Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Ten Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species, 88035-88040 [2023-27966]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
*
*
*
*
*
ACTION:
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce
findings that 10 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
Hupp’s Hill cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus parvicollis),
Hubbard’s cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus hubbardi),
overlooked cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus praetermissus),
Shenandoah cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus limicola), Little
Kennedy cave beetle
SUMMARY:
[FR Doc. 2023–27741 Filed 12–19–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR245]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Ten Species Not Warranted
for Listing as Endangered or
Threatened Species
AGENCY:
Notification of findings.
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
(Pseudanophthalmus cordicollis),
Holsinger’s cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus holsingeri),
Hubricht’s cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus hubrichti), silken
cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus
sericus), Pinalen˜o talussnail (Sonorella
grahamensis), and San Xavier talussnail
(Sonorella eremita). 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 December 20, 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.
Holsinger’s cave beetle ............................................................................
Hubbard’s cave beetle ..............................................................................
Hubricht’s cave beetle ..............................................................................
Hupp’s Hill cave beetle .............................................................................
Little Kennedy cave beetle .......................................................................
Overlooked cave beetle ............................................................................
Pinalen˜o talussnail ....................................................................................
San Xavier talussnail ................................................................................
Shenandoah cave beetle ..........................................................................
Silken cave beetle ....................................................................................
Those descriptions are also available
by contacting the appropriate person as
specified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any
FWS–R5–ES–2023–0233
FWS–R5–ES–2023–0235
FWS–R5–ES–2023–0236
FWS–R5–ES–2023–0237
FWS–R5–ES–2023–0238
FWS–R5–ES–2023–0239
FWS–R2–ES–2023–0240
FWS–R2–ES–2023–0241
FWS–R5–ES–2023–0242
FWS–R5–ES–2023–0243
new information, materials, comments,
or questions concerning this finding to
the appropriate person, as specified
Species
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Heather Whitlaw, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office Supervisor,
806–773–5932, heather_whitlaw@fws.gov.
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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Summary of Information Pertaining to
the Five Factors
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
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
Jkt 262001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cindy Schulz, Field Office Supervisor, Virginia Ecological Services
Field Office, 804–654–1842, cindy_schulz@fws.gov.
Individuals in the United States who
are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or
have a speech disability may dial 711
(TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services.
Individuals outside the United States
should use the relay services offered
within their country to make
international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States.
17:45 Dec 19, 2023
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Contact Information
Hupp’s Hill cave beetle, Hubbard’s cave beetle, overlooked cave beetle, Shenandoah cave beetle, Little Kennedy cave beetle, Holsinger’s
cave beetle, Hubricht’s cave beetle, and silken cave beetle.
Pinalen˜o talussnail and San Xavier talussnail .........................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
88035
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
reclassifying species on the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants (Lists). The Act defines
‘‘species’’ as including any subspecies
of fish or wildlife or plants, and any
distinct population segment of any
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife
which interbreeds when mature. 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
E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM
20DEP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
88036
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:45 Dec 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
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
Holsinger’s cave beetle, Hubbard’s cave
beetle, Hubricht’s cave beetle, Hupp’s
Hill cave beetle, Little Kennedy cave
beetle, overlooked cave beetle, Pinalen˜o
talussnail, San Xavier talussnail,
Shenandoah cave beetle, or silken cave
beetle 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 for the Hubbard’s cave beetle,
Hubricht’s cave beetle, Little Kennedy
cave beetle, overlooked cave beetle,
Pinalen˜o talussnail, San Xavier
talussnail, Shenandoah cave beetle, and
silken cave beetle (see the discussion
below for information on Holsinger’s
and Hupp’s Hill cave beetles). For all of
these species, including the species for
which we completed discretionary
status reviews (Holsinger’s and Hupp’s
Hill beetles), we reviewed information
available in our files, and other
available published and unpublished
information. Our evaluation may
include information from recognized
experts; Federal, State, and Tribal
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 eight species and the
discretionary status reviews of two
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 actions included in this
document. The following is a
description of the documents containing
these analyses:
The species assessment forms for the
Holsinger’s cave beetle, Hubbard’s cave
beetle, Hubricht’s cave beetle, Hupp’s
Hill cave beetle, Little Kennedy cave
beetle, overlooked cave beetle, Pinalen˜o
talussnail, San Xavier talussnail,
Shenandoah cave beetle, and silken
cave beetle 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 10 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). Our analyses for
these decisions applied our current
regulations, portions of which were last
revised in 2019. Given that we proposed
further revisions to these regulations on
June 22, 2023 (88 FR 40764), we have
also analyzed whether the decisions
would be different if we were to apply
those proposed revisions. We concluded
that the decisions would have been the
same if we had applied the proposed
2023 regulations. The analyses under
both the regulations currently in effect
and the regulations after incorporating
the June 22, 2023, proposed revisions
are included in our decision file for
each action.
E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM
20DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Holsinger’s Cave Beetle, Hubbard’s Cave
Beetle, Hubricht’s Cave Beetle, Hupp’s
Hill Cave Beetle, Little Kennedy Cave
Beetle, Overlooked Cave Beetle,
Shenandoah Cave Beetle, and Silken
Cave Beetle
Previous Federal Actions
On April 20, 2010, we received a
petition from the Center for Biological
Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance,
Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance,
Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee
Forests Council, and West Virginia
Highlands to list 404 aquatic, riparian,
and wetland species, including 15 cave
beetle species: Pseudanophthalmus
hubbardi, Pseudanophthalmus
praetermissus, Pseudanophthalmus
limicola, Pseudanophthalmus
cordicollis, Pseudanophthalmus
hubrichti, Pseudanophthalmus sericus,
Pseudanophthalmus avernus,
Pseudanophthalmus intersectus,
Pseudanophthalmus hirsutus,
Pseudanophthalmus virginicus,
Pseudanophthalmus egberti,
Pseudanophthalmus pontis,
Pseudanophthalmus sanctipauli,
Pseudanophthalmus potomaca, and
Pseudanophthalmus thomasi (referred
to by the common names ‘‘Hubbard’s
cave beetle,’’ ‘‘overlooked cave beetle,’’
‘‘Shenandoah cave beetle,’’ ‘‘Little
Kennedy cave beetle,’’ ‘‘Hubricht’s cave
beetle,’’ ‘‘silken cave beetle,’’ ‘‘Avernus
cave beetle,’’ ‘‘crossroads cave beetle,’’
‘‘Cumberland Gap cave beetle,’’
‘‘Maiden Spring cave beetle,’’ ‘‘New
River Valley cave beetle,’’ ‘‘Natural
Bridge cave beetle,’’ ‘‘Saint Paul cave
beetle,’’ ‘‘South Branch Valley cave
beetle,’’ and ‘‘Thomas’ cave beetle,’’
respectively, in the petition), 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 provided substantial
information indicating 374 of those
species may warrant listing, including
the 15 species listed above.
In a letter dated September 12, 2022,
the petitioners withdrew their petition
for nine of the Virginia cave beetle
species, citing new information
indicating the species no longer merit
consideration for listing. These nine
species are the Avernus cave beetle,
crossroads cave beetle, Cumberland Gap
cave beetle, Maiden Spring cave beetle,
New River Valley cave beetle, Natural
Bridge cave beetle, Saint Paul cave
beetle, South Branch Valley cave beetle,
and Thomas’ cave beetle.
This document constitutes our 12month finding on the April 20, 2010,
petition to list Hubbard’s, overlooked,
Shenandoah, Little Kennedy,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:45 Dec 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
Hubricht’s, and silken cave beetles
under the Act. We also decided, as
discretionary actions, to assess two
additional Virginia cave beetle species
(Pseudanophthalmus holsingeri
(Holsinger’s cave beetle) and
Pseudanophthalmus parvicollis (Hupp’s
Hill cave beetle)) identified by the
Service and partners as species of
concern.
Summary of Finding
The eight focal cave beetle species are
found in Virginia throughout the
Appalachian Valley and Ridge (AVR)
geologically unique limestone
formations. Uplift, erosion, and
dissolution of the faulted and folded
strata of the AVR have produced
isolated belts of karst topography with
numerous caves, where carbonate
bedrock is exposed in the valleys and
flanks of ridges capped with non-cave
forming rocks.
Cave beetles are eyeless, wingless
beetles generally reddish/brown in
color. The eight cave beetle species are
insects in the Carabidae Family (Carabid
beetles) under the Order Coleoptera.
More specifically, they fall under the
subfamily Trechinae, which includes
numerous genera, including
Pseudanophthalmus. Genus
Pseudanophthalmus beetles (within
which the eight species fall) are
typically 3–9 millimeters in size
(Service 2023, p. 2–4).
The eight cave beetle species are
troglobites, meaning they are obligate
cave dwellers and complete all phases
of their life cycle within caves (Service
2023, p. v). Caves are a natural opening
in solid rock with areas of complete
darkness and are larger than a few
millimeters (mm) in diameter (Culver
and Pipan 2019, pp. 4–5). Caves
typically form in karst landscapes that
are defined as areas in which
dissolution by weak acids is the primary
agent shaping the landscape, as opposed
to erosion, volcanoes, and earthquakes
(Culver and Pipan 2019, pp. 4–5). Most
solution caves form in carbonate
(limestone or dolostone) bedrock.
Pseudanophthalmus cave beetles
typically inhabit riparian mudbanks and
other moist areas within limestone
caves (Lewis 2001a, p. 5). Notable
habitat features where
Pseudanophthalmus cave beetles have
been collected in Virginia include mud
cracks, fine silt, woody debris, cobbles,
and rocks. It is difficult to interpret
these microhabitat features in terms of
individual needs because we know so
little about the life history of these
species. It is common for other carabid
beetles to prefer areas where they may
seek shelter (hence the mudcracks,
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
88037
rocks, cobbles, and woody debris), and
it is likely, again based on other carabid
beetles, that females lay eggs in moist
silty areas. The combination of moisture
and organic material also likely presents
the right circumstances for their prey
items to be available. The individual
needs that seem clear are that karst
environments with water or moisture
are necessary for beetles to be present;
they have not been observed outside of
caves or in completely dry caves.
Cave beetles are generally predatory
and carnivorous, most likely feeding on
mites, springtails, and opportunistic
items, including beetle eggs and larvae.
The primary food source of
Pseudanophthalmus is enchytraeid and
tubificid worms found associated with
cave mudbanks (Lewis 2001a, b, and c,
p. 4; Lewis 2002, p. 5). While it is not
clear exactly what each species eats,
experts are confident that they forage at
a higher trophic level than some other
cave invertebrates; they have not been
observed associated with mammal scat
like some other troglobites that feed on
the associated bacterial and fungal
growth (Service 2023, p. 2–5).
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the Hupp’s Hill,
Hubbard’s, overlooked, Shenandoah,
Little Kennedy, Holsinger’s, Hubricht’s,
and silken cave beetles, 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 eight cave beetles’ biological status
include quarrying, commercial
operations inside caves, and
urbanization/development. These
activities may alter the physical
structure of caves and change the water
table or hydrology of cave systems; we
made the conservative assumption that
compromised water quality and
quantity may impact cave beetle species
(Service 2023, p. 4–6). We also
considered potential threats of
agriculture and timbering (Service 2023,
pp. 4–2—4–3).
Despite potential impacts from the
primary threats, the best scientific and
commercial data available indicate that
the Little Kennedy, Shenandoah, and
Hubricht’s cave beetle species have
maintained resilient populations
throughout their respective ranges. This
projection also applies to the single siteendemic species (Hupp’s Hill,
Hubbard’s, Holsinger’s, overlooked, and
silken cave beetles), because, similar to
Little Kennedy, Shenandoah, and
Hubricht’s cave beetles, the best
available information indicates that
E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM
20DEP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
88038
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
these species are projected to maintain
resilient populations even under the
projected future threats.
The eight cave beetles’ redundancy
and representation are limited due to
their narrow ranges; however, this may
be similar to historical conditions for
most of the eight species. We assume
that Hupp’s Hill cave beetle is
extirpated from one location (Battlefield
Crystal Caverns); however, the best
available information indicates no
population- or species-level threats are
acting on the species at Ogden’s
location.
Cave beetles are cryptic species that
can be hard to locate within their
habitats. Most caves likely undergo
seasonal fluctuations in moisture that
may influence the distribution of cave
fauna within the system. The nature of
caves and karst systems is such that
there is presumed to be a large portion
of area that is accessible to cave beetles
(but not to humans), including cracks
and crevices that may extend long
distances and connect to unknown
caves. We find that the eight cave beetle
species have sufficient resiliency,
redundancy, and representation in light
of the best available potential stressor
data and information. Thus, after
assessing the best available information,
we conclude that the eight cave beetle
species (i.e., Hupp’s Hill, Hubbard’s,
overlooked, Shenandoah, Little
Kennedy, Holsinger’s, Hubricht’s, and
silken cave beetles) are not in danger of
extinction throughout all of their ranges.
Next, we proceed with determining
whether the eight cave beetle species are
likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all of their
ranges. Our evaluation is based upon
analysis of threats and regional land-use
projections for a foreseeable future
extending out to 2070. The best
available information does not indicate
the threats will impact the species such
that any of them meet the Act’s
definition of a threatened species. We
expect no changes in redundancy or
representation for any of the eight
species as a result of future threats.
After assessing the best available
information, we conclude that the eight
cave beetle species (i.e., Hupp’s Hill,
Hubbard’s, overlooked, Shenandoah,
Little Kennedy, Holsinger’s, Hubricht’s,
and silken cave beetles) are not likely to
become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all of their
ranges.
We also evaluated whether the
Hupp’s Hill, Hubbard’s, overlooked,
Shenandoah, Little Kennedy,
Holsinger’s, Hubricht’s, and silken cave
beetles are endangered or threatened in
a significant portion of their ranges. We
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:45 Dec 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
did not find any portions of the Hupp’s
Hill, Hubbard’s, overlooked,
Shenandoah, Little Kennedy,
Holsinger’s, Hubricht’s, and silken cave
beetles ranges 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 Hupp’s Hill,
Hubbard’s, overlooked, Shenandoah,
Little Kennedy, Holsinger’s, Hubricht’s,
and silken cave beetles are not in danger
of extinction in a significant portion of
their ranges now, or within the
foreseeable future.
After assessing the best available
information, we conclude that Hupp’s
Hill, Hubbard’s, overlooked,
Shenandoah, Little Kennedy,
Holsinger’s, Hubricht’s, and silken cave
beetles are not in danger of extinction
now or likely to become in danger of
extinction within the foreseeable future
throughout all of their ranges or in any
significant portion of their ranges.
Therefore, we find that listing the eight
cave beetle species as endangered
species or threatened species under the
Act is not warranted. For each beetle
species, a detailed discussion of the
basis for this finding can be found in the
species assessment form and other
supporting documents, which are
available on https://
www.regulations.gov under the
appropriate docket number (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 SSA report for the eight
cave beetle species. The Service sent the
SSA report to six independent peer
reviewers and received one response.
Results of this structured peer review
process can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov under the
appropriate docket number (see
ADDRESSES, above). We incorporated the
results of these reviews, as appropriate,
into the SSA report, which is the
foundation for this finding.
Pinalen˜o Talussnail and San Xavier
Talussnail
Previous Federal Actions
On June 25, 2007, the Service
received a petition from Forest
Guardians (i.e., WildEarth Guardians)
requesting that we list 475 species,
including the Pinalen˜o talussnail and
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the San Xavier talussnail, 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. In a
July 11, 2007, letter to the petitioner, the
Service acknowledged receipt of the
petition and stated that the petition was
under review by staff in the Southwest
Regional Office. On December 16, 2009,
the Service published a partial 90-day
finding for 192 of the species (74 FR
66866); that finding stated that the
petition presented substantial scientific
information indicating that listing may
be warranted for 67 of the 192 species,
including the Pinalen˜o talussnail and
the San Xavier talussnail.
Summary of Finding
The Pinalen˜o talussnail and San
Xavier talussnail are land snails
endemic to southeastern Arizona that
reside on rocky hillsides, rocky washes,
and talus slopes. The Pinalen˜o
talussnail occurs in the Pinalen˜o
Mountains on the Coronado National
Forest within an estimated 25 square
miles (64.7 square kilometers) of
potentially suitable habitat. The San
Xavier talussnail is restricted to the
northwestern slope of White Hill in the
Sonoran Desert with an approximate
range of 1.08 acres (0.44 hectares) on
private land.
Both species require interstitial spaces
in the talus for estivation (dormancy);
dense vegetation and canopy cover;
available food sources of fungus, lichen,
decaying plant matter, and young green
shoots; and adequate moisture. An
adequate level of moisture is needed for
the talussnails’ active periods when
they carry out their necessary lifehistory processes, as well as to support
suitable habitat. An adequate level of
moisture occurs when weather
conditions fall within appropriate
ranges of temperature, precipitation,
relative humidity, and evaporation
deficit. Individuals spend most of their
time in estivation to avoid drying out or
freezing during unfavorable conditions.
The primary environmental influences
are climate change and drought for both
species, as well as wildfire and erosion
for the Pinalen˜o talussnail.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the Pinalen˜o
talussnail and San Xavier talussnail,
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 Pinalen˜o talussnail’s status include
E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM
20DEP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
drought and impacts from climate
change, erosion, and wildfire.
Population resiliency is dependent on a
variety of climate conditions that
influence talussnail active period,
habitat quality, and habitat quantity.
Our assessment used weather
parameters to evaluate the talussnails’
resiliency (e.g., high, moderate, or low
condition) based on the requirements of
active periods (i.e., mean daily
maximum temperature, mean annual
precipitation, mean daily maximum
relative humidity), habitat quality (i.e.,
mean annual evaporation deficit), and
habitat quantity (i.e., mean annual
temperature change). Our results
indicate that the weather parameters
assessed are currently fully supportive
of talussnail life history requirements;
therefore, the overall current condition
of Pinalen˜o talussnail population
resiliency is assessed as ‘‘high
condition.’’ The species’ life history
indicates that the species is adapted to
variable environmental conditions by
spending most of its time in estivation
to avoid desiccation or freezing during
unfavorable conditions. Surveys effort
indicated that land snail abundance
estimates were unchanged due to a
recent fire, and fuel reduction activities
are ongoing. Thus, after assessing the
best available information, we conclude
that the Pinalen˜o talussnail is not in
danger of extinction throughout all of its
range.
Climate change impacts to mean
maximum relative humidity and mean
temperature change for the Pinalen˜o
talussnail are expected in 50-year future
scenarios. However, the changes are
expected to be very small and are not
expected to decrease the viability of the
species such that the species is in
danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future. The species’ life
history allows it to rebound after fires
and other historical catastrophic events
like mega droughts. Additionally, all
historical habitat for the species remains
intact, and there is no loss of range to
date. Although there is some potential
for climate effects in the 50-year
timeframe, these effects are not
substantial enough to substantially
decrease habitat conditions for the
species and result in the species being
in danger of extinction. After assessing
the best available information, we
conclude that the Pinalen˜o talussnail is
not likely to become endangered within
the foreseeable future throughout all of
its range.
The primary threats affecting San
Xavier talussnail’s biological status
include drought and impacts from
climate change. The San Xavier
talussnail’s current population
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:45 Dec 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
resiliency is on the border between
moderate and high condition. Habitat is
intact, is connected, and does not have
any development or land-use changes
nearby that would alter the habitat
conditions at these sites, thereby
contributing to the conservation of
habitat quality into the future. The
species’ life history indicates that the
species is adapted to variable
environmental conditions by spending
most of its time in estivation to avoid
desiccation or freezing during
unfavorable conditions. The most likely
catastrophic event for the San Xavier
talussnail would be the loss of
interstitial spaces in occupied talus
habitats, but this is unlikely due to
conservation commitments in the ‘‘2018
Strategic Conservation Plan for the San
Xavier Talussnail in Pima, Arizona.’’
Thus, after assessing the best available
information, we conclude that the San
Xavier talussnail is not in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range.
Climate change impacts to mean
maximum temperature and mean
temperature change for the San Xavier
talussnail are expected in 50-year future
scenarios. However, the changes are
expected to be very small and are not
expected to decrease the viability of the
species such that the species is in
danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future. The species’ life
history allows it to rebound after fires
and other historical catastrophic events
like mega droughts. Additionally, all
historical habitat for the species remains
intact, and there is no loss of range to
date. Although there is some potential
for climate effects in the 50-year
timeframe, these effects are not
substantial enough to substantially
decrease habitat conditions for the
species and result in the species being
in danger of extinction. After assessing
the best available information, we
conclude that the San Xavier talussnail
is not likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future throughout
all of its range.
We also evaluated whether the
Pinalen˜o talussnail and the San Xavier
talussnail are endangered or threatened
in a significant portion of their range.
We did not find any portions of the
Pinalen˜o talussnail and the San Xavier
talussnail ranges 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 Pinalen˜o talussnail
and the San Xavier talussnail are not in
danger of extinction in a significant
portion of their ranges now, or within
the foreseeable future.
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
88039
After assessing the best available
information, we conclude that the
Pinalen˜o talussnail and the San Xavier
talussnail are not in danger of extinction
now or likely to become in danger of
extinction within the foreseeable future
throughout all of their ranges or in any
significant portion of their ranges.
Therefore, we find that listing the
Pinalen˜o talussnail and the San Xavier
talussnail as endangered species or
threatened species under the Act is not
warranted. A detailed discussion of the
basis for this finding can be found in the
Pinalen˜o talussnail and the San Xavier
talussnail species assessment form and
other supporting documents on https://
www.regulations.gov under the
appropriate docket number (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 Pinalen˜o talussnail and
the San Xavier talussnail SSA report.
The Service sent the SSA report to eight
independent peer reviewers and
received six responses. Results of this
structured peer review process can be
found at https://www.regulations.gov
under Docket Nos. FWS–R2–ES–2023–
0241 and FWS–R2–ES–2023–0242. 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 Holsinger’s cave beetle,
Hubbard’s cave beetle, Hubricht’s cave
beetle, Hupp’s Hill cave beetle, Little
Kennedy cave beetle, overlooked cave
beetle, Pinalen˜o talussnail, San Xavier
talussnail, Shenandoah cave beetle, or
silken cave beetle 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
E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM
20DEP1
88040
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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.
Signing Authority
Authority
Martha Williams, Director of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this
action on December 7, 2023, for
publication. On December 7, 2023,
Martha Williams authorized the
undersigned to sign the document
electronically and submit it to the Office
of the Federal Register for publication as
an official document of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
The authority for this action is section
4 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).
Madonna Baucum,
Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of
Policy, Economics, Risk Management, and
Analytics of the Joint Administrative
Operations, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023–27966 Filed 12–19–23; 8:45 am]
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:45 Dec 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM
20DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 20, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 88035-88040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27966]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR245]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Ten 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 10 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 Hupp's Hill cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus parvicollis),
Hubbard's cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus hubbardi), overlooked cave
beetle (Pseudanophthalmus praetermissus), Shenandoah cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus limicola), Little Kennedy cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus cordicollis), Holsinger's cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus holsingeri), Hubricht's cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus hubrichti), silken cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus
sericus), Pinale[ntilde]o talussnail (Sonorella grahamensis), and San
Xavier talussnail (Sonorella eremita). 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 December 20, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Detailed descriptions of the bases for these findings are
available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under the
following docket numbers:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Docket No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Holsinger's cave beetle................ FWS-R5-ES-2023-0233
Hubbard's cave beetle.................. FWS-R5-ES-2023-0235
Hubricht's cave beetle................. FWS-R5-ES-2023-0236
Hupp's Hill cave beetle................ FWS-R5-ES-2023-0237
Little Kennedy cave beetle............. FWS-R5-ES-2023-0238
Overlooked cave beetle................. FWS-R5-ES-2023-0239
Pinale[ntilde]o talussnail............. FWS-R2-ES-2023-0240
San Xavier talussnail.................. FWS-R2-ES-2023-0241
Shenandoah cave beetle................. FWS-R5-ES-2023-0242
Silken cave beetle..................... FWS-R5-ES-2023-0243
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hupp's Hill cave beetle, Hubbard's cave Cindy Schulz, Field Office
beetle, overlooked cave beetle, Supervisor, Virginia
Shenandoah cave beetle, Little Kennedy Ecological Services Field
cave beetle, Holsinger's cave beetle, Office, 804-654-1842,
Hubricht's cave beetle, and silken [email protected].
cave beetle.
Pinale[ntilde]o talussnail and San Heather Whitlaw, Arizona
Xavier talussnail. Ecological Services Field
Office Supervisor, 806-773-
5932, [email protected].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in
the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we
are required to make a finding on whether or not a petitioned action is
warranted within 12 months after receiving any petition that we have
determined contains substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (``12-month
finding''). We must make a finding that the petitioned action is: (1)
Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) warranted, but precluded by other
listing activity. We must publish a notification of these 12-month
findings in the Federal Register.
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations at part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing
species from, or reclassifying species on the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists). The Act defines ``species'' as
including any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any
distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or
wildlife which interbreeds when mature. 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
[[Page 88036]]
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 Holsinger's cave
beetle, Hubbard's cave beetle, Hubricht's cave beetle, Hupp's Hill cave
beetle, Little Kennedy cave beetle, overlooked cave beetle,
Pinale[ntilde]o talussnail, San Xavier talussnail, Shenandoah cave
beetle, or silken cave beetle 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 for the Hubbard's cave beetle, Hubricht's cave
beetle, Little Kennedy cave beetle, overlooked cave beetle,
Pinale[ntilde]o talussnail, San Xavier talussnail, Shenandoah cave
beetle, and silken cave beetle (see the discussion below for
information on Holsinger's and Hupp's Hill cave beetles). For all of
these species, including the species for which we completed
discretionary status reviews (Holsinger's and Hupp's Hill beetles), we
reviewed information available in our files, and other available
published and unpublished information. 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
eight species and the discretionary status reviews of two 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 actions included in this document. The following
is a description of the documents containing these analyses:
The species assessment forms for the Holsinger's cave beetle,
Hubbard's cave beetle, Hubricht's cave beetle, Hupp's Hill cave beetle,
Little Kennedy cave beetle, overlooked cave beetle, Pinale[ntilde]o
talussnail, San Xavier talussnail, Shenandoah cave beetle, and silken
cave beetle 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 10 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). Our
analyses for these decisions applied our current regulations, portions
of which were last revised in 2019. Given that we proposed further
revisions to these regulations on June 22, 2023 (88 FR 40764), we have
also analyzed whether the decisions would be different if we were to
apply those proposed revisions. We concluded that the decisions would
have been the same if we had applied the proposed 2023 regulations. The
analyses under both the regulations currently in effect and the
regulations after incorporating the June 22, 2023, proposed revisions
are included in our decision file for each action.
[[Page 88037]]
Holsinger's Cave Beetle, Hubbard's Cave Beetle, Hubricht's Cave Beetle,
Hupp's Hill Cave Beetle, Little Kennedy Cave Beetle, Overlooked Cave
Beetle, Shenandoah Cave Beetle, and Silken Cave Beetle
Previous Federal Actions
On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition,
Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council,
and West Virginia Highlands to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland
species, including 15 cave beetle species: Pseudanophthalmus hubbardi,
Pseudanophthalmus praetermissus, Pseudanophthalmus limicola,
Pseudanophthalmus cordicollis, Pseudanophthalmus hubrichti,
Pseudanophthalmus sericus, Pseudanophthalmus avernus, Pseudanophthalmus
intersectus, Pseudanophthalmus hirsutus, Pseudanophthalmus virginicus,
Pseudanophthalmus egberti, Pseudanophthalmus pontis, Pseudanophthalmus
sanctipauli, Pseudanophthalmus potomaca, and Pseudanophthalmus thomasi
(referred to by the common names ``Hubbard's cave beetle,''
``overlooked cave beetle,'' ``Shenandoah cave beetle,'' ``Little
Kennedy cave beetle,'' ``Hubricht's cave beetle,'' ``silken cave
beetle,'' ``Avernus cave beetle,'' ``crossroads cave beetle,''
``Cumberland Gap cave beetle,'' ``Maiden Spring cave beetle,'' ``New
River Valley cave beetle,'' ``Natural Bridge cave beetle,'' ``Saint
Paul cave beetle,'' ``South Branch Valley cave beetle,'' and ``Thomas'
cave beetle,'' respectively, in the petition), 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 provided substantial information indicating 374 of those
species may warrant listing, including the 15 species listed above.
In a letter dated September 12, 2022, the petitioners withdrew
their petition for nine of the Virginia cave beetle species, citing new
information indicating the species no longer merit consideration for
listing. These nine species are the Avernus cave beetle, crossroads
cave beetle, Cumberland Gap cave beetle, Maiden Spring cave beetle, New
River Valley cave beetle, Natural Bridge cave beetle, Saint Paul cave
beetle, South Branch Valley cave beetle, and Thomas' cave beetle.
This document constitutes our 12-month finding on the April 20,
2010, petition to list Hubbard's, overlooked, Shenandoah, Little
Kennedy, Hubricht's, and silken cave beetles under the Act. We also
decided, as discretionary actions, to assess two additional Virginia
cave beetle species (Pseudanophthalmus holsingeri (Holsinger's cave
beetle) and Pseudanophthalmus parvicollis (Hupp's Hill cave beetle))
identified by the Service and partners as species of concern.
Summary of Finding
The eight focal cave beetle species are found in Virginia
throughout the Appalachian Valley and Ridge (AVR) geologically unique
limestone formations. Uplift, erosion, and dissolution of the faulted
and folded strata of the AVR have produced isolated belts of karst
topography with numerous caves, where carbonate bedrock is exposed in
the valleys and flanks of ridges capped with non-cave forming rocks.
Cave beetles are eyeless, wingless beetles generally reddish/brown
in color. The eight cave beetle species are insects in the Carabidae
Family (Carabid beetles) under the Order Coleoptera. More specifically,
they fall under the subfamily Trechinae, which includes numerous
genera, including Pseudanophthalmus. Genus Pseudanophthalmus beetles
(within which the eight species fall) are typically 3-9 millimeters in
size (Service 2023, p. 2-4).
The eight cave beetle species are troglobites, meaning they are
obligate cave dwellers and complete all phases of their life cycle
within caves (Service 2023, p. v). Caves are a natural opening in solid
rock with areas of complete darkness and are larger than a few
millimeters (mm) in diameter (Culver and Pipan 2019, pp. 4-5). Caves
typically form in karst landscapes that are defined as areas in which
dissolution by weak acids is the primary agent shaping the landscape,
as opposed to erosion, volcanoes, and earthquakes (Culver and Pipan
2019, pp. 4-5). Most solution caves form in carbonate (limestone or
dolostone) bedrock.
Pseudanophthalmus cave beetles typically inhabit riparian mudbanks
and other moist areas within limestone caves (Lewis 2001a, p. 5).
Notable habitat features where Pseudanophthalmus cave beetles have been
collected in Virginia include mud cracks, fine silt, woody debris,
cobbles, and rocks. It is difficult to interpret these microhabitat
features in terms of individual needs because we know so little about
the life history of these species. It is common for other carabid
beetles to prefer areas where they may seek shelter (hence the
mudcracks, rocks, cobbles, and woody debris), and it is likely, again
based on other carabid beetles, that females lay eggs in moist silty
areas. The combination of moisture and organic material also likely
presents the right circumstances for their prey items to be available.
The individual needs that seem clear are that karst environments with
water or moisture are necessary for beetles to be present; they have
not been observed outside of caves or in completely dry caves.
Cave beetles are generally predatory and carnivorous, most likely
feeding on mites, springtails, and opportunistic items, including
beetle eggs and larvae. The primary food source of Pseudanophthalmus is
enchytraeid and tubificid worms found associated with cave mudbanks
(Lewis 2001a, b, and c, p. 4; Lewis 2002, p. 5). While it is not clear
exactly what each species eats, experts are confident that they forage
at a higher trophic level than some other cave invertebrates; they have
not been observed associated with mammal scat like some other
troglobites that feed on the associated bacterial and fungal growth
(Service 2023, p. 2-5).
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Hupp's Hill, Hubbard's, overlooked, Shenandoah, Little Kennedy,
Holsinger's, Hubricht's, and silken cave beetles, 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 eight cave beetles'
biological status include quarrying, commercial operations inside
caves, and urbanization/development. These activities may alter the
physical structure of caves and change the water table or hydrology of
cave systems; we made the conservative assumption that compromised
water quality and quantity may impact cave beetle species (Service
2023, p. 4-6). We also considered potential threats of agriculture and
timbering (Service 2023, pp. 4-2--4-3).
Despite potential impacts from the primary threats, the best
scientific and commercial data available indicate that the Little
Kennedy, Shenandoah, and Hubricht's cave beetle species have maintained
resilient populations throughout their respective ranges. This
projection also applies to the single site-endemic species (Hupp's
Hill, Hubbard's, Holsinger's, overlooked, and silken cave beetles),
because, similar to Little Kennedy, Shenandoah, and Hubricht's cave
beetles, the best available information indicates that
[[Page 88038]]
these species are projected to maintain resilient populations even
under the projected future threats.
The eight cave beetles' redundancy and representation are limited
due to their narrow ranges; however, this may be similar to historical
conditions for most of the eight species. We assume that Hupp's Hill
cave beetle is extirpated from one location (Battlefield Crystal
Caverns); however, the best available information indicates no
population- or species-level threats are acting on the species at
Ogden's location.
Cave beetles are cryptic species that can be hard to locate within
their habitats. Most caves likely undergo seasonal fluctuations in
moisture that may influence the distribution of cave fauna within the
system. The nature of caves and karst systems is such that there is
presumed to be a large portion of area that is accessible to cave
beetles (but not to humans), including cracks and crevices that may
extend long distances and connect to unknown caves. We find that the
eight cave beetle species have sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and
representation in light of the best available potential stressor data
and information. Thus, after assessing the best available information,
we conclude that the eight cave beetle species (i.e., Hupp's Hill,
Hubbard's, overlooked, Shenandoah, Little Kennedy, Holsinger's,
Hubricht's, and silken cave beetles) are not in danger of extinction
throughout all of their ranges.
Next, we proceed with determining whether the eight cave beetle
species are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all of their ranges. Our evaluation is based upon analysis
of threats and regional land-use projections for a foreseeable future
extending out to 2070. The best available information does not indicate
the threats will impact the species such that any of them meet the
Act's definition of a threatened species. We expect no changes in
redundancy or representation for any of the eight species as a result
of future threats. After assessing the best available information, we
conclude that the eight cave beetle species (i.e., Hupp's Hill,
Hubbard's, overlooked, Shenandoah, Little Kennedy, Holsinger's,
Hubricht's, and silken cave beetles) are not likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all of their
ranges.
We also evaluated whether the Hupp's Hill, Hubbard's, overlooked,
Shenandoah, Little Kennedy, Holsinger's, Hubricht's, and silken cave
beetles are endangered or threatened in a significant portion of their
ranges. We did not find any portions of the Hupp's Hill, Hubbard's,
overlooked, Shenandoah, Little Kennedy, Holsinger's, Hubricht's, and
silken cave beetles ranges 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 Hupp's
Hill, Hubbard's, overlooked, Shenandoah, Little Kennedy, Holsinger's,
Hubricht's, and silken cave beetles are not in danger of extinction in
a significant portion of their ranges now, or within the foreseeable
future.
After assessing the best available information, we conclude that
Hupp's Hill, Hubbard's, overlooked, Shenandoah, Little Kennedy,
Holsinger's, Hubricht's, and silken cave beetles are not in danger of
extinction now or likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout all of their ranges or in any significant
portion of their ranges. Therefore, we find that listing the eight cave
beetle species as endangered species or threatened species under the
Act is not warranted. For each beetle species, a detailed discussion of
the basis for this finding can be found in the species assessment form
and other supporting documents, which are available on https://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (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 SSA report for the eight cave
beetle species. The Service sent the SSA report to six independent peer
reviewers and received one response. Results of this structured peer
review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under the
appropriate docket number (see ADDRESSES, above). We incorporated the
results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which is
the foundation for this finding.
Pinale[ntilde]o Talussnail and San Xavier Talussnail
Previous Federal Actions
On June 25, 2007, the Service received a petition from Forest
Guardians (i.e., WildEarth Guardians) requesting that we list 475
species, including the Pinale[ntilde]o talussnail and the San Xavier
talussnail, 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. In a July 11, 2007, letter to the petitioner, the Service
acknowledged receipt of the petition and stated that the petition was
under review by staff in the Southwest Regional Office. On December 16,
2009, the Service published a partial 90[hyphen]day finding for 192 of
the species (74 FR 66866); that finding stated that the petition
presented substantial scientific information indicating that listing
may be warranted for 67 of the 192 species, including the
Pinale[ntilde]o talussnail and the San Xavier talussnail.
Summary of Finding
The Pinale[ntilde]o talussnail and San Xavier talussnail are land
snails endemic to southeastern Arizona that reside on rocky hillsides,
rocky washes, and talus slopes. The Pinale[ntilde]o talussnail occurs
in the Pinale[ntilde]o Mountains on the Coronado National Forest within
an estimated 25 square miles (64.7 square kilometers) of potentially
suitable habitat. The San Xavier talussnail is restricted to the
northwestern slope of White Hill in the Sonoran Desert with an
approximate range of 1.08 acres (0.44 hectares) on private land.
Both species require interstitial spaces in the talus for
estivation (dormancy); dense vegetation and canopy cover; available
food sources of fungus, lichen, decaying plant matter, and young green
shoots; and adequate moisture. An adequate level of moisture is needed
for the talussnails' active periods when they carry out their necessary
life-history processes, as well as to support suitable habitat. An
adequate level of moisture occurs when weather conditions fall within
appropriate ranges of temperature, precipitation, relative humidity,
and evaporation deficit. Individuals spend most of their time in
estivation to avoid drying out or freezing during unfavorable
conditions. The primary environmental influences are climate change and
drought for both species, as well as wildfire and erosion for the
Pinale[ntilde]o talussnail.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Pinale[ntilde]o talussnail and San Xavier talussnail, 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
Pinale[ntilde]o talussnail's status include
[[Page 88039]]
drought and impacts from climate change, erosion, and wildfire.
Population resiliency is dependent on a variety of climate conditions
that influence talussnail active period, habitat quality, and habitat
quantity. Our assessment used weather parameters to evaluate the
talussnails' resiliency (e.g., high, moderate, or low condition) based
on the requirements of active periods (i.e., mean daily maximum
temperature, mean annual precipitation, mean daily maximum relative
humidity), habitat quality (i.e., mean annual evaporation deficit), and
habitat quantity (i.e., mean annual temperature change). Our results
indicate that the weather parameters assessed are currently fully
supportive of talussnail life history requirements; therefore, the
overall current condition of Pinale[ntilde]o talussnail population
resiliency is assessed as ``high condition.'' The species' life history
indicates that the species is adapted to variable environmental
conditions by spending most of its time in estivation to avoid
desiccation or freezing during unfavorable conditions. Surveys effort
indicated that land snail abundance estimates were unchanged due to a
recent fire, and fuel reduction activities are ongoing. Thus, after
assessing the best available information, we conclude that the
Pinale[ntilde]o talussnail is not in danger of extinction throughout
all of its range.
Climate change impacts to mean maximum relative humidity and mean
temperature change for the Pinale[ntilde]o talussnail are expected in
50-year future scenarios. However, the changes are expected to be very
small and are not expected to decrease the viability of the species
such that the species is in danger of extinction within the foreseeable
future. The species' life history allows it to rebound after fires and
other historical catastrophic events like mega droughts. Additionally,
all historical habitat for the species remains intact, and there is no
loss of range to date. Although there is some potential for climate
effects in the 50-year timeframe, these effects are not substantial
enough to substantially decrease habitat conditions for the species and
result in the species being in danger of extinction. After assessing
the best available information, we conclude that the Pinale[ntilde]o
talussnail is not likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range.
The primary threats affecting San Xavier talussnail's biological
status include drought and impacts from climate change. The San Xavier
talussnail's current population resiliency is on the border between
moderate and high condition. Habitat is intact, is connected, and does
not have any development or land-use changes nearby that would alter
the habitat conditions at these sites, thereby contributing to the
conservation of habitat quality into the future. The species' life
history indicates that the species is adapted to variable environmental
conditions by spending most of its time in estivation to avoid
desiccation or freezing during unfavorable conditions. The most likely
catastrophic event for the San Xavier talussnail would be the loss of
interstitial spaces in occupied talus habitats, but this is unlikely
due to conservation commitments in the ``2018 Strategic Conservation
Plan for the San Xavier Talussnail in Pima, Arizona.'' Thus, after
assessing the best available information, we conclude that the San
Xavier talussnail is not in danger of extinction throughout all of its
range.
Climate change impacts to mean maximum temperature and mean
temperature change for the San Xavier talussnail are expected in 50-
year future scenarios. However, the changes are expected to be very
small and are not expected to decrease the viability of the species
such that the species is in danger of extinction within the foreseeable
future. The species' life history allows it to rebound after fires and
other historical catastrophic events like mega droughts. Additionally,
all historical habitat for the species remains intact, and there is no
loss of range to date. Although there is some potential for climate
effects in the 50-year timeframe, these effects are not substantial
enough to substantially decrease habitat conditions for the species and
result in the species being in danger of extinction. After assessing
the best available information, we conclude that the San Xavier
talussnail is not likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range.
We also evaluated whether the Pinale[ntilde]o talussnail and the
San Xavier talussnail are endangered or threatened in a significant
portion of their range. We did not find any portions of the
Pinale[ntilde]o talussnail and the San Xavier talussnail ranges 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 Pinale[ntilde]o talussnail and the
San Xavier talussnail are not in danger of extinction in a significant
portion of their ranges now, or within the foreseeable future.
After assessing the best available information, we conclude that
the Pinale[ntilde]o talussnail and the San Xavier talussnail are not in
danger of extinction now or likely to become in danger of extinction
within the foreseeable future throughout all of their ranges or in any
significant portion of their ranges. Therefore, we find that listing
the Pinale[ntilde]o talussnail and the San Xavier talussnail as
endangered species or threatened species under the Act is not
warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be
found in the Pinale[ntilde]o talussnail and the San Xavier talussnail
species assessment form and other supporting documents on https://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (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 Pinale[ntilde]o talussnail and the
San Xavier talussnail SSA report. The Service sent the SSA report to
eight independent peer reviewers and received six responses. Results of
this structured peer review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket Nos. FWS-R2-ES-2023-0241 and FWS-R2-
ES-2023-0242. 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
Holsinger's cave beetle, Hubbard's cave beetle, Hubricht's cave beetle,
Hupp's Hill cave beetle, Little Kennedy cave beetle, overlooked cave
beetle, Pinale[ntilde]o talussnail, San Xavier talussnail, Shenandoah
cave beetle, or silken cave beetle 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
[[Page 88040]]
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.
Signing Authority
Martha Williams, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
approved this action on December 7, 2023, for publication. On December
7, 2023, Martha Williams authorized the undersigned to sign the
document electronically and submit it to the Office of the Federal
Register for publication as an official document of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
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.).
Madonna Baucum,
Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of Policy, Economics, Risk
Management, and Analytics of the Joint Administrative Operations, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-27966 Filed 12-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
