Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; One Species Not Warranted for Delisting and Six Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species, 64870-64880 [2023-20296]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
64870
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Common name
*
CRUSTACEANS
*
Crayfish, Miami cave .........
*
Scientific name
*
*
*
*
Procambarus milleri ..........
*
3. Amend § 17.46 by adding
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Special rules—crustaceans.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Miami cave crish (Procambarus
milleri).
(1) Prohibitions. The following
prohibitions that apply to endangered
wildlife also apply to the Miami cave
crayfish. Except as provided under
paragraph (e)(2) of this section and
§§ 17.4 and 17.5, it is unlawful for any
person subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States to commit, to attempt to
commit, to solicit another to commit, or
cause to be committed, any of the
following acts in regard to this species:
(i) Import or export, as set forth at
§ 17.21(b) for endangered wildlife.
(ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(1)
for endangered wildlife.
(iii) Possession and other acts with
unlawfully taken specimens, as set forth
at § 17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife.
(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in
the course of a commercial activity, as
set forth at § 17.21(e) for endangered
wildlife.
(v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth
at § 17.21(f) for endangered wildlife.
(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In
regard to this species, you may:
(i) Conduct activities as authorized by
a permit under § 17.32.
(ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(2)
through (4) for endangered wildlife.
(iii) Take, as set forth at § 17.31(b).
(iv) Possess and engage in other acts
with unlawfully taken wildlife, as set
forth at § 17.21(d)(2) for endangered
wildlife.
(v) Take incidental to an otherwise
lawful activity caused by:
(A) Activities that will prevent further
saltwater intrusion into the Biscayne
Aquifer, such as coastal resiliency
projects and canal maintenance or
construction that prevent backflow of
salt water; or
Status
*
*
*
Wherever found ................
*
*
*
*
■
§ 17.46
Where listed
Listing citations and applicable rules
*
*
*
[Federal Register citation when published as a final rule]; 50 CFR
17.46(e); 4d
T
(B) Water management activities or
coastal wetland restoration projects that
improve freshwater and estuarine
habitats; improve salinity distribution
and reestablish productive nursery
habitat along the shoreline; restore the
quantity, quality, timing, and
distribution of freshwater to Biscayne
Bay and Biscayne National Park; restore
the spatial extent of natural coastal
glades habitat; or enhance natural
infiltration into the Biscayne Aquifer.
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023–20293 Filed 9–19–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
*
*
*
Cascades frog (Rana cascadae), plains
spotted skunk (Spilogale interrupta,
formerly recognized as one of three
subspecies of eastern spotted skunk
(Spilogale putorius interrupta)),
sicklefin chub (Macrhybopsis meeki),
sturgeon chub (Macrhybopsis gelida),
Tennessee cave salamander
(Gyrinophilus palleucus), and Yazoo
crayfish (Faxonius hartfieldi, formerly
Orconectes hartfieldi). 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 September 20, 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:
50 CFR Part 17
Species
[FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; One Species Not
Warranted for Delisting and Six
Species Not Warranted for Listing as
Endangered or Threatened Species
AGENCY:
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
Notification of findings.
ACTION:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce
findings that one species is not
warranted for delisting and six 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 delist the
southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris
nereis). We also find that is not
warranted at this time to list the
SUMMARY:
Cascades frog ..........
Plains spotted skunk
Sicklefin chub ...........
Southern sea otter ....
Sturgeon chub ..........
Tennessee cave salamander.
Yazoo crayfish ..........
Docket No.
FWS–R1–ES–2023–
0127.
FWS–R3–ES–2023–
0128.
FWS–R6–ES–2023–
0130.
FWS–R8–ES–2023–
0132.
FWS–R6–ES–2023–
0131.
FWS–R4–ES–2023–
0133.
FWS–R4–ES–2023–
0134.
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
Cascades frog .................................
Jeff Dillon, Endangered Species Division Manager, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, jeffrey_dillon@fws.gov,
503–231–6179.
John Weber, Field Supervisor, Missouri Field Office, John_S_Weber@fws.gov, 573–825–6048.
Plains spotted skunk .......................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:22 Sep 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20SEP1.SGM
20SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Species
Contact information
Sicklefin chub and sturgeon chub ..
Southern sea otter ..........................
Tennessee cave salamander ..........
Yazoo crayfish ................................
Amity Bass, Field Supervisor, North and South Dakota Ecological Services, amity_bass@fws.gov, 605–
222–0228.
Steve Henry, Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, steve_henry@fws.gov, 805–644–1766.
Dan Elbert, Field Supervisor, Tennessee FO, daniel_elbert@fws.gov, 571–461–8964.
James Austin, Field Supervisor, Mississippi Ecological Field Office, 601–321–1129, james_austin@
fws.gov.
Individuals in the United States who
are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or
have a speech disability may dial 711
(TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services.
Individuals outside the United States
should use the relay services offered
within their country to make
international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Sep 19, 2023
64871
Jkt 259001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
Cascades frog, plains spotted skunk,
sicklefin chub, southern sea otter,
sturgeon chub, Tennessee cave
salamander, and Yazoo crayfish 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.
We reviewed the petitions, information
available in our files, and other
available published and unpublished
E:\FR\FM\20SEP1.SGM
20SEP1
64872
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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 delist one species and
list six 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 seven actions included in this
document. The following is a
description of the documents containing
these analyses:
The species assessment forms for
Cascades frog, plains spotted skunk,
sicklefin chub, sturgeon chub,
Tennessee cave salamander, and Yazoo
crayfish 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 each species
does not meet the Act’s definition of an
‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened
species.’’ The species assessment form
for the southern sea otter contains more
detailed biological information, a
thorough analysis of the listing factors,
a list of literature cited, and an
explanation of why we determined that
the species continues to meet the Act’s
definition of a ‘‘threatened’’ species. To
inform our status reviews, we
completed species status assessment
(SSA) reports for the Cascades frog,
plains spotted skunk, sicklefin chub,
southern sea otter, sturgeon chub,
Tennessee cave salamander, and Yazoo
crayfish. Each SSA report contains a
thorough review of the taxonomy, life
history, ecology, current status, and
projected future status for each 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
Cascades Frog
Previous Federal Actions
On July 11, 2012, we received a
petition from the Center for Biological
Diversity to list 53 amphibian and
reptile species, including Cascades frog
(Rana cascadae), as an endangered or
threatened species under the Act. On
July 1, 2015, we published a 90-day
finding (80 FR 37568) that the petition
contained substantial information
indicating listing may be warranted for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Sep 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
the species. This document constitutes
our 12-month finding on the July 11,
2012, petition to list Cascades frog
under the Act.
Summary of Findings
The Cascades frog is a medium-sized
frog typically less than 71 millimeters
(mm) (2.8 inches (in)) in length; males
are smaller than females. The Cascades
frog is greenish brown with variation
among frogs in spot appearance. The
species is generally associated with
middle to high elevations
(approximately 400 to 2,500 meters (m)
(1,312 to 8,202 feet (ft)); its current and
historical range extends along the
Cascade Mountain Range from near the
United States-Canada border south
through Washington and Oregon to
California just south of Lassen Peak. The
species can also be found within the
Klamath Mountains of California and
the Olympic Mountains in Washington.
The species may be extirpated within
Lassen Volcanic National Park.
The Cascades frog is primarily
aquatic, using lakes, ponds, wet
meadows, and streams, where they are
often found along shorelines or on
emergent rocks or logs. It uses habitats
that are maintained by cold winters
with deep snowpack and spring
snowmelt. A diversity of aquatic
features is needed to support all life
stages, breeding, foraging, and dispersal,
and to provide areas of refuge from
predators. Precipitation is important in
supporting aquatic habitats and
movement of individuals across the
landscape. The Cascades frog
overwinters in aerobic sediments at the
bottom of aquatic features that have
stable thermal conditions and do not
completely freeze over.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the Cascades frog,
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 Cascades frog’s biological status
include climate change, the chytrid
fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis
(Bd), and nonnative trout.
We separated the species’ range into
five representative units (Olympics,
Washington Cascades, Oregon Cascades,
California North, and California South)
to analyze current and future condition.
Our current condition analysis finds
that resiliency of the Cascades frog is
variable across the range, with all
representative units having conditions
to support healthy populations.
However, the California units are less
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
resilient than those in Oregon and
Washington. The distribution of healthy
(i.e., good to fair resiliency) populations
of the species across a broad geographic
range ensures that catastrophic events
such as volcanic eruptions, presence of
Bd, and wildfire are not likely to cause
risk of Cascades frog extinction. Further,
the Cascades frog continues to occupy
historical sites throughout all
representative units, and factors such as
habitat, distribution of occurrences,
connectivity, and natural geological and
elevational gaps in the range all
contribute to the species’ overall
adaptive capacity. Therefore, we
conclude that Cascades frog is not
currently in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range and does not
meet the Act’s definition of an
endangered species.
In considering the foreseeable future
as it relates to the status of the Cascades
frog, we considered the relevant risk
factors (threats/stressors) acting on the
species and whether we could draw
reliable predictions about the species’
response to these factors. Our analysis
in the SSA report of future scenarios
over a an approximately 50-year
timeframe encompasses the best
available information for future
projections of habitat suitability based
on maximum temperature, minimum
temperature, precipitation, snow water
equivalent, soil moisture, and potential
evapotranspiration under two different
climate change futures (representative
concentration pathways (RCP) 4.5 and
8.5). We determined that this
approximately 50-year timeframe
enabled us to consider the threats/
stressors acting on the species and draw
reliable predictions about the species’
response to these factors.
Based on the 3Rs (resiliency,
representation, and redundancy)
analyzed in the SSA report, the
Cascades frog is projected to maintain
multiple resilient populations, based on
adequate suitable habitat availability,
across the landscape for approximately
50 years into the future. The species is
expected to withstand both stochastic
and catastrophic events and have
sufficient adaptive capacity to endure
future climate change. Thus, after
assessing the best available information,
we conclude that Cascades frog is not
likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its
range.
Having determined that the Cascades
frog is not in danger of extinction or
likely to become so in the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range, we
considered whether it may be in danger
of extinction or likely to become so in
the foreseeable future in a significant
E:\FR\FM\20SEP1.SGM
20SEP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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. Depending on the case, it
might be more efficient for us to address
the ‘‘significance’’ question or the
‘‘status’’ question first. We can choose to
address either question first. Regardless
of which question we address first, if we
reach a negative answer with respect to
the first question that we address, we do
not need to evaluate the other question
for that portion of the species’ range.
We identified the Olympics and
California South representative units as
portions that might have a different
status than the species rangewide. We
examined the following threats: climate
change, Bd, and nonnative trout,
including cumulative effects.
The Olympics representative unit has
fewer analysis units (AUs) (6) than most
of the other representative units.
However, the largest AU (unit 15)
comprises nearly the entire Olympics
representative unit and contains the
majority of the Cascades frogs in that
unit. Currently, this representative unit
has populations with sufficient
resiliency to withstand stochastic
events, and the well-distributed largest
population, which can be found across
nearly the entire representation unit
with good resiliency, is likely to
withstand catastrophic events. We,
therefore, determine that the Cascades
frog is not in danger of extinction in the
Olympics part of the range.
The Olympics have more snow-fed
aquatic systems, indicating that they
could be more sensitive to climate
change impacts than habitat in other
parts of the Cascades frog’s range.
However, these climate effects depend
on the kind of wetland habitat affected,
the distribution of wetland types, and
the degree of change in hydrologic
patterns under different future climates.
We do not know explicit linkages of
climate effects to specific Cascades frog
habitat. Despite this caveat, our future
conditions analysis indicates that the
largest AU (unit 15), which covers the
majority of the representation unit, will
maintain fair habitat suitability across
all future scenarios. Further, there does
not appear to be widespread adult
mortality consistent with Bd in the
Olympics. While nonnative trout are in
wetlands of the Washington Olympics
and will likely continue to be a stressor,
there are areas within the Olympics
range (e.g., national parks) where this
stressor is not likely to exacerbate any
projected declines. Based on the
projected future conditions, we
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Sep 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
conclude that the Cascades frog is not in
danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future in the Olympics
portion of its range.
Populations within the California
South representative unit have
experienced declines, local extirpations,
and low population viability due in part
to Bd, droughts, nonnative trout
stocking, and lack of connectivity to
other habitat. Despite declines in the
California South part of the range, 75
percent of the AUs are currently in fair
condition, indicative of relatively
healthy populations. These fair
condition AUs are distributed
throughout the representative unit, thus
providing redundancy to both stochastic
and catastrophic events. We, therefore,
determine that the Cascades frog is not
in danger of extinction in the California
South part of the range.
Our future conditions analysis shows
that all AUs within the California South
representation unit either maintain fair
habitat condition or improve to good
habitat condition approximately 50
years into the future. Although habitat
suitability is predicted to increase, the
potential for the Cascades frog to
colonize suitable habitat is dependent
on the health of source populations,
connectivity, and habitat features to
support the species across all life stages,
and there is some uncertainty as to the
extent that this could happen in the
future. The projected future distribution
of fair/good condition AUs throughout
the California South unit provide
redundancy to stochastic and
catastrophic events. Based on this
assessment, we conclude that the
Cascades frog is not in danger of
extinction within the foreseeable future
in the California South portion of its
range.
Because we determined that there are
no portions within the species range
that are currently in danger of extinction
or likely to become so in the foreseeable
future, we do not need to consider
whether any portion of the range is
significant. Nonetheless, we did
undertake this further step for California
South as a part of our evaluation of
significant portion of the range.
Considerations for significance can
include whether the portion constitutes
a large geographic area relative to the
rest of the range, whether the portion
constitutes habitat of high quality
relative to the remaining portions of the
range, or whether the portion
constitutes high or unique value habitat
for the species. California South is not
a large representative unit relative to the
rest of the range. It does not have unique
or high value habitat nor high quality
habitat relative to any other habitat
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
64873
throughout the range, and while the
Lassen Mountains are different from
other mountains in the range, they
provide similar habitat features for the
frogs, and thus they do not result in a
meaningful difference in the ecology of
the species. For these reasons, the
California South portion is not
considered significant. Therefore, the
California South portion is not a
significant portion of the range.
Thus, after assessing the best available
information, we conclude that the
Cascades frog is not in danger of
extinction or likely to become in danger
of extinction within the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range or in
any significant portion of its range.
Therefore, we find that listing the
Cascades frog 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
Cascades frog species assessment form
and other supporting documents on
https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2023–0127
(see ADDRESSES, above).
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 Cascades frog SSA
report. The Service sent the SSA report
to three independent peer reviewers and
received two responses. Results of this
structured peer review process can be
found at https://www.regulations.gov.
We incorporated the results of these
reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA
report, which is the foundation for this
finding.
Plains Spotted Skunk
Previous Federal Actions
On July 18, 2011, we received a
petition from Mr. David Wade and Dr.
Thomas Alton, requesting that multiple
grassland thicket species or subspecies
be listed as endangered or threatened
under the Act, including the plains
spotted skunk (Spilogale interrupta,
formerly recognized as one of three
subspecies of eastern spotted skunk
(Spilogale putorius interrupta)). On
December 4, 2012, we published a 90day finding in the Federal Register (77
FR 71759) concluding that the petition
presented substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
listing the plains spotted skunk may be
warranted. This document constitutes
our 12-month finding on the July 18,
E:\FR\FM\20SEP1.SGM
20SEP1
64874
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
2011, petition to list the plains spotted
skunk under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The plains spotted skunk is a small
mammal in the weasel family, most
notable for its vivid black and white fur
markings, that occurs in a wide range of
habitat types across the Great Plains
region of the contiguous United States.
States with current occurrences
(observed from 2000 to the present)
include Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas,
and Wyoming.
This generalist species exhibits
relatively high adaptability related to its
diet and foraging, habitat use, and
activity patterns. The habitat elements
that we identified as important to plains
spotted skunk individuals at each life
stage include freshwater of sufficient
quantity, food availability, den
availability, and habitat complexity that
provides protective cover. Plains
spotted skunks are opportunistic
omnivores, whose diet varies across
seasons and habitats along with the
availability and abundance of food
items. Adult plains spotted skunks are
typically solitary with the exception of
mating pairs, females with dependent
young, and adults denning during cold
weather for thermoregulation. Despite
their solitary nature, plains spotted
skunks show no signs of territoriality.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the plains spotted
skunk, 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 plains spotted skunk’s
biological status include habitat loss
and fragmentation due to agricultural
and urban development, and climate
change. Impacts from climate change
include exacerbation of drought
conditions and a decrease of available
habitat along the Gulf Coast due to sea
level rise. We also examined a number
of other factors, including infectious
pathogens, pesticides, invasive species,
predation, competition,
overexploitation, human-wildlife
conflict, and direct mortality from other
sources, but these factors did not rise to
such a level that affected the species as
a whole.
To assess the current condition of
plains spotted skunks we analyzed one
demographic factor (percent of counties
with current location) and two habitat
factors (habitat availability and
freshwater availability) across six
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Sep 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
population analysis units that cover the
current range of the species. The
analysis units cover an extensive range
with a wide diversity of habitats
distributed across diverse
environmental conditions. All analysis
units had high habitat availability and at
least moderate freshwater availability.
The demographic factor scores ranged
from low (two units) to moderate (four
units). Largely due to their extensive
range, plains spotted skunks have a high
redundancy and are at a low risk for
experiencing rangewide negative
impacts from a catastrophic event at a
given point in time. Similarly, the
species demonstrates great adaptive
capacity to adjust to environmental
change and, thus, currently exhibits
high representation.
We evaluated two scenarios to
characterize the full range of uncertainty
regarding plausible futures for the
plains spotted skunk within a 30-year
timeframe. Resiliency of the six analysis
units was assessed under each scenario.
Scenario 1 assumes intermediate to low
sea level rise, RCP 4.5 emissions, and
land use changes at 2050 from
urbanization and agriculture. Scenario 2
assumes high sea level rise, RCP 8.5
emissions, and the same land use
change projections as scenario 1.
Considering both scenarios, we
projected the effect of the scenarios on
two habitat factors important to
resiliency in the future: habitat
availability and freshwater availability.
Under both future scenarios, we
projected some reduction in freshwater
availability across the range. Under
scenario 1, we projected one unit
scoring low (unit 1) for freshwater
availability, four scoring moderate
(units 2–5), and one unit remaining high
(unit 6). Under scenario 2, we projected
two units scoring low for freshwater
availability (units 1 and 3), one scoring
moderate (unit 2), and three units
remaining high (units 4–6). Under both
scenarios, we projected only minimal
reduction in current habitat availability
across the range. Under both scenarios,
we project climate-induced expansion
of plains spotted skunks into new
habitats and regions, especially for
analysis units 1, 2, and 3. For habitat
availability under both scenarios, we
project five units (units 1–5) to retain
high habitat availability and one unit
(unit 6) to have moderate habitat
availability. This reduction from
currently high habitat availability in
unit 6 to moderate in the future is
attributed to sea level rise on the Gulf
Coast of Texas. In either future scenario,
we expect most analysis units to have
high to moderate resiliency in terms of
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the habitat factors important to the
viability of the plains spotted skunk.
Based on an evaluation of the plausible
catastrophes likely to adversely impact
plains spotted skunk populations in
2050, we predict the species will
maintain high redundancy in both
future scenarios. Similarly, our analyses
of the species’ adaptative capacity based
on scenarios 1 and 2 support the
likelihood that the species will continue
to exhibit high representation 30 years
into the future.
The plains spotted skunk is a
generalist species that eats a wide
variety of foods and lives in a wide
variety of habitats across six analysis
units that extend across many U.S.
States. Current resiliency, redundancy,
and representation are all ranked as
moderate to high. Although there is low
distribution in two analysis units, the
species’ resiliency overall is moderate to
high. The species exhibits high
redundancy, greatly reducing the
potential for catastrophic events to
impact the species at the population
level, and the species’ high
representation indicates a high capacity
to adapt to changing environments.
There are no identified threats currently
affecting the species’ viability across its
range. Based on this information, the
plains spotted skunk is not in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range.
The 3Rs analysis in the SSA report
provides evidence that the 30-year
outlook for the species’ projected
condition under two future scenarios is
still moderate to high. For resiliency,
there is almost no change in habitat
availability except for analysis unit 6
(the smallest unit) due to sea level rise.
Freshwater availability drops under
both scenarios, but only two analysis
units are projected to be in low
condition, although one of those is
analysis unit 3, the largest unit. No units
ranked ‘‘extremely low’’ under any
future scenarios. Redundancy and
representation are projected to be in the
moderate to high range under both
future scenarios. Based on this analysis,
the species is not likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future.
We also evaluated the range of the
plains spotted skunk to determine if the
species is in danger of extinction now
or likely to become so within the
foreseeable future in any significant
portion of its range. Although there is
currently low distribution in two
analysis units, the habitat and
freshwater availability in those units is
high to moderate, and there are no
barriers to movement or distribution
(other than the Mississippi River on the
eastern border of its range). No threats
have been identified that are currently
E:\FR\FM\20SEP1.SGM
20SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
affecting any portion of the species’
range. Two units are projected to be in
low condition for freshwater availability
in the future, and sea level rise is
predicted to decrease habitat availability
in another unit. However, we do not
expect freshwater availability to be low
enough to be limiting, and given the
retention of high habitat availability, we
expect these units to support the species
in the foreseeable future, especially in
light of the plains spotted skunk’s high
adaptive capacity. There are no
geographic portions of the range in
which the species is potentially
endangered or threatened.
After assessing the best available
information, we concluded that the
plains spotted skunk is not in danger of
extinction or likely to become in danger
of extinction within the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range or in
any significant portion of its range.
Therefore, we find that listing the plains
spotted skunk 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 plains spotted skunk species
assessment form and other supporting
documents on https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R3–ES–2023–0128 (see
ADDRESSES, above).
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 plains spotted skunk
SSA report. The Service sent the SSA
report to four independent peer
reviewers and received two responses.
Results of this structured peer review
process can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov. We incorporated
the results of these reviews, as
appropriate, into the SSA report, which
is the foundation for this finding.
Sturgeon Chub and Sicklefin Chub
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Previous Federal Actions
On August 15, 2016, we received a
petition dated August 11, 2016, from
WildEarth Guardians requesting that the
sturgeon chub (Macrhybopsis gelida)
and sicklefin chub (M. meeki) be listed
as endangered or threatened and that
critical habitat be designated for these
species under the Act. On December 20,
2017, we published a 90-day finding (82
FR 60362) that the petition contained
substantial information indicating that
listing may be warranted for these
species. We were later challenged by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Sep 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
WildEarth Guardians for our failure to
complete a 12-month finding for these
species. Based on this litigation, we are
now required by a September 30, 2021,
court order to submit our 12-month
finding for these species to the Federal
Register by September 30, 2023. This
document constitutes our 12-month
finding on the August 11, 2016, petition
to list sturgeon chub and sicklefin chub
under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The sturgeon chub is a small minnow
adapted to benthic riverine habitats
with a slender streamlined body that
inhabits turbid mainstem sections of the
Missouri River and Mississippi River
and some of their tributaries. The
species has a widespread distribution
and currently occupies 53 percent of its
historical range across 12 U.S. States.
The sicklefin chub is a small minnow
that inhabits large, turbid rivers,
including the mainstem Missouri and
Mississippi Rivers. Like sturgeon chub,
sicklefin chub have also evolved
specific adaptations to turbid, riverine
habitats. It is distinguished from the
sturgeon chub by long, sickle-shaped
pectoral fins and the absence of ridgelike projections on its scales. This
species also has a widespread
distribution and currently occupies 75
percent of its historical range across 13
U.S. States.
Sicklefin chub primarily utilize
mainstem river habitats, whereas
sturgeon chub utilize both mainstem
river and tributary habitat in both the
Missouri and Mississippi River basins.
Populations of both species need large
enough areas of connected riverine
habitat to fulfill their life-history needs
(e.g., spawning, egg/larval drift
distances, suitable water temperatures,
feeding/sheltering habitat) and provide
refugia from habitat-altering stochastic
events (e.g., extreme flows from intense,
sustained drought or increased
variability in precipitation). Eggs are
spawned in the water column during
the summer months and develop
(mediated by water temperature) into
larva. Larval chubs continue to drift in
river currents and swim vertically in the
water column with energy provided by
the egg yolk sac. Length of
unfragmented reaches needed for larval
development varies and is dependent on
water temperature, flow velocity, and
habitat complexity, among other
variables. If larvae drift into a reservoir
or still water habitat before they become
a horizontal swimmer, it is presumed
they settle to the bottom and experience
high mortality. Neither species occupies
the large stretches of reservoir habitat
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
64875
produced by dams along the Missouri
River system.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the sturgeon chub
and sicklefin chub, and we evaluated all
relevant factors under the five listing
factors, including any regulatory
mechanisms and conservation measures
addressing these threats. The past
construction of mainstem Missouri
River dams and associated reservoirs is
the main threat that led to the largest
reduction in habitat for both species. In
the future, changes in stream discharge
from climate change is the only threat
identified that could potentially lead to
population-level impacts. We also
evaluated the effects of channel
modification, water quality, tributary
barriers, pollutants, impingement and
entrainment, predation, and
hybridization. These threats are likely
impacting both species at an individual
level and not occurring at a scope or
scale that would impact entire
populations of these species.
Both sturgeon and sicklefin chubs
have high effective population sizes.
Given the amount of habitat
fragmentation that occurred historically,
the presence of robust genetics and
effective population estimates, despite
the level of fragmentation, is indicative
of highly resilient populations. Current
occupancy and abundance information
indicates that populations are in
moderate to high condition.
Furthermore, populations of both
species currently occupy habitats with
one or more stream fragments meeting
or exceeding the minimum thresholds to
meet life-history needs. Sturgeon and
sicklefin chubs currently exhibit high
resiliency in multiple populations
spread throughout a large portion of
their historical ranges, providing
redundancy against potential
catastrophic events. There are no
identified threats currently affecting
these species’ viability across their
ranges at a population level. Thus, after
assessing the best available information,
we conclude that the sturgeon and
sicklefin chub are not in danger of
extinction throughout all of their ranges.
When looking to the future, we have
no indication that the construction of
additional dams, the demolition of
existing dams, or major differences in
dam operations are likely to occur.
Similarly, we have no information to
indicate that any of the other potential
stressors identified are going to change
in the future at levels that would impact
sturgeon and sicklefin chub
populations. The primary stressor to
these species in the future is the
E:\FR\FM\20SEP1.SGM
20SEP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
64876
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
potential for habitat loss and
degradation from climate change. In the
future, we project populations of both
species to be relatively unchanged from
their highly resilient current condition.
These populations largely occupy
mainstem river habitat, which is not
likely to experience significant impacts
from the effects of climate change on
stream discharge. Here, we predict
effective population size, occupancy
and abundance, and unfragmented
stream length to remain largely stable in
light of potential changes to stream
discharge. After assessing the best
available information, we conclude that
the sturgeon and sicklefin chub are not
likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all of their
ranges.
We also evaluated the range of the
sturgeon and sicklefin chub to
determine if these species are in danger
of extinction now or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future in any
portion of their ranges. For the sturgeon
chub, we examined the following
threats: Missouri River mainstem dams
and reservoir operations, tributary
barriers and habitat fragmentation,
channel modifications, water quality,
climate change, pollutants,
impingement/entrainment, predation,
and hybridization, including cumulative
effects of the stressors. Except for
climate change, these threats are
ubiquitous across the range of the
species and acting on the sturgeon chub
more or less equally rangewide.
Although the effect of climate change
will impact the entire range of the
species as well, the future impact of
climate change on stream discharge may
be more pronounced in the upper
reaches of secondary tributary habitat in
two sturgeon chub populations. These
stream reaches are much smaller and as
a result less buffered from future
changes in stream discharge resulting
from climate change than the much
larger and more stable mainstem river
reaches that this species inhabits. These
are the only portions we identified as
potentially having a difference in status
than the rangewide status, and therefore
worth considering further for the
purposes of this analysis.
The secondary tributary habitats in
the two sturgeon chub populations
mentioned above that may be subject to
higher impacts from climate change
constitute approximately 348 stream km
(216 mi) out of 5,455 km (3,390 mi) of
currently occupied stream km, or
approximately 6 percent of the occupied
range. These areas are smaller in wetted
area and overall stream discharge than
the mainstem river sections occupied by
this species, and as a result may
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Sep 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
experience larger climate related swings
in stream discharge which could
negatively impact chubs living in those
sections. These areas may be used
opportunistically by the species when
conditions allow, but these areas offer
nothing ecologically unique and are not
required by the sturgeon chub for any
particular point of their life history. The
mainstem river sections in these
populations contain more sturgeon chub
individuals and contain all of the same
habitat features needed to meet the
species’ needs, including sufficient
unfragmented stream length for the
sturgeon chub to complete their life
cycle and maintain resilient populations
into the future. Based on the small size
of this portion relative to the rest of the
range, and the lack of unique habitat
features, we do not consider secondary
tributary habitats to be significant for
the purposes of this analysis.
For the sicklefin chub, we examined
the following threats: Missouri River
mainstem dams and reservoir
operations, tributary barriers and habitat
fragmentation, channel modifications,
water quality, climate change,
pollutants, impingement/entrainment,
predation, and hybridization, including
cumulative effects. These threats are
ubiquitous across the range of the
species and acting on the sicklefin chub
more or less equally rangewide. There
are no areas with disproportionate
impacts on sicklefin chub from these
threats. Both sicklefin chub populations
are currently high in resiliency and
expected to continue to be so into the
future despite the potential impact of
the threats considered. Neither of the
two populations considered as portions
on their own meets the definition of an
endangered or threatened species. We
found no biologically meaningful
portion of the sicklefin chub’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. We found
no portion of either species’ range that
was both significant and in danger of
extinction now or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future in that
portion. Therefore, we find that these
species are not in danger of extinction
now or likely to become so within the
foreseeable future in any significant
portion of their ranges.
After assessing the best available
information, we concluded that
sturgeon chub and sicklefin chub are
not in danger of extinction or likely to
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
become in danger of extinction within
the foreseeable future throughout all of
their ranges or in any significant portion
of their ranges. Therefore, we find that
listing the sturgeon chub and sicklefin
chub 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
sturgeon chub and sicklefin chub
species assessment form and other
supporting documents on https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R6–ES–2023–0131 for the
sturgeon chub and Docket No. FWS–R6–
ES–2023–0130 for the sicklefin chub
(see ADDRESSES, above).
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 appropriate and
independent scientific reviews of the
information contained in the sturgeon
chub and sicklefin chub SSA report.
The Service sent the SSA report to five
independent peer reviewers and
received three responses. Results of this
structured peer review process can be
found at https://www.regulations.gov
gov. We incorporated the results of these
reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA
report, which is the foundation for these
findings.
Tennessee Cave 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 Conservancy to list 404
aquatic, riparian, and wetland species,
including the Tennessee cave
salamander (Gyrinophilus palleucus), 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 the
Tennessee cave salamander under the
Act.
Summary of Finding
The Tennessee cave salamander is a
large, obligate subterranean aquatic
salamander that currently occurs in 89
caves in central and southern middle
Tennessee, northern Alabama, and
E:\FR\FM\20SEP1.SGM
20SEP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
northwestern Georgia and one spring in
Tennessee. Distribution of the
Tennessee cave salamander has not
changed significantly since its discovery
in the mid-1940s and extirpation is only
known from one site. Two historical
sites were rediscovered with increased
survey efforts in 2018.
Little information is available on
many aspects of the Tennessee cave
salamander’s life history, including egg
deposition sites, incubation, larval
habitat and diet, and breeding behavior.
The Tennessee cave salamander
requires sufficient water quality and
availability, low sediment load, suitable
substrate and cover, and adequate food
sources in a cave ecosystem. The extent
of suitable habitat in occupied cave
systems is not mapped, but the threedimensional nature of the habitat
includes extensive areas that cannot be
accessed and surveyed.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the Tennessee cave
salamander and evaluated all relevant
factors under the five listing factors,
including any regulatory mechanisms
and conservation measures addressing
these threats. The primary threats
affecting the Tennessee cave
salamander’s biological status include
habitat destruction or modification (e.g.,
groundwater pollution from a variety of
sources, sedimentation, mining and
quarrying, groundwater extraction, and
cave disturbance), disease, and climate
change as well as the cumulative effects
of the various threats on the landscape.
Of the known threats, habitat
destruction or modification currently is
the primary threat rangewide to the
species’ current and future viability.
Impacts to the species’ habitat
rangewide are caused by groundwater
pollution from contaminants, and
sedimentation associated with
urbanization, agriculture, and
silviculture. Impacts to individuals and
populations may occur as a result of
mining and quarrying, human visitation,
and disease. The best available
information does not indicate that the
influence of climate change alone on the
species’ current condition is significant,
but the effects of climate change may act
synergistically with other threats to
exacerbate the effects of urbanization,
drought, and water withdrawal,
particularly in the future.
Although the Tennessee cave
salamander is a cryptic species that
occurs in relatively inaccessible
subterranean habitat, the best available
information indicates that the species is
present in all 12 historically occupied
AUs. The Tennessee cave salamander
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Sep 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
currently exhibits high resiliency in two
AUs and moderate resiliency in eight
AUs. The two AUs in high resiliency
make up the stronghold of the species’
range. The two low resiliency AUs
occur on the periphery of the species’
range, and each is characterized by
relatively few sites with species
occurrence. Approximately 33 percent
of known sites and over 50 percent of
sites in the two AUs that make up the
stronghold of the range occur on
protected lands that confer some degree
of protection to the species from threats
caused by land use. Representation and
redundancy have not declined from
historical levels and are sufficient to
support current Tennessee cave
salamander viability. Overall, no threat
is acting to an extent or severity such
that the Tennessee cave salamander is at
risk of extinction throughout its range.
The Tennessee cave salamander is
expected to remain extant in all 12 AUs
in all future scenarios. Our future
condition analysis projected slight
declines or declines in resiliency in one
to nine AUs depending on the scenario
and time step. There are minor
projected increases in some threats that
may affect the availability of suitable
habitat across the species’ range. We
expect the loss of forest cover to have
a negative impact on the habitat
conditions for the species, but there is
limited information quantitatively
linking changes in forest cover surface
condition and cave environments in the
species’ range. The species’ response to
projected changes also has not been
observed or quantified.
In the future, the impacts under
scenario 1 (status quo minimum)
projected very minor changes to
resiliency with only a slight decrease in
one unit in 2040 and three units in
2060. Under scenario 2 (status quo
maximum), with incorporation of a
greater magnitude of forest loss, nine
AUs are projected to exhibit no change
in resiliency while only two units are
projected to decrease by 2060 (only one
unit by 2040). Under scenario 3
(increased impacts scenario), the
magnitude of impact is greatest, with 5
of 12 AUs projected to exhibit decreased
resiliency in both 2040 and 2060.
Nevertheless, even in the greatest
impact scenario, 6 of 12 AUs are
projected to exhibit moderate or high
resiliency. The resiliency of the two
AUs that make up the stronghold of the
range is not projected to change under
any scenario and time step. No analysis
unit-level extirpations are projected.
Although representation and
redundancy are projected to decline as
a function of resiliency decreases under
some scenarios and time steps, the
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
64877
species maintains sufficient adaptive
capacity and ability to withstand
catastrophic events to support future
viability.
Although threats are similar
throughout the range of the species,
some local sites may be more affected by
specific threats. For example, the
species’ response to threats is more
pronounced in the Lower Tennessee
and Lower Elk AUs. These AUs
currently exhibit low resiliency driven
primarily by low abundance, a lower
degree of forest, and a higher degree of
agricultural land use surrounding the
low number of known sites in each AU
(three sites in the Lower Tennessee and
one site in the Lower Elk). Given the
species’ condition within the Lower
Tennessee and Lower Elk AUs, we have
identified the two units on the
periphery of the species’ range as areas
that may be in danger of extinction now
or within the foreseeable future due to
the low current resiliency. Both AUs are
projected to decline in resiliency in the
future.
We then proceeded to the question of
significance, asking whether the Lower
Tennessee or Lower Elk AU meets the
current understanding of significance.
Although the Lower Tennessee and
Lower Elk AUs contribute to the overall
species-level representation and
redundancy, the two AUs do not
contain any high quality or high value
habitat or any habitat or resources
unique to the area and necessary to the
Tennessee cave salamander’s life
history. In addition, the AUs encompass
a low number of known sites with
species’ occurrences and do not make
up a large geographic area of the
species’ range or contain a high
proportion of its habitat or populations.
Accordingly, we do not find the Lower
Tennessee or Lower Elk AU, singly or
collectively, to be a significant portion
of the range.
After assessing the best available
information, we conclude that the
Tennessee cave salamander is not in
danger of extinction or likely to become
in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its
range or in any significant portion of its
range. Therefore, we find that listing the
Tennessee cave salamander as an
endangered species or threatened
species under the Act is not warranted.
A detailed discussion of the basis for
this finding can be found in the
Tennessee cave salamander species
assessment form and other supporting
documents on https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2023–0133 (see
ADDRESSES, above).
E:\FR\FM\20SEP1.SGM
20SEP1
64878
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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 Memorandum on the Peer
Review Process, we solicited
independent scientific reviews of the
information contained in the Tennessee
cave salamander SSA report. The
Service sent the SSA report to five
independent peer reviewers and
received four responses. Results of this
structured peer review process can be
found at https://www.regulations.gov.
We incorporated the results of these
reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA
report, which is the foundation for this
finding.
Yazoo Crayfish
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Previous Federal Actions
The Yazoo crayfish (Faxonius
hartfieldi, formerly Orconectes
hartfieldi) was included in a listing
petition from the Center for Biological
Diversity et al. (CBD 2010, pp. 792–793)
in April 2010. The petition requested
that the Service list 404 aquatic,
riparian, and wetland species as
endangered or threatened under the Act.
In 2011, the Service found that this
petition presented substantial scientific
or commercial information indicating
that listing may be warranted for the
Yazoo crayfish (76 FR 59836; September
27, 2011). This document constitutes
our 12-month finding on the April 2010
petition to list the Yazoo crayfish under
the Act.
Summary of Finding
The Yazoo crayfish is a streamdwelling species distributed among
scattered locations in the Yazoo and Big
Black River drainages in Mississippi.
The species is small growing to 50 to 70
mm (2 to 3 in) in total length.
Historically, the Yazoo crayfish was
known from the Yazoo to the Big Black
River drainage in Mississippi. The
Yazoo crayfish currently occupies a
wide range of stream sizes from small
headwater streams such as the first
order Little Mouse Creek (watershed
area: 11 square kilometers (km2) (4.25
square miles (m2))) to large streams such
as Fourteen mile Creek (watershed area:
644 km2 (249 m2)). Occupied streams
have moderate gradients and are located
in the Lower and Upper Gulf Coastal
Plain ecoregions.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the Yazoo crayfish
and evaluated all relevant factors under
the five listing factors, including any
regulatory mechanisms and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Sep 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
conservation measures addressing these
threats. The primary threat identified for
the Yazoo crayfish is habitat
fragmentation resulting from a number
of factors such as stream channelization,
sedimentation, road crossings,
impoundments, and development.
Other primary stressors affecting the
species’ biological status include
regulated river flows, pollution, and
climate change. Sedimentation in
streams is often a result of within
channel erosion of banks, head cutting,
and stream incisement, which are
usually the result of past land cover and
land use practices (e.g., channelization).
Increased sedimentation from a variety
of sources (e.g., timber harvest that does
not use best management practices, row
crop agriculture, and urbanization) is
detrimental to stream habitats for a
variety of reasons.
Currently, the Yazoo crayfish
occupies 12 analytical units across 20
hydrologic unit code (HUC)–12
watersheds in four HUC 8 watersheds
and three level IV ecoregions. Five
analytical units are considered to be
high resiliency, three to be moderate
resiliency, and four to be low resiliency.
The highest resiliency analytical units
are those with a higher number of
occupied watersheds, lower
channelization, lower fragmentation,
and higher forest cover. In general,
current land use practices do not appear
to have an appreciable negative impact
on the resiliency, redundancy, and
representation. Moreover, habitat
conditions for the species have been
improving over the past 10–20 years
(reduction in agriculture, increase in
forested habitat within occupied
watersheds, developed landcover has
decreased). Lingering effects of prior
land uses and management practices
continue to impact the species, but there
is evidence that streams are recovering
from these land uses and habitat may be
improving. Although threats are present
on the landscape, the Yazoo crayfish has
multiple moderate and high resilient
populations distributed across the
landscape, providing the species with
adequate redundancy and
representation. Therefore, the threats
appear to have low imminence and
magnitude such that they currently are
not significantly affecting the species’
viability. The SSA report describes
some of the uncertainties in the species’
occurrence, populations, and response
to threats; however, considering the
available data, the risk of extinction is
low due to the distribution of multiple
high and moderate resiliency units
across the species’ range. Thus, after
assessing the best available information,
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
we conclude that the Yazoo crayfish is
not in danger of extinction throughout
all of its range.
Land use patterns are projected to
continue over the next 30 years. Human
population density is low in most of the
range, so impacts related to urbanization
and development are generally low and
show minimal change under future
scenarios B1 and A2 in 2040. Future
scenarios in 2060 demonstrate an
increase of urbanization in some
analytical units, resulting in a decrease
in resiliency of four analytical units
under scenario B1 and five analytical
units under scenario A2; however,
seven analytical units remain in
moderate or high condition in scenario
B1, while eight units remain in
moderate or high condition in scenario
A2. Although change is predicted to
occur due to threats on the landscape,
our analysis indicates that the
magnitude of change under both
scenarios and timesteps does not
indicate a significant risk to future
viability of the Yazoo crayfish. The
species is expected to experience slight
reductions in resiliency by 2060, but
moderate and high resiliency
populations are expected to remain
across the species’ range. In addition,
recent increases in sampling efforts have
resulted in significant expansion of the
species’ current range, and it is
predicted that future increases in
sampling efforts will produce similar
results. After assessing the best available
information, we conclude that the
Yazoo crayfish is not likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range.
We evaluated the range of the Yazoo
crayfish to determine if it is in danger
of extinction now or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future in any
portion of its range. The species is a
range-limited, stream-dwelling species
that occurs within a very small area
distributed among scattered locations in
the Yazoo and Big Black River drainages
of Mississippi. The range of a species
theoretically can be divided into
portions in an infinite number of ways.
We focused our analysis on portions of
the species’ range that may meet the
Act’s definition of an ‘‘endangered
species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species.’’ We
considered whether the threats or their
effects on the Yazoo crayfish 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 within the foreseeable future
in that portion. Based on the best
available science, these factors are not
concentrated within a specific portion
E:\FR\FM\20SEP1.SGM
20SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
of the species’ range but spread
throughout its range.
Currently, there are moderate and
high resiliency populations occurring in
each ecoregion. In Northern Hilly Gulf
Coastal Plain, there are two moderate
resiliency populations and one low
resiliency population. In Southern Hilly
Gulf Coastal Plain, there are two low
resiliency populations and one high
resiliency population. In Loess Plain,
there are two moderate resiliency
populations and four high resiliency
populations. We project in the future at
least one moderate and/or high
resiliency population occurring in each
ecoregion: In Northern Hilly Gulf
Coastal Plain, there are projected to be
two low resiliency populations and one
moderate resiliency population; in
Southern Hilly Gulf Coastal Plain, there
are projected to be two very low
resiliency populations and one
moderate resiliency population; and in
Loess Plain, there are projected to be
three moderate resiliency populations
and three high resiliency populations.
The current and future condition
analyses of the Yazoo crayfish indicate
sufficient resiliency, representation, and
redundancy in each ecoregion. 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 within the foreseeable future in any
significant portion of its range.
After assessing the best available
information, we conclude that the
Yazoo crayfish is not in danger of
extinction or likely to become in danger
of extinction within the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range or in
any significant portion of its range.
Therefore, we find that listing the Yazoo
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 Yazoo crayfish species
assessment form and other supporting
documents on https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2023–0134 (see
ADDRESSES, above).
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 Yazoo crayfish SSA
report. The Service sent the SSA report
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Sep 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
to five independent peer reviewers and
received two responses. Results of this
structured peer review process can be
found at https://www.regulations.gov.
We incorporated the results of these
reviews, as appropriate, in the SSA
report, which is the foundation for this
finding.
Southern Sea Otter
Previous Federal Actions
On January 14, 1977, we published a
final rule (42 FR 2965) to list the
southern sea otter as a threatened
species. On March 10, 2021, we
received a November 2020 petition from
the Pacific Legal Foundation, counsel
for California Sea Urchin Commission
and Commercial Fishermen of Santa
Barbara, requesting that the southern sea
otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) be removed
from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife (i.e., ‘‘delisted’’)
because the species does not meet the
Act’s definition of an endangered or a
threatened species. On August 23, 2022,
we published a 90-day finding (87 FR
51635) that the petition presented
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that delisting the
southern sea otter may be warranted.
This document constitutes our 12month finding on the March 10, 2021,
petition to delist southern sea otter.
Summary of Finding
The southern sea otter historically
ranged from Oregon in the United States
(which is thought to have been a
transition zone between the northern
and southern subspecies), to the species’
southern range terminus near Punta
Abreojos, Baja California, Mexico. The
maritime fur trade of the 18th and 19th
centuries caused the near-extinction of
sea otters throughout their North Pacific
range. All present-day southern sea
otters descended from a small remnant
population that survived the fur trade
near Bixby Creek in Monterey County,
California. Currently, the subspecies
occurs only in portions of California:
along roughly 500 km (310 mi) of the
mainland coastline from San Mateo
County to Santa Barbara County, and in
the waters surrounding San Nicolas
Island, Ventura County, although
occasionally individuals are
documented in other areas.
Southern sea otters occupy a variety
of coastal marine habitats, including
rocky exposed coastline, sandy
embayments, and estuaries. Sea otter
habitat in California is typically defined
by the 40 m (131 ft) or 60 m (197 ft)
depth contour. Depending on local
bathymetry, most sea otters in California
reside within 2 km (1.2 mi) of shore. At
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
64879
the individual level, sea otters need
benthic invertebrate prey, coastal
marine waters less than 40 m (131 ft) in
depth, and sheltered resting habitat
consisting of canopy-forming kelp,
shallow protected waters (e.g.,
estuaries), or haul out areas. At the
population level, sea otters need
sufficient abundance and adequate rates
of survival, recruitment, and dispersal
to rebound from disturbance and persist
at the population or metapopulation
scale. At the species level, sea otters
need adequate redundancy to spread the
risk of large-scale, high-impact (i.e.,
catastrophic) events among multiple
populations or areas; they also need
adequate genetic and environmental
diversity to be able to adapt to changing
environmental conditions.
For additional information on the
physical characteristics, genetics,
taxonomy, habitat, life history, and
historical and current distribution, see
chapter 3 of the SSA report (Service
2023, pp. 12–26. For additional
information on population and species
needs, see chapter 3 of the SSA report
(Service 2023, pp. 22–23).
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the southern sea
otter, and we evaluated all relevant
factors under the five listing factors
including any regulatory mechanisms
and conservation measures addressing
these threats. We examined the
following threats: curtailment of its
range; harmful algal or cyanobacterial
bloom intoxication; shark bite mortality;
end-lactation syndrome; cardiac disease;
protozoal infection; acanthocephalan
peritonitis; infections (other); natural
causes (other); human causes (shootings,
boat strikes, and entanglements); human
causes (oil spills); loss of genetic
diversity; and climate change, including
synergistic and cumulative effects. Of
these threats, the southern sea otter is
currently most imperiled by high shark
bite mortality, curtailment of its range,
and changes related to climate.
Due in part to listing under the Act in
1977 and ongoing conservation efforts,
the range-wide population index for
southern sea otters has increased to
2,962 as of 2019 (the most recent year
a full census was completed); the
mainland range has increased by
approximately 210 km (130 mi) to
encompass roughly 500 km (310 mi) of
linear coastline; and a translocated
subpopulation has taken hold at San
Nicolas Island. Although current
numbers and range remain restricted,
the southern sea otter is likely to sustain
populations in the wild in the near
term. The current abundance of 2,962
E:\FR\FM\20SEP1.SGM
20SEP1
64880
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
otters is far below estimated carrying
capacity of California, but above the
roughly 50 animals that remained in
1914. Seven of 29+ subpopulations are
currently extant. However, the results of
population projections based on three
plausible future scenarios indicated that
meaningful improvements in resiliency,
redundancy, and representation are
unlikely to occur within the foreseeable
future.
As noted above, the southern sea otter
remains most imperiled by high shark
bite mortality, the curtailment of its
range, and climate change and
associated effects. Based on our
projections of future conditions for the
species, and the existing and increased
threats in the future on the species from
shark bite mortality, range curtailment,
and impacts of climate change, the
species will experience continued and
increasing impacts on its abundance
and connectivity between populations
that will most likely cause the species
to be increasingly less able to support
itself into the future. Additionally,
existing regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures do not appear to
be sufficient to protect the southern sea
otter from emerging or intensifying
threats.
After assessing the best available
information, we concluded that
southern sea otter is likely to become in
danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its
range. Therefore, we find that delisting
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Sep 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
the southern sea otter under the Act is
not warranted. A detailed discussion of
the basis for this finding can be found
in the southern sea otter species
assessment form and other supporting
documents on https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R8–ES–2023–0132 (see
ADDRESSES, above).
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.
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 southern sea otter SSA
report. The Service sent the SSA report
to three independent peer reviewers and
three partner reviewers. We received
responses back from one peer reviewer
and one partner reviewer. Results of this
structured peer review process can be
found at https://www.regulations.gov.
We incorporated the results of these
reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA
report, which is the foundation for this
finding.
References Cited
New Information
We request that you submit any new
information concerning the taxonomy,
biology, ecology, status of, or stressors
to the Cascades frog, plains spotted
skunk, sicklefin chub, southern sea
otter, sturgeon chub, Tennessee cave
salamander, or Yazoo crayfish to the
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
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.).
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023–20296 Filed 9–19–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
E:\FR\FM\20SEP1.SGM
20SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 20, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64870-64880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20296]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; One Species Not
Warranted for Delisting and Six 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 one species is not warranted for delisting and six
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 delist
the southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis). We also find that is
not warranted at this time to list the Cascades frog (Rana cascadae),
plains spotted skunk (Spilogale interrupta, formerly recognized as one
of three subspecies of eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius
interrupta)), sicklefin chub (Macrhybopsis meeki), sturgeon chub
(Macrhybopsis gelida), Tennessee cave salamander (Gyrinophilus
palleucus), and Yazoo crayfish (Faxonius hartfieldi, formerly
Orconectes hartfieldi). 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 September 20, 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cascades frog....................... FWS-R1-ES-2023-0127.
Plains spotted skunk................ FWS-R3-ES-2023-0128.
Sicklefin chub...................... FWS-R6-ES-2023-0130.
Southern sea otter.................. FWS-R8-ES-2023-0132.
Sturgeon chub....................... FWS-R6-ES-2023-0131.
Tennessee cave salamander........... FWS-R4-ES-2023-0133.
Yazoo crayfish...................... FWS-R4-ES-2023-0134.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cascades frog..................... Jeff Dillon, Endangered Species
Division Manager, Oregon Fish and
Wildlife Office,
[email protected], 503-231-
6179.
Plains spotted skunk.............. John Weber, Field Supervisor,
Missouri Field Office,
[email protected], 573-825-6048.
[[Page 64871]]
Sicklefin chub and sturgeon chub.. Amity Bass, Field Supervisor, North
and South Dakota Ecological
Services, [email protected], 605-
222-0228.
Southern sea otter................ Steve Henry, Field Supervisor,
Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office,
[email protected], 805-644-1766.
Tennessee cave salamander......... Dan Elbert, Field Supervisor,
Tennessee FO,
[email protected], 571-461-
8964.
Yazoo crayfish.................... James Austin, Field Supervisor,
Mississippi Ecological Field
Office, 601-321-1129,
[email protected].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in
the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we
are required to make a finding 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 Cascades frog,
plains spotted skunk, sicklefin chub, southern sea otter, sturgeon
chub, Tennessee cave salamander, and Yazoo crayfish 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. We reviewed the petitions, information available in our
files, and other available published and unpublished
[[Page 64872]]
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 delist
one species and list six 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 seven actions
included in this document. The following is a description of the
documents containing these analyses:
The species assessment forms for Cascades frog, plains spotted
skunk, sicklefin chub, sturgeon chub, Tennessee cave salamander, and
Yazoo crayfish 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 each species does not meet the
Act's definition of an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened
species.'' The species assessment form for the southern sea otter
contains more detailed biological information, a thorough analysis of
the listing factors, a list of literature cited, and an explanation of
why we determined that the species continues to meet the Act's
definition of a ``threatened'' species. To inform our status reviews,
we completed species status assessment (SSA) reports for the Cascades
frog, plains spotted skunk, sicklefin chub, southern sea otter,
sturgeon chub, Tennessee cave salamander, and Yazoo crayfish. Each SSA
report contains a thorough review of the taxonomy, life history,
ecology, current status, and projected future status for each species.
This supporting information can be found on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (see ADDRESSES,
above).
Cascades Frog
Previous Federal Actions
On July 11, 2012, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity to list 53 amphibian and reptile species,
including Cascades frog (Rana cascadae), as an endangered or threatened
species under the Act. On July 1, 2015, we published a 90-day finding
(80 FR 37568) that the petition contained substantial information
indicating listing may be warranted for the species. This document
constitutes our 12-month finding on the July 11, 2012, petition to list
Cascades frog under the Act.
Summary of Findings
The Cascades frog is a medium-sized frog typically less than 71
millimeters (mm) (2.8 inches (in)) in length; males are smaller than
females. The Cascades frog is greenish brown with variation among frogs
in spot appearance. The species is generally associated with middle to
high elevations (approximately 400 to 2,500 meters (m) (1,312 to 8,202
feet (ft)); its current and historical range extends along the Cascade
Mountain Range from near the United States-Canada border south through
Washington and Oregon to California just south of Lassen Peak. The
species can also be found within the Klamath Mountains of California
and the Olympic Mountains in Washington. The species may be extirpated
within Lassen Volcanic National Park.
The Cascades frog is primarily aquatic, using lakes, ponds, wet
meadows, and streams, where they are often found along shorelines or on
emergent rocks or logs. It uses habitats that are maintained by cold
winters with deep snowpack and spring snowmelt. A diversity of aquatic
features is needed to support all life stages, breeding, foraging, and
dispersal, and to provide areas of refuge from predators. Precipitation
is important in supporting aquatic habitats and movement of individuals
across the landscape. The Cascades frog overwinters in aerobic
sediments at the bottom of aquatic features that have stable thermal
conditions and do not completely freeze over.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Cascades frog, 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 Cascades frog's biological status include climate change,
the chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), and nonnative
trout.
We separated the species' range into five representative units
(Olympics, Washington Cascades, Oregon Cascades, California North, and
California South) to analyze current and future condition. Our current
condition analysis finds that resiliency of the Cascades frog is
variable across the range, with all representative units having
conditions to support healthy populations. However, the California
units are less resilient than those in Oregon and Washington. The
distribution of healthy (i.e., good to fair resiliency) populations of
the species across a broad geographic range ensures that catastrophic
events such as volcanic eruptions, presence of Bd, and wildfire are not
likely to cause risk of Cascades frog extinction. Further, the Cascades
frog continues to occupy historical sites throughout all representative
units, and factors such as habitat, distribution of occurrences,
connectivity, and natural geological and elevational gaps in the range
all contribute to the species' overall adaptive capacity. Therefore, we
conclude that Cascades frog is not currently in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range and does not meet the Act's definition of
an endangered species.
In considering the foreseeable future as it relates to the status
of the Cascades frog, we considered the relevant risk factors (threats/
stressors) acting on the species and whether we could draw reliable
predictions about the species' response to these factors. Our analysis
in the SSA report of future scenarios over a an approximately 50-year
timeframe encompasses the best available information for future
projections of habitat suitability based on maximum temperature,
minimum temperature, precipitation, snow water equivalent, soil
moisture, and potential evapotranspiration under two different climate
change futures (representative concentration pathways (RCP) 4.5 and
8.5). We determined that this approximately 50-year timeframe enabled
us to consider the threats/stressors acting on the species and draw
reliable predictions about the species' response to these factors.
Based on the 3Rs (resiliency, representation, and redundancy)
analyzed in the SSA report, the Cascades frog is projected to maintain
multiple resilient populations, based on adequate suitable habitat
availability, across the landscape for approximately 50 years into the
future. The species is expected to withstand both stochastic and
catastrophic events and have sufficient adaptive capacity to endure
future climate change. Thus, after assessing the best available
information, we conclude that Cascades frog is not likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
Having determined that the Cascades frog is not in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout
all of its range, we considered whether it may be in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in a
significant
[[Page 64873]]
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.
Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for us to address the
``significance'' question or the ``status'' question first. We can
choose to address either question first. Regardless of which question
we address first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to the
first question that we address, we do not need to evaluate the other
question for that portion of the species' range.
We identified the Olympics and California South representative
units as portions that might have a different status than the species
rangewide. We examined the following threats: climate change, Bd, and
nonnative trout, including cumulative effects.
The Olympics representative unit has fewer analysis units (AUs) (6)
than most of the other representative units. However, the largest AU
(unit 15) comprises nearly the entire Olympics representative unit and
contains the majority of the Cascades frogs in that unit. Currently,
this representative unit has populations with sufficient resiliency to
withstand stochastic events, and the well-distributed largest
population, which can be found across nearly the entire representation
unit with good resiliency, is likely to withstand catastrophic events.
We, therefore, determine that the Cascades frog is not in danger of
extinction in the Olympics part of the range.
The Olympics have more snow-fed aquatic systems, indicating that
they could be more sensitive to climate change impacts than habitat in
other parts of the Cascades frog's range. However, these climate
effects depend on the kind of wetland habitat affected, the
distribution of wetland types, and the degree of change in hydrologic
patterns under different future climates. We do not know explicit
linkages of climate effects to specific Cascades frog habitat. Despite
this caveat, our future conditions analysis indicates that the largest
AU (unit 15), which covers the majority of the representation unit,
will maintain fair habitat suitability across all future scenarios.
Further, there does not appear to be widespread adult mortality
consistent with Bd in the Olympics. While nonnative trout are in
wetlands of the Washington Olympics and will likely continue to be a
stressor, there are areas within the Olympics range (e.g., national
parks) where this stressor is not likely to exacerbate any projected
declines. Based on the projected future conditions, we conclude that
the Cascades frog is not in danger of extinction within the foreseeable
future in the Olympics portion of its range.
Populations within the California South representative unit have
experienced declines, local extirpations, and low population viability
due in part to Bd, droughts, nonnative trout stocking, and lack of
connectivity to other habitat. Despite declines in the California South
part of the range, 75 percent of the AUs are currently in fair
condition, indicative of relatively healthy populations. These fair
condition AUs are distributed throughout the representative unit, thus
providing redundancy to both stochastic and catastrophic events. We,
therefore, determine that the Cascades frog is not in danger of
extinction in the California South part of the range.
Our future conditions analysis shows that all AUs within the
California South representation unit either maintain fair habitat
condition or improve to good habitat condition approximately 50 years
into the future. Although habitat suitability is predicted to increase,
the potential for the Cascades frog to colonize suitable habitat is
dependent on the health of source populations, connectivity, and
habitat features to support the species across all life stages, and
there is some uncertainty as to the extent that this could happen in
the future. The projected future distribution of fair/good condition
AUs throughout the California South unit provide redundancy to
stochastic and catastrophic events. Based on this assessment, we
conclude that the Cascades frog is not in danger of extinction within
the foreseeable future in the California South portion of its range.
Because we determined that there are no portions within the species
range that are currently in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future, we do not need to consider whether any
portion of the range is significant. Nonetheless, we did undertake this
further step for California South as a part of our evaluation of
significant portion of the range. Considerations for significance can
include whether the portion constitutes a large geographic area
relative to the rest of the range, whether the portion constitutes
habitat of high quality relative to the remaining portions of the
range, or whether the portion constitutes high or unique value habitat
for the species. California South is not a large representative unit
relative to the rest of the range. It does not have unique or high
value habitat nor high quality habitat relative to any other habitat
throughout the range, and while the Lassen Mountains are different from
other mountains in the range, they provide similar habitat features for
the frogs, and thus they do not result in a meaningful difference in
the ecology of the species. For these reasons, the California South
portion is not considered significant. Therefore, the California South
portion is not a significant portion of the range.
Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude
that the Cascades frog is not in danger of extinction or likely to
become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout
all of its range or in any significant portion of its range. Therefore,
we find that listing the Cascades frog 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 Cascades frog species assessment form and other supporting
documents on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-
2023-0127 (see ADDRESSES, above).
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 Cascades frog SSA report. The
Service sent the SSA report to three independent peer reviewers and
received two responses. Results of this structured peer review process
can be found at https://www.regulations.gov. We incorporated the
results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which is
the foundation for this finding.
Plains Spotted Skunk
Previous Federal Actions
On July 18, 2011, we received a petition from Mr. David Wade and
Dr. Thomas Alton, requesting that multiple grassland thicket species or
subspecies be listed as endangered or threatened under the Act,
including the plains spotted skunk (Spilogale interrupta, formerly
recognized as one of three subspecies of eastern spotted skunk
(Spilogale putorius interrupta)). On December 4, 2012, we published a
90-day finding in the Federal Register (77 FR 71759) concluding that
the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that listing the plains spotted skunk may be warranted. This
document constitutes our 12-month finding on the July 18,
[[Page 64874]]
2011, petition to list the plains spotted skunk under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The plains spotted skunk is a small mammal in the weasel family,
most notable for its vivid black and white fur markings, that occurs in
a wide range of habitat types across the Great Plains region of the
contiguous United States. States with current occurrences (observed
from 2000 to the present) include Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and
Wyoming.
This generalist species exhibits relatively high adaptability
related to its diet and foraging, habitat use, and activity patterns.
The habitat elements that we identified as important to plains spotted
skunk individuals at each life stage include freshwater of sufficient
quantity, food availability, den availability, and habitat complexity
that provides protective cover. Plains spotted skunks are opportunistic
omnivores, whose diet varies across seasons and habitats along with the
availability and abundance of food items. Adult plains spotted skunks
are typically solitary with the exception of mating pairs, females with
dependent young, and adults denning during cold weather for
thermoregulation. Despite their solitary nature, plains spotted skunks
show no signs of territoriality.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the plains spotted skunk, 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 plains spotted skunk's biological status include habitat
loss and fragmentation due to agricultural and urban development, and
climate change. Impacts from climate change include exacerbation of
drought conditions and a decrease of available habitat along the Gulf
Coast due to sea level rise. We also examined a number of other
factors, including infectious pathogens, pesticides, invasive species,
predation, competition, overexploitation, human-wildlife conflict, and
direct mortality from other sources, but these factors did not rise to
such a level that affected the species as a whole.
To assess the current condition of plains spotted skunks we
analyzed one demographic factor (percent of counties with current
location) and two habitat factors (habitat availability and freshwater
availability) across six population analysis units that cover the
current range of the species. The analysis units cover an extensive
range with a wide diversity of habitats distributed across diverse
environmental conditions. All analysis units had high habitat
availability and at least moderate freshwater availability. The
demographic factor scores ranged from low (two units) to moderate (four
units). Largely due to their extensive range, plains spotted skunks
have a high redundancy and are at a low risk for experiencing rangewide
negative impacts from a catastrophic event at a given point in time.
Similarly, the species demonstrates great adaptive capacity to adjust
to environmental change and, thus, currently exhibits high
representation.
We evaluated two scenarios to characterize the full range of
uncertainty regarding plausible futures for the plains spotted skunk
within a 30-year timeframe. Resiliency of the six analysis units was
assessed under each scenario. Scenario 1 assumes intermediate to low
sea level rise, RCP 4.5 emissions, and land use changes at 2050 from
urbanization and agriculture. Scenario 2 assumes high sea level rise,
RCP 8.5 emissions, and the same land use change projections as scenario
1. Considering both scenarios, we projected the effect of the scenarios
on two habitat factors important to resiliency in the future: habitat
availability and freshwater availability. Under both future scenarios,
we projected some reduction in freshwater availability across the
range. Under scenario 1, we projected one unit scoring low (unit 1) for
freshwater availability, four scoring moderate (units 2-5), and one
unit remaining high (unit 6). Under scenario 2, we projected two units
scoring low for freshwater availability (units 1 and 3), one scoring
moderate (unit 2), and three units remaining high (units 4-6). Under
both scenarios, we projected only minimal reduction in current habitat
availability across the range. Under both scenarios, we project
climate-induced expansion of plains spotted skunks into new habitats
and regions, especially for analysis units 1, 2, and 3. For habitat
availability under both scenarios, we project five units (units 1-5) to
retain high habitat availability and one unit (unit 6) to have moderate
habitat availability. This reduction from currently high habitat
availability in unit 6 to moderate in the future is attributed to sea
level rise on the Gulf Coast of Texas. In either future scenario, we
expect most analysis units to have high to moderate resiliency in terms
of the habitat factors important to the viability of the plains spotted
skunk. Based on an evaluation of the plausible catastrophes likely to
adversely impact plains spotted skunk populations in 2050, we predict
the species will maintain high redundancy in both future scenarios.
Similarly, our analyses of the species' adaptative capacity based on
scenarios 1 and 2 support the likelihood that the species will continue
to exhibit high representation 30 years into the future.
The plains spotted skunk is a generalist species that eats a wide
variety of foods and lives in a wide variety of habitats across six
analysis units that extend across many U.S. States. Current resiliency,
redundancy, and representation are all ranked as moderate to high.
Although there is low distribution in two analysis units, the species'
resiliency overall is moderate to high. The species exhibits high
redundancy, greatly reducing the potential for catastrophic events to
impact the species at the population level, and the species' high
representation indicates a high capacity to adapt to changing
environments. There are no identified threats currently affecting the
species' viability across its range. Based on this information, the
plains spotted skunk is not in danger of extinction throughout all of
its range.
The 3Rs analysis in the SSA report provides evidence that the 30-
year outlook for the species' projected condition under two future
scenarios is still moderate to high. For resiliency, there is almost no
change in habitat availability except for analysis unit 6 (the smallest
unit) due to sea level rise. Freshwater availability drops under both
scenarios, but only two analysis units are projected to be in low
condition, although one of those is analysis unit 3, the largest unit.
No units ranked ``extremely low'' under any future scenarios.
Redundancy and representation are projected to be in the moderate to
high range under both future scenarios. Based on this analysis, the
species is not likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.
We also evaluated the range of the plains spotted skunk to
determine if the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to
become so within the foreseeable future in any significant portion of
its range. Although there is currently low distribution in two analysis
units, the habitat and freshwater availability in those units is high
to moderate, and there are no barriers to movement or distribution
(other than the Mississippi River on the eastern border of its range).
No threats have been identified that are currently
[[Page 64875]]
affecting any portion of the species' range. Two units are projected to
be in low condition for freshwater availability in the future, and sea
level rise is predicted to decrease habitat availability in another
unit. However, we do not expect freshwater availability to be low
enough to be limiting, and given the retention of high habitat
availability, we expect these units to support the species in the
foreseeable future, especially in light of the plains spotted skunk's
high adaptive capacity. There are no geographic portions of the range
in which the species is potentially endangered or threatened.
After assessing the best available information, we concluded that
the plains spotted skunk is not in danger of extinction or likely to
become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout
all of its range or in any significant portion of its range. Therefore,
we find that listing the plains spotted skunk 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 plains
spotted skunk species assessment form and other supporting documents on
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2023-0128 (see
ADDRESSES, above).
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 plains spotted skunk SSA report.
The Service sent the SSA report to four independent peer reviewers and
received two responses. Results of this structured peer review process
can be found at https://www.regulations.gov. We incorporated the
results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which is
the foundation for this finding.
Sturgeon Chub and Sicklefin Chub
Previous Federal Actions
On August 15, 2016, we received a petition dated August 11, 2016,
from WildEarth Guardians requesting that the sturgeon chub
(Macrhybopsis gelida) and sicklefin chub (M. meeki) be listed as
endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for
these species under the Act. On December 20, 2017, we published a 90-
day finding (82 FR 60362) that the petition contained substantial
information indicating that listing may be warranted for these species.
We were later challenged by WildEarth Guardians for our failure to
complete a 12-month finding for these species. Based on this
litigation, we are now required by a September 30, 2021, court order to
submit our 12-month finding for these species to the Federal Register
by September 30, 2023. This document constitutes our 12-month finding
on the August 11, 2016, petition to list sturgeon chub and sicklefin
chub under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The sturgeon chub is a small minnow adapted to benthic riverine
habitats with a slender streamlined body that inhabits turbid mainstem
sections of the Missouri River and Mississippi River and some of their
tributaries. The species has a widespread distribution and currently
occupies 53 percent of its historical range across 12 U.S. States.
The sicklefin chub is a small minnow that inhabits large, turbid
rivers, including the mainstem Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. Like
sturgeon chub, sicklefin chub have also evolved specific adaptations to
turbid, riverine habitats. It is distinguished from the sturgeon chub
by long, sickle-shaped pectoral fins and the absence of ridge-like
projections on its scales. This species also has a widespread
distribution and currently occupies 75 percent of its historical range
across 13 U.S. States.
Sicklefin chub primarily utilize mainstem river habitats, whereas
sturgeon chub utilize both mainstem river and tributary habitat in both
the Missouri and Mississippi River basins. Populations of both species
need large enough areas of connected riverine habitat to fulfill their
life-history needs (e.g., spawning, egg/larval drift distances,
suitable water temperatures, feeding/sheltering habitat) and provide
refugia from habitat-altering stochastic events (e.g., extreme flows
from intense, sustained drought or increased variability in
precipitation). Eggs are spawned in the water column during the summer
months and develop (mediated by water temperature) into larva. Larval
chubs continue to drift in river currents and swim vertically in the
water column with energy provided by the egg yolk sac. Length of
unfragmented reaches needed for larval development varies and is
dependent on water temperature, flow velocity, and habitat complexity,
among other variables. If larvae drift into a reservoir or still water
habitat before they become a horizontal swimmer, it is presumed they
settle to the bottom and experience high mortality. Neither species
occupies the large stretches of reservoir habitat produced by dams
along the Missouri River system.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the sturgeon chub and sicklefin chub, and we evaluated all relevant
factors under the five listing factors, including any regulatory
mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these threats. The past
construction of mainstem Missouri River dams and associated reservoirs
is the main threat that led to the largest reduction in habitat for
both species. In the future, changes in stream discharge from climate
change is the only threat identified that could potentially lead to
population-level impacts. We also evaluated the effects of channel
modification, water quality, tributary barriers, pollutants,
impingement and entrainment, predation, and hybridization. These
threats are likely impacting both species at an individual level and
not occurring at a scope or scale that would impact entire populations
of these species.
Both sturgeon and sicklefin chubs have high effective population
sizes. Given the amount of habitat fragmentation that occurred
historically, the presence of robust genetics and effective population
estimates, despite the level of fragmentation, is indicative of highly
resilient populations. Current occupancy and abundance information
indicates that populations are in moderate to high condition.
Furthermore, populations of both species currently occupy habitats with
one or more stream fragments meeting or exceeding the minimum
thresholds to meet life-history needs. Sturgeon and sicklefin chubs
currently exhibit high resiliency in multiple populations spread
throughout a large portion of their historical ranges, providing
redundancy against potential catastrophic events. There are no
identified threats currently affecting these species' viability across
their ranges at a population level. Thus, after assessing the best
available information, we conclude that the sturgeon and sicklefin chub
are not in danger of extinction throughout all of their ranges.
When looking to the future, we have no indication that the
construction of additional dams, the demolition of existing dams, or
major differences in dam operations are likely to occur. Similarly, we
have no information to indicate that any of the other potential
stressors identified are going to change in the future at levels that
would impact sturgeon and sicklefin chub populations. The primary
stressor to these species in the future is the
[[Page 64876]]
potential for habitat loss and degradation from climate change. In the
future, we project populations of both species to be relatively
unchanged from their highly resilient current condition. These
populations largely occupy mainstem river habitat, which is not likely
to experience significant impacts from the effects of climate change on
stream discharge. Here, we predict effective population size, occupancy
and abundance, and unfragmented stream length to remain largely stable
in light of potential changes to stream discharge. After assessing the
best available information, we conclude that the sturgeon and sicklefin
chub are not likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all of their ranges.
We also evaluated the range of the sturgeon and sicklefin chub to
determine if these species are in danger of extinction now or likely to
become so within the foreseeable future in any portion of their ranges.
For the sturgeon chub, we examined the following threats: Missouri
River mainstem dams and reservoir operations, tributary barriers and
habitat fragmentation, channel modifications, water quality, climate
change, pollutants, impingement/entrainment, predation, and
hybridization, including cumulative effects of the stressors. Except
for climate change, these threats are ubiquitous across the range of
the species and acting on the sturgeon chub more or less equally
rangewide. Although the effect of climate change will impact the entire
range of the species as well, the future impact of climate change on
stream discharge may be more pronounced in the upper reaches of
secondary tributary habitat in two sturgeon chub populations. These
stream reaches are much smaller and as a result less buffered from
future changes in stream discharge resulting from climate change than
the much larger and more stable mainstem river reaches that this
species inhabits. These are the only portions we identified as
potentially having a difference in status than the rangewide status,
and therefore worth considering further for the purposes of this
analysis.
The secondary tributary habitats in the two sturgeon chub
populations mentioned above that may be subject to higher impacts from
climate change constitute approximately 348 stream km (216 mi) out of
5,455 km (3,390 mi) of currently occupied stream km, or approximately 6
percent of the occupied range. These areas are smaller in wetted area
and overall stream discharge than the mainstem river sections occupied
by this species, and as a result may experience larger climate related
swings in stream discharge which could negatively impact chubs living
in those sections. These areas may be used opportunistically by the
species when conditions allow, but these areas offer nothing
ecologically unique and are not required by the sturgeon chub for any
particular point of their life history. The mainstem river sections in
these populations contain more sturgeon chub individuals and contain
all of the same habitat features needed to meet the species' needs,
including sufficient unfragmented stream length for the sturgeon chub
to complete their life cycle and maintain resilient populations into
the future. Based on the small size of this portion relative to the
rest of the range, and the lack of unique habitat features, we do not
consider secondary tributary habitats to be significant for the
purposes of this analysis.
For the sicklefin chub, we examined the following threats: Missouri
River mainstem dams and reservoir operations, tributary barriers and
habitat fragmentation, channel modifications, water quality, climate
change, pollutants, impingement/entrainment, predation, and
hybridization, including cumulative effects. These threats are
ubiquitous across the range of the species and acting on the sicklefin
chub more or less equally rangewide. There are no areas with
disproportionate impacts on sicklefin chub from these threats. Both
sicklefin chub populations are currently high in resiliency and
expected to continue to be so into the future despite the potential
impact of the threats considered. Neither of the two populations
considered as portions on their own meets the definition of an
endangered or threatened species. We found no biologically meaningful
portion of the sicklefin chub'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. We found no portion of either
species' range that was both significant and in danger of extinction
now or likely to become so within the foreseeable future in that
portion. Therefore, we find that these species are not in danger of
extinction now or likely to become so within the foreseeable future in
any significant portion of their ranges.
After assessing the best available information, we concluded that
sturgeon chub and sicklefin chub are not in danger of extinction or
likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future
throughout all of their ranges or in any significant portion of their
ranges. Therefore, we find that listing the sturgeon chub and sicklefin
chub 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 sturgeon chub and sicklefin chub species assessment form
and other supporting documents on https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2023-0131 for the sturgeon chub and Docket No.
FWS-R6-ES-2023-0130 for the sicklefin chub (see ADDRESSES, above).
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 appropriate and independent
scientific reviews of the information contained in the sturgeon chub
and sicklefin chub SSA report. The Service sent the SSA report to five
independent peer reviewers and received three responses. Results of
this structured peer review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov gov. We incorporated the results of these reviews,
as appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for these
findings.
Tennessee Cave 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 Conservancy to list 404 aquatic, riparian,
and wetland species, including the Tennessee cave salamander
(Gyrinophilus palleucus), 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 the Tennessee cave
salamander under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The Tennessee cave salamander is a large, obligate subterranean
aquatic salamander that currently occurs in 89 caves in central and
southern middle Tennessee, northern Alabama, and
[[Page 64877]]
northwestern Georgia and one spring in Tennessee. Distribution of the
Tennessee cave salamander has not changed significantly since its
discovery in the mid-1940s and extirpation is only known from one site.
Two historical sites were rediscovered with increased survey efforts in
2018.
Little information is available on many aspects of the Tennessee
cave salamander's life history, including egg deposition sites,
incubation, larval habitat and diet, and breeding behavior. The
Tennessee cave salamander requires sufficient water quality and
availability, low sediment load, suitable substrate and cover, and
adequate food sources in a cave ecosystem. The extent of suitable
habitat in occupied cave systems is not mapped, but the three-
dimensional nature of the habitat includes extensive areas that cannot
be accessed and surveyed.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Tennessee cave salamander and evaluated all relevant factors
under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these threats. The primary threats
affecting the Tennessee cave salamander's biological status include
habitat destruction or modification (e.g., groundwater pollution from a
variety of sources, sedimentation, mining and quarrying, groundwater
extraction, and cave disturbance), disease, and climate change as well
as the cumulative effects of the various threats on the landscape. Of
the known threats, habitat destruction or modification currently is the
primary threat rangewide to the species' current and future viability.
Impacts to the species' habitat rangewide are caused by groundwater
pollution from contaminants, and sedimentation associated with
urbanization, agriculture, and silviculture. Impacts to individuals and
populations may occur as a result of mining and quarrying, human
visitation, and disease. The best available information does not
indicate that the influence of climate change alone on the species'
current condition is significant, but the effects of climate change may
act synergistically with other threats to exacerbate the effects of
urbanization, drought, and water withdrawal, particularly in the
future.
Although the Tennessee cave salamander is a cryptic species that
occurs in relatively inaccessible subterranean habitat, the best
available information indicates that the species is present in all 12
historically occupied AUs. The Tennessee cave salamander currently
exhibits high resiliency in two AUs and moderate resiliency in eight
AUs. The two AUs in high resiliency make up the stronghold of the
species' range. The two low resiliency AUs occur on the periphery of
the species' range, and each is characterized by relatively few sites
with species occurrence. Approximately 33 percent of known sites and
over 50 percent of sites in the two AUs that make up the stronghold of
the range occur on protected lands that confer some degree of
protection to the species from threats caused by land use.
Representation and redundancy have not declined from historical levels
and are sufficient to support current Tennessee cave salamander
viability. Overall, no threat is acting to an extent or severity such
that the Tennessee cave salamander is at risk of extinction throughout
its range.
The Tennessee cave salamander is expected to remain extant in all
12 AUs in all future scenarios. Our future condition analysis projected
slight declines or declines in resiliency in one to nine AUs depending
on the scenario and time step. There are minor projected increases in
some threats that may affect the availability of suitable habitat
across the species' range. We expect the loss of forest cover to have a
negative impact on the habitat conditions for the species, but there is
limited information quantitatively linking changes in forest cover
surface condition and cave environments in the species' range. The
species' response to projected changes also has not been observed or
quantified.
In the future, the impacts under scenario 1 (status quo minimum)
projected very minor changes to resiliency with only a slight decrease
in one unit in 2040 and three units in 2060. Under scenario 2 (status
quo maximum), with incorporation of a greater magnitude of forest loss,
nine AUs are projected to exhibit no change in resiliency while only
two units are projected to decrease by 2060 (only one unit by 2040).
Under scenario 3 (increased impacts scenario), the magnitude of impact
is greatest, with 5 of 12 AUs projected to exhibit decreased resiliency
in both 2040 and 2060. Nevertheless, even in the greatest impact
scenario, 6 of 12 AUs are projected to exhibit moderate or high
resiliency. The resiliency of the two AUs that make up the stronghold
of the range is not projected to change under any scenario and time
step. No analysis unit-level extirpations are projected. Although
representation and redundancy are projected to decline as a function of
resiliency decreases under some scenarios and time steps, the species
maintains sufficient adaptive capacity and ability to withstand
catastrophic events to support future viability.
Although threats are similar throughout the range of the species,
some local sites may be more affected by specific threats. For example,
the species' response to threats is more pronounced in the Lower
Tennessee and Lower Elk AUs. These AUs currently exhibit low resiliency
driven primarily by low abundance, a lower degree of forest, and a
higher degree of agricultural land use surrounding the low number of
known sites in each AU (three sites in the Lower Tennessee and one site
in the Lower Elk). Given the species' condition within the Lower
Tennessee and Lower Elk AUs, we have identified the two units on the
periphery of the species' range as areas that may be in danger of
extinction now or within the foreseeable future due to the low current
resiliency. Both AUs are projected to decline in resiliency in the
future.
We then proceeded to the question of significance, asking whether
the Lower Tennessee or Lower Elk AU meets the current understanding of
significance. Although the Lower Tennessee and Lower Elk AUs contribute
to the overall species-level representation and redundancy, the two AUs
do not contain any high quality or high value habitat or any habitat or
resources unique to the area and necessary to the Tennessee cave
salamander's life history. In addition, the AUs encompass a low number
of known sites with species' occurrences and do not make up a large
geographic area of the species' range or contain a high proportion of
its habitat or populations. Accordingly, we do not find the Lower
Tennessee or Lower Elk AU, singly or collectively, to be a significant
portion of the range.
After assessing the best available information, we conclude that
the Tennessee cave salamander is not in danger of extinction or likely
to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range or in any significant portion of its range.
Therefore, we find that listing the Tennessee cave salamander as an
endangered species or threatened species under the Act is not
warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be
found in the Tennessee cave salamander species assessment form and
other supporting documents on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket
No. FWS-R4-ES-2023-0133 (see ADDRESSES, above).
[[Page 64878]]
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
Memorandum on the Peer Review Process, we solicited independent
scientific reviews of the information contained in the Tennessee cave
salamander SSA report. The Service sent the SSA report to five
independent peer reviewers and received four responses. Results of this
structured peer review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov. We incorporated the results of these reviews, as
appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this
finding.
Yazoo Crayfish
Previous Federal Actions
The Yazoo crayfish (Faxonius hartfieldi, formerly Orconectes
hartfieldi) was included in a listing petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity et al. (CBD 2010, pp. 792-793) in April 2010. The
petition requested that the Service list 404 aquatic, riparian, and
wetland species as endangered or threatened under the Act. In 2011, the
Service found that this petition presented substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that listing may be warranted for the
Yazoo crayfish (76 FR 59836; September 27, 2011). This document
constitutes our 12-month finding on the April 2010 petition to list the
Yazoo crayfish under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The Yazoo crayfish is a stream-dwelling species distributed among
scattered locations in the Yazoo and Big Black River drainages in
Mississippi. The species is small growing to 50 to 70 mm (2 to 3 in) in
total length. Historically, the Yazoo crayfish was known from the Yazoo
to the Big Black River drainage in Mississippi. The Yazoo crayfish
currently occupies a wide range of stream sizes from small headwater
streams such as the first order Little Mouse Creek (watershed area: 11
square kilometers (km\2\) (4.25 square miles (m\2\))) to large streams
such as Fourteen mile Creek (watershed area: 644 km\2\ (249 m\2\)).
Occupied streams have moderate gradients and are located in the Lower
and Upper Gulf Coastal Plain ecoregions.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Yazoo crayfish and evaluated all relevant factors under the five
listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation
measures addressing these threats. The primary threat identified for
the Yazoo crayfish is habitat fragmentation resulting from a number of
factors such as stream channelization, sedimentation, road crossings,
impoundments, and development. Other primary stressors affecting the
species' biological status include regulated river flows, pollution,
and climate change. Sedimentation in streams is often a result of
within channel erosion of banks, head cutting, and stream incisement,
which are usually the result of past land cover and land use practices
(e.g., channelization). Increased sedimentation from a variety of
sources (e.g., timber harvest that does not use best management
practices, row crop agriculture, and urbanization) is detrimental to
stream habitats for a variety of reasons.
Currently, the Yazoo crayfish occupies 12 analytical units across
20 hydrologic unit code (HUC)-12 watersheds in four HUC 8 watersheds
and three level IV ecoregions. Five analytical units are considered to
be high resiliency, three to be moderate resiliency, and four to be low
resiliency. The highest resiliency analytical units are those with a
higher number of occupied watersheds, lower channelization, lower
fragmentation, and higher forest cover. In general, current land use
practices do not appear to have an appreciable negative impact on the
resiliency, redundancy, and representation. Moreover, habitat
conditions for the species have been improving over the past 10-20
years (reduction in agriculture, increase in forested habitat within
occupied watersheds, developed landcover has decreased). Lingering
effects of prior land uses and management practices continue to impact
the species, but there is evidence that streams are recovering from
these land uses and habitat may be improving. Although threats are
present on the landscape, the Yazoo crayfish has multiple moderate and
high resilient populations distributed across the landscape, providing
the species with adequate redundancy and representation. Therefore, the
threats appear to have low imminence and magnitude such that they
currently are not significantly affecting the species' viability. The
SSA report describes some of the uncertainties in the species'
occurrence, populations, and response to threats; however, considering
the available data, the risk of extinction is low due to the
distribution of multiple high and moderate resiliency units across the
species' range. Thus, after assessing the best available information,
we conclude that the Yazoo crayfish is not in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range.
Land use patterns are projected to continue over the next 30 years.
Human population density is low in most of the range, so impacts
related to urbanization and development are generally low and show
minimal change under future scenarios B1 and A2 in 2040. Future
scenarios in 2060 demonstrate an increase of urbanization in some
analytical units, resulting in a decrease in resiliency of four
analytical units under scenario B1 and five analytical units under
scenario A2; however, seven analytical units remain in moderate or high
condition in scenario B1, while eight units remain in moderate or high
condition in scenario A2. Although change is predicted to occur due to
threats on the landscape, our analysis indicates that the magnitude of
change under both scenarios and timesteps does not indicate a
significant risk to future viability of the Yazoo crayfish. The species
is expected to experience slight reductions in resiliency by 2060, but
moderate and high resiliency populations are expected to remain across
the species' range. In addition, recent increases in sampling efforts
have resulted in significant expansion of the species' current range,
and it is predicted that future increases in sampling efforts will
produce similar results. After assessing the best available
information, we conclude that the Yazoo crayfish is not likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all of its
range.
We evaluated the range of the Yazoo crayfish to determine if it is
in danger of extinction now or likely to become so within the
foreseeable future in any portion of its range. The species is a range-
limited, stream-dwelling species that occurs within a very small area
distributed among scattered locations in the Yazoo and Big Black River
drainages of Mississippi. The range of a species theoretically can be
divided into portions in an infinite number of ways. We focused our
analysis on portions of the species' range that may meet the Act's
definition of an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' We
considered whether the threats or their effects on the Yazoo crayfish
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 within the foreseeable future in
that portion. Based on the best available science, these factors are
not concentrated within a specific portion
[[Page 64879]]
of the species' range but spread throughout its range.
Currently, there are moderate and high resiliency populations
occurring in each ecoregion. In Northern Hilly Gulf Coastal Plain,
there are two moderate resiliency populations and one low resiliency
population. In Southern Hilly Gulf Coastal Plain, there are two low
resiliency populations and one high resiliency population. In Loess
Plain, there are two moderate resiliency populations and four high
resiliency populations. We project in the future at least one moderate
and/or high resiliency population occurring in each ecoregion: In
Northern Hilly Gulf Coastal Plain, there are projected to be two low
resiliency populations and one moderate resiliency population; in
Southern Hilly Gulf Coastal Plain, there are projected to be two very
low resiliency populations and one moderate resiliency population; and
in Loess Plain, there are projected to be three moderate resiliency
populations and three high resiliency populations. The current and
future condition analyses of the Yazoo crayfish indicate sufficient
resiliency, representation, and redundancy in each ecoregion. 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 within the foreseeable future in any
significant portion of its range.
After assessing the best available information, we conclude that
the Yazoo crayfish is not in danger of extinction or likely to become
in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of
its range or in any significant portion of its range. Therefore, we
find that listing the Yazoo 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 Yazoo
crayfish species assessment form and other supporting documents on
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2023-0134 (see
ADDRESSES, above).
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 Yazoo crayfish 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. We incorporated the
results of these reviews, as appropriate, in the SSA report, which is
the foundation for this finding.
Southern Sea Otter
Previous Federal Actions
On January 14, 1977, we published a final rule (42 FR 2965) to list
the southern sea otter as a threatened species. On March 10, 2021, we
received a November 2020 petition from the Pacific Legal Foundation,
counsel for California Sea Urchin Commission and Commercial Fishermen
of Santa Barbara, requesting that the southern sea otter (Enhydra
lutris nereis) be removed from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife (i.e., ``delisted'') because the species does not
meet the Act's definition of an endangered or a threatened species. On
August 23, 2022, we published a 90-day finding (87 FR 51635) that the
petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that delisting the southern sea otter may be warranted. This
document constitutes our 12-month finding on the March 10, 2021,
petition to delist southern sea otter.
Summary of Finding
The southern sea otter historically ranged from Oregon in the
United States (which is thought to have been a transition zone between
the northern and southern subspecies), to the species' southern range
terminus near Punta Abreojos, Baja California, Mexico. The maritime fur
trade of the 18th and 19th centuries caused the near-extinction of sea
otters throughout their North Pacific range. All present-day southern
sea otters descended from a small remnant population that survived the
fur trade near Bixby Creek in Monterey County, California. Currently,
the subspecies occurs only in portions of California: along roughly 500
km (310 mi) of the mainland coastline from San Mateo County to Santa
Barbara County, and in the waters surrounding San Nicolas Island,
Ventura County, although occasionally individuals are documented in
other areas.
Southern sea otters occupy a variety of coastal marine habitats,
including rocky exposed coastline, sandy embayments, and estuaries. Sea
otter habitat in California is typically defined by the 40 m (131 ft)
or 60 m (197 ft) depth contour. Depending on local bathymetry, most sea
otters in California reside within 2 km (1.2 mi) of shore. At the
individual level, sea otters need benthic invertebrate prey, coastal
marine waters less than 40 m (131 ft) in depth, and sheltered resting
habitat consisting of canopy-forming kelp, shallow protected waters
(e.g., estuaries), or haul out areas. At the population level, sea
otters need sufficient abundance and adequate rates of survival,
recruitment, and dispersal to rebound from disturbance and persist at
the population or metapopulation scale. At the species level, sea
otters need adequate redundancy to spread the risk of large-scale,
high-impact (i.e., catastrophic) events among multiple populations or
areas; they also need adequate genetic and environmental diversity to
be able to adapt to changing environmental conditions.
For additional information on the physical characteristics,
genetics, taxonomy, habitat, life history, and historical and current
distribution, see chapter 3 of the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 12-26.
For additional information on population and species needs, see chapter
3 of the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 22-23).
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the southern sea otter, and we evaluated all relevant factors under
the five listing factors including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these threats. We examined the
following threats: curtailment of its range; harmful algal or
cyanobacterial bloom intoxication; shark bite mortality; end-lactation
syndrome; cardiac disease; protozoal infection; acanthocephalan
peritonitis; infections (other); natural causes (other); human causes
(shootings, boat strikes, and entanglements); human causes (oil
spills); loss of genetic diversity; and climate change, including
synergistic and cumulative effects. Of these threats, the southern sea
otter is currently most imperiled by high shark bite mortality,
curtailment of its range, and changes related to climate.
Due in part to listing under the Act in 1977 and ongoing
conservation efforts, the range-wide population index for southern sea
otters has increased to 2,962 as of 2019 (the most recent year a full
census was completed); the mainland range has increased by
approximately 210 km (130 mi) to encompass roughly 500 km (310 mi) of
linear coastline; and a translocated subpopulation has taken hold at
San Nicolas Island. Although current numbers and range remain
restricted, the southern sea otter is likely to sustain populations in
the wild in the near term. The current abundance of 2,962
[[Page 64880]]
otters is far below estimated carrying capacity of California, but
above the roughly 50 animals that remained in 1914. Seven of 29+
subpopulations are currently extant. However, the results of population
projections based on three plausible future scenarios indicated that
meaningful improvements in resiliency, redundancy, and representation
are unlikely to occur within the foreseeable future.
As noted above, the southern sea otter remains most imperiled by
high shark bite mortality, the curtailment of its range, and climate
change and associated effects. Based on our projections of future
conditions for the species, and the existing and increased threats in
the future on the species from shark bite mortality, range curtailment,
and impacts of climate change, the species will experience continued
and increasing impacts on its abundance and connectivity between
populations that will most likely cause the species to be increasingly
less able to support itself into the future. Additionally, existing
regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures do not appear to be
sufficient to protect the southern sea otter from emerging or
intensifying threats.
After assessing the best available information, we concluded that
southern sea otter is likely to become in danger of extinction within
the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. Therefore, we find
that delisting the southern sea otter under the Act is not warranted. A
detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the
southern sea otter species assessment form and other supporting
documents on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-
2023-0132 (see ADDRESSES, above).
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 southern sea otter SSA report. The
Service sent the SSA report to three independent peer reviewers and
three partner reviewers. We received responses back from one peer
reviewer and one partner reviewer. Results of this structured peer
review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov. 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, status of, or stressors to the Cascades
frog, plains spotted skunk, sicklefin chub, southern sea otter,
sturgeon chub, Tennessee cave salamander, or Yazoo crayfish to the
appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
whenever it becomes available. New information will help us monitor
these species and make appropriate decisions about their conservation
and status. We encourage local agencies and stakeholders to continue
cooperative monitoring and conservation efforts.
References Cited
A list of the references cited in 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.).
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-20296 Filed 9-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
