Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Three Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species, 25559-25564 [2025-10777]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 17, 2025 / Proposed Rules
§ 17.11
[Amended]
2. In 17.11, in paragraph (h), amend
the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife under FISHES by removing the
entry for ‘‘Chub, Gila’’.
■
§ 17.95
[Amended]
3. In § 17.95, amend paragraph (e) by
removing the entry for ‘‘Gila Chub (Gila
intermedia)’’.
■
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.
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
bog spicebush ...........
James Austin, Field
Office Supervisor,
Mississippi Ecological Services Field
Office, 601–540–
2576, james_austin@fws.gov.
Karen Myers, Field
Supervisor, Austin
Ecological Services
Field Office, 512–
937–7371, karen_
myers@fws.gov.
Catherine Yeargan,
Project Leader,
Texas Coastal and
Central Plains Ecological Services
Field Office, 512–
363–6862, catherine_yeargan@
fws.gov.
[FR Doc. 2025–10785 Filed 6–16–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
Edwards Aquifer diving beetle.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Texas screwstem ......
[FXES1111090FEDR–256–FF09E21000]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Three Species Not
Warranted for Listing as Endangered
or Threatened Species
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notification of findings.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce
findings that three species are not
warranted for listing as endangered or
threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). After a thorough review
of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we find that it
is not warranted at this time to list the
bog spicebush (Lindera subcoriacea),
Edward’s Aquifer diving beetle
(Haideoporus texanus), and Texas
screwstem (Bartonia paniculata ssp.
texana). 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 June 17, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Detailed descriptions of the
bases for these findings are available on
the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov under the
following docket numbers:
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
Species
Docket No.
bog spicebush .............
Edwards Aquifer diving
beetle .......................
Texas screwstem ........
VerDate Sep<11>2014
FWS–R4–ES–2024–0104
FWS–R2–ES–2024–0105
FWS–R2–ES–2024–0109
17:09 Jun 16, 2025
Jkt 265001
Individuals in the United States who
are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or
have a speech disability may dial 711
(TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services.
Individuals outside the United States
should use the relay services offered
within their country to make
international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we are required to
make a finding on whether or not a
petitioned action is warranted within 12
months after receiving any petition that
we have determined contains
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted
(‘‘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
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25559
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 an ‘‘endangered species’’ as
a species that is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as
a species that is likely to become an
endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The Act
requires that we determine whether any
species is an endangered species or a
threatened species because of any of the
following 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
species’ expected response and the
effects of the threats—in light of those
E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM
17JNP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
25560
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 17, 2025 / Proposed Rules
actions and conditions that will
ameliorate the threats—on an
individual, population, and species
level. We evaluate each threat and its
expected effects on the species, then
analyze the cumulative effect of all of
the threats on the species as a whole.
We also consider the cumulative effect
of the threats in light of those actions
and conditions that will have positive
effects on the species, such as any
existing regulatory mechanisms or
conservation efforts. The Secretary
determines whether the species meets
the definition of an ‘‘endangered
species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only
after conducting this cumulative
analysis and describing the expected
effect on the species.
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 which is
further described in the 2009
Memorandum Opinion on the
foreseeable future from the Department
of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor
(M–37021, January 16, 2009; ‘‘MOpinion,’’ available online at https://
www.doi.gov/sites/
doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/
uploads/M-37021.pdf). The foreseeable
future extends as far into the future as
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
National Marine Fisheries Service can
make reasonably reliable predictions
about the threats to the species and the
species’ responses to those threats. We
need not identify the foreseeable future
in terms of a specific period of time. We
will describe the foreseeable future on a
case-by-case basis, using the best
available data and taking into account
considerations such as the species’ lifehistory characteristics, threat projection
timeframes, and environmental
variability. In other words, the
foreseeable future is the period of time
over which we can make reasonably
reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not
mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to
provide a reasonable degree of
confidence in the prediction, in light of
the conservation purposes of the Act.
In conducting our evaluation of the
five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of
the Act to determine whether the bog
spicebush, Edward’s Aquifer diving
beetle, and Texas screwstem meet the
Act’s definition of an ‘‘endangered
species’’ or a ‘‘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 petition, information
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Jun 16, 2025
Jkt 265001
available in our files, and other
available published and unpublished
information for the 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 the three 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. Below, we
describe the documents containing
these analyses.
The species assessment forms for the
bog spicebush, Edward’s Aquifer diving
beetle, and Texas screwstem each
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 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).
Bog Spicebush
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
species, including the bog spicebush, as
an endangered or threatened species
under the Act. On September 27, 2011,
we published a 90-day finding in the
Federal Register (76 FR 59836)
concluding that the petition presented
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing may
be warranted for the bog spicebush. This
document constitutes our 12-month
finding on the April 20, 2010, petition
to list bog spicebush under the Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Summary of Finding
Bog spicebush is a wetland shrub
endemic to the southeastern United
States, including the States of Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
South Carolina, and North Carolina. The
species’ current distribution is not
substantively reduced from its known
historical distribution. Bog spicebush
occurs in two general wetland habitats
including seepage slopes with frequent
fire, and in swamp forests and baygalls
(or bay swamps) with less frequent fire.
These habitat types are typically
embedded within other upland forest
ecosystems. Bog spicebush requires
soils that are saturated but not
permanently inundated. These soils are
acidic and high in organic matter (e.g.,
peaty, or other mucky soils). The
wetlands where bog spicebush occurs
are situated in landscapes that
experience frequent fire that acts to
reduce woody competition.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to bog spicebush, and
we evaluated all relevant factors under
the Act’s five listing factors, including
any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these
threats. The primary threats affecting
the bog spicebush’s biological status
include habitat loss or modification due
to urbanization and fire suppression, as
well as the future changes to hydrologic
regimes, habitat condition, disease, and
insect herbivory of this shrub, the latter
of which would potentially result from
increasing temperatures and subsequent
increases in survival and reproduction
of insect herbivores. We also examined
other factors including the effects of
laurel wilt disease, invasive species,
mineral and materials extraction,
silviculture, seed predation, and the
effects of small, isolated populations,
but these factors did not rise to such a
level that they affected the species as a
whole.
There are several historical and
ongoing stressors to the species.
However, the best available information
indicates that the current distribution of
the species is not substantively reduced
from its known historical distribution.
Habitat loss and modification due to
urbanization and fire suppression is the
primary factor influencing the species
rangewide. The species is known from
123 populations historically with 9
documented extirpations distributed
across 5 States, including the only
known population in Louisiana. Of the
114 assessed populations, 19 (16.7
percent) exhibit high current resiliency
and 76 (66.7 percent) exhibit moderate
E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM
17JNP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 17, 2025 / Proposed Rules
current resiliency, with multiple high
and moderately resilient populations
distributed across the 6 States and 3
ecoregions it occupies in the
southeastern United States, providing
good species’ redundancy. In addition,
84 of the 114 populations (74 percent)
occur on conservation lands where
protection from development and some
level of habitat management is expected,
and of these populations, more than 95
percent (80 of the 84 populations) have
high or moderate current resiliency.
Overall, the majority of populations
have the ability to withstand stochastic
events. Additionally, current
representation may be slightly reduced
from historical due to loss of nine
extirpated populations. However, it is
currently moderate and sufficient to
support species’ viability. To date, the
best available information indicates that
the threats to the bog spicebush have
not significantly affected viability. The
SSA report describes uncertainties
regarding potential threats and the
species’ response to these potential
threats, but the best available
information indicates the risk of
extinction is low. Therefore, we
conclude that the bog spicebush is not
in danger of extinction throughout all of
its range. Thus, we proceed with
determining whether the species is
likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its
range.
The future scenarios through 2075 in
the SSA report encompass the best
available information for future
projections of changes in suitable burn
window, changes in forest and wetland
land cover classes, and how the
geospatial aspects of a population area
may provide some protection against
changing environmental conditions
across two plausible future scenarios
(high and low impact). We projected
that more than half of bog spicebush
populations (66 to 70 populations; 57.9
to 61.4 percent) are projected to remain
moderately to highly resilient, even
under the higher impact scenario in
2075. These high and moderate
resiliency populations are expected to
have the ability to withstand stochastic
events. Under each scenario, high and
moderate resiliency populations are
distributed across the range of the
species except for the 10 populations in
Alabama (7 populations) and Georgia (3
populations). Of the populations on
conservation lands, between 73.8 and
76.2 percent are projected to exhibit
moderate to high resiliency in the
foreseeable future. However,
populations not on conservation lands
are projected to decline in resiliency,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Jun 16, 2025
Jkt 265001
with between 24 and 26 of 30
populations projected to exhibit low
resiliency. The future redundancy of the
bog spicebush is expected to decrease
somewhat as the resiliency of some
populations declines. However,
populations with moderate to high
resiliency are projected to be distributed
across the range of the species under
both future scenarios and timesteps. We
expect that future redundancy of the bog
spicebush, although decreased from
current levels, will remain sufficient to
support species’ viability. Therefore,
after assessing the best available
information, we conclude that the bog
spicebush is not likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range.
We also evaluated whether the bog
spicebush is endangered or threatened
in a significant portion of its range. We
did not find any portions of the bog
spicebush’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 bog spicebush 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 bog
spicebush 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 bog
spicebush 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
bog spicebush species assessment form
and other supporting documents on
https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2024–0104
(see ADDRESSES, above).
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on
peer review published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270),
and our August 22, 2016, memorandum
updating and clarifying the role of peer
review in listing actions under the Act,
we solicited independent scientific
reviews of the information contained in
the bog spicebush SSA report. We sent
the SSA report to four independent peer
reviewers and received one response.
Results of this structured peer review
process can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2024–0104 and https://
www.fws.gov/office/mississippiecological-services/library. We
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25561
incorporated the results of these
reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA
report, which is the foundation for this
finding.
Edwards Aquifer Diving Beetle
Previous Federal Actions
On June 25, 2007, we received a
petition from Forest Guardians (now
WildEarth Guardians) to list 475
species, including the Edwards Aquifer
diving beetle, as endangered or
threatened species under the Act. On
December 16, 2009, we published a
90-day finding (74 FR 66866) that the
petition presented substantial scientific
information indicating that listing may
be warranted for the Edwards Aquifer
diving beetle. This document
constitutes our 12-month finding on the
June 25, 2007, petition to list Edwards
Aquifer diving beetle under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The Edwards Aquifer diving beetle
(also referred to as the Texas cave diving
beetle) is a small subterranean aquatic
insect that lives underground in the
southern segment of the Edwards
Aquifer. The diving beetle has been
expelled from four artesian wells and
springs at two of the largest spring
ecosystems in this segment: San Marcos
Springs in Hays County, Texas, and
Comal Springs in Comal County, Texas.
The species exhibits subterranean
morphological traits, feeds on resources
found at deeper levels within the
Edwards Aquifer near the freshwater/
saline-water interface, and is
infrequently captured compared to other
subterranean taxa and congener species.
The best available information suggests
the species inhabits deeper aquifer
habitat (as opposed to hyporheic zone,
springs, or surface habitats). The
presence of diving beetles expelled from
the San Marcos artesian well, which
reaches depths of 60 meters (197 feet),
suggests that their habitat extends to at
least this depth, if not deeper.
Aquifer habitats are characterized by
the absence of light and relatively stable
physiochemical properties, and they can
be buffered against abrupt changes,
depending on their distance from
surface and the amount of terrestrial
inputs. The Edwards Aquifer is
recognized for its unique biodiversity in
part explained by the abundant energy
sources supported through
chemolithoautotrophy (i.e., a process
when microorganisms convert inorganic
compounds into energy) at the
freshwater/saline water interface.
Interstitial pore spaces serve as
microhabitats for subterranean
invertebrates, and thus the sizes of the
E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM
17JNP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
25562
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 17, 2025 / Proposed Rules
pore space select for smaller and more
elongated invertebrates with certain
physiological characteristics. The diving
beetle is highly specialized to navigate
these passageways and, having no
wings, may be isolated in subterranean
waters where movement is restricted by
geologic barriers, such as faults. The
diving beetle has never been directly
observed in its natural subterranean
habitat due to limitations in
accessibility of these habitats to
humans. The best available information
does not currently indicate the size and
range of preferred water-filled void
spaces, nor the preferred water quality.
Edwards Aquifer diving beetles are
opportunistically predaceous and are
primary consumers. The food sources
for the Edwards Aquifer diving beetle
vary between the populations from the
two spring ecosystems, with San Marcos
Springs and Comal Springs individuals
having 92 percent and 27 percent,
respectively, of their stomach contents
from chemolithoautotrophic organic
matter. We assume this difference in
what the diving beetles in each of these
populations consume is influenced by
where they live. The population at San
Marcos Springs is underground in the
artesian zone where a more impervious
rock layer separates the surface from the
groundwater habitat. This physical
separation makes the San Marcos Spring
population less likely to access food
from the surface. The population at
Comal Springs is in the recharge zone of
the aquifer, where the less impervious
rocks at the surface are exposed and
would introduce surface-derived food
resources more readily.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the Edwards
Aquifer diving beetle, and we evaluated
all relevant factors under the Act’s five
listing factors, including any regulatory
mechanisms and conservation measures
addressing these threats. The primary
threats to the Edwards Aquifer diving
beetle’s biological status that we
evaluated include reductions in water
quantity through groundwater pumping
and development, water quality, effects
of extreme droughts and increased
temperatures, 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 project a
negative impact from environmental or
anthropogenic factors directly to
Edwards Aquifer diving beetle
populations, nor does the best available
information indicate a change to historic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Jun 16, 2025
Jkt 265001
demographic factors. The primary
driving factors of Edwards Aquifer
diving beetle’s viability are water
quantity (i.e., groundwater pumping and
development) and water quality (i.e.,
development and impervious cover).
The Edwards Aquifer diving beetle has
survived significant drought periods
(including the drought of record), and
despite the ongoing threats, the
population has been regularly observed
since its initial discovery half a century
ago. Groundwater volume extracted
from the aquifer has reduced since 2008.
The best available information does not
indicate that groundwater quantity is
impacting the species, and it is not
expected to become a stressor because of
Texas State legislation and current
conservation measures (i.e., the
Edwards Aquifer Authority Act and the
associated habitat conservation plan).
The absence of long-term declines in
aquifer levels suggests that suitable
habitat, in terms of water quantity, for
the diving beetle has experienced little
change from historical conditions and
has not declined. It is also unlikely that
widespread loss or degradation of waterfilled subterranean spaces has occurred
due to reduced recharge and
groundwater pumping. Flow protection
measures have sustained the Comal and
San Marcos Spring ecosystems during
drought and have provided protection
for water levels in deeper portions of the
southern segment.
Additionally, the best available
information does not indicate that any
groundwater contamination is affecting
the Edwards Aquifer diving beetle. Past
and current urbanization and human
population growth have not resulted in
significant degradation in water quality
at the Comal and San Marcos Spring
systems. Despite increases in localized
impervious cover, most of the
groundwater comes from a much larger
regional area that is currently less
developed and less impacted by
contamination.
Finally, direct mortality through
expulsion from groundwater wells is
occurring, but the best available
information available indicates that
expulsion of individuals via wells are
infrequent, and the species’ likely high
reproductive rate results in this level of
mortality being unlikely to affect the
population’s current resiliency. Thus,
after assessing the best available
information, we conclude that the
Edwards aquifer diving beetle is not in
danger of extinction throughout all of its
range.
The primary driving factors on the
Edwards Aquifer diving beetle
populations’ future viability are water
quality (i.e., development and
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
impervious cover) and water quantity
(i.e., groundwater pumping and
development). Increases in development
in the areas of influence would lead to
increases in impervious cover, altered
recharge rates, and degraded water
quality. The lands directly above
Edwards Aquifer diving beetle habitat
are already developed, although future
developments may occur in the areas of
influence in the recharge and
contributing zones that impact
groundwater quantity and quality.
Projections indicate that the human
populations of Bexar, Comal, Hays, and
Kendall Counties, Texas, will continue
to increase over the next three decades.
Land-use projections indicate the
potential for increases in impervious
cover that could degrade water quality
and lower recharge capacity for the
southern segment of the aquifer. The
best available information does not
indicate projected levels of impervious
cover will affect groundwater quality to
a level that it would become unsuitable
for the Edwards Aquifer diving beetle.
Water quantity is expected to remain
sufficient for the Edwards Aquifer
diving beetle. At the depths at which
this species occurs in the aquifer, future
groundwater extraction and changes in
precipitation events are not expected to
have significant effects on the species’
habitat. Flow protection measures have
sustained Comal and San Marcos Spring
ecosystems during drought and provide
protection for water levels in deeper
portions of the southern segment. There
is no evidence indicating any threat to
the Edwards Aquifer diving beetle
under current groundwater management
implementation, and if current
management of the southern segment
continues into the future, aquifer levels
should not decline to a level where
Edwards Aquifer diving beetle habitat
would be affected.
Thus, the best available information
does not project a negative impact from
environmental or anthropogenic factors
directly to the known Edwards Aquifer
diving beetle population, nor is there
evidence indicating a negative change to
demographic factors historically. We
expect that resiliency, redundancy, and
representation of the species will be
maintained into the foreseeable future.
After assessing the best available
information, we conclude that the
Edwards Aquifer diving beetle is not
likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its
range.
We also evaluated whether the
Edwards Aquifer diving beetle is
endangered or threatened in a
significant portion of its range. We did
not find any portions of the Edwards
E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM
17JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 17, 2025 / Proposed Rules
Aquifer diving beetle’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 Edwards Aquifer
diving beetle 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
Edwards Aquifer diving beetle 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
Edwards Aquifer diving beetle as an
endangered species or threatened
species under the Act is not warranted.
A detailed discussion of the basis for
this finding can be found in the
Edwards Aquifer diving beetle species
assessment form and other supporting
documents on https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R2–ES–2024–0105 (see
ADDRESSES, above).
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on
peer review published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270)
and our August 22, 2016, memorandum
updating and clarifying the role of peer
review in the listing actions under the
Act, we solicited independent scientific
reviews of the information contained in
the Edwards Aquifer diving beetle SSA
report. We sent the SSA report to three
independent peer reviewers and
received one response. Results of this
structured peer review process can be
found at https://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2024–
0105. We incorporated the results of
these reviews, as appropriate, into the
SSA report, which is the foundation for
this finding.
Texas Screwstem
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
species, including Texas screwstem, as
an endangered or threatened species
under the Act. On September 27, 2011,
we published a 90-day finding in the
Federal Register (76 FR 59836)
concluding that the petition presented
substantial scientific information
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Jun 16, 2025
Jkt 265001
indicating that listing may be warranted
for the Texas screwstem. This document
constitutes our 12-month finding on the
April 20, 2010, petition to list the Texas
screwstem under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The Texas screwstem is a small and
inconspicuous plant, usually growing
less than 30 centimeters (12 inches) in
height. It is native to the Pineywoods
region of east Texas with a single
occurrence in Louisiana. The species
has been documented in 24 locations
since it was first described in 1965.
Since 2010, it has been observed in 12
of those locations, all occurring in seven
counties in east Texas.
The Texas screwstem is a habitat
specialist, dependent on the unique
baygall habitat (i.e., wetlands with peat
substrates at slopes maintained by
downslope) see page found within the
broader Texas Pineywoods region. It
does not appear to be restricted to
specific soil types, climate regimes, or
geological substrates, indicating that
baygall habitat is the key driver of
species presence. Sufficient habitat
includes proper hydrology and cooccurring plant communities that create
the microhabitats associated with the
Texas screwstem.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the Texas
screwstem, and we evaluated all
relevant factors under the Act’s five
listing factors, including any regulatory
mechanisms and conservation measures
addressing these threats. The primary
threats affecting the Texas screwstem’s
biological status include habitat loss
and degradation due to human
development, timber harvest, and
invasive species; direct damage from
invasive hogs; and severe weather
events, including hurricanes. In east
Texas, human activity and development
has resulted in the loss and degradation
of wetlands, including the baygall
habitats on which the Texas screwstem
is dependent. There are conservation
measures that may limit the effects of
human development on the Texas
screwstem, such as the occurrence of
more than half of the populations on
federally owned lands or privately
owned lands that are managed for
conservation. Other threats, such as
feral hog damage and severe weather
events, are the most pervasive threats
across the range and can reduce the
resiliency of populations by directly
impacting individual Texas screwstem
plants or their habitats.
In our analysis of the species and its
threats, we found that the Texas
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25563
screwstem is known from 24 historical
populations, 12 of which have had
detections in recent surveys. At least 1
population is extirpated, and another 10
currently have low resiliency, making
them vulnerable to stochastic events.
However, 11 populations have high
resiliency, meaning they have sufficient
habitat and demographic characteristics
that facilitate persistence. As a narrowly
distributed habitat specialist, the Texas
screwstem likely had limited
redundancy and representation
historically. Populations are also found
in two of the three ecoregions in which
the species historically occurred.
However, populations are distributed
across three separate hydrological
basins, with at least two high resiliency
populations in each basin. The presence
of multiple populations across most of
the historical range and several
hydrological basins buffers the Texas
screwstem against the potential effects
of catastrophic events. These
populations continue to be distributed
across several ecoregions and most of
the historical extent of the species’
range, indicating limited declines in
adaptive capacity. Overall, the Texas
screwstem is composed of multiple high
resiliency populations that cover much
of the historical range of the species,
conferring redundancy and
representation. Thus, after assessing the
best available information, we conclude
that the Texas screwstem is not in
danger of extinction throughout all of its
range.
We project that populations currently
in low resiliency will become
extirpated. Loss of these populations
will result in reductions in redundancy
and representation. However,
populations currently in high resiliency
are projected to remain in that condition
in the future. Of the 11 currently highly
resilient populations, in the worst-case
scenario, 6 populations are projected to
continue to remain highly resilient, and
4 populations are projected to decline to
moderate resiliency. Thus, we do not
project that there will be reductions in
resiliency that would result in
rangewide population extirpations.
These populations will continue to
occur across several hydrological basins
and ecoregions, covering much of the
historical range. Therefore, we do not
project that there will be substantial
declines in redundancy and
representation that would elevate
extinction risk. In total, based on our
analysis of the threats that may reduce
the viability of the Texas screwstem, we
find that the biological status of the
species is not projected to change
substantially in the foreseeable future.
E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM
17JNP1
25564
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 17, 2025 / Proposed Rules
After assessing the best available
information, we conclude that the Texas
screwstem is not likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range.
We also evaluated whether the Texas
screwstem is endangered or threatened
in a significant portion of its range. We
did not find any portions of the Texas
screwstem’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 Texas screwstem 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
Texas screwstem 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
screwstem 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 screwstem species assessment
form and other supporting documents
on https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2024–0109
(see ADDRESSES, above).
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on
peer review published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270)
and our August 22, 2016, memorandum
updating and clarifying the role of peer
review in the listing actions under the
Act, we solicited independent scientific
reviews of the information contained in
the Texas screwstem SSA report. We
sent the SSA report to four independent
peer reviewers and received four
responses. Results of this structured
peer review process can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2024–0109.
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 bog spicebush, Edward’s
Aquifer diving beetle, and Texas
screwstem to the appropriate person, as
specified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, whenever it
becomes available. New information
will help us monitor these species and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Jun 16, 2025
Jkt 265001
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).
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.).
Signing Authority
Paul Souza, Regional Director, Region
8, Exercising the Delegated Authority of
the Director of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, approved this action
on May 16, 2025, for publication. On
June 9, 2025, Paul Souza 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.
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. 2025–10777 Filed 6–16–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0028;
FXES1111090FEDR–256–FF09E22000]
RIN 1018–BI11
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Seven Species of Pangolin
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list seven species of pangolin
distributed throughout Asia and Africa
as endangered under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
This determination also serves as our
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12-month finding on a petition to list
these species. After a review of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we find that listing these
species is warranted. Accordingly, we
propose to list the Chinese pangolin
(Manis pentadactyla), Indian pangolin
(Manis crassicaudata), Sunda pangolin
(Manis javanica), Philippine pangolin
(Manis culionensis), white-bellied
pangolin (Phataginus tricuspis), blackbellied pangolin (Phataginus
tetradactyla) and giant pangolin
(Smutsia gigantea) as endangered
species under the Act. Finalizing this
rule as proposed would add these
species to the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and extend the
Act’s protections to these species. We
also propose to revise the entry for
Temminck’s ground pangolin, which is
listed as an endangered species under
the Act, to reflect the species’ current
common name spelling and to use the
most recently accepted scientific name.
DATES: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
August 18, 2025. Comments submitted
electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES,
below) must be received by 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time on the closing date. We
must receive requests for a public
hearing, in writing, at the address
shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT by August 1, 2025.
You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0028, which
is the docket number for this
rulemaking. Then, click on the Search
button. On the resulting page, in the
panel on the left side of the screen,
under the Document Type heading,
check the Proposed Rule box to locate
this document. You may submit a
comment by clicking on ‘‘Comment.’’
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
to: Public Comments Processing, Attn:
FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0028, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275
Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–
3803.
We request that you send comments
only by the methods described above.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see
Information Requested, below, for more
information).
Availability of supporting materials:
Supporting materials, such as the
species status assessment report, are
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM
17JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 115 (Tuesday, June 17, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25559-25564]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-10777]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FXES1111090FEDR-256-FF09E21000]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Three Species Not
Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notification of findings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce
findings that three species are not warranted for listing as endangered
or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). After a thorough review of the best available scientific
and commercial information, we find that it is not warranted at this
time to list the bog spicebush (Lindera subcoriacea), Edward's Aquifer
diving beetle (Haideoporus texanus), and Texas screwstem (Bartonia
paniculata ssp. texana). 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 June 17, 2025.
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
bog spicebush................................ FWS-R4-ES-2024-0104
Edwards Aquifer diving beetle................ FWS-R2-ES-2024-0105
Texas screwstem.............................. FWS-R2-ES-2024-0109
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
bog spicebush............................. James Austin, Field Office
Supervisor, Mississippi
Ecological Services Field
Office, 601-540-2576,
[email protected].
Edwards Aquifer diving beetle............. Karen Myers, Field
Supervisor, Austin
Ecological Services Field
Office, 512-937-7371,
[email protected].
Texas screwstem........................... Catherine Yeargan, Project
Leader, Texas Coastal and
Central Plains Ecological
Services Field Office, 512-
363-6862,
[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 an ``endangered
species'' as a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range and a ``threatened species'' as a
species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. The Act requires that we determine whether any species is an
endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the
following 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 species' expected response and
the effects of the threats--in light of those
[[Page 25560]]
actions and conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an
individual, population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and
its expected effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect
of all of the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the
cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions and
conditions that will have positive effects on the species, such as any
existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary
determines whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered
species'' or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this
cumulative analysis and describing the expected effect on the species.
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 which is
further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable
future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-
37021, January 16, 2009; ``M-Opinion,'' available online at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf).
The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service can make
reasonably reliable predictions about the threats to the species and
the species' responses to those threats. We need not identify the
foreseeable future in terms of a specific period of time. We will
describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, using the best
available data and taking into account considerations such as the
species' life-history characteristics, threat projection timeframes,
and environmental variability. In other words, the foreseeable future
is the period of time over which we can make reasonably reliable
predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means
sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the
prediction, in light of the conservation purposes of the Act.
In conducting our evaluation of the five factors provided in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether the bog spicebush,
Edward's Aquifer diving beetle, and Texas screwstem meet the Act's
definition of an ``endangered species'' or a ``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 petition, information available in our
files, and other available published and unpublished information for
the 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 the
three 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. Below, we describe the documents containing these analyses.
The species assessment forms for the bog spicebush, Edward's
Aquifer diving beetle, and Texas screwstem each 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 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).
Bog Spicebush
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 species, including
the bog spicebush, as an endangered or threatened species under the
Act. On September 27, 2011, we published a 90-day finding in the
Federal Register (76 FR 59836) concluding that the petition presented
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
listing may be warranted for the bog spicebush. This document
constitutes our 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to
list bog spicebush under the Act.
Summary of Finding
Bog spicebush is a wetland shrub endemic to the southeastern United
States, including the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. The species'
current distribution is not substantively reduced from its known
historical distribution. Bog spicebush occurs in two general wetland
habitats including seepage slopes with frequent fire, and in swamp
forests and baygalls (or bay swamps) with less frequent fire. These
habitat types are typically embedded within other upland forest
ecosystems. Bog spicebush requires soils that are saturated but not
permanently inundated. These soils are acidic and high in organic
matter (e.g., peaty, or other mucky soils). The wetlands where bog
spicebush occurs are situated in landscapes that experience frequent
fire that acts to reduce woody competition.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to bog spicebush, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the Act's
five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these threats. The primary threats
affecting the bog spicebush's biological status include habitat loss or
modification due to urbanization and fire suppression, as well as the
future changes to hydrologic regimes, habitat condition, disease, and
insect herbivory of this shrub, the latter of which would potentially
result from increasing temperatures and subsequent increases in
survival and reproduction of insect herbivores. We also examined other
factors including the effects of laurel wilt disease, invasive species,
mineral and materials extraction, silviculture, seed predation, and the
effects of small, isolated populations, but these factors did not rise
to such a level that they affected the species as a whole.
There are several historical and ongoing stressors to the species.
However, the best available information indicates that the current
distribution of the species is not substantively reduced from its known
historical distribution. Habitat loss and modification due to
urbanization and fire suppression is the primary factor influencing the
species rangewide. The species is known from 123 populations
historically with 9 documented extirpations distributed across 5
States, including the only known population in Louisiana. Of the 114
assessed populations, 19 (16.7 percent) exhibit high current resiliency
and 76 (66.7 percent) exhibit moderate
[[Page 25561]]
current resiliency, with multiple high and moderately resilient
populations distributed across the 6 States and 3 ecoregions it
occupies in the southeastern United States, providing good species'
redundancy. In addition, 84 of the 114 populations (74 percent) occur
on conservation lands where protection from development and some level
of habitat management is expected, and of these populations, more than
95 percent (80 of the 84 populations) have high or moderate current
resiliency. Overall, the majority of populations have the ability to
withstand stochastic events. Additionally, current representation may
be slightly reduced from historical due to loss of nine extirpated
populations. However, it is currently moderate and sufficient to
support species' viability. To date, the best available information
indicates that the threats to the bog spicebush have not significantly
affected viability. The SSA report describes uncertainties regarding
potential threats and the species' response to these potential threats,
but the best available information indicates the risk of extinction is
low. Therefore, we conclude that the bog spicebush is not in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range. Thus, we proceed with
determining whether the species is likely to become endangered within
the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
The future scenarios through 2075 in the SSA report encompass the
best available information for future projections of changes in
suitable burn window, changes in forest and wetland land cover classes,
and how the geospatial aspects of a population area may provide some
protection against changing environmental conditions across two
plausible future scenarios (high and low impact). We projected that
more than half of bog spicebush populations (66 to 70 populations; 57.9
to 61.4 percent) are projected to remain moderately to highly
resilient, even under the higher impact scenario in 2075. These high
and moderate resiliency populations are expected to have the ability to
withstand stochastic events. Under each scenario, high and moderate
resiliency populations are distributed across the range of the species
except for the 10 populations in Alabama (7 populations) and Georgia (3
populations). Of the populations on conservation lands, between 73.8
and 76.2 percent are projected to exhibit moderate to high resiliency
in the foreseeable future. However, populations not on conservation
lands are projected to decline in resiliency, with between 24 and 26 of
30 populations projected to exhibit low resiliency. The future
redundancy of the bog spicebush is expected to decrease somewhat as the
resiliency of some populations declines. However, populations with
moderate to high resiliency are projected to be distributed across the
range of the species under both future scenarios and timesteps. We
expect that future redundancy of the bog spicebush, although decreased
from current levels, will remain sufficient to support species'
viability. Therefore, after assessing the best available information,
we conclude that the bog spicebush is not likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
We also evaluated whether the bog spicebush is endangered or
threatened in a significant portion of its range. We did not find any
portions of the bog spicebush'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 bog
spicebush 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 bog spicebush 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 bog spicebush 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 bog spicebush species
assessment form and other supporting documents on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2024-0104 (see
ADDRESSES, above).
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review in
listing actions under the Act, we solicited independent scientific
reviews of the information contained in the bog spicebush SSA report.
We sent the SSA report to four independent peer reviewers and received
one response. Results of this structured peer review process can be
found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2024-
0104 and https://www.fws.gov/office/mississippi-ecological-services/library. We incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate,
into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this finding.
Edwards Aquifer Diving Beetle
Previous Federal Actions
On June 25, 2007, we received a petition from Forest Guardians (now
WildEarth Guardians) to list 475 species, including the Edwards Aquifer
diving beetle, as endangered or threatened species under the Act. On
December 16, 2009, we published a 90[hyphen]day finding (74 FR 66866)
that the petition presented substantial scientific information
indicating that listing may be warranted for the Edwards Aquifer diving
beetle. This document constitutes our 12-month finding on the June 25,
2007, petition to list Edwards Aquifer diving beetle under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The Edwards Aquifer diving beetle (also referred to as the Texas
cave diving beetle) is a small subterranean aquatic insect that lives
underground in the southern segment of the Edwards Aquifer. The diving
beetle has been expelled from four artesian wells and springs at two of
the largest spring ecosystems in this segment: San Marcos Springs in
Hays County, Texas, and Comal Springs in Comal County, Texas. The
species exhibits subterranean morphological traits, feeds on resources
found at deeper levels within the Edwards Aquifer near the freshwater/
saline-water interface, and is infrequently captured compared to other
subterranean taxa and congener species. The best available information
suggests the species inhabits deeper aquifer habitat (as opposed to
hyporheic zone, springs, or surface habitats). The presence of diving
beetles expelled from the San Marcos artesian well, which reaches
depths of 60 meters (197 feet), suggests that their habitat extends to
at least this depth, if not deeper.
Aquifer habitats are characterized by the absence of light and
relatively stable physiochemical properties, and they can be buffered
against abrupt changes, depending on their distance from surface and
the amount of terrestrial inputs. The Edwards Aquifer is recognized for
its unique biodiversity in part explained by the abundant energy
sources supported through chemolithoautotrophy (i.e., a process when
microorganisms convert inorganic compounds into energy) at the
freshwater/saline water interface. Interstitial pore spaces serve as
microhabitats for subterranean invertebrates, and thus the sizes of the
[[Page 25562]]
pore space select for smaller and more elongated invertebrates with
certain physiological characteristics. The diving beetle is highly
specialized to navigate these passageways and, having no wings, may be
isolated in subterranean waters where movement is restricted by
geologic barriers, such as faults. The diving beetle has never been
directly observed in its natural subterranean habitat due to
limitations in accessibility of these habitats to humans. The best
available information does not currently indicate the size and range of
preferred water-filled void spaces, nor the preferred water quality.
Edwards Aquifer diving beetles are opportunistically predaceous and
are primary consumers. The food sources for the Edwards Aquifer diving
beetle vary between the populations from the two spring ecosystems,
with San Marcos Springs and Comal Springs individuals having 92 percent
and 27 percent, respectively, of their stomach contents from
chemolithoautotrophic organic matter. We assume this difference in what
the diving beetles in each of these populations consume is influenced
by where they live. The population at San Marcos Springs is underground
in the artesian zone where a more impervious rock layer separates the
surface from the groundwater habitat. This physical separation makes
the San Marcos Spring population less likely to access food from the
surface. The population at Comal Springs is in the recharge zone of the
aquifer, where the less impervious rocks at the surface are exposed and
would introduce surface-derived food resources more readily.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Edwards Aquifer diving beetle, and we evaluated all relevant
factors under the Act's five listing factors, including any regulatory
mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these threats. The
primary threats to the Edwards Aquifer diving beetle's biological
status that we evaluated include reductions in water quantity through
groundwater pumping and development, water quality, effects of extreme
droughts and increased temperatures, 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 project
a negative impact from environmental or anthropogenic factors directly
to Edwards Aquifer diving beetle populations, nor does the best
available information indicate a change to historic demographic
factors. The primary driving factors of Edwards Aquifer diving beetle's
viability are water quantity (i.e., groundwater pumping and
development) and water quality (i.e., development and impervious
cover). The Edwards Aquifer diving beetle has survived significant
drought periods (including the drought of record), and despite the
ongoing threats, the population has been regularly observed since its
initial discovery half a century ago. Groundwater volume extracted from
the aquifer has reduced since 2008. The best available information does
not indicate that groundwater quantity is impacting the species, and it
is not expected to become a stressor because of Texas State legislation
and current conservation measures (i.e., the Edwards Aquifer Authority
Act and the associated habitat conservation plan). The absence of long-
term declines in aquifer levels suggests that suitable habitat, in
terms of water quantity, for the diving beetle has experienced little
change from historical conditions and has not declined. It is also
unlikely that widespread loss or degradation of water-filled
subterranean spaces has occurred due to reduced recharge and
groundwater pumping. Flow protection measures have sustained the Comal
and San Marcos Spring ecosystems during drought and have provided
protection for water levels in deeper portions of the southern segment.
Additionally, the best available information does not indicate that
any groundwater contamination is affecting the Edwards Aquifer diving
beetle. Past and current urbanization and human population growth have
not resulted in significant degradation in water quality at the Comal
and San Marcos Spring systems. Despite increases in localized
impervious cover, most of the groundwater comes from a much larger
regional area that is currently less developed and less impacted by
contamination.
Finally, direct mortality through expulsion from groundwater wells
is occurring, but the best available information available indicates
that expulsion of individuals via wells are infrequent, and the
species' likely high reproductive rate results in this level of
mortality being unlikely to affect the population's current resiliency.
Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude that
the Edwards aquifer diving beetle is not in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range.
The primary driving factors on the Edwards Aquifer diving beetle
populations' future viability are water quality (i.e., development and
impervious cover) and water quantity (i.e., groundwater pumping and
development). Increases in development in the areas of influence would
lead to increases in impervious cover, altered recharge rates, and
degraded water quality. The lands directly above Edwards Aquifer diving
beetle habitat are already developed, although future developments may
occur in the areas of influence in the recharge and contributing zones
that impact groundwater quantity and quality. Projections indicate that
the human populations of Bexar, Comal, Hays, and Kendall Counties,
Texas, will continue to increase over the next three decades. Land-use
projections indicate the potential for increases in impervious cover
that could degrade water quality and lower recharge capacity for the
southern segment of the aquifer. The best available information does
not indicate projected levels of impervious cover will affect
groundwater quality to a level that it would become unsuitable for the
Edwards Aquifer diving beetle.
Water quantity is expected to remain sufficient for the Edwards
Aquifer diving beetle. At the depths at which this species occurs in
the aquifer, future groundwater extraction and changes in precipitation
events are not expected to have significant effects on the species'
habitat. Flow protection measures have sustained Comal and San Marcos
Spring ecosystems during drought and provide protection for water
levels in deeper portions of the southern segment. There is no evidence
indicating any threat to the Edwards Aquifer diving beetle under
current groundwater management implementation, and if current
management of the southern segment continues into the future, aquifer
levels should not decline to a level where Edwards Aquifer diving
beetle habitat would be affected.
Thus, the best available information does not project a negative
impact from environmental or anthropogenic factors directly to the
known Edwards Aquifer diving beetle population, nor is there evidence
indicating a negative change to demographic factors historically. We
expect that resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the species
will be maintained into the foreseeable future. After assessing the
best available information, we conclude that the Edwards Aquifer diving
beetle is not likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range.
We also evaluated whether the Edwards Aquifer diving beetle is
endangered or threatened in a significant portion of its range. We did
not find any portions of the Edwards
[[Page 25563]]
Aquifer diving beetle'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 Edwards
Aquifer diving beetle 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 Edwards Aquifer diving beetle 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 Edwards Aquifer diving beetle as an
endangered species or threatened species under the Act is not
warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be
found in the Edwards Aquifer diving beetle species assessment form and
other supporting documents on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket
No. FWS-R2-ES-2024-0105 (see ADDRESSES, above).
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270) and our August 22, 2016,
memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review in the
listing actions under the Act, we solicited independent scientific
reviews of the information contained in the Edwards Aquifer diving
beetle SSA report. We sent the SSA report to three independent peer
reviewers and received one response. Results of this structured peer
review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket
No. FWS-R2-ES-2024-0105. We incorporated the results of these reviews,
as appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this
finding.
Texas Screwstem
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 species, including
Texas screwstem, as an endangered or threatened species under the Act.
On September 27, 2011, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal
Register (76 FR 59836) concluding that the petition presented
substantial scientific information indicating that listing may be
warranted for the Texas screwstem. This document constitutes our 12-
month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to list the Texas
screwstem under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The Texas screwstem is a small and inconspicuous plant, usually
growing less than 30 centimeters (12 inches) in height. It is native to
the Pineywoods region of east Texas with a single occurrence in
Louisiana. The species has been documented in 24 locations since it was
first described in 1965. Since 2010, it has been observed in 12 of
those locations, all occurring in seven counties in east Texas.
The Texas screwstem is a habitat specialist, dependent on the
unique baygall habitat (i.e., wetlands with peat substrates at slopes
maintained by downslope) see page found within the broader Texas
Pineywoods region. It does not appear to be restricted to specific soil
types, climate regimes, or geological substrates, indicating that
baygall habitat is the key driver of species presence. Sufficient
habitat includes proper hydrology and co-occurring plant communities
that create the microhabitats associated with the Texas screwstem.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Texas screwstem, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the
Act's five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these threats. The primary threats
affecting the Texas screwstem's biological status include habitat loss
and degradation due to human development, timber harvest, and invasive
species; direct damage from invasive hogs; and severe weather events,
including hurricanes. In east Texas, human activity and development has
resulted in the loss and degradation of wetlands, including the baygall
habitats on which the Texas screwstem is dependent. There are
conservation measures that may limit the effects of human development
on the Texas screwstem, such as the occurrence of more than half of the
populations on federally owned lands or privately owned lands that are
managed for conservation. Other threats, such as feral hog damage and
severe weather events, are the most pervasive threats across the range
and can reduce the resiliency of populations by directly impacting
individual Texas screwstem plants or their habitats.
In our analysis of the species and its threats, we found that the
Texas screwstem is known from 24 historical populations, 12 of which
have had detections in recent surveys. At least 1 population is
extirpated, and another 10 currently have low resiliency, making them
vulnerable to stochastic events. However, 11 populations have high
resiliency, meaning they have sufficient habitat and demographic
characteristics that facilitate persistence. As a narrowly distributed
habitat specialist, the Texas screwstem likely had limited redundancy
and representation historically. Populations are also found in two of
the three ecoregions in which the species historically occurred.
However, populations are distributed across three separate hydrological
basins, with at least two high resiliency populations in each basin.
The presence of multiple populations across most of the historical
range and several hydrological basins buffers the Texas screwstem
against the potential effects of catastrophic events. These populations
continue to be distributed across several ecoregions and most of the
historical extent of the species' range, indicating limited declines in
adaptive capacity. Overall, the Texas screwstem is composed of multiple
high resiliency populations that cover much of the historical range of
the species, conferring redundancy and representation. Thus, after
assessing the best available information, we conclude that the Texas
screwstem is not in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
We project that populations currently in low resiliency will become
extirpated. Loss of these populations will result in reductions in
redundancy and representation. However, populations currently in high
resiliency are projected to remain in that condition in the future. Of
the 11 currently highly resilient populations, in the worst-case
scenario, 6 populations are projected to continue to remain highly
resilient, and 4 populations are projected to decline to moderate
resiliency. Thus, we do not project that there will be reductions in
resiliency that would result in rangewide population extirpations.
These populations will continue to occur across several hydrological
basins and ecoregions, covering much of the historical range.
Therefore, we do not project that there will be substantial declines in
redundancy and representation that would elevate extinction risk. In
total, based on our analysis of the threats that may reduce the
viability of the Texas screwstem, we find that the biological status of
the species is not projected to change substantially in the foreseeable
future.
[[Page 25564]]
After assessing the best available information, we conclude that the
Texas screwstem is not likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
We also evaluated whether the Texas screwstem is endangered or
threatened in a significant portion of its range. We did not find any
portions of the Texas screwstem'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 Texas
screwstem 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 Texas screwstem 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 screwstem 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
screwstem species assessment form and other supporting documents on
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2024-0109 (see
ADDRESSES, above).
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270) and our August 22, 2016,
memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review in the
listing actions under the Act, we solicited independent scientific
reviews of the information contained in the Texas screwstem SSA report.
We sent the SSA report to four independent peer reviewers and received
four responses. Results of this structured peer review process can be
found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2024-
0109. 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 bog
spicebush, Edward's Aquifer diving beetle, and Texas screwstem 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).
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.).
Signing Authority
Paul Souza, Regional Director, Region 8, Exercising the Delegated
Authority of the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
approved this action on May 16, 2025, for publication. On June 9, 2025,
Paul Souza 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.
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. 2025-10777 Filed 6-16-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
