgia blind salamander is not in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. We next considered whether the species may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in a significant portion of its range—that is, whether there is any portion of the species’ range for which it is true that both (1) the portion is significant and (2) the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in that portion. Because the range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of ways, we focused our analysis on portions of the species’ range that contribute to the conservation of the species in a biologically meaningful way. For the Georgia blind salamander, we considered whether the threats or their effects on the species are greater in any portion of the species’ range than in other portions such that the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in that portion. Because this species occupies a habitat that is not easily accessible or sampled, with few existing records, it is assumed to be well distributed evenly across its interconnected 4.4 millionacre range. While it is considered one population, we identified sinkhole hotspots around Albany, Georgia, and Marianna, Florida, to be most vulnerable to the threats due to their close proximity to developed areas and potential lingering effects from Superfund sites. These portions of the range are also vulnerable to potential catastrophic chemical spills compared to the overall range. The fact that spills have occurred and the salamander remains in high to moderate condition in these areas indicates that the threats to water quality and quantity are not impacting the species such that it has a different status in these portions compared to the rest of the range. For these reasons, the sinkhole hotspot portions around Albany, GA, and Marianna, FL, were not determined to have a different status now or in the foreseeable future. Further, these portions also comprise a small portion of the total range, and therefore we conclude that these areas are not significant. PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 57395 After assessing the best available information, we concluded that Georgia blind salamander is not in danger of extinction or likely to become in danger of extinction throughout all of its range or in any significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the Georgia blind salamander as an endangered species or threatened species under the Act is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Georgia blind salamander species assessment form and other supporting documents at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2023–0117. Peer Review In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 1994) and the Service’s August 22, 2016, Director’s Memo on the Peer Review Process, we solicited independent scientific reviews of the information contained in the Georgia blind salamander SSA report. The Service sent the SSA report to eight independent peer reviewers and received three responses. Results of this structured peer review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2023– 0117. We incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this finding. Narrow-Foot Hygrotus Diving Beetle Previous Federal Actions On July 17, 2013, we received a petition from WildEarth Guardians to list the narrow-foot hygrotus diving beetle, henceforth ‘‘diving beetle,’’ as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. On January 12, 2016, we published a 90-day finding (81 FR 1368) that the petition contained substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted for the species. On April 21, 2020, WildEarth Guardians filed suit (Case No. 1:20-cv-1035) to compel us to complete a 12-month finding. We subsequently agreed to submit a 12month finding for the diving beetle to the Federal Register by August 15, 2023. This document constitutes our 12month finding on the July 17, 2013, petition to list the diving beetle under the Act. Summary of Finding Narrow-foot hygrotus diving beetles are small aquatic beetles found in central Wyoming within a specific geology of Cody Shale substrates or soils derived from Cody Shale in Fremont, Johnson, Natrona, and Washakie Counties. This beetle has likely never E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 57396 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules had a wider distribution than the narrow range it currently occupies. Diving beetles develop through egg, larval, pupal, and adult stages and rely on small, transitory, saline pools that form during the drying down of ephemeral streams in summer, with all life stages either occurring in or adjacent to these pools. Diving beetles require refugia and prey in pools and hydrologically intact areas surrounding pools, which support higher water quality and seasonally appropriate timing and quantities of water in pools. Diving beetle sites appear to function as a metapopulation, and as such, connectivity among pools is essential for diving beetles. Pools need to be near enough to each other so that, when local conditions in one pool become unsuitable, either adults can fly overland to another pool or individuals at any life stage can flow downstream to another pool with suitable habitat. The frequency across years with which pools are occupied by diving beetles is also important for diving beetles’ resiliency. More frequently occupied pools reliably provide for the needs of diving beetles, and while infrequently occupied pools do not support diving beetles in most years, they do support diving beetles in years with extreme weather conditions that make other sites unsuitable. We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the diving beetle, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these threats. After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we assessed the current status of the diving beetle to determine if it meets the definition of an endangered species or threatened species. The primary threats affecting the diving beetle’s biological status include climate change, inadequate water availability, flooding, anthropogenic disturbance, and insecticide spraying. Our assessment of current viability included all primary threats to the diving beetle. Despite past and ongoing stressors, the diving beetle has multiple populations in high and moderate condition. To assess future viability of this species, we considered the foreseeable future out to 2050 and projected the influence under three future scenarios of stressors that included climate change, inadequate water availability, flooding, anthropogenic disturbance, and insecticide spraying. Within the SSA, VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Aug 22, 2023 Jkt 259001 we evaluated the viability of diving beetles, including a review of ongoing and future threats. The best available information indicates that this species’ life-history traits are conducive to surviving projected climate changes and other increases in evaluated stressors now and into the foreseeable future. Diving beetles also have a metapopulation structure with connectivity between sites that supports resiliency among all sites throughout the entire range, and the distribution of the species across three different river basins within central Wyoming helps support redundancy. Therefore, we expect all diving beetle sites to be maintained into the foreseeable future. We then evaluated the range of the diving beetle to determine if the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in any portion of its range. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of ways. We focused our analysis on portions of the species’ range that may meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. For the diving beetle, we considered whether the threats or their effects on the species are greater in any biologically meaningful portion of the species’ range than in other portions such that the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in that portion. We found no portion of the diving beetle’s range where threats are impacting individuals differently from how they are affecting the species elsewhere in its range, or where the biological condition of the species differs from its condition elsewhere in its range such that the status of the species in that portion differs from its status in any other portion of the species’ range. Therefore, we find that the species is not in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in any significant portion of its range; refer to the species assessment form in the docket for this action for additional details. After assessing the best available information, we concluded that the diving beetle is not in danger of extinction or likely to become in danger of extinction throughout all of its range or in any significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the diving beetle as an endangered species or threatened species under the Act is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the diving beetle species assessment form and other supporting documents at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2023–0111. PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Peer Review In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 1994) and the Service’s August 22, 2016, Director’s Memo on the Peer Review Process, we solicited independent scientific reviews of the information contained in the diving beetle SSA report. The Service solicited review of the SSA report from six potential peer reviewers and received one review. Results of this structured peer review process can be found at https:// www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2023–0111. We incorporated the results of the review, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this finding. Pristine Crayfish Previous Federal Actions On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, and West Virginia Highlands Conservancy to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species, including the pristine crayfish, as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. On September 27, 2011, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (76 FR 59836) concluding that the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing may be warranted. This document constitutes our 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to list pristine crayfish under the Act. Summary of Finding The pristine crayfish is a small, freshwater crayfish endemic to the Cumberland Plateau in Tennessee. The species occurs in small- to mediumsized streams and rivers in the Caney Fork and Sequatchie River systems in central Tennessee. Pristine crayfish are known to occur in 27 streams in 8 subwatersheds (HUC12) in the region. Two distinct forms of the pristine crayfish are recognized based on body characteristics and genetics: the Caney Fork form and the Sequatchie form. The Caney Fork form of pristine crayfish occurs in five northern subwatersheds (17 streams), and the Sequatchie form occurs in three southern subwatersheds (10 streams). The pristine crayfish requires good water quality in first- to fourth-order perennial streams with cool water, shallow pools with slow to moderate flow, slab rock substrate with cobble, and low levels of sedimentation. We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the pristine crayfish, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these threats. After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we assessed the current status of the pristine crayfish to determine if it meets the definition of an endangered species or threatened species. The threats affecting the pristine crayfish’s biological status include habitat destruction or modification, future effects of climate change, disease, and the effect of small, isolated populations. Of these threats, habitat destruction or modification and the future effects of climate change were identified as key drivers of the species’ viability. Habitat destruction or modification is currently the primary threat to pristine crayfish viability. Impacts to the pristine crayfish’s habitat rangewide are caused by sedimentation, decreased water quality, and the effects of impoundments. These impacts occur at the individual and population levels across the species’ distribution, but the best available information indicates that these localized impacts have not affected pristine crayfish at the species level. Climate change has the potential to impact the species through increased magnitude and frequency of drought and increased temperature, and this threat is ongoing and projected to increase in the future. Although drought and increased temperatures may result in a decrease or lack of recruitment in some portions of its range during some years, there have been no documented species-level declines as a result of consecutive years of drought. The threats of disease and small population size may exacerbate the effects of the primary threats but are not expected to affect population resiliency, representation, and redundancy alone. The best available information indicates that the range of the pristine crayfish has not contracted since described in 1965 and, in fact, its range was recently expanded into an additional river system. The species is naturally patchily distributed within its range and is known to occur in 27 streams across 8 HUC12 analysis units (AUs). Seven of the eight AUs exhibit moderate current resiliency. Although we identified habitat destruction or modification and climate change as the key drivers of species’ viability, the species’ current condition does not indicate species-level impacts from these or other cumulative factors that VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Aug 22, 2023 Jkt 259001 have led to reductions in AU resiliency. The species’ representation and redundancy are moderate, and the species occurs in multiple analysis units with sufficient resiliency across its historical and current range. Overall, no current threat is acting at an extent or severity such that the pristine crayfish is at risk of extinction throughout all of its range. Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude that the pristine crayfish is not in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. Therefore, we proceed with determining whether the pristine crayfish is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. To evaluate the future viability of the pristine crayfish, we considered the relevant threats currently acting on the species, those threats expected to act on the species in the foreseeable future, and the species’ response to those threats. The primary threats to the pristine crayfish in the future are habitat destruction or modification and climate change. The three plausible future scenarios we examined included projections of urbanization, land use change (evergreen forest cover), impoundments, the effects of climate change, and the cumulative effect of these threats. Our analysis of the species’ condition under future scenarios at two time steps (2036 and 2051) encompasses the best available information for future projections of modeled parameters under a range of plausible threat levels. We selected these time steps based on the pristine crayfish’s lifespan of approximately 4 years and the reliability of the data and models used in the future threat projections and analyses. Therefore, we determined 30 years to be the foreseeable future for which we can reasonably predict the threats to the pristine crayfish and the species’ response to those threats. In this timeframe, there are minor projected increases in some threats that may affect the availability of suitable habitat across the species’ range. Urbanization is projected to increase an average of 6 to 11 percent over current levels and evergreen forest cover (representing land use change) is projected to decrease by 1 percent in the same timeframes. The pristine crayfish is distributed across eight AUs (HUC12 subwatersheds) and is expected to remain extant in all future scenarios across the AUs. Our future condition analysis projected declines in resiliency in six or seven of the AUs in all scenarios except the increased impact scenario in 2051, when all eight AUs are projected to decline in resiliency. Based PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 57397 on our analysis, the projected effects of climate change and impoundments may have a greater effect on species’ resiliency compared to current impacts, but the magnitude and imminence of the threats and the species’ responses are more uncertain. We expect that the species’ representation and redundancy will decline slightly but will largely be maintained in moderate condition in the future with all AUs remaining on the landscape in all scenarios. We projected future redundancy as moderate with no AUs projected to be extirpated, and the distribution of the species across the range is projected to remain at the current level. Likewise, representation is expected to remain moderate as both forms of the pristine crayfish are present on the landscape, although some parameters used to assess representation are projected to decline as resiliency declines. Impacts from current and ongoing threats will reduce population resiliency and affect the species’ representation and redundancy in the foreseeable future but are not projected to lead to the species’ decline such that the pristine crayfish is likely to become in danger of extinction in the modeled scenarios. The best available information does not indicate that the pristine crayfish’s viability will decline so much that the species is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout its range. We then evaluated the range of the pristine crayfish to determine if the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in any significant portion of its range. Although threats are similar throughout the range of the species, the species’ response is more pronounced in the Piney Creek AU. Due to lower current resiliency, threats are having a greater impact in the Piney Creek AU than elsewhere in the range. The Piney Creek AU exhibits low current resiliency driven primarily by a low extent of occupancy (few sites known within the stream) and lack of information regarding reproduction in the species. Given the species’ condition within the Piney Creek AU, we have identified the unit as an area that may be in danger of extinction due to the low extent of occupancy and low reproduction/recruitment. We then proceeded to the significance question, asking whether this portion of the range is significant. Although the Piney Creek AU contributes to the overall species-level representation and redundancy, it does not contain any high-quality or high-value habitat or any habitat or resources unique to that area E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 57398 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules and necessary to the pristine crayfish’s life history. In addition, only 1 of the 27 known streams with species occurrence is located in the Piney Creek AU. So this area does not contribute substantively to the species’ viability. This portion does not make up a large geographic area of the range or contain a high proportion of the species’ habitat or populations. Accordingly, we do not find this portion to be a significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find the pristine crayfish is not currently in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its range. We next considered whether the pristine crayfish may be likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future in a significant portion of its range. As discussed above, we determined 30 years to be the foreseeable future for which we can reasonably predict the threats to the pristine crayfish and the species’ response to those threats. Habitat destruction or modification and climate change are the primary factors currently acting on or expected to act on the species in the future at a rangewide scale. The species currently exhibits moderate resiliency in seven of eight AUs and moderate species’ level representation and redundancy. Although threats are projected to impact the species similarly across the range, the species’ response is more pronounced in some AUs due to lower resiliency where threats are having a greater impact than elsewhere in the range. One AU (Caney Fork River–Clifty Creek) is projected to remain in moderate resiliency in all but the increased impact scenario in 2051. The remaining seven AUs are projected to exhibit low or very low resiliency under scenarios 2 and 3 in 2036 and 2051. We considered whether the seven AUs that are projected to exhibit low or very low resiliency in future scenarios may be a portion of the range that could become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future. Although the future condition analyses projects overall declines in AU resiliency, stream catchments with species’ occurrences are projected to remain in good condition within each AU. Within the high-condition catchments, we expect that habitat conditions will support sufficient pristine crayfish abundance and reproduction. Although projections indicate low or very low future resiliency in seven AUs, the remaining stream catchments in high condition indicate that the pristine crayfish in these AUs will remain on the landscape with sufficient viability. In addition, although some declines in representation and redundancy are projected in the future, we expect that VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Aug 22, 2023 Jkt 259001 the pristine crayfish will have sufficient adaptive capacity and ability to withstand catastrophic change in the foreseeable future. Accordingly, we determined that the pristine crayfish is not likely to become an endangered species within a significant portion of its range. We found no portion of the pristine crayfish’s range where the biological condition of the species differs from its condition elsewhere in its range such that the status of the species in that portion warrants listing under the Act. Therefore, we find that the species is not in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in any significant portion of its range. After assessing the best available information, we concluded that the pristine crayfish is not in danger of extinction or likely to become in danger of extinction throughout all of its range or in any significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the pristine crayfish as an endangered species or threatened species under the Act is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the pristine crayfish species assessment form and other supporting documents at https:// www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2023–0115. Peer Review In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 1994) and the Service’s August 22, 2016, Director’s Memo on the Peer Review Process, we solicited independent scientific reviews of the information contained in the pristine crayfish SSA report. The Service sent the SSA report to four independent peer reviewers and received one response. Results of this structured peer review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2023– 0115. We incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this finding. Tennessee Heelsplitter Previous Federal Actions On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, and West Virginia Highlands to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species, including Tennessee heelsplitter (Lasmigona holstonia), as endangered or threatened species under the Act. On September 27, 2011, we published a 90-day finding PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 (76 FR 59836) that the petition contained substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted for the species. This document constitutes our 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to list the Tennessee heelsplitter under the Act. Summary of Finding The Tennessee heelsplitter is a small freshwater mussel usually less than 50 millimeters (2 inches) long. The species is a freshwater mussel native to the New, Cumberland, and Tennessee River basins in Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, and historically North Carolina. The Tennessee heelsplitter predominantly inhabits spring-fed creeks and small headwater streams with stable substrates and good water quality. The species needs water with low to moderate flow, appropriate temperatures for life-history functions, and presence of fish hosts for successful reproduction. Resources influencing the successful completion of each life stage for Tennessee heelsplitter individuals include abundant host fish, stable substrate, proximity to breeding individuals, small or headwater streams, water with neutral pH and little to no contaminants, spring-fed streams with low to moderate water flow, and a water temperature range that allows for lifehistory functions (Service 2016a, p. 12). Successful completion of each life stage affects the ability of populations to withstand stochastic events (resiliency) and the species’ ability to withstand catastrophic events (redundancy) as well as adapt to changing environmental conditions by way of genetic exchange or respond to environmental diversity between occupied streams (representation). The population- and species-level resource needs of the Tennessee heelsplitter include sufficient juvenile and breeding adult abundances with broad distributions, suitable and abundant host fish, and habitat connectivity. Resiliency of Tennessee heelsplitter populations (which we defined as occupied stream reaches within analysis units (AUs)), as well as representation and redundancy of the species, are influenced by access to necessary resources. We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the Tennessee heelsplitter, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these threats. The threats affecting the Tennessee heelsplitter’s E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules biological status include siltation and sedimentation, pollution and toxic spills, drought and floods, aquatic nuisance species, and impoundments. These threats appear to have mostly localized extent and moderate impact. The current risk of extinction is low. Further, the Tennessee heelsplitter’s current distribution has not substantially changed from its known historical distribution. Sixty percent of AUs are categorized as ‘‘high’’ or ‘‘most’’ habitat suitability and these AUs are distributed throughout each river basin. Redundancy is high, as our analysis indicates that suitable habitat exists throughout the range of the Tennessee heelsplitter. Representation is maintained across the range of historical and current occurrence in the Cumberland, New, and Tennessee River basins. Additionally, available information indicates the species’ adaptive capacity will ensure survival despite predicted climate impacts, particularly because of the strong association with spring-fed streams that can act as cold-water and drought refugia in the face of climate change. Therefore, after assessing the best available information, we conclude that the Tennessee heelsplitter is not in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. Based on projected habitat suitability for the two future scenarios, future resiliency for the Tennessee heelsplitter is expected to decrease slightly, but overall there will be 77 percent to 91 percent of suitable habitat available to the species, depending on the modeled scenario. Multiple AUs maintain resiliency, or levels of suitable habitat, in future-condition projections across the range and are likely to help buffer changes in environmental conditions through 2040 and 2060. Further, the concentration of AUs with high resiliency in the southwestern Virginia and northeastern Tennessee strongholds are projected to remain intact. Connectivity of these high resiliency AUs within the upper Tennessee representation unit (RU) bolster the likelihood of persistence into the future. In the future, stochastic events associated with threats to the species will likely affect population resilience in parts of the range, and these are more likely to occur or be observed in developed areas. However, our future condition projections indicate Tennessee heelsplitter resiliency is sufficient to withstand disturbance and environmental stochasticity, due to prevalent suitable habitat and lifehistory traits that reduce risk currently and into the future. The Tennessee heelsplitter has several life-history traits VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Aug 22, 2023 Jkt 259001 that allow it to adapt to changing conditions, such as the capability to transform on a wide variety of common host fish species, occurring in varying stream sizes, as well as tolerance of silty and sandy substrates and depositional areas with low flows. Spring-fed streams where the Tennessee heelsplitter is most frequently located are ubiquitous throughout the species’ range and have year-round groundwater contributions with continuous flow and comparatively stable temperature regimes. These characteristics are expected to bolster Tennessee heelsplitter resilience in most AUs throughout the range into the future and withstand projected climate effects. After assessing the best available information, we conclude that the Tennessee heelsplitter is not likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. We also evaluated the range of the Tennessee heelsplitter to determine if the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in any significant portion of its range. We identified the three RUs—Cumberland, New, and Tennessee drainages—for evaluation. As described above, the threats are present across all AUs within the range, but some are localized in effect, though most threats have a low to moderate level of impact on the species. The New and Cumberland RUs currently have large percentages (100 percent and 75 percent, respectively) of suitable habitat, thus these areas have high estimated current resiliency. Our future conditions analysis indicates that none of the AUs in the New RU, and only one of the AUs in the Cumberland RU, is projected to no longer have suitable habitat to support the species. As such, the amount and distribution of suitable habitat in high resiliency AUs are projected to be maintained 40 years in the future in both the New and Cumberland RUs, and we determined that the Tennessee heelsplitter is not in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in the New or Cumberland RU. The Tennessee RU comprises 132 AUs with varying levels of suitable habitat; 57 percent of the AUs have a current condition level of high or most resilience, and 43 percent are in a condition of moderate resilience. Our future conditions analysis indicates that 4 to 14 percent of the AUs in the Tennessee RU could lose habitat suitability within the next 40 years. Despite this potential loss of habitat suitability, between 86 and 96 percent of the AUs are projected to maintain PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 57399 suitable habitat, with widespread distribution throughout the Tennessee RU portion of the range. The Tennessee heelsplitter is expected to have sufficient resiliency in this RU for many decades. Thus, we found that the Tennessee heelsplitter is not in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in the Tennessee RU. After assessing the best available information, we concluded that Tennessee heelsplitter is not in danger of extinction or likely to become in danger of extinction throughout all of its range or in any significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the Tennessee heelsplitter as an endangered species or threatened species under the Act is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Tennessee heelsplitter species assessment form and other supporting documents at https:// www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2023–0116. Peer Review In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 1994) and the Service’s August 22, 2016, Director’s Memo on the Peer Review Process we solicited independent scientific reviews of the information contained in the Tennessee heelsplitter SSA report. The Service sent the SSA report to five independent peer reviewers and received two responses. Results of this structured peer review process can be found at https:// www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2023–0116. We incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this finding. New Information We request that you submit any new information concerning the taxonomy, biology, ecology, or status of, or stressors to, the Alexander Archipelago wolf, Chihuahua catfish, Cooper’s cave amphipod, Georgia blind salamander, minute cave amphipod, Morrison’s cave amphipod, narrow-foot hygrotus diving beetle, pristine crayfish, or Tennessee heelsplitter to the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, whenever it becomes available. New information will help us monitor these species and make appropriate decisions about their conservation and status. We encourage local agencies and stakeholders to continue cooperative monitoring and conservation efforts. E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 57400 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules References Cited A list of the references cited in each petition finding is available in the relevant species assessment form, which is available on the internet at https:// www.regulations.gov in the appropriate docket (see ADDRESSES, above) and upon request from the appropriate person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above). Authors The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the Species Assessment Team, Ecological Services Program. Authority The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Wendi Weber, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 2023–18260 Filed 8–22–23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333–15–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [RTID 0648–XC971] Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan; Amendment 31 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability of proposed fishery management plan amendment; request for comments. AGENCY: NMFS announces that the Pacific Fishery Management Council has submitted Amendment 31 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan to the Secretary of Commerce for review. If approved, Amendment 31 would define stocks that are in need of conservation and management, consistent with the provisions and guidelines of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Amendment 31 would define stocks for 14 species within the fishery management unit. These species were prioritized because they had stock assessments in 2021 or will have assessments in 2023. Amendment 31 is lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Aug 22, 2023 Jkt 259001 necessary for NMFS to make stock status determinations, which in turn will help prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, and achieve optimum yield. Amendment 31 is administrative in nature and does not change harvest levels or timing and location of fishing, nor does it revise the goals and objectives or the management frameworks of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. DATES: Comments on Amendment 31 must be received no later than October 22, 2023. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA– NMFS–2023–0066, by the following method: • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to https://www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA–NMFS–2023–0066 in the Search box. Click the ‘‘Comment’’ icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments. Instructions: Comments must be submitted by the above method to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and NMFS will post for public viewing on https:// www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender is publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Electronic Access This rule is accessible via the internet at the Office of the Federal Register website at https:// www.federalregister.gov. Background information and documents including an analysis for this action (Analysis), which addresses the statutory requirements of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) are available from the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s website at https://www.pcouncil.org. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gretchen Hanshew, Fishery Management Specialist, at 206–526– 6147 or gretchen.hanshew@noaa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 exclusive economic zone (EEZ) seaward of Washington, Oregon, and California under the Pacific Coast Groundfish fishery management plan (PCGFMP). The Council prepared and NMFS implemented the PCGFMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. and by regulations at 50 CFR parts 600 and 660. The MagnusonStevens Act requires that each regional fishery management council submit any fishery management plan (FMP) or plan amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary of Commerce. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP or amendment, immediately publish a notification that the FMP or amendment is available for public review and comment. This notice of availability announces that the proposed Amendment 31 to the FMP is available for public review and comment. NMFS will consider the public comments received during the comment period described above in determining whether to approve, partially approve, or disapprove Amendment 31 to the FMP. Background Amendment 31 would define stocks that are in need of conservation and management. Amendment 31 would define stocks for 14 species within the fishery management unit (FMU; the jurisdiction of the FMP from 3–200 nautical miles offshore between the U.S. border with Canada and the U.S. border with Mexico, which may also be referred to as ‘‘coastwide’’). At its June 20–27, 2023 meeting in Vancouver, Washington, the Council recommended stock definitions for 14 species of Pacific Coast groundfish after NMFS was unable to make stock status determinations in 2021. NMFS was unable to make stock status determinations because the ‘‘stocks’’ for which the Council was expecting status determinations did not exist in the FMP. Currently, the FMP has a list of 80+ species to which it pertains, and does not describe whether each species is a single stock within the fishery management unit or if it is multiple (e.g., regional) stocks. NMFS requested that the Council undertake Amendment 31 to define stocks at its March 8–14, 2022 meeting in San Jose, California. NMFS advised the Council that it should define the stocks for which stock status determinations were changing in 2021 and 2023, and to add those definitions to the FMP. In particular, NMFS was E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 23, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57388-57400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18260]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234]


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notification of findings.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 
findings that nine species are not warranted for listing as endangered 
or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act). After a thorough review of the best available scientific 
and commercial information, we find that it is not warranted at this 
time to list the Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canis lupus ligoni), 
Chihuahua catfish (Ictalurus sp. 1), Cooper's cave amphipod 
(Stygobromus cooperi), Georgia blind salamander (Eurycea wallacei), 
minute cave amphipod (Stygobromus parvus), Morrison's cave amphipod 
(Stygobromus morrisoni), narrow-foot hygrotus diving beetle (Hygrotus 
diversipes), pristine crayfish (Cambarus pristinus), and Tennessee 
heelsplitter (Lasmigona holstonia). However, we ask the public to 
submit to us at any time any new information relevant to the status of 
any of the species mentioned above or their habitats.

DATES: The findings in this document were made on August 23, 2023.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Species                             Docket No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Archipelago wolf...  FWS-R7-ES-2023-0109
Chihuahua catfish............  FWS-R2-ES-2023-0110
Cooper's cave amphipod.......  FWS-R5-ES-2023-0120
Georgia blind salamander.....  FWS-R4-ES-2023-0117
Minute cave amphipod.........  FWS-R5-ES-2023-0121
Morrison's cave amphipod.....  FWS-R5-ES-2023-0122
Narrow-foot hygrotus diving    FWS-R6-ES-2023-0111
 beetle.
Pristine crayfish............  FWS-R4-ES-2023-0115
Tennessee heelsplitter.......  FWS-R4-ES-2023-0116
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Species                        Contact information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Archipelago wolf....  Stewart Cogswell, Field Supervisor,
                                 Anchorage Field Office,
                                 [email protected], 907-271-2888.
Chihuahua catfish.............  Michael Warriner, Supervisory Fish and
                                 Wildlife Biologist, Austin Ecological
                                 Services Field Office,
                                 [email protected], 512-490-0057.
Cooper's cave amphipod, minute  Jennifer Norris, Field Supervisor, West
 cave amphipod, Morrison's       Virginia Field Office,
 cave amphipod.                  [email protected], 304-704-
                                 0655.
Georgia blind salamander......  Peter Maholland, Field Supervisor,
                                 Georgia Ecological Services Field
                                 Office, [email protected], 706-
                                 208-7512.
Narrow-foot hygrotus diving     Tyler Abbott, Field Supervisor, Wyoming
 beetle.                         Field Office, [email protected], 307-
                                 757-3707.
Pristine crayfish.............  Dan Elbert, Field Supervisor, Tennessee
                                 Field Office, [email protected],
                                 571-461-8964.
Tennessee heelsplitter........  Janet Mizzi, Field Supervisor, Asheville
                                 Ecological Services Field Office,
                                 [email protected], 828-258-
                                 3939x42223.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 57389]]

international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we 
are required to make a finding on whether or not a petitioned action is 
warranted within 12 months after receiving any petition that we have 
determined contains substantial scientific or commercial information 
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (hereafter a 
``12-month finding''). We must make a finding that the petitioned 
action is: (1) Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) warranted but 
precluded by other listing activity. We must publish a notification of 
these 12-month findings in the Federal Register.

Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing 
regulations at part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing 
species from, or reclassifying species on the Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists). The Act defines ``species'' as 
including any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any 
distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or 
wildlife which interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). The Act 
defines ``endangered species'' as any species that is in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 
U.S.C. 1532(6)), and ``threatened species'' as any species that is 
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 
1532(20)). Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be 
determined to be an endangered species or a threatened species because 
of any of the following five factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects.
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself. However, the mere 
identification of any threat(s) does not necessarily mean that the 
species meets the statutory definition of an ``endangered species'' or 
a ``threatened species.'' In determining whether a species meets either 
definition, we must evaluate all identified threats by considering the 
expected response by the species, and the effects of the threats--in 
light of those actions and conditions that will ameliorate the 
threats--on an individual, population, and species level. We evaluate 
each threat and its expected effects on the species, then analyze the 
cumulative effect of all of the threats on the species as a whole. We 
also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those 
actions and conditions that will have positive effects on the species, 
such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The 
Secretary determines whether the species meets the Act's definition of 
an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species'' only after 
conducting this cumulative analysis and describing the expected effect 
on the species now and in the foreseeable future.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term 
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as we can 
reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species' 
responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable 
future is the period of time in which we can make reliable predictions. 
``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means sufficient to provide 
a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction 
is reliable if it is reasonable to depend on it when making decisions.
    It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future 
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future 
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should 
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the 
species' responses to those threats in view of its life-history 
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the 
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as 
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and 
other demographic factors.
    In conducting our evaluation of the five factors provided in 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf, Cooper's cave amphipod, Georgia blind salamander, 
minute cave amphipod, Morrison's cave amphipod, narrow-foot hygrotus 
diving beetle, pristine crayfish, and Tennessee heelsplitter meet the 
Act's definition of ``endangered species'' or ``threatened species,'' 
we considered and thoroughly evaluated the best scientific and 
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and 
future stressors and threats. In conducting our evaluation of the 
Chihuahua catfish, we determined that it does not meet the definition 
of a ``species'' under the Act, and, as a result, we conclude that it 
is not a listable entity. We reviewed the petitions, information 
available in our files, and other available published and unpublished 
information for all these species. Our evaluation may include 
information from recognized experts; Federal, State, and Tribal 
governments; academic institutions; foreign governments; private 
entities; and other members of the public.
    In accordance with the regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)(i), this 
document announces the not-warranted findings on petitions to list nine 
species. We have also elected to include brief summaries of the 
analyses on which these findings are based. We provide the full 
analyses, including the reasons and data on which the findings are 
based, in the decisional file for each of the nine actions included in 
this document. The following is a description of the documents 
containing these analyses:
    The species assessment forms for Alexander Archipelago wolf, 
Cooper's cave amphipod, Georgia blind salamander, minute cave amphipod, 
Morrison's cave amphipod, narrow-foot hygrotus diving beetle, pristine 
crayfish, and Tennessee heelsplitter contain more detailed biological 
information, a thorough analysis of the listing factors, a list of 
literature cited, and an explanation of why we determined that

[[Page 57390]]

each species does not meet the Act's definition of an ``endangered 
species'' or a ``threatened species.'' To inform our status reviews, we 
completed species status assessment (SSA) reports for the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf, Cooper's cave amphipod, Georgia blind salamander, 
minute cave amphipod, Morrison's cave amphipod, narrow-foot hygrotus 
diving beetle, pristine crayfish, and Tennessee heelsplitter. Each SSA 
report contains a thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, 
ecology, current status, and projected future status for each species. 
The species assessment form for the Chihuahua catfish contains more 
detailed taxonomic information, a list of literature cited, and an 
explanation of why we determined that the species does not meet the 
Act's definition of a ``species.'' This supporting information can be 
found on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under the 
appropriate docket number (see ADDRESSES, above).

Alexander Archipelago Wolf

Previous Federal Actions
    On July 15, 2020, we received a petition from the Center for 
Biological Diversity, Alaska Rainforest Defenders, and Defenders of 
Wildlife, requesting that the Alexander Archipelago wolf subspecies in 
Southeast Alaska be listed as a threatened species or an endangered 
species and critical habitat be designated for this species under the 
Act. The petitioners requested that we recognize Alexander Archipelago 
wolves in Southeast Alaska as a distinct population segment (DPS), and 
evaluate this DPS for listing as threatened or endangered. The 
petitioners also requested that we evaluate the Alexander Archipelago 
wolf subspecies for listing where Southeast Alaska constitutes a 
significant portion of the range. On July 27, 2021, we published a 90-
day finding (86 FR 40186) that the petition contained substantial 
information indicating that listing may be warranted for the species. 
This document constitutes our 12-month finding on the July 15, 2020, 
petition to list the Alexander Archipelago wolf under the Act.
    We evaluated the Southeast Alaska population of AA wolf under our 
1996 DPS policy (61 FR 4722) and found that it met both the 
discreteness and significance criteria. The population is discrete 
based on the international governmental boundary between the United 
States (Alaska) and Canada (British Columbia) within which significant 
differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, and 
regulatory mechanisms exist. The population meets the significance 
criteria because the loss of the Alexander Archipelago wolves in 
Southeast Alaska would result in a significant gap in the range of the 
taxon because an extensive area would be without Alexander Archipelago 
wolves if the Southeast Alaska population were lost. For a more 
detailed discussion of our DPS analysis, please see the species 
assessment form.
    Given the best available information related to the DPS Policy's 
discreteness and significance criteria, we determined that the 
Southeast Alaska segment of the Alexander Archipelago wolf population 
meets the DPS Policy criteria for both the discreteness criteria and 
the significance criteria. Thus, in addition to our listing evaluation 
and finding on the Alexander Archipelago wolf range-wide, we also 
evaluated the Southeast Alaska DPS, as requested by the petition.
Summary of Finding for the Alexander Archipelago Wolf
    The Alexander Archipelago wolf is a subspecies of gray wolf that 
occurs along the coastal mainland and islands of Southeast Alaska and 
British Columbia. Based on the best available information, the current 
distribution of the species is similar to its historical distribution.
    There are gaps in our understanding of the life history of the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf; thus, when appropriate, we have applied 
information from gray wolves and other gray wolf subspecies. Alexander 
Archipelago wolves breed between 22 to 34 months of age, and litters 
range from 1 to 8 pups. Denning typically occurs from mid-April through 
early July; throughout the rest of the year Alexander Archipelago 
wolves are traveling, hunting, or dispersing. Alexander Archipelago 
wolves are capable of dispersing long distances, both on land and 
water, although there are many examples of these wolves avoiding water 
crossings. Pack sizes typically range between 2 and 12 wolves, although 
much larger groups have been observed. Alexander Archipelago wolves are 
opportunistic predators that eat a variety of prey species, yet, like 
gray wolves, ungulates compose most of their diet. Across the range of 
the species, Sitka black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis) 
and moose (Alces americanus) make up 75 percent of the wolf's diet. 
Alexander Archipelago wolves are habitat generalists, typically 
utilizing whatever habitat their preferred prey use and avoiding areas 
of intense human activity. Old-growth forests, which Alexander 
Archipelago wolves select for, make up a majority of home range areas, 
and areas near freshwater are also selected by wolves during denning.
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the Alexander Archipelago wolf, and we evaluated all relevant 
factors under the five listing factors, including any regulatory 
mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these threats. The 
primary threats affecting the Alexander Archipelago wolf's biological 
status include timber harvest and associated road development, harvest 
of wolves, and genetic inbreeding. Although disease and climate change 
may not be currently impacting the species, the best available 
information indicates that these factors could have impacts on the 
species' viability in the future.
    After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we 
assessed the current status of the Alexander Archipelago wolf to 
determine if it meets the definition of an endangered species or 
threatened species. Our assessment of Alexander Archipelago wolf 
current viability included the primary threats of timber harvest and 
associated road development, harvest of wolves, and genetic inbreeding. 
To evaluate overall current population resiliency of the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf, we ranked each population into a current condition 
category (i.e., high, moderately-high, moderate, moderately-low, low, 
or functionally extirpated) based on estimates of population growth, 
and the species' needs which include dietary diversity, area of old-
growth forest available, and remoteness (i.e., space from human 
activity; Table 3 of the SSA Report). Despite past and ongoing threats, 
Alexander Archipelago wolf currently occupies five analysis units that 
span its historical range, three of which exhibit high resiliency 
(Northern and Southern Coastal British Columbia and Northern Southeast 
Alaska), one with moderately high resiliency (Southern Southeast 
Alaska), and one with moderately low resiliency (Prince of Wales Island 
Complex). Currently, Alexander Archipelago wolves appear to have high 
adaptive capacity, and we expect most populations to be able to adapt 
to near-term changes in their physical and biological environments. The 
exception to this is the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit.
    Within the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit, high 
levels of inbreeding have been documented, and

[[Page 57391]]

ungulate prey is limited compared to the rest of the range. These 
characteristics limit the adaptive capacity of wolves within this 
analysis unit. Nonetheless, based on the best available information, 
the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit demonstrates stable 
population trends. Overall, the Alexander Archipelago wolf is widely 
distributed across its current and historical range indicating that it 
has high redundancy (ability to withstand catastrophic events) and 
overall high representation (adaptive capacity), contributing to its 
overall viability. Thus, after assessing the best available 
information, we conclude that the Alexander Archipelago wolf is not in 
danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
    To assess future viability of the Alexander Archipelago wolf, we 
considered the foreseeable future out approximately 30 years (to 2050) 
and projected the influence of three future scenarios that included 
disease and climate change and the other primary threats included in 
the assessment of current viability. The Alexander Archipelago wolf is 
projected to retain high to moderate levels of resiliency within four 
of the five analysis units, and no significant loss in distribution is 
predicted across its range. The exception is the Prince of Wales Island 
Complex analysis unit, which is projected to decline in resiliency 
under most scenarios, and under one scenario, projections indicate 
possible extirpation. However, the Prince of Wales Island Complex 
analysis unit represents a relatively small area (approximately 4.5 
percent; Service 2023, p. 110) compared to the overall geographic range 
of the species, and a relatively small proportion of the rangewide 
population estimate (17 percent; Service 2023, pp. 90-91). Thus, after 
assessing the best available information, we conclude that the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf is not likely to become endangered within 
the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
    We evaluated the range of the Alexander Archipelago wolf to 
determine if the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to 
become so in the foreseeable future in any portion of its range. The 
Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit has moderately low 
resiliency now and ranges from moderate resiliency to functionally 
extirpated into the future. We found that this analysis unit may have a 
different status compared to the rest of the range. Within the Prince 
of Wales Island Complex analysis unit, high levels of old-growth timber 
harvest, road development, and inbreeding have been documented, and 
wolf harvest rates (reported and unreported) may also exceed 
sustainable levels in some years (Service 2023, p. 62). Additionally, 
ungulate prey is limited to just one species, the Sitka black-tailed 
deer, limiting adaptive capacity for wolves in this analysis unit. 
Although other analysis units may also face one or two threats from 
timber harvest, road development, inbreeding, wolf harvest, or prey 
availability, the Prince of Wales Island Complex is the only analysis 
unit that experiences all of these threats.
    However, we did not find that the Prince of Wales Island Complex 
analysis unit represents a significant portion of the range for the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf. The Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis 
unit represents approximately 4.5 percent of the overall geographic 
range of the species (Service 2023, p. 110). Additionally, the Prince 
of Wales Island Complex analysis unit does not have high-quality 
habitat relative to the rest of the range. Contiguous patches of old-
growth forest (at least 75 square kilometers) have been identified as 
the preferred habitat for this species and are considered high-quality 
habitat. The Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit contains 10.9 
percent of the total preferred old-growth habitat that is available to 
the species rangewide (Service 2023, p. 110). Lastly, the habitat 
within the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit is not 
considered unique for any specific life-history functions (e.g., 
availability of denning habitat or ungulate prey); the species' 
preferred denning habitat is found in all other analysis units, and 
ungulate prey diversity is greater in the other analysis units. Thus, 
we do not consider the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit to 
represent a large geographic area relative to the range of the species 
as a whole, to have higher quality habitat relative to the remaining 
portions of the range, or to represent uniquely valuable habitat for 
the species. We do not find that the Prince of Wales Island Complex 
analysis unit is significant. Therefore, the Prince of Wales Island 
Complex analysis unit does not represent a significant portion of its 
range, and we find that the Alexander Archipelago wolf is not in danger 
of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in 
any significant portion of its range.
    After assessing the best available information, we conclude that 
the Alexander Archipelago wolf is not in danger of extinction or likely 
to become in danger of extinction throughout all of its range or in any 
significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf as an endangered species or threatened 
species under the Act is not warranted.
Summary of Finding for the Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago Wolf 
DPS
    The Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS occurs along 
the coastal mainland and islands of Southeast Alaska. Based on the best 
available information, the current distribution of the species is 
similar to its historical distribution.
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS, and we 
evaluated all relevant factors under the five listing factors, 
including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures 
addressing these threats. The primary threats affecting the Southeast 
Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS's biological status include 
timber harvest and associated road development, harvest of wolves, and 
genetic inbreeding. Although disease and climate change may not be 
currently impacting the species, the best available information 
indicates that these factors could have impacts on the species' 
viability in the future.
    Our assessment of the current viability of the Southeast Alaska 
Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS included the primary threats of timber 
harvest and associated road development, harvest of wolves, and genetic 
inbreeding. Currently, one analysis unit exhibits high resiliency 
(Northern Southeast), one analysis unit exhibits moderately high 
resiliency (Southern Southeast), and one analysis unit exhibits 
moderately low resiliency (Prince of Wales Island Complex). Alexander 
Archipelago wolves in the Northern Southeast Alaska analysis unit and 
the Southern Southeast Alaska analysis unit appear to have high 
adaptive capacity, and we expect wolves in these analysis units to be 
able to adapt to near-term changes in their physical and biological 
environments. Even though the Southern Southeast Alaska analysis unit 
exhibits signs of recent and historical inbreeding, there is no 
evidence of a reduction in fitness related to inbreeding. Additionally, 
the Southern Southeast Alaska analysis unit has a greater potential for 
connectivity and therefore, gene flow, with other analysis units on the 
mainland, and it has a greater diversity of ungulate prey. Within the 
Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit, high levels of

[[Page 57392]]

inbreeding have been documented and ungulate prey is limited compared 
to the rest of the range of the DPS. These characteristics limit the 
current adaptive capacity of wolves within the Prince of Wales Island 
Complex analysis unit. However, even with this additional stress, the 
population estimates for Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit 
indicate it is currently stable. Within the Southeast Alaska Alexander 
Archipelago wolf DPS, the species is distributed across its current and 
historical range, indicating that it has high redundancy (ability to 
withstand catastrophic events) and high representation (adaptive 
capacity), contributing to its overall viability. Thus, after assessing 
the best available information, we conclude that the Southeast Alaska 
Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS is not in danger of extinction 
throughout its range.
    To assess future viability of the Southeast Alaska Alexander 
Archipelago wolf DPS, we considered the foreseeable future out 
approximately 30 years (to 2050) and projected the influence of three 
future scenarios that included disease and climate change, and the 
other primary threats included in the assessment of current viability. 
The Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS is projected to 
have high to moderate resiliency within the Northern Southeast Alaska 
analysis unit, moderately high resiliency in the Southern Southeast 
Alaska analysis unit, and moderate resiliency to a functionally 
extirpated status within the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis 
unit. However, the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit 
represents a relatively small percentage of the total geographic area 
of the Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS (approximately 
13.2 percent) and approximately 30 percent of the overall Southeast 
Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS population. Thus, after assessing the 
best available information, we conclude that the Southeast Alaska 
Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS is not likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
    We then evaluated the range of the Southeast Alaska Alexander 
Archipelago wolf DPS to determine if the species is in danger of 
extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in any 
significant portion of its range. We looked at the entire range of the 
Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS and found that the 
Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit has moderately low 
resiliency now and ranges from moderately resilient to functionally 
extirpated into the future. We found that the Prince of Wales Island 
Complex may have a different status compared to the rest of the DPS 
range. Within the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit, high 
levels of old-growth timber harvest, road development, and inbreeding 
have been documented, and wolf harvest rates (reported and unreported) 
may exceed sustainable levels in some years (Service 2023, p. 62). 
Additionally, ungulate prey is limited to just one species, Sitka 
black-tailed deer, limiting adaptive capacity for wolves in this 
analysis unit. Although the other analysis units may also face one or 
two threats from either timber harvest, road development, inbreeding, 
wolf harvest, or prey availability, the Prince of Wales Island Complex 
is the only analysis unit that experiences all of these threats. 
However, we did not find the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis 
unit to represent a significant portion of the range of the Southeast 
Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf. The Prince of Wales Island Complex 
analysis unit represents a relatively small portion of the geographic 
area of the Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS 
(approximately 13.2 percent). Additionally, the Prince of Wales Island 
Complex analysis unit does not have high-quality habitat relative to 
the rest of the range. Contiguous patches of old-growth forest have 
been identified as the preferred habitat for this species and are 
considered high-quality habitat. The Prince of Wales Island Complex 
analysis unit contains approximately 22.8 percent of high-quality 
habitat compared to the rest of the DPS range (Service 2023, p. 110). 
Lastly, the habitat on the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit 
is not considered unique for any specific life-history functions (e.g., 
denning habitat or prey diversity); denning habitat is found in the 
other analysis units within the DPS, and the other two analysis units 
have greater ungulate prey diversity compared to the Prince of Wales 
Island Complex. Thus, we do not consider the Prince of Wales Island 
Complex analysis unit to represent a large geographic area relative to 
the range of the DPS, to have higher quality habitat relative to the 
rest of the DPS, or to represent uniquely valuable habitat for the DPS. 
Therefore, the Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis unit does not 
represent a significant portion of the Southeast Alaska Alexander 
Archipelago wolf DPS range, and the Southeast Alaska Alexander 
Archipelago wolf DPS is not in danger of extinction now or likely to 
become so in the foreseeable future in any significant portion of its 
range.
    After assessing the best available information, we concluded that 
the Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS is not in danger of 
extinction or likely to become in danger of extinction throughout all 
of its range or in any significant portion of its range. Therefore, we 
find that listing the Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS 
as an endangered species or threatened species under the Act is not 
warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be 
found in the Alexander Archipelago wolf species assessment form and 
other supporting documents at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket 
No. FWS-R7-ES-2023-0109.
Peer Review
    In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR 
34270; July 1, 1994) and the Service's August 22, 2016, Director's Memo 
on the Peer Review Process we solicited independent scientific reviews 
of the information contained in the Alexander Archipelago wolf SSA 
report. The Service sent the SSA report to 10 independent peer 
reviewers and received 4 responses. Results of this structured peer 
review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket 
No. FWS-R7-ES-2023-0109 and https://www.fws.gov/library/categories/peer-review-plans. We incorporated the results of these reviews, as 
appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this 
finding.

Chihuahua Catfish

Previous Federal Actions
    On June 25, 2007, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 
received a petition dated June 18, 2007, from Forest Guardians (now 
WildEarth Guardians) requesting that the Service list 475 species, 
including the Chihuahua catfish, as threatened or endangered species 
and designate critical habitat under the Act. All 475 species occur 
within the Southwest Region and were ranked as G1 or G1G2 species by 
NatureServe at the time. In a July 11, 2007, letter to the petitioner, 
the Service acknowledged receipt of the petition and stated that the 
petition was under review by staff in the Southwest Regional Office. On 
December 16, 2009, the Service published a partial 90[hyphen]day 
finding on the petition, including the Chihuahua catfish and 191 other 
species, stating that the petition presented substantial scientific 
information indicating that listing may be warranted for 67 of the 192 
species (74 FR 66866).

[[Page 57393]]

Summary of Finding
    In assessing the best available scientific information for the 
status of a species, the Service generally relies on information 
published in peer-reviewed journals and other reports. Particularly 
related to taxonomic determinations, we defer to the scientific 
literature and to professional authorities for taxonomical assignments. 
However, when that information is in question, the Service conducts its 
own analysis, and we exercise our best scientific judgment.
    For a taxon to be listed under the Act, it must be a listable 
entity; that is, it must be either formally described and accepted as a 
species or subspecies or there must be credible scientific evidence 
that the entity should qualify as a valid species or subspecies. The 
Chihuahua catfish has never been formally described in peer-reviewed 
literature as a valid taxonomic entity. A draft species description 
from 1998 proposed to describe the species as distinct but was never 
finalized. Recent morphological and genetic analyses found no evidence 
that this putative species exists in New Mexico and Texas.
    To date, no peer-reviewed publications have supported a distinct 
species status of the Chihuahua catfish or provided evidence of its 
existence. We have reviewed the best available information regarding 
the taxonomic status of the putative Chihuahua catfish and conclude 
that there is insufficient credible scientific evidence that the entity 
qualifies as a valid species or subspecies. Therefore, it is not 
warranted for listing because we find that there is not credible 
scientific evidence that the Chihuahuan catfish is a listable entity 
under Act. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be 
found in the Chihuahua catfish species assessment form and other 
supporting documents at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 
FWS-R2-ES-2023-0110.
Peer Review
    In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR 
34270; July 1, 1994) and the Service's August 22, 2016, Director's Memo 
on the Peer Review Process, we solicited independent scientific reviews 
of the information contained in our report titled ``Review of the 
Chihuahua catfish (Ictalurus sp. 1)''. The Service sent the report to 
seven independent peer reviewers and received four responses. We 
incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the 
report, which is the foundation for this finding. Results of this 
structured peer review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2023-0110.

Cooper's Cave Amphipod, Minute Cave Amphipod, and Morrison's Cave 
Amphipod

Previous Federal Actions
    On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for 
Biological Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, 
Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, 
and West Virginia Highlands to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland 
species, including Stygobromus cooperi, S. parvus, and S. morrisoni 
(referred to by the common names ``Cooper's cave amphipod,'' ``minute 
cave amphipod,'' and ``Morrison's cave amphipod,'' respectively, in the 
petition), as endangered or threatened species under the Act. On 
September 27, 2011, we published a 90-day finding in which we announced 
that the petition contained substantial information indicating that 
listing may be warranted for the species (76 FR 59836). This document 
constitutes our 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to 
list Cooper's, minute, and Morrison's cave amphipods under the Act.
Summary of Finding
    Cooper's, minute, and Morrison's cave amphipods are specialized for 
subterranean karst habitat characterized by relatively stable 
physiochemical conditions compared to surface environments and have 
limited or patchily distributed food resources. Karst landscapes are 
geologic features or landforms characterized by distinctive permeable 
underground drainage systems, caves, and sinkholes that have been 
formed through the dissolving of soluble rock, particularly limestone 
(Simms 2005, p. 678). Due to the absence of light and primary producers 
in subterranean environments, these species are likely detritivores or 
omnivores that feed on organic matter (i.e., dead plant and animal 
material) originating from the surface. Morrison's cave amphipod is 
restricted to Virginia and West Virginia, and Cooper's cave and minute 
cave amphipods are restricted to West Virginia, with limited 
distributions.
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the Cooper's, minute, and Morrison's cave amphipods, and we 
evaluated all relevant factors under the five listing factors, 
including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures 
addressing these threats. The primary threats affecting Cooper's, 
minute, and Morrison's cave amphipods are: (1) groundwater 
contamination by sediments and toxic compounds, (2) disruption of food 
supply due to deforestation/surface alteration, and (3) direct 
modification of habitats due to cave visitation and urban development 
of karst areas. Protection, management, and conservation measures that 
may improve the species' viability are summarized below.
    After evaluating the best available scientific and commercial 
information on potential stressors acting individually or in 
combination, we found no indication that the combined effects are 
currently causing a population-level decline or degrading the habitat 
of the Cooper's, minute, or Morrison's cave amphipod, or that the 
combined effects are likely to do so within a foreseeable future of 20 
years, based on the projected species' response to future stressors.
    Despite impacts from the primary threats, the best data and 
information available indicate Cooper's, minute, and Morrison's cave 
amphipod species have maintained resilient populations throughout their 
respective ranges. Although we predict some continued impacts from 
these threats in the future, we anticipate each species will continue, 
in the foreseeable future (that is roughly 20 years), to maintain 
resilient populations throughout their ranges that are distributed 
throughout each of their representative units.
    After evaluating threats to the species under the section 4(a)(1) 
factors listed above and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats 
of these factors, we evaluated Cooper's, minute, and Morrison's cave 
amphipod viability to determine if these species meet the definition of 
an endangered or threatened species. The Cooper's, minute, and 
Morrison's cave amphipod redundancy and representation are limited due 
to their narrow ranges; however, this situation is likely similar to 
historical conditions. We find that the Cooper's, minute, and 
Morrison's cave amphipods have sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation in light of the best available potential stressor data 
and information, both currently and into the foreseeable future, such 
that they do not meet the definition of an endangered or threatened 
species throughout their range.
    We evaluated the range of the Cooper's cave amphipod to determine 
if the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in 
the foreseeable future in any portion of its

[[Page 57394]]

range. The Cooper's cave amphipod is a narrow endemic that functions as 
a single, contiguous population and occurs within a very small area of 
27 square kilometers (km\2\) (10.5 square miles [mi\2\]). Thus, there 
is no biologically meaningful way to break this limited range into 
portions, and the threats that the species faces affect the species 
comparably throughout its entire range. As a result, there are no 
portions of the species' range where the species has a different 
biological status from its rangewide biological status. Therefore, we 
conclude that there are no portions of the species' range that warrant 
further consideration, and the species is not in danger of extinction 
or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in any significant 
portion of its range.
    We evaluated the range of the minute and Morrison's cave amphipods 
to determine if the species are in danger of extinction now or likely 
to become so in the foreseeable future in any portion of their ranges 
(1,467 km\2\ or 566 mi\2\ and 2,266 km\2\ or 876 mi\2\, respectively). 
The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an 
infinite number of ways. We focused our analysis on portions of the 
species' range that may meet the definition of an endangered species or 
a threatened species. For minute and Morrison's cave amphipods, we 
considered whether the threats or their effects on the species are 
greater in any biologically meaningful portion of the species' range 
than in other portions such that the species is in danger of extinction 
now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in that portion. 
We examined the following threats: (1) groundwater contamination, (2) 
disruption of food supply due to deforestation or surface alteration, 
and (3) direct modification of habitat due to cave visitation and urban 
development.
    After evaluating the best available scientific and commercial 
information on potential stressors acting individually or in 
combination, we found no indication that the combined effects are 
currently causing a population-level decline or degrading the habitat 
of the minute or the Morrison's cave amphipods. These factors are not 
occurring at a substantial level in any portion for either the minute 
or Morrison's cave amphipods to contribute to the risk of extinction. 
We found no biologically meaningful portion of the minute or Morrison's 
cave amphipod ranges where threats are impacting individuals 
differently from how they are affecting the species elsewhere in its 
range, or where the biological condition of the species differs from 
its condition elsewhere in its range such that the status of the 
species in that portion differs from its status in any other portion of 
the species' range. Refer to the species assessment form in the docket 
for this action for additional details.
    After assessing the best available information, we concluded that 
Cooper's, minute, and Morrison's cave amphipods are not in danger of 
extinction or likely to become in danger of extinction throughout all 
of their ranges or in any significant portion of their ranges. 
Therefore, we find that listing the Cooper's, minute, or Morrison's 
cave amphipods as endangered species or threatened species under the 
Act is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this 
finding can be found in the Cooper's, minute, and Morrison's cave 
amphipods species assessment form and other supporting documents on 
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket Nos. FWS-R5-ES-2023-0120 
(Cooper's cave amphipod), FWS-R5-ES-2023-0121 (minute cave amphipod), 
and FWS-R5-ES-2023-0122 (Morrison's cave amphipod.
Peer Review
    In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR 
34270; July 1, 1994) and the Service's August 22, 2016, Director's Memo 
on the Peer Review Process we solicited independent scientific reviews 
of the information contained in the Cooper's, minute, and Morrison's 
cave amphipod SSA report. The Service sent the SSA report to four 
independent peer reviewers and received four responses. Results of this 
structured peer review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket Nos. FWS-R5-ES-2023-0120 (Cooper's 
cave amphipod), FWS-R5-ES-2023-0121 (minute cave amphipod), and FWS-R5-
ES-2023-0122 (Morrison's cave amphipod). We incorporated the results of 
these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the 
foundation for this finding.

Georgia Blind Salamander

Previous Federal Actions
    On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for 
Biological Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, 
Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, 
and West Virginia Highlands to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland 
species, including Eurycea wallacei (formerly known as, and identified 
by petitioners as, Haideotriton wallacei), as an endangered or 
threatened species under the Act. On September 27, 2011, we published a 
90-day finding (76 FR 59836) that the petition contained substantial 
information indicating that listing may be warranted for the species. 
This document constitutes our 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, 
petition to list the Georgia blind salamander under the Act.
Summary of Finding
    The Georgia blind salamander is a relatively small, pinkish-white, 
blind salamander with visible external gills. Eyes are entirely 
lacking, except for dark eyespots. The bodies of juveniles exhibit many 
small pigment spots uniformly distributed along the dorsal and lateral 
surfaces but are otherwise translucent. Adults are similar in 
appearance but lack body pigmentation, leaving them almost pure white 
apart from their gills. Lungs are also absent. Common prey items of the 
Georgia blind salamander mainly include crustaceans (ostracods, 
amphipods, copepods, and isopods), though insects and arachnids have 
also been found in salamander digestive tracts. Habitat of the Georgia 
blind salamander consists primarily of caves within the Upper Floridan 
Aquifer System, an extensively karstified aquifer system. Currently, 
locations where Georgia blind salamander have been found include 
Jackson County, Florida, as well as Dougherty and Decatur Counties, 
Georgia, in the Marianna Lowlands-Dougherty Plain physiographic region. 
The best available science indicates there is a high likelihood of 
Georgia blind salamander co-occurring with the Dougherty Plain cave 
crayfish (Cambarus cryptodytes), resulting in up to 58 extant sites. It 
is important to note that the identified sites are only those that are 
accessible to humans and do not necessarily represent the entire 
distribution of the species. Also, many sites of co-occurrence are 
isolated wells, indicating that both species are likely more widely 
distributed throughout the aquifer and associated springsheds than is 
evidenced by direct sightings alone. It is likely the species is 
present in the Dougherty Plain portion of the Upper FAS.
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the Georgia blind salamander, and we evaluated all relevant factors 
under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and 
conservation measures addressing these threats. Existing threats 
related to water quality and water quantity are present, though there 
are extant sites. In addition, water quantity

[[Page 57395]]

currently does not appear to have a large impact on this aquifer, as 
drawdowns even in drought conditions were not impacting water levels in 
the aquifer. Since aquifers have relatively stable conditions over 
space and time, particularly compared to other terrestrial or even 
aquatic habitats, the species' broad occurrence across the 4.4-million-
acre aquifer likely ensures it has adequate representation and 
redundancy currently.
    After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we 
assessed the current status of the Georgia blind salamander to 
determine if it meets the definition of an endangered species or 
threatened species. The Georgia blind salamander currently has moderate 
to high resilience (78 percent of sites); water quality and quantity 
are the primary factors influencing the species rangewide, although the 
underlying aquifer has exhibited relatively stable conditions over 
time, and the species is presumed to occur across the aquifer. There 
are extant sites where existing threats related to water quality and 
water quantity still occur, and drawdowns in drought conditions were 
not impacting water levels in the aquifer. Thus, the threats appear to 
have low imminence and magnitude such that they are not significantly 
affecting the species' current viability. Accordingly, we determined 
that the Georgia blind salamander is not in danger of extinction 
throughout its range.
    We then considered whether the species is likely to become in 
danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout its 
range. The analysis of future condition to 2070, considered in the SSA 
report, encompasses the best available information for future 
projections of land-use change under two different scenarios (worst 
case--A1B and best case--B2), as well as pollutant discharge permits 
and effects of climate change (for example, sea level rise and 
drought). The timeframe considered enabled us to analyze the threats/
stressors acting on the species and draw reliable predictions about the 
species' response to these factors. Land use changes may impact water 
quality, and thus could influence species viability.
    Given the future scenarios, the resiliency of the Georgia blind 
salamander population is predicted to decline or remain approximately 
the same in the future. However, given the vast size (4,400,162 acres 
of surface area) and stability of habitat, as well as the species' 
broad occurrence across the aquifer, and projected limited future 
threats, we determined that the scale of impacts projected in the 
future will not impact the species such that the species is likely to 
become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future. Thus, 
after assessing the best available information, we determined that the 
Georgia blind salamander is not in danger of extinction now or likely 
to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
    We next considered whether the species may be in danger of 
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in a 
significant portion of its range--that is, whether there is any portion 
of the species' range for which it is true that both (1) the portion is 
significant and (2) the species is in danger of extinction now or 
likely to become so in the foreseeable future in that portion. Because 
the range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an 
infinite number of ways, we focused our analysis on portions of the 
species' range that contribute to the conservation of the species in a 
biologically meaningful way. For the Georgia blind salamander, we 
considered whether the threats or their effects on the species are 
greater in any portion of the species' range than in other portions 
such that the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to 
become so in the foreseeable future in that portion.
    Because this species occupies a habitat that is not easily 
accessible or sampled, with few existing records, it is assumed to be 
well distributed evenly across its interconnected 4.4 million-acre 
range. While it is considered one population, we identified sinkhole 
hotspots around Albany, Georgia, and Marianna, Florida, to be most 
vulnerable to the threats due to their close proximity to developed 
areas and potential lingering effects from Superfund sites. These 
portions of the range are also vulnerable to potential catastrophic 
chemical spills compared to the overall range. The fact that spills 
have occurred and the salamander remains in high to moderate condition 
in these areas indicates that the threats to water quality and quantity 
are not impacting the species such that it has a different status in 
these portions compared to the rest of the range. For these reasons, 
the sinkhole hotspot portions around Albany, GA, and Marianna, FL, were 
not determined to have a different status now or in the foreseeable 
future. Further, these portions also comprise a small portion of the 
total range, and therefore we conclude that these areas are not 
significant.
    After assessing the best available information, we concluded that 
Georgia blind salamander is not in danger of extinction or likely to 
become in danger of extinction throughout all of its range or in any 
significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the 
Georgia blind salamander as an endangered species or threatened species 
under the Act is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for 
this finding can be found in the Georgia blind salamander species 
assessment form and other supporting documents at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2023-0117.
Peer Review
    In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR 
34270; July 1, 1994) and the Service's August 22, 2016, Director's Memo 
on the Peer Review Process, we solicited independent scientific reviews 
of the information contained in the Georgia blind salamander SSA 
report. The Service sent the SSA report to eight independent peer 
reviewers and received three responses. Results of this structured peer 
review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket 
No. FWS-R4-ES-2023-0117. We incorporated the results of these reviews, 
as appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this 
finding.

Narrow-Foot Hygrotus Diving Beetle

Previous Federal Actions
    On July 17, 2013, we received a petition from WildEarth Guardians 
to list the narrow-foot hygrotus diving beetle, henceforth ``diving 
beetle,'' as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. On 
January 12, 2016, we published a 90-day finding (81 FR 1368) that the 
petition contained substantial information indicating that listing may 
be warranted for the species. On April 21, 2020, WildEarth Guardians 
filed suit (Case No. 1:20-cv-1035) to compel us to complete a 12-month 
finding. We subsequently agreed to submit a 12-month finding for the 
diving beetle to the Federal Register by August 15, 2023. This document 
constitutes our 12-month finding on the July 17, 2013, petition to list 
the diving beetle under the Act.
Summary of Finding
    Narrow-foot hygrotus diving beetles are small aquatic beetles found 
in central Wyoming within a specific geology of Cody Shale substrates 
or soils derived from Cody Shale in Fremont, Johnson, Natrona, and 
Washakie Counties. This beetle has likely never

[[Page 57396]]

had a wider distribution than the narrow range it currently occupies.
    Diving beetles develop through egg, larval, pupal, and adult stages 
and rely on small, transitory, saline pools that form during the drying 
down of ephemeral streams in summer, with all life stages either 
occurring in or adjacent to these pools. Diving beetles require refugia 
and prey in pools and hydrologically intact areas surrounding pools, 
which support higher water quality and seasonally appropriate timing 
and quantities of water in pools. Diving beetle sites appear to 
function as a metapopulation, and as such, connectivity among pools is 
essential for diving beetles. Pools need to be near enough to each 
other so that, when local conditions in one pool become unsuitable, 
either adults can fly overland to another pool or individuals at any 
life stage can flow downstream to another pool with suitable habitat. 
The frequency across years with which pools are occupied by diving 
beetles is also important for diving beetles' resiliency. More 
frequently occupied pools reliably provide for the needs of diving 
beetles, and while infrequently occupied pools do not support diving 
beetles in most years, they do support diving beetles in years with 
extreme weather conditions that make other sites unsuitable.
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the diving beetle, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the 
five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and 
conservation measures addressing these threats. After evaluating 
threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the 
threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we assessed the current 
status of the diving beetle to determine if it meets the definition of 
an endangered species or threatened species. The primary threats 
affecting the diving beetle's biological status include climate change, 
inadequate water availability, flooding, anthropogenic disturbance, and 
insecticide spraying.
    Our assessment of current viability included all primary threats to 
the diving beetle. Despite past and ongoing stressors, the diving 
beetle has multiple populations in high and moderate condition. To 
assess future viability of this species, we considered the foreseeable 
future out to 2050 and projected the influence under three future 
scenarios of stressors that included climate change, inadequate water 
availability, flooding, anthropogenic disturbance, and insecticide 
spraying. Within the SSA, we evaluated the viability of diving beetles, 
including a review of ongoing and future threats. The best available 
information indicates that this species' life-history traits are 
conducive to surviving projected climate changes and other increases in 
evaluated stressors now and into the foreseeable future.
    Diving beetles also have a metapopulation structure with 
connectivity between sites that supports resiliency among all sites 
throughout the entire range, and the distribution of the species across 
three different river basins within central Wyoming helps support 
redundancy. Therefore, we expect all diving beetle sites to be 
maintained into the foreseeable future.
    We then evaluated the range of the diving beetle to determine if 
the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in 
the foreseeable future in any portion of its range. The range of a 
species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite 
number of ways. We focused our analysis on portions of the species' 
range that may meet the definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species. For the diving beetle, we considered whether the 
threats or their effects on the species are greater in any biologically 
meaningful portion of the species' range than in other portions such 
that the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future in that portion. We found no portion of the 
diving beetle's range where threats are impacting individuals 
differently from how they are affecting the species elsewhere in its 
range, or where the biological condition of the species differs from 
its condition elsewhere in its range such that the status of the 
species in that portion differs from its status in any other portion of 
the species' range. Therefore, we find that the species is not in 
danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable 
future in any significant portion of its range; refer to the species 
assessment form in the docket for this action for additional details.
    After assessing the best available information, we concluded that 
the diving beetle is not in danger of extinction or likely to become in 
danger of extinction throughout all of its range or in any significant 
portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the diving beetle 
as an endangered species or threatened species under the Act is not 
warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be 
found in the diving beetle species assessment form and other supporting 
documents at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-
2023-0111.
Peer Review
    In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR 
34270; July 1, 1994) and the Service's August 22, 2016, Director's Memo 
on the Peer Review Process, we solicited independent scientific reviews 
of the information contained in the diving beetle SSA report. The 
Service solicited review of the SSA report from six potential peer 
reviewers and received one review. Results of this structured peer 
review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket 
No. FWS-R6-ES-2023-0111. We incorporated the results of the review, as 
appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this 
finding.

Pristine Crayfish

Previous Federal Actions
    On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for 
Biological Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, 
Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, 
and West Virginia Highlands Conservancy to list 404 aquatic, riparian, 
and wetland species, including the pristine crayfish, as an endangered 
or threatened species under the Act. On September 27, 2011, we 
published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (76 FR 59836) 
concluding that the petition presented substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating that listing may be warranted. This 
document constitutes our 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, 
petition to list pristine crayfish under the Act.
Summary of Finding
    The pristine crayfish is a small, freshwater crayfish endemic to 
the Cumberland Plateau in Tennessee. The species occurs in small- to 
medium-sized streams and rivers in the Caney Fork and Sequatchie River 
systems in central Tennessee. Pristine crayfish are known to occur in 
27 streams in 8 subwatersheds (HUC12) in the region. Two distinct forms 
of the pristine crayfish are recognized based on body characteristics 
and genetics: the Caney Fork form and the Sequatchie form. The Caney 
Fork form of pristine crayfish occurs in five northern subwatersheds 
(17 streams), and the Sequatchie form occurs in three southern 
subwatersheds (10 streams). The pristine crayfish requires good water 
quality in first- to fourth-order perennial streams with cool water, 
shallow pools with slow to moderate flow, slab rock substrate with 
cobble, and low levels of sedimentation.
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information

[[Page 57397]]

available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the 
pristine crayfish, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five 
listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation 
measures addressing these threats. After evaluating threats to the 
species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the 
section 4(a)(1) factors, we assessed the current status of the pristine 
crayfish to determine if it meets the definition of an endangered 
species or threatened species. The threats affecting the pristine 
crayfish's biological status include habitat destruction or 
modification, future effects of climate change, disease, and the effect 
of small, isolated populations. Of these threats, habitat destruction 
or modification and the future effects of climate change were 
identified as key drivers of the species' viability. Habitat 
destruction or modification is currently the primary threat to pristine 
crayfish viability. Impacts to the pristine crayfish's habitat 
rangewide are caused by sedimentation, decreased water quality, and the 
effects of impoundments. These impacts occur at the individual and 
population levels across the species' distribution, but the best 
available information indicates that these localized impacts have not 
affected pristine crayfish at the species level. Climate change has the 
potential to impact the species through increased magnitude and 
frequency of drought and increased temperature, and this threat is 
ongoing and projected to increase in the future. Although drought and 
increased temperatures may result in a decrease or lack of recruitment 
in some portions of its range during some years, there have been no 
documented species-level declines as a result of consecutive years of 
drought. The threats of disease and small population size may 
exacerbate the effects of the primary threats but are not expected to 
affect population resiliency, representation, and redundancy alone.
    The best available information indicates that the range of the 
pristine crayfish has not contracted since described in 1965 and, in 
fact, its range was recently expanded into an additional river system. 
The species is naturally patchily distributed within its range and is 
known to occur in 27 streams across 8 HUC12 analysis units (AUs). Seven 
of the eight AUs exhibit moderate current resiliency. Although we 
identified habitat destruction or modification and climate change as 
the key drivers of species' viability, the species' current condition 
does not indicate species-level impacts from these or other cumulative 
factors that have led to reductions in AU resiliency. The species' 
representation and redundancy are moderate, and the species occurs in 
multiple analysis units with sufficient resiliency across its 
historical and current range. Overall, no current threat is acting at 
an extent or severity such that the pristine crayfish is at risk of 
extinction throughout all of its range. Thus, after assessing the best 
available information, we conclude that the pristine crayfish is not in 
danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
    Therefore, we proceed with determining whether the pristine 
crayfish is likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. To evaluate the future 
viability of the pristine crayfish, we considered the relevant threats 
currently acting on the species, those threats expected to act on the 
species in the foreseeable future, and the species' response to those 
threats. The primary threats to the pristine crayfish in the future are 
habitat destruction or modification and climate change. The three 
plausible future scenarios we examined included projections of 
urbanization, land use change (evergreen forest cover), impoundments, 
the effects of climate change, and the cumulative effect of these 
threats. Our analysis of the species' condition under future scenarios 
at two time steps (2036 and 2051) encompasses the best available 
information for future projections of modeled parameters under a range 
of plausible threat levels. We selected these time steps based on the 
pristine crayfish's lifespan of approximately 4 years and the 
reliability of the data and models used in the future threat 
projections and analyses. Therefore, we determined 30 years to be the 
foreseeable future for which we can reasonably predict the threats to 
the pristine crayfish and the species' response to those threats.
    In this timeframe, there are minor projected increases in some 
threats that may affect the availability of suitable habitat across the 
species' range. Urbanization is projected to increase an average of 6 
to 11 percent over current levels and evergreen forest cover 
(representing land use change) is projected to decrease by 1 percent in 
the same timeframes. The pristine crayfish is distributed across eight 
AUs (HUC12 subwatersheds) and is expected to remain extant in all 
future scenarios across the AUs. Our future condition analysis 
projected declines in resiliency in six or seven of the AUs in all 
scenarios except the increased impact scenario in 2051, when all eight 
AUs are projected to decline in resiliency. Based on our analysis, the 
projected effects of climate change and impoundments may have a greater 
effect on species' resiliency compared to current impacts, but the 
magnitude and imminence of the threats and the species' responses are 
more uncertain.
    We expect that the species' representation and redundancy will 
decline slightly but will largely be maintained in moderate condition 
in the future with all AUs remaining on the landscape in all scenarios. 
We projected future redundancy as moderate with no AUs projected to be 
extirpated, and the distribution of the species across the range is 
projected to remain at the current level. Likewise, representation is 
expected to remain moderate as both forms of the pristine crayfish are 
present on the landscape, although some parameters used to assess 
representation are projected to decline as resiliency declines. Impacts 
from current and ongoing threats will reduce population resiliency and 
affect the species' representation and redundancy in the foreseeable 
future but are not projected to lead to the species' decline such that 
the pristine crayfish is likely to become in danger of extinction in 
the modeled scenarios. The best available information does not indicate 
that the pristine crayfish's viability will decline so much that the 
species is likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout its range.
    We then evaluated the range of the pristine crayfish to determine 
if the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in 
the foreseeable future in any significant portion of its range. 
Although threats are similar throughout the range of the species, the 
species' response is more pronounced in the Piney Creek AU. Due to 
lower current resiliency, threats are having a greater impact in the 
Piney Creek AU than elsewhere in the range. The Piney Creek AU exhibits 
low current resiliency driven primarily by a low extent of occupancy 
(few sites known within the stream) and lack of information regarding 
reproduction in the species. Given the species' condition within the 
Piney Creek AU, we have identified the unit as an area that may be in 
danger of extinction due to the low extent of occupancy and low 
reproduction/recruitment.
    We then proceeded to the significance question, asking whether this 
portion of the range is significant. Although the Piney Creek AU 
contributes to the overall species-level representation and redundancy, 
it does not contain any high-quality or high-value habitat or any 
habitat or resources unique to that area

[[Page 57398]]

and necessary to the pristine crayfish's life history. In addition, 
only 1 of the 27 known streams with species occurrence is located in 
the Piney Creek AU. So this area does not contribute substantively to 
the species' viability. This portion does not make up a large 
geographic area of the range or contain a high proportion of the 
species' habitat or populations. Accordingly, we do not find this 
portion to be a significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find 
the pristine crayfish is not currently in danger of extinction in a 
significant portion of its range.
    We next considered whether the pristine crayfish may be likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future in a 
significant portion of its range. As discussed above, we determined 30 
years to be the foreseeable future for which we can reasonably predict 
the threats to the pristine crayfish and the species' response to those 
threats.
    Habitat destruction or modification and climate change are the 
primary factors currently acting on or expected to act on the species 
in the future at a rangewide scale. The species currently exhibits 
moderate resiliency in seven of eight AUs and moderate species' level 
representation and redundancy. Although threats are projected to impact 
the species similarly across the range, the species' response is more 
pronounced in some AUs due to lower resiliency where threats are having 
a greater impact than elsewhere in the range. One AU (Caney Fork River-
Clifty Creek) is projected to remain in moderate resiliency in all but 
the increased impact scenario in 2051. The remaining seven AUs are 
projected to exhibit low or very low resiliency under scenarios 2 and 3 
in 2036 and 2051. We considered whether the seven AUs that are 
projected to exhibit low or very low resiliency in future scenarios may 
be a portion of the range that could become in danger of extinction 
within the foreseeable future. Although the future condition analyses 
projects overall declines in AU resiliency, stream catchments with 
species' occurrences are projected to remain in good condition within 
each AU. Within the high-condition catchments, we expect that habitat 
conditions will support sufficient pristine crayfish abundance and 
reproduction. Although projections indicate low or very low future 
resiliency in seven AUs, the remaining stream catchments in high 
condition indicate that the pristine crayfish in these AUs will remain 
on the landscape with sufficient viability. In addition, although some 
declines in representation and redundancy are projected in the future, 
we expect that the pristine crayfish will have sufficient adaptive 
capacity and ability to withstand catastrophic change in the 
foreseeable future. Accordingly, we determined that the pristine 
crayfish is not likely to become an endangered species within a 
significant portion of its range.
    We found no portion of the pristine crayfish's range where the 
biological condition of the species differs from its condition 
elsewhere in its range such that the status of the species in that 
portion warrants listing under the Act. Therefore, we find that the 
species is not in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in 
the foreseeable future in any significant portion of its range.
    After assessing the best available information, we concluded that 
the pristine crayfish is not in danger of extinction or likely to 
become in danger of extinction throughout all of its range or in any 
significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the 
pristine crayfish as an endangered species or threatened species under 
the Act is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this 
finding can be found in the pristine crayfish species assessment form 
and other supporting documents at https://www.regulations.gov under 
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2023-0115.
Peer Review
    In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR 
34270; July 1, 1994) and the Service's August 22, 2016, Director's Memo 
on the Peer Review Process, we solicited independent scientific reviews 
of the information contained in the pristine crayfish SSA report. The 
Service sent the SSA report to four independent peer reviewers and 
received one response. Results of this structured peer review process 
can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2023-0115. We incorporated the results of these reviews, as 
appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this 
finding.

Tennessee Heelsplitter

Previous Federal Actions
    On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for 
Biological Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, 
Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, 
and West Virginia Highlands to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland 
species, including Tennessee heelsplitter (Lasmigona holstonia), as 
endangered or threatened species under the Act. On September 27, 2011, 
we published a 90-day finding (76 FR 59836) that the petition contained 
substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted for 
the species. This document constitutes our 12-month finding on the 
April 20, 2010, petition to list the Tennessee heelsplitter under the 
Act.
Summary of Finding
    The Tennessee heelsplitter is a small freshwater mussel usually 
less than 50 millimeters (2 inches) long. The species is a freshwater 
mussel native to the New, Cumberland, and Tennessee River basins in 
Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, and historically North Carolina. 
The Tennessee heelsplitter predominantly inhabits spring-fed creeks and 
small headwater streams with stable substrates and good water quality. 
The species needs water with low to moderate flow, appropriate 
temperatures for life-history functions, and presence of fish hosts for 
successful reproduction.
    Resources influencing the successful completion of each life stage 
for Tennessee heelsplitter individuals include abundant host fish, 
stable substrate, proximity to breeding individuals, small or headwater 
streams, water with neutral pH and little to no contaminants, spring-
fed streams with low to moderate water flow, and a water temperature 
range that allows for life-history functions (Service 2016a, p. 12). 
Successful completion of each life stage affects the ability of 
populations to withstand stochastic events (resiliency) and the 
species' ability to withstand catastrophic events (redundancy) as well 
as adapt to changing environmental conditions by way of genetic 
exchange or respond to environmental diversity between occupied streams 
(representation).
    The population- and species-level resource needs of the Tennessee 
heelsplitter include sufficient juvenile and breeding adult abundances 
with broad distributions, suitable and abundant host fish, and habitat 
connectivity. Resiliency of Tennessee heelsplitter populations (which 
we defined as occupied stream reaches within analysis units (AUs)), as 
well as representation and redundancy of the species, are influenced by 
access to necessary resources.
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the Tennessee heelsplitter, and we evaluated all relevant factors 
under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and 
conservation measures addressing these threats. The threats affecting 
the Tennessee heelsplitter's

[[Page 57399]]

biological status include siltation and sedimentation, pollution and 
toxic spills, drought and floods, aquatic nuisance species, and 
impoundments. These threats appear to have mostly localized extent and 
moderate impact. The current risk of extinction is low. Further, the 
Tennessee heelsplitter's current distribution has not substantially 
changed from its known historical distribution. Sixty percent of AUs 
are categorized as ``high'' or ``most'' habitat suitability and these 
AUs are distributed throughout each river basin. Redundancy is high, as 
our analysis indicates that suitable habitat exists throughout the 
range of the Tennessee heelsplitter. Representation is maintained 
across the range of historical and current occurrence in the 
Cumberland, New, and Tennessee River basins. Additionally, available 
information indicates the species' adaptive capacity will ensure 
survival despite predicted climate impacts, particularly because of the 
strong association with spring-fed streams that can act as cold-water 
and drought refugia in the face of climate change. Therefore, after 
assessing the best available information, we conclude that the 
Tennessee heelsplitter is not in danger of extinction throughout all of 
its range.
    Based on projected habitat suitability for the two future 
scenarios, future resiliency for the Tennessee heelsplitter is expected 
to decrease slightly, but overall there will be 77 percent to 91 
percent of suitable habitat available to the species, depending on the 
modeled scenario. Multiple AUs maintain resiliency, or levels of 
suitable habitat, in future-condition projections across the range and 
are likely to help buffer changes in environmental conditions through 
2040 and 2060. Further, the concentration of AUs with high resiliency 
in the southwestern Virginia and northeastern Tennessee strongholds are 
projected to remain intact. Connectivity of these high resiliency AUs 
within the upper Tennessee representation unit (RU) bolster the 
likelihood of persistence into the future.
    In the future, stochastic events associated with threats to the 
species will likely affect population resilience in parts of the range, 
and these are more likely to occur or be observed in developed areas. 
However, our future condition projections indicate Tennessee 
heelsplitter resiliency is sufficient to withstand disturbance and 
environmental stochasticity, due to prevalent suitable habitat and 
life-history traits that reduce risk currently and into the future. The 
Tennessee heelsplitter has several life-history traits that allow it to 
adapt to changing conditions, such as the capability to transform on a 
wide variety of common host fish species, occurring in varying stream 
sizes, as well as tolerance of silty and sandy substrates and 
depositional areas with low flows. Spring-fed streams where the 
Tennessee heelsplitter is most frequently located are ubiquitous 
throughout the species' range and have year-round groundwater 
contributions with continuous flow and comparatively stable temperature 
regimes. These characteristics are expected to bolster Tennessee 
heelsplitter resilience in most AUs throughout the range into the 
future and withstand projected climate effects. After assessing the 
best available information, we conclude that the Tennessee heelsplitter 
is not likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable 
future throughout all of its range.
    We also evaluated the range of the Tennessee heelsplitter to 
determine if the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to 
become so in the foreseeable future in any significant portion of its 
range. We identified the three RUs--Cumberland, New, and Tennessee 
drainages--for evaluation. As described above, the threats are present 
across all AUs within the range, but some are localized in effect, 
though most threats have a low to moderate level of impact on the 
species. The New and Cumberland RUs currently have large percentages 
(100 percent and 75 percent, respectively) of suitable habitat, thus 
these areas have high estimated current resiliency. Our future 
conditions analysis indicates that none of the AUs in the New RU, and 
only one of the AUs in the Cumberland RU, is projected to no longer 
have suitable habitat to support the species. As such, the amount and 
distribution of suitable habitat in high resiliency AUs are projected 
to be maintained 40 years in the future in both the New and Cumberland 
RUs, and we determined that the Tennessee heelsplitter is not in danger 
of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in 
the New or Cumberland RU.
    The Tennessee RU comprises 132 AUs with varying levels of suitable 
habitat; 57 percent of the AUs have a current condition level of high 
or most resilience, and 43 percent are in a condition of moderate 
resilience. Our future conditions analysis indicates that 4 to 14 
percent of the AUs in the Tennessee RU could lose habitat suitability 
within the next 40 years. Despite this potential loss of habitat 
suitability, between 86 and 96 percent of the AUs are projected to 
maintain suitable habitat, with widespread distribution throughout the 
Tennessee RU portion of the range. The Tennessee heelsplitter is 
expected to have sufficient resiliency in this RU for many decades. 
Thus, we found that the Tennessee heelsplitter is not in danger of 
extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in the 
Tennessee RU.
    After assessing the best available information, we concluded that 
Tennessee heelsplitter is not in danger of extinction or likely to 
become in danger of extinction throughout all of its range or in any 
significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the 
Tennessee heelsplitter as an endangered species or threatened species 
under the Act is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for 
this finding can be found in the Tennessee heelsplitter species 
assessment form and other supporting documents at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2023-0116.
Peer Review
    In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR 
34270; July 1, 1994) and the Service's August 22, 2016, Director's Memo 
on the Peer Review Process we solicited independent scientific reviews 
of the information contained in the Tennessee heelsplitter SSA report. 
The Service sent the SSA report to five independent peer reviewers and 
received two responses. Results of this structured peer review process 
can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2023-0116. We incorporated the results of these reviews, as 
appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this 
finding.

New Information

    We request that you submit any new information concerning the 
taxonomy, biology, ecology, or status of, or stressors to, the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf, Chihuahua catfish, Cooper's cave amphipod, 
Georgia blind salamander, minute cave amphipod, Morrison's cave 
amphipod, narrow-foot hygrotus diving beetle, pristine crayfish, or 
Tennessee heelsplitter to the appropriate person, as specified under 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, whenever it becomes available. New 
information will help us monitor these species and make appropriate 
decisions about their conservation and status. We encourage local 
agencies and stakeholders to continue cooperative monitoring and 
conservation efforts.

[[Page 57400]]

References Cited

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

Authors

    The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the 
Species Assessment Team, Ecological Services Program.

Authority

    The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Wendi Weber,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-18260 Filed 8-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.