[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 6, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40172-40175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14296]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223]
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 evening fieldslug (Deroceras hesperium), Mammoth
Spring crayfish (Faxonius marchandi), and Weber's Whitlow grass (Draba
weberi). 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 July 6, 2022.
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evening fieldslug................ FWS-R1-ES-2022-0058
Mammoth Spring crayfish.......... FWS-R3-ES-2022-0059
Weber's Whitlow grass............ FWS-R6-ES-2022-0060
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evening fieldslug................. Brad Thompson, Field Supervisor,
Washington Fish and Wildlife
Office, [email protected],
(360)-753-9440.
Mammoth Spring crayfish........... Karen Herrington, Field Supervisor,
Missouri Ecological Services Field
Office, [email protected],
(573)-234-2132.
Weber's Whitlow grass............. Ann Timberman, Field Supervisor,
Colorado Field Office,
[email protected], (970)-
ndash;7181.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 40173]]
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 for which 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 (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). The Act
defines ``endangered species'' as any species that is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16
U.S.C. 1532(6)), and ``threatened species'' as any species that is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C.
1532(20)). Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be
determined to be an endangered species or a threatened species because
of any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself. However, the mere
identification of any threat(s) does not necessarily mean that the
species meets the statutory definition of an ``endangered species'' or
a ``threatened species.'' In determining whether a species meets either
definition, we must evaluate all identified threats by considering the
expected response by the species, and the effects of the threats--in
light of those actions and conditions that will ameliorate the
threats--on an individual, population, and species level. We evaluate
each threat and its expected effects on the species, then analyze the
cumulative effect of all of the threats on the species as a whole. We
also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those
actions and conditions that will have positive effects on the species,
such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The
Secretary determines whether the species meets the Act's definition of
an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species'' only after
conducting this cumulative analysis and describing the expected effect
on the species now and in the foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as 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 Mammoth Spring
crayfish meets the Act's definition of ``endangered species'' or
``threatened species,'' we considered and thoroughly evaluated the best
scientific and commercial information available regarding the past,
present, and future stressors and threats. In conducting our evaluation
of the evening fieldslug and Weber's Whitlow grass, we determined that
these species do not meet the definition of a ``species'' under the
Act, and, as a result, we conclude that they are not listable entities.
We reviewed the petitions, information available in our files, and
other available published and unpublished information for all of these
species. Our evaluation may include information from recognized
experts; Federal, State, and Tribal governments; academic institutions;
foreign governments; private entities; and other members of the public.
The species assessment form for the Mammoth Springs crayfish
contains more detailed biological information, a thorough analysis of
the listing factors, a list of literature cited, and an explanation of
why we determined that this species does not meet the Act's definition
of an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' A thorough
review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the Mammoth Spring
crayfish is presented in the species' species status assessment (SSA)
report. The species assessment forms for the evening fieldslug and
Weber's Whitlow grass contain more detailed taxonomic information, a
list of literature cited, and an explanation of why we determined that
these species do not meet the Act's definition of a ``species.'' This
supporting information can be found on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (see ADDRESSES,
above). The following are
[[Page 40174]]
informational summaries of the findings in this document.
Evening Fieldslug
Previous Federal Actions
On March 17, 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD),
Conservation Northwest, the Environmental Protection Information
Center, the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, and Oregon Wild,
requesting that the Service list 32 species and subspecies of mollusks
in the Pacific Northwest, including the evening fieldslug (Deroceras
hesperium), as endangered or threatened species under the Act. The
petition also requested that the Service designate critical habitat
concurrent with listing. In an April 13, 2009, email, CBD requested
that the petition be amended to include only 29 species and subspecies,
due to taxonomic revisions. The request was treated as an amendment to
the original petition. In a 90-day finding published in the Federal
Register on October 5, 2011 (76 FR 61826), the Service found that the
petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that 26 of the 29 petitioned species or subspecies,
including evening fieldslug, may be warranted for listing. This
document constitutes our 12-month finding on the March 17, 2008,
petition to list evening fieldslug under the Act.
Summary of Finding
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the evening fieldslug and evaluated the
petitioners' claim that the species warrants listing under the Act.
Subsequent to the 90-day finding, a genetic and morphometric analysis
demonstrated that the evening fieldslug is not a unique species but is
synonymous with the meadow fieldslug (D. laeve), a common species with
a Holarctic distribution (Roth et al. 2013, entire). This study has
been accepted by the relevant scientific community, The Xerces Society
for Invertebrate Conservation, and Federal and State agencies. Given
that the evening fieldslug is no longer recognized as a unique taxon,
we conclude that it does not meet the definition of a species or
subspecies under the Act. Consequently, it does not warrant listing
under the Act. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can
be found in the evening fieldslug species assessment form (see
ADDRESSES, above).
Mammoth Spring Crayfish
Previous Federal Actions
On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition,
Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council,
and West Virginia Highlands Conservancy to list 404 aquatic, riparian,
and wetland species, including Mammoth Spring crayfish (Faxonius
marchandi; then Orconectes marchandi), 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 374 of the 404 species,
including Mammoth Spring crayfish. This document constitutes our 12-
month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to list Mammoth Spring
crayfish under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The Mammoth Spring crayfish is a medium-sized, reddish-brown
crayfish with blackish specks on its broad pincers. It has a very
localized distribution in the central and eastern portion of the Spring
River watershed in Fulton, Lawrence, Randolph, and Sharp Counties in
northeastern Arkansas and in Howell and Oregon Counties in southern
Missouri. The Mammoth Spring crayfish occurs in both intermittent and
perennial streams but appears to occur in higher densities in
intermittent streams. Small Mammoth Spring crayfish individuals occur
in the highest densities in shallow (less than 35 centimeters (14
inches)) stream margins of pools and runs in areas of emergent
vegetation. Both small and large Mammoth Spring crayfish individuals
are associated with a diverse composition of substrates dominated by
cobble and pebble, and negatively associated with increasing current
velocity.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Mammoth Spring crayfish, and we evaluated all relevant factors
under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these threats. The primary threats
with potential to affect the Mammoth Spring crayfish's biological
status include periodically degraded water quality, sedimentation,
extreme events, and nonnative crayfish invasion of the gap ringed
crayfish (Faxonius neglectus chaenodactylus). However, these threats
have not reduced the species' resiliency, redundancy, or
representation.
The best available information indicates that the range of the
Mammoth Spring crayfish has not contracted. Mammoth Spring crayfish
density is higher in intermittent streams than in perennial streams,
and based on surveys conducted in 1998-1999 and 2010-2011, occupancy of
the Mammoth Spring crayfish was relatively unchanged between the
periods of 1998-1999 and 2010-2011. In addition, density of the Mammoth
Spring crayfish was also compared between time periods and increased
significantly from 1998-1999 to 2010-2011. Therefore, we conclude that
Mammoth Spring crayfish is not in danger of extinction throughout all
of its range and does not meet the Act's definition of an endangered
species.
We then considered the primary threat to the species in the
foreseeable future (potential invasion of the gap ringed crayfish) to
determine if the Mammoth Spring crayfish meets the definition of a
threatened species. The SSA report also considered the effects of other
stressors such as climate change and land-use changes into the future
for the Mammoth Spring crayfish. However, species experts only
considered the potential invasion of the gap ringed crayfish as the
primary species-level influence for the Mammoth Spring crayfish into
the future. Therefore, the predictive modeling effort in the SSA only
included the spread of gap ringed crayfish and its effect on the
Mammoth Spring crayfish, although we considered the effect of other
stressors qualitatively. The SSA's analysis of future scenarios over a
50-year timeframe encompasses the best available information for future
projections under reasonable worst, mostly likely, and reasonable best
future scenarios. We determined that this 50-year timeframe enabled us
to consider the threats and stressors acting on the species and draw
reliable predictions about the species' response to these factors.
Under the reasonable best and most likely future scenarios, we predict
the gap ringed crayfish will not invade the range of the native Mammoth
Spring crayfish within the 50-year timeframe, although under the
reasonable worst scenario it may reach the edge of the Mammoth Spring
crayfish's range in approximately 15 years, and continue to spread
throughout the range. Although under the reasonably worst scenario, the
gap ringed crayfish does invade the Mammoth Spring crayfish range, it
will take greater than 100 years to invade the entire range of the
species and 4 of the 6 representation units (RPUs) will not
[[Page 40175]]
be fully invaded. The reasonably worst scenario still leaves the
species with ample redundancy and representation, such that the best
available information does not indicate that the Mammoth Spring
Crayfish's viability will decline within the foreseeable future such
that the species meets the definition of a threatened species. Thus,
after assessing the best available information, we determine that the
Mammoth Spring crayfish is not likely to become in danger of extinction
within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range and does not
meet the Act's definition of a threatened species.
We found no biologically meaningful portion of the Mammoth Spring
crayfish range where threats are impacting individuals differently from
how they are affecting the species elsewhere in its range, or where the
condition of the species differs from its condition elsewhere in its
range such that the status of the species in that portion differs from
any other portion of the species' range. Thus, after assessing the best
available information, we determine that Mammoth Spring crayfish is not
in danger of extinction now or likely to become so within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
Therefore, we find that listing the Mammoth Spring crayfish as an
endangered species or threatened species under the Act is not
warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be
found in the Mammoth Spring crayfish species assessment form and other
supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Weber's Whitlow Grass
Previous Federal Actions
On July 30, 2007, the Service received a petition from Forest
Guardians (now WildEarth Guardians) requesting that the Service list
206 species the Mountain-Prairie Region, including Weber's Whitlow
grass (Draba weberi), as endangered or threatened species, and
designate critical habitat, under the Act. On August 18, 2009, the
Service published in the Federal Register (74 FR 41649) a partial 90-
day finding indicating that listing may be warranted for 29 species,
including Weber's Whitlow grass. As a result, the Service initiated a
status review for Weber's Whitlow grass. This document announces the
12-month finding on the July 30, 2007, petition to list Weber's Whitlow
grass under the Act.
Summary of Finding
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding Weber's Whitlow grass and evaluated the
petition's claims that the species warrants listing under the Act. A
new genetic analysis indicates that Weber's Whitlow grass is not a
distinct species. Weber's Whitlow grass is not genetically
distinguishable from another similar plant species (Colorado Divide
Whitlow-grass, or alpine tundra draba (Draba streptobrachia)) in the
Draba genus, which occurs in at least 16 counties in Colorado and has a
wider range than Weber's Whitlow grass (Naibauer and McGlaughlin 2021,
entire; NatureServe 2022a, entire). Therefore, Weber's Whitlow grass
does not meet the definition of a ``species'' under the Act, and, as a
result, does not warrant listing under the Act. A detailed discussion
of the basis for this finding can be found in the Weber's Whitlow grass
species assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES,
above).
New Information
We request that you submit any new information concerning the
taxonomy of, biology of, ecology of, status of, or stressors to evening
fieldslug, Mammoth Spring crayfish, or Weber's Whitlow grass to the
appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
whenever it becomes available. New information will help us monitor
these species and make appropriate decisions about their conservation
and status. We encourage local agencies and stakeholders to continue
cooperative monitoring and conservation efforts.
References Cited
A list of the references cited in this petition finding is
available in the relevant species assessment form, which is available
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov in the appropriate
docket (see ADDRESSES, above) and upon request from the appropriate
person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above).
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Species Assessment Team, Ecological Services Program.
Authority
The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-14296 Filed 7-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P