Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Seven Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species, 83368-83377 [2023-25586]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
83368
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules
www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can
view this document, as well as all other
documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Portable Document Format
(PDF). To use PDF, you must have
Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site. You may also
access the documents of the Department
published in the Federal Register by
using the article search feature at
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically,
through the advanced search feature at
this site, you can limit your search to
documents published by the
Department.
Authority: Program Authority: 20 U.S.C.
1098a.
Nasser H. Paydar,
Assistant Secretary, Office of Postsecondary
Education.
[FR Doc. 2023–26198 Filed 11–28–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR245]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Seven Species Not
Warranted for Listing as Endangered
or Threatened Species
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notification of findings.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce
findings that seven 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
SUMMARY:
is not warranted at this time to list
Edison’s ascyrum (Hypericum
edisonianum), Florida (lowland)
loosestrife (Lythrum flagellare), Florida
pinesnake (Pituophis melanoleucus
mugitu), mimic cavesnail
(Phreatodrobia imitata), northern
cavefish (Amblyopsis spelaea),
smallscale darter (Etheostoma
microlepidum), and Texas troglobitic
water slater (Lirceolus smithii).
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.
The findings in this document
were made on November 29, 2023.
DATES:
Detailed descriptions of the
bases for these findings are available on
the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov under the
following docket numbers:
ADDRESSES:
Species
Docket No.
Edison’s ascyrum ............................................................................................................................................................
Florida (lowland) loosestrife ............................................................................................................................................
Florida pinesnake ...........................................................................................................................................................
Mimic cavesnail ..............................................................................................................................................................
Northern cavefish ............................................................................................................................................................
Smallscale darter ............................................................................................................................................................
Texas troglobitic water slater ..........................................................................................................................................
Those descriptions are also available
by contacting the appropriate person as
specified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Species
Contact information
Edison’s ascyrum, Florida (lowland) loosestrife,
and Florida pinesnake.
Mimic cavesnail and Texas troglobitic water
slater.
Northern cavefish ................................................
Lourdes Mena, Division Manager, Florida Ecological Services Field Office, lourdes_mena@
fws.gov, 904–460–4970.
Karen Myers, Field Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, karen_myers@fws.gov,
512–937–7371.
Lee Andrews, Field Supervisor, Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office, lee_andrews@
fws.gov, 502–695–0468 ext. 46108.
Dan Elbert, Field Supervisor, Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office, daniel_elbert@
fws.gov, 931–525–4973.
Smallscale darter ................................................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
new information, materials, comments,
or questions concerning this finding to
the appropriate person, as specified
FWS–R4–ES–2023–0172
FWS–R4–ES–2023–0173
FWS–R4–ES–2023–0174
FWS–R2–ES–2023–0175
FWS–R4–ES–2023–0176
FWS–R4–ES–2023–0177
FWS–R2–ES–2023–0178
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 Nov 28, 2023
Jkt 262001
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
(‘‘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.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\29NOP1.SGM
29NOP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules
which interbreeds when mature. 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 Nov 28, 2023
Jkt 262001
have positive effects on the species,
such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The
Secretary of the Interior determines
whether the species meets the Act’s
definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or
a ‘‘threatened species’’ only after
conducting this cumulative analysis and
describing the expected effect on the
species now and in the foreseeable
future.
The Act does not define the term
‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in
the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened
species.’’ Our implementing regulations
at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a
framework for evaluating the foreseeable
future on a case-by-case basis. The term
‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far
into the future as the Service can
reasonably determine that both the
future threats and the species’ responses
to those threats are likely. In other
words, the foreseeable future is the
period of time in which we can make
reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not
mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to
provide a reasonable degree of
confidence in the prediction. Thus, a
prediction is reliable if it is reasonable
to depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary
to define foreseeable future as a
particular number of years. Analysis of
the foreseeable future uses the best
scientific and commercial data available
and should consider the timeframes
applicable to the relevant threats and to
the species’ likely responses to those
threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically
relevant to assessing the species’
biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan,
reproductive rates or productivity,
certain behaviors, and other
demographic factors.
In conducting our evaluation of the
five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of
the Act to determine whether the
Edison’s ascyrum, Florida (lowland)
loosestrife, Florida pinesnake, mimic
cavesnail, northern cavefish, smallscale
darter, or Texas troglobitic water slater
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 information for all of these
species. Our evaluation may include
information from recognized experts;
Federal, State, and Tribal governments;
academic institutions; foreign
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
83369
governments; private entities; and other
members of the public.
In accordance with the regulations at
50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)(i), this document
announces the not-warranted findings
on petitions to list seven 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 the
Edison’s ascyrum, Florida (lowland)
loosestrife, Florida pinesnake, mimic
cavesnail, northern cavefish, smallscale
darter, and Texas troglobitic water slater
contain more detailed biological
information, a thorough analysis of the
listing factors, a list of literature cited,
and an explanation of why we
determined that these species do not
meet the Act’s definition of an
‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened
species.’’ To inform our status reviews,
we completed species status assessment
(SSA) reports for these seven species.
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).
Edison’s Ascyrum
Previous Federal Actions
On April 20, 2010, we received a
petition from the Center for Biological
Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance,
Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance,
Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee
Forests Council, and West Virginia
Highlands to list 404 aquatic, riparian,
and wetland species, including Edison’s
ascyrum, as endangered or threatened
species under the Act. On September
27, 2011, we published in the Federal
Register (76 FR 59836) a 90-day finding
that the petition contained substantial
information indicating that listing may
be warranted for Edison’s ascyrum. This
document constitutes our 12-month
finding on the 2010 petition to list
Edison’s ascryum under the Act.
Summary of Finding
Edison’s ascyrum is a small colonial
shrub in the St. John’s wort family
(Hypericaceae) that can grow to 1.5
meters (m) (5 feet (ft)) tall. The species
occurs most abundantly in seasonal
ponds (i.e., depression marshes), but
E:\FR\FM\29NOP1.SGM
29NOP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
83370
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules
also inhabits flatwoods, wet prairies,
cutthroat grass seeps, lake margins, and
occasionally roadsides and semi-native
pastures. Edison’s ascyrum is confined
mostly to the southern Lake Wales
Ridge in central peninsular Florida. The
Lake Wales Ridge is a 186-kilometer
(km) (116-mile (mi)) long, major
geomorphological feature stretching
from just south of Lake Harris in Lake
County to near the Highlands/Glades
County line. The species was
historically known from only Highlands
and Glades Counties, and it currently
occurs in abundance in these two
counties. Additional vouchered
counties include DeSoto, Polk, and
Collier.
Edison’s ascyrum can flower yearround but usually reproduces via clonal
propagation. Genets (genetically distinct
individuals) are usually composed of
several ramets that sprout from
underground rhizomes. Edison’s
ascyrum is able to rapidly regenerate
ramets following disturbances such as
fire and prolonged inundation, which
likely enhances both genet fitness and
persistence.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the Edison’s
ascyrum, and we evaluated all relevant
factors under the five listing factors,
including any regulatory mechanisms
and conservation measures addressing
these threats. The primary threats
identified for Edison’s ascyrum’s
biological status include habitat loss
and degradation, changes in fire
patterns, and hydrological changes.
Habitat loss and degradation are
expected to be driven by development,
which, along with climate change, will
potentially cause hydrological changes.
However, approximately 77 percent of
the known occurrences are on
conservation lands, which are managed
in ways that benefit the species and its
habitat. Since recent estimates of
population size were not available for
most features, we used a habitat-based
approach to assess the resiliency of each
analysis unit. Specifically, we
considered four factors: area of available
habitat, percentage of incompatible land
use, habitat protection, and habitat
management. Thirteen of the 22 analysis
units (AUs) identified throughout the
species’ range have moderate to high
resiliency. Through this resiliency
assessment, we found that AUs that
exhibit a moderate or high rank for
habitat management are distributed
throughout the range. There is some risk
from development, altered hydrology,
and altered fire patterns due to the
localized nature of this species’ range,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 Nov 28, 2023
Jkt 262001
but the species is thriving in several
areas under long-term protection and
management. Although the species has
a narrow range, four of the AUs of highmoderate to high resiliency are
distributed from north to south across
Avon Park Air Force Range, Archbold
Biological Station, and Fisheating Creek
Wildlife Management Area. Thus, after
assessing the best available information,
we conclude that the Edison’s ascyrum
is not in danger of extinction throughout
all of its range.
We then considered whether the
species is likely to become in danger of
extinction within the foreseeable future
throughout its range. Habitat loss and
degradation, fire exclusion, and
hydrological changes are the biggest
threats to the species in the future.
Habitat loss and degradation in the
future is expected to be driven by
population growth and development in
the species’ habitat, as well as
hydrological changes due to
development and climate change. We
evaluated the future condition of the
species under two future scenarios at
two timesteps (2040 and 2070). In the
future, resiliency is projected to vary
between AUs, but the species is
projected to be represented by moderate
to high resiliency populations
throughout its range. The distribution of
moderate to high resiliency populations
across the range on protected lands may
minimize the likelihood of a
catastrophic event affecting the species
rangewide. Additionally, under both
scenarios and for both timesteps, AUs
not expected to decrease in resiliency
remain spread across the range of the
species. Under scenario 1, resiliency is
projected to decrease in 8 AUs by 2040,
and 12 AUs by 2070. Under scenario 2,
under both timesteps, resiliency is
projected to decrease in 5 AUs. Overall,
the species will remain represented
across the range. In addition, 77 percent
of the known occurrences are on
conservation lands. Thus, after assessing
the best available information, we
conclude that Edison’s ascyrum is not in
danger of extinction throughout all of its
range now, or within the foreseeable
future.
We also evaluated whether the
Edison’s ascyrum is endangered or
threatened in a significant portion of its
range. We did not find any portions of
the Edison’s ascyrum’s range for which
both (1) the portion is significant; and
(2) the species is in danger of extinction
in that portion, either now or within the
foreseeable future. Thus, after assessing
the best available information, we
conclude that the Edison’s ascyrum is
not in danger of extinction in a
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
significant portion of its range now, or
within the foreseeable future.
After assessing the best available
information, we concluded that Edison’s
ascyrum 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
Edison’s ascyrum 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 Edison’s ascyrum
species assessment form and other
supporting documents on https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2023–0172 (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 Edison’s ascyrum SSA
report. The Service sent the SSA report
to eight 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.
Florida (Lowland) Loosestrife
Previous Federal Actions
On April 20, 2010, we received a
petition from the Center for Biological
Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance,
Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance,
Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee
Forests Council, and West Virginia
Highlands to list 404 aquatic, riparian,
and wetland species, including lowland
(Florida) loosestrife, as endangered or
threatened species under the Act. On
September 27, 2011, we published in
the Federal Register (76 FR 59836) a 90day finding that the petition contained
substantial information indicating that
listing may be warranted for Florida
(lowland) loosestrife. This document
constitutes our 12-month finding on the
2010 petition to list Florida loosestrife
under the Act.
Summary of Finding
Florida loosestrife is a perennial herb
endemic to the subtropical zone of
Florida, largely on the western side of
the State. The species occurs in
seasonally inundated open areas and
can tolerate moderate levels of
E:\FR\FM\29NOP1.SGM
29NOP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules
disturbance. For example, it can be
found in roadside ditches and disturbed
wetlands along with swamps, marshes,
and wet prairies. The species can be
very abundant where it occurs, often
numbering in the thousands, forming
dense mats and dominating the
groundcover. Both the historical and
current distribution of Florida
loosestrife is not fully known.
Vouchered counties include Charlotte,
Collier, DeSoto, Glades, Hardee,
Hendry, Hernando, Hillsborough, Lee,
Manatee, Okeechobee, Orange, and
Sarasota. However, the species has also
been documented in Broward and Citrus
Counties and reported in Palm Beach
County.
Little is known about the life history
of Florida loosestrife. It is reported that
it flowers year-round, but it likely most
reliably flowers in spring. Plants that
experience seasonal flooding beginning
in late spring to early summer must
flower and set seed before they are
inundated. Florida loosestrife seeds
likely disperse within floodplains via
sheet flow. Pollinators are not known.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the Florida
loosestrife, and we evaluated all
relevant factors under the five factors,
including any regulatory mechanisms
and conservation measures addressing
these threats. The primary threats
identified for Florida loosestrife include
direct and indirect impacts of
development and sea level rise (SLR).
The species’ range is moderately
restricted, occurring in 12 counties and
35 watersheds, with many of the records
occurring in the last few years as efforts
to locate the species have increased.
Current threats to the species are
largely related to habitat conversion
associated with urbanization and other
development (e.g., agriculture);
however, the species continues to occur
in urbanized and other developed areas,
albeit in highly altered habitats. The
species’ ability to survive in different
settings is reflected in the species’
resiliency; as documented in the SSA
report, 22 of the 35 units have at least
moderate resiliency. Given the apparent
resiliency of the plants in developed
areas, the high number of units with
moderate to very high resiliency, and
the species’ ability to adapt to disturbed
environments, the species is not in
danger of extinction throughout all of its
range.
Next, we considered whether the
Florida loosestrife is likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range. For
the Florida loosestrife, habitat loss and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 Nov 28, 2023
Jkt 262001
degradation (from urban and
agricultural development) and SLR are
projected to be the biggest threats to the
species in the future. To evaluate the
future condition of the species, we
developed two plausible future
scenarios to project the outcomes of
future urban and agricultural
development and SLR at two timesteps
(2040 and 2070). However, even under
higher projected development and SLR
scenarios, the species is expected to
have sufficient redundancy with several
moderate to high resiliency populations
distributed across the range of the
species. We, therefore, determined that
the scale of impacts projected in the
future will not affect the species such
that it is likely to become an endangered
species in the foreseeable future. Thus,
after assessing the best available
information, we conclude that Florida
loosestrife is not in danger of extinction
now, or within the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range.
We also evaluated whether the
Florida loosestrife is endangered or
threatened in a significant portion of its
range. We did not find any portions of
the Florida loosestrife’s range for which
both (1) the portion is significant; and
(2) the species is in danger of extinction
in that portion, either now or within the
foreseeable future. Thus, after assessing
the best available information, we
conclude that the Florida loosestrife is
not in danger of extinction in a
significant portion of its range now, or
within the foreseeable future.
After assessing the best available
information, we concluded that Florida
loosestrife 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
Florida loosestrife as an endangered
species or threatened species under the
Act is not warranted. A detailed
discussion of the basis for this finding
can be found in the Florida loosestrife
species assessment form and other
supporting documents on https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2023–0173 (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 Florida loosestrife SSA
report. The Service sent the SSA report
to six independent peer reviewers and
received two responses. Results of this
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
83371
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.
Florida Pinesnake
Previous Federal Actions
On July 11, 2012, the Service was
petitioned by the Center for Biological
Diversity, Thomas Lovejoy, Kenney
Krysko, C. Kenneth Dodd, Jr., Allen
Salzberg, Edward O. Wilson, and
Michael J. Lannoo to list 53 amphibians
and reptiles in the United States,
including the Florida pinesnake, as
endangered or threatened species under
the Act. In response to the petition, on
September 18, 2015, the Service
published in the Federal Register (80
FR 56423) a 90-day finding that the
petition contained substantial
information indicating the Florida
pinesnake may warrant listing. This
document constitutes our 12-month
finding on the 2012 petition to list the
Florida pinesnake under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The Florida pinesnake is a large, nonvenomous, diurnal, and highly fossorial
constrictor endemic to the Coastal
Plains of the southeastern United States.
Its recognized range spans from
southeastern South Carolina, through
central and south Georgia, to south
Florida and west into the Florida
panhandle and the southern part of
Alabama. This subspecies exhibits a
strong preference for pine forests with
open-canopy, well-drained, sandy soil,
and frequent fires. Five main habitat
elements that appear to be essential to
the survival and reproductive success of
individuals are well-drained soils,
suitable vegetation structure and
composition, low nearby road density,
an appropriate fire return interval, and
presence of prey. Pinesnakes are active
foragers that hunt a variety of prey both
above and below ground. As
accomplished burrowers, they can
tunnel through loose soil, dig nests, and
excavate rodents for food. They also use
existing underground burrows and
tunnels created by other species, such as
the southeastern pocket gopher (Geomys
pinetis), for refugia.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the Florida
pinesnake, and we evaluated all
relevant factors under the five listing
factors, including any regulatory
mechanisms and conservation measures
addressing these threats. Florida
E:\FR\FM\29NOP1.SGM
29NOP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
83372
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules
pinesnakes are associated with various
actions that are associated with the loss
and degradation of habitat. Habitat loss
is due to a number of factors, including
fire suppression, historical and
incompatible silvicultural practices,
SLR, conversion of land to agriculture,
and urbanization. The current
constraints on the ability to manage
pine habitat through prescribed fire may
be exacerbated by urbanization and
climate change in the future. It is
possible that several of these factors are
acting synergistically to impact the
Florida pinesnake.
Although there is still uncertainty
surrounding the evaluated stressors and
their synergistic effects, habitat loss and
modification, due to the effects of both
urban development and climate change,
were considered in the assessment of
Florida pinesnake populations and the
subspecies’ overall viability. Currently,
across the subspecies’ range, there are
no documented impacts at the
population level from invasive species,
persecution or increased harassment,
overcollection for the pet trade, or
disease. While habitat loss and
modification are the primary factor
influencing the subspecies, many
Florida pinesnake populations have
moderate to high resiliency in the face
of these threats.
It is estimated that Florida pinesnakes
have likely lost 30.8 percent (41 of 133
populations) of their historical
populations due to loss and degradation
of habitat, representing 9 percent of the
total occupied range of the subspecies.
The remaining 69.2 percent of the
populations, covering 90.4 percent of
the total historical range, have a greater
than 50 percent probability of
persisting, and are considered extant as
of 2021. Of the extant populations, 71.2
percent of populations (66 populations)
covering 93.2 percent of the current
occupied range are very likely or
extremely likely to persist as of 2021,
and they have moderate to high
resiliency. Thirty-one and half percent
of populations covering 77.1 percent of
the current occupied range are
considered to have high resiliency. We
estimate that all seven representative
units have likely lost at least one
historic, delineated population. Despite
this decrease from the historical number
of populations, all representative units
have multiple populations, which meets
our criteria for high redundancy.
Because two representative units do not
have populations in the highest
persistence category, and those units are
on the northern and western portions of
the subspecies range, we consider the
current representation to be moderate.
We, therefore, conclude that the Florida
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 Nov 28, 2023
Jkt 262001
pinesnake is not in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range.
In considering the foreseeable future
as it relates to the status of the Florida
pinesnake, we considered the relevant
risk factors (i.e., threats/stressors)
affecting the subspecies and whether we
could draw reliable predictions about
the subspecies’ response to these
factors. We considered whether we
could reliably assess the risk posed by
the threats to the subspecies,
recognizing that our ability to assess risk
is limited by the variable quantity and
quality of available data about effects to
the Florida pinesnake and its response
to those threats.
In the future, land-use change and
other anthropogenic activities may
impact Florida pinesnake habitat
through loss of habitat and
fragmentation. Our analysis of two
future scenarios until 2080 encompasses
the best available information for future
projections of levels of urbanization,
and it uses two different representative
concentration pathways (RCPs) for
climate change (i.e., A1B and B2) to look
at the effects of SLR and prescribed burn
windows. We determined that that
timeframe enables us to consider the
threats/stressors acting on the
subspecies and to draw reliable
predictions about the subspecies’
response to these threats/stressors.
Loss of habitat and fragmentation
threats associated with urbanization and
climate change are projected to occur
throughout the subspecies’ range. The
importance of protected lands and
managing habitats through burning will
continue to play an important role for
this subspecies. Given the future
scenarios, the resiliency of Florida
pinesnake populations are projected to
decline in the future. Under both
scenarios, in 2040, 30 populations are
projected to have moderate or high
resiliency, covering 73 percent of the
occupied range. Under both scenarios,
at 2080, 11 populations are projected to
have moderate or high resiliency,
covering 62 percent of the occupied
range. Subspecies’ representation and
redundancy are projected to decrease
from moderate and high, respectively, in
current condition levels to moderate in
the future. The number of representative
units with populations in moderate and
high resiliency are projected to decrease
under all scenarios and timesteps.
However, the subspecies is projected to
maintain broad occurrence across its
range even under the projected future
threats, with five of seven
representation units containing
populations of moderate or high
resiliency into the future. Although the
total number of populations is projected
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
to decline by 2080, 62 percent of the
current range of the Florida pinesnake
remains occupied by multiple
populations with greater than 80
percent probability of persistence
(moderate and high resiliency);
therefore, the subspecies is projected to
have moderate redundancy, providing
the subspecies the ability to withstand
catastrophic events. These populations
cover a large geographic area and
maintain high or moderate resiliency
due to adequate suitable habitat
coverage, high proportion of area within
protected areas, sufficient connectivity,
and low impact of threats in the future.
Thus, after assessing the best available
information, we determine that the
Florida pinesnake is not in danger of
extinction now or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future throughout
all of its range.
We also evaluated whether the
Florida pinesnake is endangered or
threatened in a significant portion of its
range. We did not find any portions of
the Florida pinesnake’s range for which
both (1) the portion is significant; and
(2) the species is in danger of extinction
in that portion either now or in the
future. Thus, after assessing the best
available information, we conclude that
the Florida pinesnake is not in danger
of extinction in a significant portion of
its range now, or within the foreseeable
future.
After assessing the best available
information, we concluded that the
Florida pinesnake 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
Florida pinesnake as an endangered
species or threatened species under the
Act is not warranted. A detailed
discussion of the basis for this finding
can be found in the Florida pinesnake
species assessment form and other
supporting documents on https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2023–0174 (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 Florida pinesnake SSA
report. The Service sent the SSA report
to seven independent peer reviewers
and received six responses. Results of
this structured peer review process can
be found at https://www.regulations.gov.
We incorporated the results of these
E:\FR\FM\29NOP1.SGM
29NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules
reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA
report, which is the foundation for this
finding.
Mimic Cavesnail
Previous Federal Actions
On June 25, 2007, the Service
received a petition from Forest
Guardians (i.e., WildEarth Guardians)
requesting that the Service list 475
species, including the mimic cavesnail,
as endangered or threatened species and
designate critical habitat under the Act.
All 475 species occur within the
Southwestern Region and were ranked
as G1 or G1G2 species by NatureServe
at the time. On December 16, 2009, the
Service published in the Federal
Register (74 FR 66866) a partial 90-day
finding on the mimic cavesnail and 191
other species, stating that the petition
presented substantial scientific
information indicating that listing may
be warranted for 67 of the 192 species,
including the mimic cavesnail. This
document constitutes our 12-month
finding on the 2007 petition to list the
mimic cavesnail under the Act.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Summary of Finding
The mimic cavesnail is a freshwater
snail endemic to a deep portion of the
karstic Edwards Aquifer in Bexar
County, Texas. It is a very small snail,
with average shell height of about 1.0
millimeter (mm) (0.04 inch (in)), a thin
operculum, and trapezoidal radula.
Freshwater gastropods are broadly
characterized by rapid growth and short
lifespans, which result in high
reproduction rates and short rates of
population turnover. Species may
reproduce a single or multiple
generations per year.
The range of the mimic cavesnail is
situated at the southwestern extent of
the San Antonio-New Braunfels
metropolitan area in Bexar County,
Texas. The distribution of the mimic
cavesnail is dependent upon the
availability and connectivity of suitable
aquatic subterranean habitat; this
habitat has sufficient water quality and
quantity within deep karstian spaces.
Prior to 1986, the mimic cavesnail was
known from only two groundwater
wells, O.R. Mitchell (State Well Number
6843601) and Verstraeten Wells (State
Well Number 6843607). In 2021, the
species was discovered at Aldridge 209
Well (State Well Number 6843802),
which is 5 km (3 mi) to the southwest
of O.R. Mitchell and Verstraeten Wells.
All mimic cavesnail wells occur just to
the northwest of the freshwater/salinewater interface.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 Nov 28, 2023
Jkt 262001
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the mimic
cavesnail, 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 mimic cavesnail’s
biological status include mortality from
groundwater wells, reductions in
groundwater quantity (including
reductions via climate change), and
groundwater contamination.
After evaluating threats to the species
and assessing the cumulative effect of
the threats under the Act’s section
4(a)(1) factors, we found that well
mortality, groundwater quantity, and
groundwater contamination are not
currently affecting the mimic cavesnail
at the population level. Direct mortality
through expulsion from groundwater
wells is occurring, but the species’
benthic lifestyle, high reproductive rate,
and short lifespan result in this
mortality being unlikely to affect the
population’s resiliency. In addition, two
of the three wells that ejected mimic
cavesnails are inactive, which removes
those as sources of mortality for the
species. Because it is a benthic species,
it is less susceptible to entrainment and
expulsion from wells, and species with
life-history traits like the mimic
cavesnail’s are unlikely to be affected by
the mortality observed at the
groundwater wells where it has been
found. Further, groundwater quantity at
the depths where mimic cavesnail
occurs has not been affected by
groundwater withdrawals, and we have
no information indicating that will
change in the future. Finally, we have
no evidence of groundwater
contamination at these depths. Thus, we
conclude that the mimic cavesnail is not
in danger of extinction throughout all of
its range.
To assess the future conditions of the
mimic cavesnail, we evaluated climate
change and land-use projections under
only the most plausible future scenario
from 2022 to 2100. No new wells have
been drilled in the immediate area
analysis unit since 1995. We assume
that this trend will continue and be
accompanied by an increase in the
capping or plugging of older
groundwater wells. We expect that well
mortality will decline through 2100.
In the future, the area surrounding
mimic cavesnail habitat is projected to
have increased human population
growth and exurban and suburban
development; increased demands for
water; and a warming, more droughtprone climate. Climate change will also
impact the area, with increasing average
and extreme temperatures, but no
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
83373
substantial change in precipitation is
expected.With little change in rainfall
and increased temperatures,
evapotranspiration could increase
reducing surface run-off and ultimately
aquifer recharge. During drought years,
recharge could be reduced by 21–33
percent, and flows at Comal Springs
could decrease by 10–24 percent, which
would initiate groundwater withdrawal
reductions under current State and local
regulations. We project that climate
change will result in less groundwater
extraction from the Edwards Aquifer
given existing regulations to protect
species listed under the Act in the
Comal and San Marcos Springs Systems,
as well as limit water withdrawals from
the Edwards Aquifer. We would also
expect less dependence on groundwater
in the future due to ongoing and
planned efforts to conserve and augment
water resources in the San Antonio-New
Braunfels metropolitan area. Given this
and historically small declines in water
levels, we expect that aquifer levels
would not decline and cavesnail habitat
would be maintained.
The potential for groundwater
contamination in the San Antonio
segment will continue into the future.
New contaminant sources are expected
to be added to the region with increased
human populations and expanded
development; many existing
contaminant sources will persist. There
is an ongoing effort by the City of San
Antonio to protect sensitive areas of the
contributing and recharge zones in
Bexar, Medina, and Uvalde Counties.
Existing protected lands will potentially
aid in reducing transport of
contaminants to the San Antonio
segment. The mimic cavesnail is also
somewhat buffered from the immediate
effects of contaminants at least in the
near-term future. Deeper portions of that
aquifer segment have historically been
less impacted by contaminants, but that
could change over several decades with
increasing urbanization. Furthermore,
the San Antonio segment has a great
capacity to assimilate and dilute
contaminants due to the massive
volumes of water transported through
the aquifer. The best available
information does not allow us to
determine whether contaminants would
ever reach concentrations that would
impair mimic cavesnail habitat. Thus,
after assessing the best available
information, we conclude that the
mimic cavesnail is not likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range.
We also evaluated whether the mimic
cavesnail is endangered or threatened in
a significant portion of its range. We did
not find any portions of the mimic
E:\FR\FM\29NOP1.SGM
29NOP1
83374
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules
cavesnail’s range for which both (1) the
portion is significant; and (2) the species
is in danger of extinction in that portion
either now or in the foreseeable future.
Thus, after assessing the best available
information, we conclude that the
mimic cavesnail is not in danger of
extinction in a significant portion of its
range now, or within the foreseeable
future.
After assessing the best available
information, we concluded that mimic
cavesnail 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 mimic
cavesnail 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
mimic cavesnail species assessment
form and other supporting documents
on https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2023–0175
(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 mimic cavesnail 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, into the SSA
report, which is the foundation for this
finding.
Northern Cavefish
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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 northern cavefish, as
endangered or threatened species under
the Act. On September 27, 2011, we
published in the Federal Register (76
FR 59836) a 90-day finding that the
petition contained substantial
information indicating listing may be
warranted for the northern cavefish.
This document constitutes our 12month finding on the 2010 petition to
list the northern cavefish under the Act.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 Nov 28, 2023
Jkt 262001
Summary of Finding
Native to central Kentucky, the
northern cavefish is a small, cavedwelling fish found only in
subterranean drainages. It is
characterized by its rudimentary eyes;
lack of skin pigment; large, flat head;
and tubular, non-streamlined body. The
standard length (tip of nose to end of
last vertebra) of adult northern cavefish
ranges from approximately 60 to 80 mm
(2.4 to 3.1 in). The maximum known age
for northern cavefish is 10 years, but the
lifespan may be 20 to 40 years. The
species has four life stages: egg,
protolarva, juvenile, and adult. Eggs and
protolarvae are held in the female’s gill
chamber until reaching the juvenile
stage, when they swim freely apart from
the mother. Age at reproductive
maturity (adulthood) is around 6 years.
Northern cavefish occur in
subterranean streams in Meade,
Breckinridge, Hardin, Hart, and
Edmonson Counties, Kentucky, south of
the Ohio River. In Kentucky, this area is
characterized as a karst ecosystem with
underground drainage systems
comprised of sinkholes and caves. The
closely related Hoosier cavefish
(Amblyopsis hoosieri) is restricted to
Indiana north of the Ohio River.
Formerly, the Hoosier cavefish was
recognized as the northern cavefish, but
the Hoosier cavefish is now known to be
a distinct taxon based on morphological
and genetic differences. Because
northern cavefish inhabit underground
stream networks that cannot be mapped
or surveyed, the species likely occurs at
sites that are inaccessible, and the true
distribution and number of populations
within the range of the northern
cavefish is unknown.
Individuals of all northern cavefish
life stages need generally cool water
temperatures, sufficient dissolved
oxygen, low salinity, and flowing water.
The species needs slow-flowing pools or
shoals, a food supply of invertebrates
(may occasionally consume other
northern cavefish), and substrates
composed of fine particles. Floods are
important for juveniles and adults as
they provide detritus and food
resources. At the population level,
floods are important for reproduction
(renewing generations) and maintaining
connectivity, likely allowing passive
transport between sites.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the northern
cavefish, and we evaluated all relevant
factors under the five listing factors,
including any regulatory mechanisms
and conservation measures addressing
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
these threats. The primary threats
affecting the northern cavefish’s
biological status include water
pollution, agriculture and forest loss,
municipal and industrial development,
and impoundment of surface waters.
Historically, there were at least six
metapopulations (single population
with subpopulations at different sites
and some connectivity between sites) of
northern cavefish. Two of those
populations have no records since the
1990s and cannot be confirmed to be
extant or extirpated. Based on
occurrence records since 2000, the other
four northern cavefish metapopulations
are known to remain extant in two
representation units. The representation
units are separated by the Rough Creek
Fault Zone, which is likely a barrier to
cavefish dispersal. Population resiliency
was not directly assessed; however, the
number of individuals encountered
during surveys of most sites is 20 or
fewer, but some sites (subpopulations)
have documented hundreds of northern
cavefish.
Northern cavefish may be negatively
impacted by groundwater
contamination via storm runoff or
intentional disposal of wastes in
sinkholes, which are a predominant
landscape feature in the species’ range.
While there is risk of a spill or surface
release of contaminants to groundwater,
there have been no documented cases of
northern cavefish being harmed by such
an event. In addition, it is unlikely
contamination events would affect all
populations, as the two representation
units are separated by a fault zone
barrier. Further, there is redundancy of
subpopulations within at least two of
the four known extant metapopulations
(at least one metapopulation in each
representation unit has multiple
populations). Because there is
redundancy of subpopulations within
three of the four known, extant
metapopulations (at least one
metapopulation in each representation
unit has multiple subpopulations) there
are multiple populations distributed
across a wide area (which buffers the
impacts of adverse events), the current
risk of extinction is low. Therefore, we
find that the species is not in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range.
Our future conditions analysis for the
northern cavefish used projections of
land uses and climate to assess potential
groundwater contamination and
changes in stream discharge and water
temperature, respectively, to 30- and 50year time horizons. It is reasonable to
rely on these time horizons because they
correspond to the range of available
urbanization and land use change model
forecasts. Furthermore, approximately
E:\FR\FM\29NOP1.SGM
29NOP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules
30 and 50 years represent timeframes for
the species to respond to potential
changes on the landscape. Two
scenarios were projected, one under
which human population growth and
economic development is slow, and
another under which such growth and
development is more rapid. Climate in
the species’ range is expected to be
warmer and wetter, but is unlikely to be
a major threat to the species at the time
horizons considered in our analysis.
Likewise, under both scenarios and time
horizons, the portion of developed land
is expected to change very little. Given
the projected small changes in threats
and land use to 2070, we expect the
northern cavefish will maintain species’
redundancy and representation similar
to current levels. In addition, the best
scientific information indicates the
species’ population conditions have not
substantially changed over time and are
not expected to change within the
foreseeable future given the projected
lack of change in land uses and threats.
Thus, after assessing the best available
information, we conclude that the
northern cavefish is not likely to
become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all of
its range.
We also evaluated whether the
northern cavefish is endangered or
threatened in a significant portion of its
range. We did not find any portions of
the northern cavefish’s range for which
both (1) the portion is significant; and
(2) the species is in danger of extinction
in that portion either now or within the
foreseeable future. Thus, after assessing
the best available information, we
conclude that the northern cavefish is
not in danger of extinction in a
significant portion of its range now, or
within the foreseeable future.
After assessing the best available
information, we concluded that
northern cavefish 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
northern cavefish 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 northern cavefish
species assessment form and other
supporting documents on https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2023–0176 (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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 Nov 28, 2023
Jkt 262001
Director’s Memo on the Peer Review
Process, we solicited independent
scientific reviews of the information
contained in the northern cavefish SSA
report. The Service sent the SSA report
to seven independent peer reviewers
and received no responses. Although we
received no peer review responses, we
received input from species experts
during development of the SSA, which
is incorporated into and cited in the
SSA report. 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.
Smallscale Darter
Previous Federal Actions
On April 20, 2010, we received a
petition from the Center for Biological
Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance,
Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance,
Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee
Forests Council, and West Virginia
Highlands to list 404 aquatic, riparian,
and wetland species, including the
smallscale darter, as endangered or
threatened species under the Act. On
September 27, 2011, we published in
the Federal Register (76 FR 59836) a 90day finding that the petition contained
substantial information indicating
listing may be warranted for the
smallscale darter. This document
constitutes our 12-month finding on the
2010 petition to list the smallscale
darter under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The smallscale darter is a member of
the Class Actinopterygii (ray-finned
fishes), Order Perciformes, Family
Percidae (perches), in the subfamily
Etheostomatinae (darters). This
midsized darter reaches a maximum
length of 93 mm (3.6 in). The species is
native to the Stones River, Harpeth
River, Red River, and Little River
tributaries of the Cumberland River
System in Kentucky and Tennessee. The
Harpeth River and Stones River
populations are in the greater Nashville
area of Tennessee, while the Little River
population is in Kentucky. The Red
River population straddles the border of
Kentucky and Tennessee. The
smallscale darter is extant throughout
its historical range.
Stream reaches occupied by
smallscale darters tend to have stable
banks, intact riparian areas, and clean
cobble and boulder substrate. These
stream characteristics support the
reproduction of smallscale darters, in
which females attach eggs under a rock,
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
83375
and males protect the eggs until they
hatch. Juveniles may inhabit areas
where the current is slower, water is
shallower, and substrate is finer than
areas inhabited by adults. At the
microhabitat level, smallscale darters
use deeper and faster flowing parts of
riffles than other darters in the species’
range.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the smallscale
darter, 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 smallscale darter’s
biological status include habitat
destruction and degradation resulting
from urbanization, agricultural land use,
impoundments, and impaired water
quality. We concluded in our analyses
that impacts of isolated populations and
climate change are not likely to
negatively influence the species’
viability. The smallscale darter is
present throughout its historical range
in four populations exhibiting moderate
to moderate-high resiliency. This
moderate to moderate-high resiliency of
smallscale darter populations, combined
with the species’ presence throughout
its historical area, provides moderate
redundancy and representation
rangewide. Given the moderate to
moderate-high resiliency populations
distributed across the historical range,
the species is not currently in danger of
extinction throughout its range. Thus,
we find that the species is not in danger
of extinction throughout all of its range.
The smallscale darter is expected to
maintain at least moderate resiliency
across its range for the foreseeable
future in all but one scenario for one
population. For the smallscale darter,
we identified the foreseeable future as
30 years, the time period for which we
could reliably predict both relevant land
cover change and the species’ response
to these changes. In all three future
scenarios, we project the species to be
extant in the entirety of its known range,
with moderate resiliency for all
populations in two of the three
scenarios. We determined that the
magnitude and scale of impacts
projected in the future will not impact
the species such that it is likely to
become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future. Thus, after
assessing the best available information,
we conclude that the smallscale darter
is not likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range.
E:\FR\FM\29NOP1.SGM
29NOP1
83376
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules
We also evaluated whether the
smallscale darter is endangered or
threatened in a significant portion of its
range. We did not find any portions of
the smallscale darter’s range for which
both (1) the portion is significant; and
(2) the species is in danger of extinction
in that portion either now or within the
foreseeable future. Thus, after assessing
the best available information, we
conclude that the smallscale darter is
not in danger of extinction in a
significant portion of its range now, or
within the foreseeable future.
After assessing the best available
information, we concluded that
smallscale darter 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
smallscale darter as an endangered
species or threatened species under the
Act is not warranted. A detailed
discussion of the basis for this finding
can be found in the smallscale darter
species assessment form and other
supporting documents on https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2023–0177 (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 smallscale darter 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.
We incorporated the results of these
reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA
report, which is the foundation for this
finding.
Texas Troglobitic Water Slater
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Previous Federal Actions
On June 25, 2007, the Service
received a petition from Forest
Guardians (i.e., WildEarth Guardians)
requesting that the Service list 475
species, including the Texas troglobitic
water slater, as endangered or
threatened species and designate critical
habitat under the Act. All 475 species
occur within the Southwestern Region
and were ranked as G1 or G1G2 species
by NatureServe at the time. On
December 16, 2009, the Service
published in the Federal Register (74
FR 66866) a partial 90-day finding on
the Texas troglobitic water slater and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 Nov 28, 2023
Jkt 262001
191 other species, stating that the
petition presented substantial scientific
information indicating that listing may
be warranted for 67 of the 192 species,
including the Texas troglobitic water
slater. This document constitutes our
12-month finding on the 2007 petition
to list the Texas troglobitic water slater
under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The Texas troglobitic water slater is a
small, aquatic subterranean crustacean
located in the artesian zone of the
southern segment (also referred to as the
San Antonio segment) of the Edwards
Aquifer in Hays County, Texas. Texas
troglobitic water slaters are expelled
from the artesian zone of the Edwards
Aquifer through artesian wells and
springs. Because of its primarily nonphotosynthetic diet and high well
mortality relative to other collected
subterranean taxa (which may indicate
a longer distance traveled to the
surface), the Texas troglobitic water
slater likely occupies depths somewhere
between 60 m (197 ft) and 152 m (498
ft) below the surface. This species of
water slater has been collected from
three discharge sites: the San Marcos
artesian well, Diversion Spring, and the
training area well. These sites are all
within 600 m (2,000 ft) of each other
and in close proximity (less than
approximately 100 m (330 ft)) to the
freshwater/saline-water zone of the
Edwards Aquifer.
The Texas troglobitic water slater
lives in water-filled voids within the
aquifer, although the species has never
been directly observed in its natural
subterranean habitat and, thus, its
specific habitat preferences are not
known. Observations of congeneric
species indicate the capacity for high
rates of reproduction and benthic
(crawling) movement of the species.
Stable isotope data suggest the Texas
troglobitic water slater is relatively low
on the food web, serving as a benthic
forager and/or scraper. The primary type
of food consumed by the Texas
troglobitic water slater is produced at
the freshwater/saline-water interface,
which likely necessitates that the
species lives within close proximity to
this interface.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the Texas
troglobitic water slater, 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 Texas troglobitic water slater’s
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
biological status include reductions in
water quantity through groundwater
pumping and development, reductions
in water quality, the effects of climate
change, and mortality from groundwater
wells.
After evaluating threats to the species
and assessing the cumulative effect of
the threats under the Act’s section
4(a)(1) factors, we found that the best
available information does not indicate
direct negative effects from
environmental or anthropogenic factors
to the Texas troglobitic water slater
population, nor is there evidence
indicating a change to demographic
factors from historical levels. The
primary driving factors of Texas
troglobitic water slater viability are
water quantity (e.g., groundwater
pumping and development) and water
quality (e.g., development and
impervious cover). The Texas troglobitic
water slater has survived significant
drought periods (including the drought
of record from the late 1940s to mid1950s) and despite the examined
factors, the population has maintained
resiliency for more than a century.
Additionally, the best available
information does not indicate that any
groundwater contamination is affecting
the species. Finally, direct mortality
through expulsion from groundwater
wells is occurring, but the species’
benthic lifestyle and likely high
reproductive rate result in this level of
mortality being unlikely to affect the
population’s current resiliency.
Our two plausible future scenarios for
the species use projections out to 2050
and 2100. The primary factors driving
the Texas troglobitic water slater
population’s future viability are water
quantity and water quality. Increases in
development lead to increases in
impervious cover, altered recharge rates,
and degraded water quality. The lands
directly above Texas troglobitic water
slater habitat are categorized as
developed, and all anthropogenic
factors already exist and will continue
to influence the species’ viability into
the future. Projected land-use changes
occurring over the recharge zone will
also inhibit opportunities for surface
water to enter the aquifer and for
enough discharging water to effectively
clear anthropogenic contaminants.
Longer residence times of contaminants
in groundwater and lack of
photodegradation of constituents in the
aquifer are not well understood, and it
is uncertain how these changes will
affect the Texas troglobitic water slater
population into the future. There is no
information assessing the environmental
tolerance of the Texas troglobitic water
slater or how degradation in water
E:\FR\FM\29NOP1.SGM
29NOP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules
quality can affect the species. Likewise,
at this time, there are no appropriate
isopod surrogates occupying a similar
habitat with more information from
which we could extrapolate for the
Texas troglobitic water slater.
While climate change and other
anthropogenic influences (e.g.,
vegetation removal and urbanization)
cause the surface to warm, a lag in
increased groundwater temperature may
occur. For ectothermic animals like the
Texas troglobitic water slater, overall
vulnerability to climate change will
depend on thermal sensitivity and how
quickly the buffered environment
changes, and we do not have this
information to inform our future
scenarios. The southern segment of the
Edwards Aquifer has a great capacity to
assimilate and dilute contaminants as
massive volumes of water transport
these materials through the aquifer.
However, contaminants in groundwater
can be diluted over distance and time
and flushed through discharge points
more frequently than older groundwater
at a greater depth. We have no
information indicating whether
contaminants would ever reach
concentrations that would impair or kill
Texas troglobitic water slaters in either
scenario.
Current water planning does not
account for climate change, although
climate change will be considered in the
upcoming Edwards Aquifer Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP). There remains
a possibility that current State and local
regulations on groundwater use may not
be enough to maintain aquifer levels
and springflows if conditions become
worse than the drought of record. The
Edwards Aquifer Authority is
committed to improving their HCP, and
funding was allocated to predict
droughts and climate change impacts on
the aquifer. Land in Hays County over
the recharge zone was purchased or
protected through easements, and
partners are committed to purchasing
more land in the future, in addition to
implementing other conservation
efforts. If current management of the
southern segment of the Edwards
Aquifer continues into the future,
aquifer levels should not decline to a
level where Texas troglobitic water
slater habitat would not be maintained.
For both the lower and upper
plausible future scenarios, the best
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 Nov 28, 2023
Jkt 262001
available information does not project a
negative impact from environmental or
anthropogenic factors directly to the
known Texas troglobitic water slater
population at the depth at which they
occur, nor is there evidence indicating
a negative change to demographic
factors historically. We expect that
under both future scenarios, resiliency,
redundancy, and representation of the
species will be maintained into the
foreseeable future. Neither future
scenario projections point to evidence
indicating any threat to the Texas
troglobitic water slater population under
current groundwater management
implementation, which we anticipate
will continue into the future. Thus, after
assessing the best available information,
we conclude that the Texas troglobitic
water slater is not in danger of
extinction or likely to become in danger
of extinction within the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range.
We also evaluated whether the Texas
troglobitic water slater is endangered or
threatened in a significant portion of its
range. We did not find any portions of
the Texas troglobitic water slater’s range
for which both (1) the portion is
significant; and (2) the species is in
danger of extinction in that portion
either now or in the foreseeable future.
Thus, after assessing the best available
information, we conclude that the Texas
troglobitic water slater is not in danger
of extinction in a significant portion of
its range now, or within the foreseeable
future.
After assessing the best available
information, we concluded that Texas
troglobitic water slater 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
Texas troglobitic water slater 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 Texas
troglobitic water slater species
assessment form and other supporting
documents on https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R2–ES–2023–0178 (see
ADDRESSES, above).
Peer Review
In accordance with our July 1, 1994,
peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1,
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
83377
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 Texas troglobitic water
slater 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.
New Information
We request that you submit any new
information concerning the taxonomy
of, biology of, ecology of, status of, or
stressors to the Edison’s ascyrum,
Florida (lowland) loosestrife, Florida
pinesnake, mimic cavesnail, northern
cavefish, smallscale darter, or Texas
troglobitic water slater 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
A complete list of the references used
in these petition findings 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. 2023–25586 Filed 11–28–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
E:\FR\FM\29NOP1.SGM
29NOP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 29, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 83368-83377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25586]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR245]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Seven 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 seven species are not warranted for listing as endangered
or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). After a thorough review of the best available scientific
and commercial information, we find that it is not warranted at this
time to list Edison's ascyrum (Hypericum edisonianum), Florida
(lowland) loosestrife (Lythrum flagellare), Florida pinesnake
(Pituophis melanoleucus mugitu), mimic cavesnail (Phreatodrobia
imitata), northern cavefish (Amblyopsis spelaea), smallscale darter
(Etheostoma microlepidum), and Texas troglobitic water slater
(Lirceolus smithii). 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 November 29, 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edison's ascyrum................. FWS-R4-ES-2023-0172
Florida (lowland) loosestrife.... FWS-R4-ES-2023-0173
Florida pinesnake................ FWS-R4-ES-2023-0174
Mimic cavesnail.................. FWS-R2-ES-2023-0175
Northern cavefish................ FWS-R4-ES-2023-0176
Smallscale darter................ FWS-R4-ES-2023-0177
Texas troglobitic water slater... FWS-R2-ES-2023-0178
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edison's ascyrum, Florida Lourdes Mena, Division Manager, Florida
(lowland) loosestrife, and Ecological Services Field Office,
Florida pinesnake. [email protected], 904-460-4970.
Mimic cavesnail and Texas Karen Myers, Field Supervisor, Austin
troglobitic water slater. Ecological Services Field Office,
[email protected], 512-937-7371.
Northern cavefish............ Lee Andrews, Field Supervisor, Kentucky
Ecological Services Field Office,
[email protected], 502-695-0468 ext.
46108.
Smallscale darter............ Dan Elbert, Field Supervisor, Tennessee
Ecological Services Field Office,
[email protected], 931-525-4973.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (``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
[[Page 83369]]
which interbreeds when mature. 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 of the Interior determines whether the species meets the
Act's definition of an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened
species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis and describing
the expected effect on the species now and in the foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as the
Service can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the
species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the
foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable
predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means
sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the
prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to
depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and
other demographic factors.
In conducting our evaluation of the five factors provided in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether the Edison's ascyrum,
Florida (lowland) loosestrife, Florida pinesnake, mimic cavesnail,
northern cavefish, smallscale darter, or Texas troglobitic water slater
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
information for all of these species. Our evaluation may include
information from recognized experts; Federal, State, and Tribal
governments; academic institutions; foreign governments; private
entities; and other members of the public.
In accordance with the regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)(i), this
document announces the not-warranted findings on petitions to list
seven 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 the Edison's ascyrum, Florida
(lowland) loosestrife, Florida pinesnake, mimic cavesnail, northern
cavefish, smallscale darter, and Texas troglobitic water slater contain
more detailed biological information, a thorough analysis of the
listing factors, a list of literature cited, and an explanation of why
we determined that these species do not meet the Act's definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' To inform our
status reviews, we completed species status assessment (SSA) reports
for these seven species. 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).
Edison's Ascyrum
Previous Federal Actions
On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition,
Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council,
and West Virginia Highlands to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland
species, including Edison's ascyrum, as endangered or threatened
species under the Act. On September 27, 2011, we published in the
Federal Register (76 FR 59836) a 90-day finding that the petition
contained substantial information indicating that listing may be
warranted for Edison's ascyrum. This document constitutes our 12-month
finding on the 2010 petition to list Edison's ascryum under the Act.
Summary of Finding
Edison's ascyrum is a small colonial shrub in the St. John's wort
family (Hypericaceae) that can grow to 1.5 meters (m) (5 feet (ft))
tall. The species occurs most abundantly in seasonal ponds (i.e.,
depression marshes), but
[[Page 83370]]
also inhabits flatwoods, wet prairies, cutthroat grass seeps, lake
margins, and occasionally roadsides and semi-native pastures. Edison's
ascyrum is confined mostly to the southern Lake Wales Ridge in central
peninsular Florida. The Lake Wales Ridge is a 186-kilometer (km) (116-
mile (mi)) long, major geomorphological feature stretching from just
south of Lake Harris in Lake County to near the Highlands/Glades County
line. The species was historically known from only Highlands and Glades
Counties, and it currently occurs in abundance in these two counties.
Additional vouchered counties include DeSoto, Polk, and Collier.
Edison's ascyrum can flower year-round but usually reproduces via
clonal propagation. Genets (genetically distinct individuals) are
usually composed of several ramets that sprout from underground
rhizomes. Edison's ascyrum is able to rapidly regenerate ramets
following disturbances such as fire and prolonged inundation, which
likely enhances both genet fitness and persistence.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Edison's ascyrum, and we evaluated all relevant factors under
the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these threats. The primary threats
identified for Edison's ascyrum's biological status include habitat
loss and degradation, changes in fire patterns, and hydrological
changes. Habitat loss and degradation are expected to be driven by
development, which, along with climate change, will potentially cause
hydrological changes. However, approximately 77 percent of the known
occurrences are on conservation lands, which are managed in ways that
benefit the species and its habitat. Since recent estimates of
population size were not available for most features, we used a
habitat-based approach to assess the resiliency of each analysis unit.
Specifically, we considered four factors: area of available habitat,
percentage of incompatible land use, habitat protection, and habitat
management. Thirteen of the 22 analysis units (AUs) identified
throughout the species' range have moderate to high resiliency. Through
this resiliency assessment, we found that AUs that exhibit a moderate
or high rank for habitat management are distributed throughout the
range. There is some risk from development, altered hydrology, and
altered fire patterns due to the localized nature of this species'
range, but the species is thriving in several areas under long-term
protection and management. Although the species has a narrow range,
four of the AUs of high-moderate to high resiliency are distributed
from north to south across Avon Park Air Force Range, Archbold
Biological Station, and Fisheating Creek Wildlife Management Area.
Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude that
the Edison's ascyrum is not in danger of extinction throughout all of
its range.
We then considered whether the species is likely to become in
danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout its
range. Habitat loss and degradation, fire exclusion, and hydrological
changes are the biggest threats to the species in the future. Habitat
loss and degradation in the future is expected to be driven by
population growth and development in the species' habitat, as well as
hydrological changes due to development and climate change. We
evaluated the future condition of the species under two future
scenarios at two timesteps (2040 and 2070). In the future, resiliency
is projected to vary between AUs, but the species is projected to be
represented by moderate to high resiliency populations throughout its
range. The distribution of moderate to high resiliency populations
across the range on protected lands may minimize the likelihood of a
catastrophic event affecting the species rangewide. Additionally, under
both scenarios and for both timesteps, AUs not expected to decrease in
resiliency remain spread across the range of the species. Under
scenario 1, resiliency is projected to decrease in 8 AUs by 2040, and
12 AUs by 2070. Under scenario 2, under both timesteps, resiliency is
projected to decrease in 5 AUs. Overall, the species will remain
represented across the range. In addition, 77 percent of the known
occurrences are on conservation lands. Thus, after assessing the best
available information, we conclude that Edison's ascyrum is not in
danger of extinction throughout all of its range now, or within the
foreseeable future.
We also evaluated whether the Edison's ascyrum is endangered or
threatened in a significant portion of its range. We did not find any
portions of the Edison's ascyrum's range for which both (1) the portion
is significant; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction in that
portion, either now or within the foreseeable future. Thus, after
assessing the best available information, we conclude that the Edison's
ascyrum is not in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its
range now, or within the foreseeable future.
After assessing the best available information, we concluded that
Edison's ascyrum 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 Edison's ascyrum 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 Edison's
ascyrum species assessment form and other supporting documents on
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2023-0172 (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 Edison's ascyrum SSA report. The
Service sent the SSA report to eight 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.
Florida (Lowland) Loosestrife
Previous Federal Actions
On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition,
Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council,
and West Virginia Highlands to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland
species, including lowland (Florida) loosestrife, as endangered or
threatened species under the Act. On September 27, 2011, we published
in the Federal Register (76 FR 59836) a 90-day finding that the
petition contained substantial information indicating that listing may
be warranted for Florida (lowland) loosestrife. This document
constitutes our 12-month finding on the 2010 petition to list Florida
loosestrife under the Act.
Summary of Finding
Florida loosestrife is a perennial herb endemic to the subtropical
zone of Florida, largely on the western side of the State. The species
occurs in seasonally inundated open areas and can tolerate moderate
levels of
[[Page 83371]]
disturbance. For example, it can be found in roadside ditches and
disturbed wetlands along with swamps, marshes, and wet prairies. The
species can be very abundant where it occurs, often numbering in the
thousands, forming dense mats and dominating the groundcover. Both the
historical and current distribution of Florida loosestrife is not fully
known. Vouchered counties include Charlotte, Collier, DeSoto, Glades,
Hardee, Hendry, Hernando, Hillsborough, Lee, Manatee, Okeechobee,
Orange, and Sarasota. However, the species has also been documented in
Broward and Citrus Counties and reported in Palm Beach County.
Little is known about the life history of Florida loosestrife. It
is reported that it flowers year-round, but it likely most reliably
flowers in spring. Plants that experience seasonal flooding beginning
in late spring to early summer must flower and set seed before they are
inundated. Florida loosestrife seeds likely disperse within floodplains
via sheet flow. Pollinators are not known.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Florida loosestrife, and we evaluated all relevant factors under
the five factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation
measures addressing these threats. The primary threats identified for
Florida loosestrife include direct and indirect impacts of development
and sea level rise (SLR). The species' range is moderately restricted,
occurring in 12 counties and 35 watersheds, with many of the records
occurring in the last few years as efforts to locate the species have
increased.
Current threats to the species are largely related to habitat
conversion associated with urbanization and other development (e.g.,
agriculture); however, the species continues to occur in urbanized and
other developed areas, albeit in highly altered habitats. The species'
ability to survive in different settings is reflected in the species'
resiliency; as documented in the SSA report, 22 of the 35 units have at
least moderate resiliency. Given the apparent resiliency of the plants
in developed areas, the high number of units with moderate to very high
resiliency, and the species' ability to adapt to disturbed
environments, the species is not in danger of extinction throughout all
of its range.
Next, we considered whether the Florida loosestrife is likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all of its
range. For the Florida loosestrife, habitat loss and degradation (from
urban and agricultural development) and SLR are projected to be the
biggest threats to the species in the future. To evaluate the future
condition of the species, we developed two plausible future scenarios
to project the outcomes of future urban and agricultural development
and SLR at two timesteps (2040 and 2070). However, even under higher
projected development and SLR scenarios, the species is expected to
have sufficient redundancy with several moderate to high resiliency
populations distributed across the range of the species. We, therefore,
determined that the scale of impacts projected in the future will not
affect the species such that it is likely to become an endangered
species in the foreseeable future. Thus, after assessing the best
available information, we conclude that Florida loosestrife is not in
danger of extinction now, or within the foreseeable future throughout
all of its range.
We also evaluated whether the Florida loosestrife is endangered or
threatened in a significant portion of its range. We did not find any
portions of the Florida loosestrife's range for which both (1) the
portion is significant; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction
in that portion, either now or within the foreseeable future. Thus,
after assessing the best available information, we conclude that the
Florida loosestrife is not in danger of extinction in a significant
portion of its range now, or within the foreseeable future.
After assessing the best available information, we concluded that
Florida loosestrife 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 Florida loosestrife as an endangered species or
threatened species under the Act is not warranted. A detailed
discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Florida
loosestrife species assessment form and other supporting documents on
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2023-0173 (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 Florida loosestrife SSA report. The
Service sent the SSA report to six 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.
Florida Pinesnake
Previous Federal Actions
On July 11, 2012, the Service was petitioned by the Center for
Biological Diversity, Thomas Lovejoy, Kenney Krysko, C. Kenneth Dodd,
Jr., Allen Salzberg, Edward O. Wilson, and Michael J. Lannoo to list 53
amphibians and reptiles in the United States, including the Florida
pinesnake, as endangered or threatened species under the Act. In
response to the petition, on September 18, 2015, the Service published
in the Federal Register (80 FR 56423) a 90-day finding that the
petition contained substantial information indicating the Florida
pinesnake may warrant listing. This document constitutes our 12-month
finding on the 2012 petition to list the Florida pinesnake under the
Act.
Summary of Finding
The Florida pinesnake is a large, non-venomous, diurnal, and highly
fossorial constrictor endemic to the Coastal Plains of the southeastern
United States. Its recognized range spans from southeastern South
Carolina, through central and south Georgia, to south Florida and west
into the Florida panhandle and the southern part of Alabama. This
subspecies exhibits a strong preference for pine forests with open-
canopy, well-drained, sandy soil, and frequent fires. Five main habitat
elements that appear to be essential to the survival and reproductive
success of individuals are well-drained soils, suitable vegetation
structure and composition, low nearby road density, an appropriate fire
return interval, and presence of prey. Pinesnakes are active foragers
that hunt a variety of prey both above and below ground. As
accomplished burrowers, they can tunnel through loose soil, dig nests,
and excavate rodents for food. They also use existing underground
burrows and tunnels created by other species, such as the southeastern
pocket gopher (Geomys pinetis), for refugia.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Florida pinesnake, and we evaluated all relevant factors under
the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these threats. Florida
[[Page 83372]]
pinesnakes are associated with various actions that are associated with
the loss and degradation of habitat. Habitat loss is due to a number of
factors, including fire suppression, historical and incompatible
silvicultural practices, SLR, conversion of land to agriculture, and
urbanization. The current constraints on the ability to manage pine
habitat through prescribed fire may be exacerbated by urbanization and
climate change in the future. It is possible that several of these
factors are acting synergistically to impact the Florida pinesnake.
Although there is still uncertainty surrounding the evaluated
stressors and their synergistic effects, habitat loss and modification,
due to the effects of both urban development and climate change, were
considered in the assessment of Florida pinesnake populations and the
subspecies' overall viability. Currently, across the subspecies' range,
there are no documented impacts at the population level from invasive
species, persecution or increased harassment, overcollection for the
pet trade, or disease. While habitat loss and modification are the
primary factor influencing the subspecies, many Florida pinesnake
populations have moderate to high resiliency in the face of these
threats.
It is estimated that Florida pinesnakes have likely lost 30.8
percent (41 of 133 populations) of their historical populations due to
loss and degradation of habitat, representing 9 percent of the total
occupied range of the subspecies. The remaining 69.2 percent of the
populations, covering 90.4 percent of the total historical range, have
a greater than 50 percent probability of persisting, and are considered
extant as of 2021. Of the extant populations, 71.2 percent of
populations (66 populations) covering 93.2 percent of the current
occupied range are very likely or extremely likely to persist as of
2021, and they have moderate to high resiliency. Thirty-one and half
percent of populations covering 77.1 percent of the current occupied
range are considered to have high resiliency. We estimate that all
seven representative units have likely lost at least one historic,
delineated population. Despite this decrease from the historical number
of populations, all representative units have multiple populations,
which meets our criteria for high redundancy. Because two
representative units do not have populations in the highest persistence
category, and those units are on the northern and western portions of
the subspecies range, we consider the current representation to be
moderate. We, therefore, conclude that the Florida pinesnake is not in
danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
In considering the foreseeable future as it relates to the status
of the Florida pinesnake, we considered the relevant risk factors
(i.e., threats/stressors) affecting the subspecies and whether we could
draw reliable predictions about the subspecies' response to these
factors. We considered whether we could reliably assess the risk posed
by the threats to the subspecies, recognizing that our ability to
assess risk is limited by the variable quantity and quality of
available data about effects to the Florida pinesnake and its response
to those threats.
In the future, land-use change and other anthropogenic activities
may impact Florida pinesnake habitat through loss of habitat and
fragmentation. Our analysis of two future scenarios until 2080
encompasses the best available information for future projections of
levels of urbanization, and it uses two different representative
concentration pathways (RCPs) for climate change (i.e., A1B and B2) to
look at the effects of SLR and prescribed burn windows. We determined
that that timeframe enables us to consider the threats/stressors acting
on the subspecies and to draw reliable predictions about the
subspecies' response to these threats/stressors.
Loss of habitat and fragmentation threats associated with
urbanization and climate change are projected to occur throughout the
subspecies' range. The importance of protected lands and managing
habitats through burning will continue to play an important role for
this subspecies. Given the future scenarios, the resiliency of Florida
pinesnake populations are projected to decline in the future. Under
both scenarios, in 2040, 30 populations are projected to have moderate
or high resiliency, covering 73 percent of the occupied range. Under
both scenarios, at 2080, 11 populations are projected to have moderate
or high resiliency, covering 62 percent of the occupied range.
Subspecies' representation and redundancy are projected to decrease
from moderate and high, respectively, in current condition levels to
moderate in the future. The number of representative units with
populations in moderate and high resiliency are projected to decrease
under all scenarios and timesteps. However, the subspecies is projected
to maintain broad occurrence across its range even under the projected
future threats, with five of seven representation units containing
populations of moderate or high resiliency into the future. Although
the total number of populations is projected to decline by 2080, 62
percent of the current range of the Florida pinesnake remains occupied
by multiple populations with greater than 80 percent probability of
persistence (moderate and high resiliency); therefore, the subspecies
is projected to have moderate redundancy, providing the subspecies the
ability to withstand catastrophic events. These populations cover a
large geographic area and maintain high or moderate resiliency due to
adequate suitable habitat coverage, high proportion of area within
protected areas, sufficient connectivity, and low impact of threats in
the future. Thus, after assessing the best available information, we
determine that the Florida pinesnake is not in danger of extinction now
or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all of
its range.
We also evaluated whether the Florida pinesnake is endangered or
threatened in a significant portion of its range. We did not find any
portions of the Florida pinesnake's range for which both (1) the
portion is significant; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction
in that portion either now or in the future. Thus, after assessing the
best available information, we conclude that the Florida pinesnake is
not in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its range now,
or within the foreseeable future.
After assessing the best available information, we concluded that
the Florida pinesnake 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 Florida pinesnake as an endangered species or
threatened species under the Act is not warranted. A detailed
discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Florida
pinesnake species assessment form and other supporting documents on
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2023-0174 (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 Florida pinesnake SSA report. The
Service sent the SSA report to seven independent peer reviewers and
received six responses. Results of this structured peer review process
can be found at https://www.regulations.gov. We incorporated the
results of these
[[Page 83373]]
reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation
for this finding.
Mimic Cavesnail
Previous Federal Actions
On June 25, 2007, the Service received a petition from Forest
Guardians (i.e., WildEarth Guardians) requesting that the Service list
475 species, including the mimic cavesnail, as endangered or threatened
species and designate critical habitat under the Act. All 475 species
occur within the Southwestern Region and were ranked as G1 or G1G2
species by NatureServe at the time. On December 16, 2009, the Service
published in the Federal Register (74 FR 66866) a partial 90[hyphen]day
finding on the mimic cavesnail and 191 other species, stating that the
petition presented substantial scientific information indicating that
listing may be warranted for 67 of the 192 species, including the mimic
cavesnail. This document constitutes our 12-month finding on the 2007
petition to list the mimic cavesnail under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The mimic cavesnail is a freshwater snail endemic to a deep portion
of the karstic Edwards Aquifer in Bexar County, Texas. It is a very
small snail, with average shell height of about 1.0 millimeter (mm)
(0.04 inch (in)), a thin operculum, and trapezoidal radula. Freshwater
gastropods are broadly characterized by rapid growth and short
lifespans, which result in high reproduction rates and short rates of
population turnover. Species may reproduce a single or multiple
generations per year.
The range of the mimic cavesnail is situated at the southwestern
extent of the San Antonio-New Braunfels metropolitan area in Bexar
County, Texas. The distribution of the mimic cavesnail is dependent
upon the availability and connectivity of suitable aquatic subterranean
habitat; this habitat has sufficient water quality and quantity within
deep karstian spaces. Prior to 1986, the mimic cavesnail was known from
only two groundwater wells, O.R. Mitchell (State Well Number 6843601)
and Verstraeten Wells (State Well Number 6843607). In 2021, the species
was discovered at Aldridge 209 Well (State Well Number 6843802), which
is 5 km (3 mi) to the southwest of O.R. Mitchell and Verstraeten Wells.
All mimic cavesnail wells occur just to the northwest of the
freshwater/saline-water interface.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the mimic cavesnail, 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 mimic cavesnail's biological status include mortality
from groundwater wells, reductions in groundwater quantity (including
reductions via climate change), and groundwater contamination.
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1)
factors, we found that well mortality, groundwater quantity, and
groundwater contamination are not currently affecting the mimic
cavesnail at the population level. Direct mortality through expulsion
from groundwater wells is occurring, but the species' benthic
lifestyle, high reproductive rate, and short lifespan result in this
mortality being unlikely to affect the population's resiliency. In
addition, two of the three wells that ejected mimic cavesnails are
inactive, which removes those as sources of mortality for the species.
Because it is a benthic species, it is less susceptible to entrainment
and expulsion from wells, and species with life-history traits like the
mimic cavesnail's are unlikely to be affected by the mortality observed
at the groundwater wells where it has been found. Further, groundwater
quantity at the depths where mimic cavesnail occurs has not been
affected by groundwater withdrawals, and we have no information
indicating that will change in the future. Finally, we have no evidence
of groundwater contamination at these depths. Thus, we conclude that
the mimic cavesnail is not in danger of extinction throughout all of
its range.
To assess the future conditions of the mimic cavesnail, we
evaluated climate change and land-use projections under only the most
plausible future scenario from 2022 to 2100. No new wells have been
drilled in the immediate area analysis unit since 1995. We assume that
this trend will continue and be accompanied by an increase in the
capping or plugging of older groundwater wells. We expect that well
mortality will decline through 2100.
In the future, the area surrounding mimic cavesnail habitat is
projected to have increased human population growth and exurban and
suburban development; increased demands for water; and a warming, more
drought-prone climate. Climate change will also impact the area, with
increasing average and extreme temperatures, but no substantial change
in precipitation is expected.With little change in rainfall and
increased temperatures, evapotranspiration could increase reducing
surface run-off and ultimately aquifer recharge. During drought years,
recharge could be reduced by 21-33 percent, and flows at Comal Springs
could decrease by 10-24 percent, which would initiate groundwater
withdrawal reductions under current State and local regulations. We
project that climate change will result in less groundwater extraction
from the Edwards Aquifer given existing regulations to protect species
listed under the Act in the Comal and San Marcos Springs Systems, as
well as limit water withdrawals from the Edwards Aquifer. We would also
expect less dependence on groundwater in the future due to ongoing and
planned efforts to conserve and augment water resources in the San
Antonio-New Braunfels metropolitan area. Given this and historically
small declines in water levels, we expect that aquifer levels would not
decline and cavesnail habitat would be maintained.
The potential for groundwater contamination in the San Antonio
segment will continue into the future. New contaminant sources are
expected to be added to the region with increased human populations and
expanded development; many existing contaminant sources will persist.
There is an ongoing effort by the City of San Antonio to protect
sensitive areas of the contributing and recharge zones in Bexar,
Medina, and Uvalde Counties. Existing protected lands will potentially
aid in reducing transport of contaminants to the San Antonio segment.
The mimic cavesnail is also somewhat buffered from the immediate
effects of contaminants at least in the near-term future. Deeper
portions of that aquifer segment have historically been less impacted
by contaminants, but that could change over several decades with
increasing urbanization. Furthermore, the San Antonio segment has a
great capacity to assimilate and dilute contaminants due to the massive
volumes of water transported through the aquifer. The best available
information does not allow us to determine whether contaminants would
ever reach concentrations that would impair mimic cavesnail habitat.
Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude that
the mimic cavesnail is not likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
We also evaluated whether the mimic cavesnail is endangered or
threatened in a significant portion of its range. We did not find any
portions of the mimic
[[Page 83374]]
cavesnail's range for which both (1) the portion is significant; and
(2) the species is in danger of extinction in that portion either now
or in the foreseeable future. Thus, after assessing the best available
information, we conclude that the mimic cavesnail is not in danger of
extinction in a significant portion of its range now, or within the
foreseeable future.
After assessing the best available information, we concluded that
mimic cavesnail 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 mimic cavesnail 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 mimic
cavesnail species assessment form and other supporting documents on
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2023-0175 (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 mimic cavesnail 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, into the SSA report, which is
the foundation for this finding.
Northern Cavefish
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 northern cavefish, as endangered or
threatened species under the Act. On September 27, 2011, we published
in the Federal Register (76 FR 59836) a 90-day finding that the
petition contained substantial information indicating listing may be
warranted for the northern cavefish. This document constitutes our 12-
month finding on the 2010 petition to list the northern cavefish under
the Act.
Summary of Finding
Native to central Kentucky, the northern cavefish is a small, cave-
dwelling fish found only in subterranean drainages. It is characterized
by its rudimentary eyes; lack of skin pigment; large, flat head; and
tubular, non-streamlined body. The standard length (tip of nose to end
of last vertebra) of adult northern cavefish ranges from approximately
60 to 80 mm (2.4 to 3.1 in). The maximum known age for northern
cavefish is 10 years, but the lifespan may be 20 to 40 years. The
species has four life stages: egg, protolarva, juvenile, and adult.
Eggs and protolarvae are held in the female's gill chamber until
reaching the juvenile stage, when they swim freely apart from the
mother. Age at reproductive maturity (adulthood) is around 6 years.
Northern cavefish occur in subterranean streams in Meade,
Breckinridge, Hardin, Hart, and Edmonson Counties, Kentucky, south of
the Ohio River. In Kentucky, this area is characterized as a karst
ecosystem with underground drainage systems comprised of sinkholes and
caves. The closely related Hoosier cavefish (Amblyopsis hoosieri) is
restricted to Indiana north of the Ohio River. Formerly, the Hoosier
cavefish was recognized as the northern cavefish, but the Hoosier
cavefish is now known to be a distinct taxon based on morphological and
genetic differences. Because northern cavefish inhabit underground
stream networks that cannot be mapped or surveyed, the species likely
occurs at sites that are inaccessible, and the true distribution and
number of populations within the range of the northern cavefish is
unknown.
Individuals of all northern cavefish life stages need generally
cool water temperatures, sufficient dissolved oxygen, low salinity, and
flowing water. The species needs slow-flowing pools or shoals, a food
supply of invertebrates (may occasionally consume other northern
cavefish), and substrates composed of fine particles. Floods are
important for juveniles and adults as they provide detritus and food
resources. At the population level, floods are important for
reproduction (renewing generations) and maintaining connectivity,
likely allowing passive transport between sites.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the northern cavefish, 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 northern cavefish's biological status include water
pollution, agriculture and forest loss, municipal and industrial
development, and impoundment of surface waters.
Historically, there were at least six metapopulations (single
population with subpopulations at different sites and some connectivity
between sites) of northern cavefish. Two of those populations have no
records since the 1990s and cannot be confirmed to be extant or
extirpated. Based on occurrence records since 2000, the other four
northern cavefish metapopulations are known to remain extant in two
representation units. The representation units are separated by the
Rough Creek Fault Zone, which is likely a barrier to cavefish
dispersal. Population resiliency was not directly assessed; however,
the number of individuals encountered during surveys of most sites is
20 or fewer, but some sites (subpopulations) have documented hundreds
of northern cavefish.
Northern cavefish may be negatively impacted by groundwater
contamination via storm runoff or intentional disposal of wastes in
sinkholes, which are a predominant landscape feature in the species'
range. While there is risk of a spill or surface release of
contaminants to groundwater, there have been no documented cases of
northern cavefish being harmed by such an event. In addition, it is
unlikely contamination events would affect all populations, as the two
representation units are separated by a fault zone barrier. Further,
there is redundancy of subpopulations within at least two of the four
known extant metapopulations (at least one metapopulation in each
representation unit has multiple populations). Because there is
redundancy of subpopulations within three of the four known, extant
metapopulations (at least one metapopulation in each representation
unit has multiple subpopulations) there are multiple populations
distributed across a wide area (which buffers the impacts of adverse
events), the current risk of extinction is low. Therefore, we find that
the species is not in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
Our future conditions analysis for the northern cavefish used
projections of land uses and climate to assess potential groundwater
contamination and changes in stream discharge and water temperature,
respectively, to 30- and 50-year time horizons. It is reasonable to
rely on these time horizons because they correspond to the range of
available urbanization and land use change model forecasts.
Furthermore, approximately
[[Page 83375]]
30 and 50 years represent timeframes for the species to respond to
potential changes on the landscape. Two scenarios were projected, one
under which human population growth and economic development is slow,
and another under which such growth and development is more rapid.
Climate in the species' range is expected to be warmer and wetter, but
is unlikely to be a major threat to the species at the time horizons
considered in our analysis. Likewise, under both scenarios and time
horizons, the portion of developed land is expected to change very
little. Given the projected small changes in threats and land use to
2070, we expect the northern cavefish will maintain species' redundancy
and representation similar to current levels. In addition, the best
scientific information indicates the species' population conditions
have not substantially changed over time and are not expected to change
within the foreseeable future given the projected lack of change in
land uses and threats. Thus, after assessing the best available
information, we conclude that the northern cavefish is not likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all of its range.
We also evaluated whether the northern cavefish is endangered or
threatened in a significant portion of its range. We did not find any
portions of the northern cavefish's range for which both (1) the
portion is significant; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction
in that portion either now or within the foreseeable future. Thus,
after assessing the best available information, we conclude that the
northern cavefish is not in danger of extinction in a significant
portion of its range now, or within the foreseeable future.
After assessing the best available information, we concluded that
northern cavefish 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 northern cavefish 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 northern
cavefish species assessment form and other supporting documents on
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2023-0176 (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 northern cavefish SSA report. The
Service sent the SSA report to seven independent peer reviewers and
received no responses. Although we received no peer review responses,
we received input from species experts during development of the SSA,
which is incorporated into and cited in the SSA report. 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.
Smallscale Darter
Previous Federal Actions
On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition,
Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council,
and West Virginia Highlands to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland
species, including the smallscale darter, as endangered or threatened
species under the Act. On September 27, 2011, we published in the
Federal Register (76 FR 59836) a 90-day finding that the petition
contained substantial information indicating listing may be warranted
for the smallscale darter. This document constitutes our 12-month
finding on the 2010 petition to list the smallscale darter under the
Act.
Summary of Finding
The smallscale darter is a member of the Class Actinopterygii (ray-
finned fishes), Order Perciformes, Family Percidae (perches), in the
subfamily Etheostomatinae (darters). This midsized darter reaches a
maximum length of 93 mm (3.6 in). The species is native to the Stones
River, Harpeth River, Red River, and Little River tributaries of the
Cumberland River System in Kentucky and Tennessee. The Harpeth River
and Stones River populations are in the greater Nashville area of
Tennessee, while the Little River population is in Kentucky. The Red
River population straddles the border of Kentucky and Tennessee. The
smallscale darter is extant throughout its historical range.
Stream reaches occupied by smallscale darters tend to have stable
banks, intact riparian areas, and clean cobble and boulder substrate.
These stream characteristics support the reproduction of smallscale
darters, in which females attach eggs under a rock, and males protect
the eggs until they hatch. Juveniles may inhabit areas where the
current is slower, water is shallower, and substrate is finer than
areas inhabited by adults. At the microhabitat level, smallscale
darters use deeper and faster flowing parts of riffles than other
darters in the species' range.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the smallscale darter, 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 smallscale darter's biological status include habitat
destruction and degradation resulting from urbanization, agricultural
land use, impoundments, and impaired water quality. We concluded in our
analyses that impacts of isolated populations and climate change are
not likely to negatively influence the species' viability. The
smallscale darter is present throughout its historical range in four
populations exhibiting moderate to moderate-high resiliency. This
moderate to moderate-high resiliency of smallscale darter populations,
combined with the species' presence throughout its historical area,
provides moderate redundancy and representation rangewide. Given the
moderate to moderate-high resiliency populations distributed across the
historical range, the species is not currently in danger of extinction
throughout its range. Thus, we find that the species is not in danger
of extinction throughout all of its range.
The smallscale darter is expected to maintain at least moderate
resiliency across its range for the foreseeable future in all but one
scenario for one population. For the smallscale darter, we identified
the foreseeable future as 30 years, the time period for which we could
reliably predict both relevant land cover change and the species'
response to these changes. In all three future scenarios, we project
the species to be extant in the entirety of its known range, with
moderate resiliency for all populations in two of the three scenarios.
We determined that the magnitude and scale of impacts projected in the
future will not impact the species such that it is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future. Thus, after assessing
the best available information, we conclude that the smallscale darter
is not likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range.
[[Page 83376]]
We also evaluated whether the smallscale darter is endangered or
threatened in a significant portion of its range. We did not find any
portions of the smallscale darter's range for which both (1) the
portion is significant; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction
in that portion either now or within the foreseeable future. Thus,
after assessing the best available information, we conclude that the
smallscale darter is not in danger of extinction in a significant
portion of its range now, or within the foreseeable future.
After assessing the best available information, we concluded that
smallscale darter 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 smallscale darter as an endangered species or
threatened species under the Act is not warranted. A detailed
discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the smallscale
darter species assessment form and other supporting documents on
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2023-0177 (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 smallscale darter 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. We incorporated
the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report,
which is the foundation for this finding.
Texas Troglobitic Water Slater
Previous Federal Actions
On June 25, 2007, the Service received a petition from Forest
Guardians (i.e., WildEarth Guardians) requesting that the Service list
475 species, including the Texas troglobitic water slater, as
endangered or threatened species and designate critical habitat under
the Act. All 475 species occur within the Southwestern Region and were
ranked as G1 or G1G2 species by NatureServe at the time. On December
16, 2009, the Service published in the Federal Register (74 FR 66866) a
partial 90[hyphen]day finding on the Texas troglobitic water slater and
191 other species, stating that the petition presented substantial
scientific information indicating that listing may be warranted for 67
of the 192 species, including the Texas troglobitic water slater. This
document constitutes our 12-month finding on the 2007 petition to list
the Texas troglobitic water slater under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The Texas troglobitic water slater is a small, aquatic subterranean
crustacean located in the artesian zone of the southern segment (also
referred to as the San Antonio segment) of the Edwards Aquifer in Hays
County, Texas. Texas troglobitic water slaters are expelled from the
artesian zone of the Edwards Aquifer through artesian wells and
springs. Because of its primarily non-photosynthetic diet and high well
mortality relative to other collected subterranean taxa (which may
indicate a longer distance traveled to the surface), the Texas
troglobitic water slater likely occupies depths somewhere between 60 m
(197 ft) and 152 m (498 ft) below the surface. This species of water
slater has been collected from three discharge sites: the San Marcos
artesian well, Diversion Spring, and the training area well. These
sites are all within 600 m (2,000 ft) of each other and in close
proximity (less than approximately 100 m (330 ft)) to the freshwater/
saline-water zone of the Edwards Aquifer.
The Texas troglobitic water slater lives in water-filled voids
within the aquifer, although the species has never been directly
observed in its natural subterranean habitat and, thus, its specific
habitat preferences are not known. Observations of congeneric species
indicate the capacity for high rates of reproduction and benthic
(crawling) movement of the species. Stable isotope data suggest the
Texas troglobitic water slater is relatively low on the food web,
serving as a benthic forager and/or scraper. The primary type of food
consumed by the Texas troglobitic water slater is produced at the
freshwater/saline-water interface, which likely necessitates that the
species lives within close proximity to this interface.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Texas troglobitic water slater, 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 Texas troglobitic water slater's
biological status include reductions in water quantity through
groundwater pumping and development, reductions in water quality, the
effects of climate change, and mortality from groundwater wells.
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1)
factors, we found that the best available information does not indicate
direct negative effects from environmental or anthropogenic factors to
the Texas troglobitic water slater population, nor is there evidence
indicating a change to demographic factors from historical levels. The
primary driving factors of Texas troglobitic water slater viability are
water quantity (e.g., groundwater pumping and development) and water
quality (e.g., development and impervious cover). The Texas troglobitic
water slater has survived significant drought periods (including the
drought of record from the late 1940s to mid-1950s) and despite the
examined factors, the population has maintained resiliency for more
than a century. Additionally, the best available information does not
indicate that any groundwater contamination is affecting the species.
Finally, direct mortality through expulsion from groundwater wells is
occurring, but the species' benthic lifestyle and likely high
reproductive rate result in this level of mortality being unlikely to
affect the population's current resiliency.
Our two plausible future scenarios for the species use projections
out to 2050 and 2100. The primary factors driving the Texas troglobitic
water slater population's future viability are water quantity and water
quality. Increases in development lead to increases in impervious
cover, altered recharge rates, and degraded water quality. The lands
directly above Texas troglobitic water slater habitat are categorized
as developed, and all anthropogenic factors already exist and will
continue to influence the species' viability into the future. Projected
land-use changes occurring over the recharge zone will also inhibit
opportunities for surface water to enter the aquifer and for enough
discharging water to effectively clear anthropogenic contaminants.
Longer residence times of contaminants in groundwater and lack of
photodegradation of constituents in the aquifer are not well
understood, and it is uncertain how these changes will affect the Texas
troglobitic water slater population into the future. There is no
information assessing the environmental tolerance of the Texas
troglobitic water slater or how degradation in water
[[Page 83377]]
quality can affect the species. Likewise, at this time, there are no
appropriate isopod surrogates occupying a similar habitat with more
information from which we could extrapolate for the Texas troglobitic
water slater.
While climate change and other anthropogenic influences (e.g.,
vegetation removal and urbanization) cause the surface to warm, a lag
in increased groundwater temperature may occur. For ectothermic animals
like the Texas troglobitic water slater, overall vulnerability to
climate change will depend on thermal sensitivity and how quickly the
buffered environment changes, and we do not have this information to
inform our future scenarios. The southern segment of the Edwards
Aquifer has a great capacity to assimilate and dilute contaminants as
massive volumes of water transport these materials through the aquifer.
However, contaminants in groundwater can be diluted over distance and
time and flushed through discharge points more frequently than older
groundwater at a greater depth. We have no information indicating
whether contaminants would ever reach concentrations that would impair
or kill Texas troglobitic water slaters in either scenario.
Current water planning does not account for climate change,
although climate change will be considered in the upcoming Edwards
Aquifer Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). There remains a possibility
that current State and local regulations on groundwater use may not be
enough to maintain aquifer levels and springflows if conditions become
worse than the drought of record. The Edwards Aquifer Authority is
committed to improving their HCP, and funding was allocated to predict
droughts and climate change impacts on the aquifer. Land in Hays County
over the recharge zone was purchased or protected through easements,
and partners are committed to purchasing more land in the future, in
addition to implementing other conservation efforts. If current
management of the southern segment of the Edwards Aquifer continues
into the future, aquifer levels should not decline to a level where
Texas troglobitic water slater habitat would not be maintained.
For both the lower and upper plausible future scenarios, the best
available information does not project a negative impact from
environmental or anthropogenic factors directly to the known Texas
troglobitic water slater population at the depth at which they occur,
nor is there evidence indicating a negative change to demographic
factors historically. We expect that under both future scenarios,
resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the species will be
maintained into the foreseeable future. Neither future scenario
projections point to evidence indicating any threat to the Texas
troglobitic water slater population under current groundwater
management implementation, which we anticipate will continue into the
future. Thus, after assessing the best available information, we
conclude that the Texas troglobitic water slater is not in danger of
extinction or likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
We also evaluated whether the Texas troglobitic water slater is
endangered or threatened in a significant portion of its range. We did
not find any portions of the Texas troglobitic water slater's range for
which both (1) the portion is significant; and (2) the species is in
danger of extinction in that portion either now or in the foreseeable
future. Thus, after assessing the best available information, we
conclude that the Texas troglobitic water slater is not in danger of
extinction in a significant portion of its range now, or within the
foreseeable future.
After assessing the best available information, we concluded that
Texas troglobitic water slater 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 Texas troglobitic water slater 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 Texas troglobitic water slater species assessment form and
other supporting documents on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket
No. FWS-R2-ES-2023-0178 (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 Texas troglobitic water slater 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.
New Information
We request that you submit any new information concerning the
taxonomy of, biology of, ecology of, status of, or stressors to the
Edison's ascyrum, Florida (lowland) loosestrife, Florida pinesnake,
mimic cavesnail, northern cavefish, smallscale darter, or Texas
troglobitic water slater 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
A complete list of the references used in these petition findings
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. 2023-25586 Filed 11-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
