57388 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

the Commission limit these 

requirements to service providers that 

are currently receiving support? 

III. Procedural Matters 

A. Paperwork Reduction Act 

28. The document does not contain 

proposed information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. In addition, therefore, it does not 

contain any proposed information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). 

IV. Ordering Clauses 

29. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to the authority contained in sections 

4(i), 214, 218–220, 254, 303(r), and 403 

of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 214, 218– 

220, 254, 303(r), and 403, and § 1.1 of 

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.1, this 

Notice of Inquiry is adopted. The Notice 

of Inquiry will be effective upon 

publication in the Federal Register, 

with comment dates indicated therein. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2023–18084 Filed 8–22–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Nine 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 nine 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 

Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canis 

lupus ligoni), Chihuahua catfish 

(Ictalurus sp. 1), Cooper’s cave 

amphipod (Stygobromus cooperi), 

Georgia blind salamander (Eurycea 

wallacei), minute cave amphipod 

(Stygobromus parvus), Morrison’s cave 

amphipod (Stygobromus morrisoni), 

narrow-foot hygrotus diving beetle 

(Hygrotus diversipes), pristine crayfish 

(Cambarus pristinus), and Tennessee 

heelsplitter (Lasmigona holstonia). 

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 August 23, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: Detailed descriptions of the 

bases for these findings are available on 

the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov under the 

following docket numbers: 

Species Docket No. 

Alexander Archipelago wolf ................................................................................................................................... FWS–R7–ES–2023–0109 

Chihuahua catfish .................................................................................................................................................. FWS–R2–ES–2023–0110 

Cooper’s cave amphipod ....................................................................................................................................... FWS–R5–ES–2023–0120 

Georgia blind salamander ..................................................................................................................................... FWS–R4–ES–2023–0117 

Minute cave amphipod .......................................................................................................................................... FWS–R5–ES–2023–0121 

Morrison’s cave amphipod ..................................................................................................................................... FWS–R5–ES–2023–0122 

Narrow-foot hygrotus diving beetle ........................................................................................................................ FWS–R6–ES–2023–0111 

Pristine crayfish ..................................................................................................................................................... FWS–R4–ES–2023–0115 

Tennessee heelsplitter ........................................................................................................................................... FWS–R4–ES–2023–0116 

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 

Alexander Archipelago wolf ...................................................... Stewart Cogswell, Field Supervisor, Anchorage Field Office, Stewart_Cogswell@

fws.gov, 907–271–2888. 

Chihuahua catfish ..................................................................... Michael Warriner, Supervisory Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, Michael_warriner@fws.gov, 512–490–0057. 

Cooper’s cave amphipod, minute cave amphipod, Morrison’s 

cave amphipod.

Jennifer Norris, Field Supervisor, West Virginia Field Office, jennifer_l_norris@

fws.gov, 304–704–0655. 

Georgia blind salamander ........................................................ Peter Maholland, Field Supervisor, Georgia Ecological Services Field Office, 

peter_maholland@fws.gov, 706–208–7512. 

Narrow-foot hygrotus diving beetle .......................................... Tyler Abbott, Field Supervisor, Wyoming Field Office, tyler_abbott@fws.gov, 

307–757–3707. 

Pristine crayfish ........................................................................ Dan Elbert, Field Supervisor, Tennessee Field Office, daniel_elbert@fws.gov, 

571–461–8964. 

Tennessee heelsplitter ............................................................. Janet Mizzi, Field Supervisor, Asheville Ecological Services Field Office, janet_

mizzi@fws.gov, 828–258–3939x42223. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules 57389 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we are required to 

make a finding on whether or not a 

petitioned action is warranted within 12 

months after receiving any petition that 

we have determined contains 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted 

(hereafter a ‘‘12-month finding’’). We 

must make a finding that the petitioned 

action is: (1) Not warranted; (2) 

warranted; or (3) warranted but 

precluded by other listing activity. We 

must publish a notification of these 12- 

month findings in the Federal Register. 

Summary of Information Pertaining to 

the Five Factors 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and the implementing regulations at 

part 424 of title 50 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) 

set forth procedures for adding species 

to, removing species from, or 

reclassifying species on the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants (Lists). The Act defines 

‘‘species’’ as including any subspecies 

of fish or wildlife or plants, and any 

distinct population segment of any 

species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 

which interbreeds when mature (16 

U.S.C. 1532(16)). The Act defines 

‘‘endangered species’’ as any species 

that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)), and 

‘‘threatened species’’ as any species that 

is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Under 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may 

be determined to be an endangered 

species or a threatened species because 

of any of the following five factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. 

We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in 

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. However, the mere 

identification of any threat(s) does not 

necessarily mean that the species meets 

the statutory definition of an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ In determining whether a 

species meets either definition, we must 

evaluate all identified threats by 

considering the expected response by 

the species, and the effects of the 

threats—in light of those actions and 

conditions that will ameliorate the 

threats—on an individual, population, 

and species level. We evaluate each 

threat and its expected effects on the 

species, then analyze the cumulative 

effect of all of the threats on the species 

as a whole. We also consider the 

cumulative effect of the threats in light 

of those actions and conditions that will 

have positive effects on the species, 

such as any existing regulatory 

mechanisms or conservation efforts. The 

Secretary determines whether the 

species meets the Act’s definition of an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species’’ only after conducting this 

cumulative analysis and describing the 

expected effect on the species now and 

in the foreseeable future. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

future on a case-by-case basis. The term 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far 

into the future as we can reasonably 

determine that both the future threats 

and the species’ responses to those 

threats are likely. In other words, the 

foreseeable future is the period of time 

in which we can make reliable 

predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not mean 

‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to provide 

a reasonable degree of confidence in the 

prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable 

if it is reasonable to depend on it when 

making decisions. 

It is not always possible or necessary 

to define foreseeable future as a 

particular number of years. Analysis of 

the foreseeable future uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and should consider the timeframes 

applicable to the relevant threats and to 

the species’ responses to those threats in 

view of its life-history characteristics. 

Data that are typically relevant to 

assessing the species’ biological 

response include species-specific factors 

such as lifespan, reproductive rates or 

productivity, certain behaviors, and 

other demographic factors. 

In conducting our evaluation of the 

five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of 

the Act to determine whether the 

Alexander Archipelago wolf, Cooper’s 

cave amphipod, Georgia blind 

salamander, minute cave amphipod, 

Morrison’s cave amphipod, narrow-foot 

hygrotus diving beetle, pristine crayfish, 

and Tennessee heelsplitter meet the 

Act’s definition of ‘‘endangered species’’ 

or ‘‘threatened species,’’ we considered 

and thoroughly evaluated the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future stressors and threats. In 

conducting our evaluation of the 

Chihuahua catfish, we determined that 

it does not meet the definition of a 

‘‘species’’ under the Act, and, as a 

result, we conclude that it is not a 

listable entity. We reviewed the 

petitions, information available in our 

files, and other available published and 

unpublished information for all these 

species. Our evaluation may include 

information from recognized experts; 

Federal, State, and Tribal governments; 

academic institutions; foreign 

governments; private entities; and other 

members of the public. 

In accordance with the regulations at 

50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)(i), this document 

announces the not-warranted findings 

on petitions to list nine 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 nine 

actions included in this document. The 

following is a description of the 

documents containing these analyses: 

The species assessment forms for 

Alexander Archipelago wolf, Cooper’s 

cave amphipod, Georgia blind 

salamander, minute cave amphipod, 

Morrison’s cave amphipod, narrow-foot 

hygrotus diving beetle, pristine crayfish, 

and Tennessee heelsplitter 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
57390 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

each species does 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 the 

Alexander Archipelago wolf, Cooper’s 

cave amphipod, Georgia blind 

salamander, minute cave amphipod, 

Morrison’s cave amphipod, narrow-foot 

hygrotus diving beetle, pristine crayfish, 

and Tennessee heelsplitter. Each SSA 

report contains a thorough review of the 

taxonomy, life history, ecology, current 

status, and projected future status for 

each species. The species assessment 

form for the Chihuahua catfish contains 

more detailed taxonomic information, a 

list of literature cited, and an 

explanation of why we determined that 

the species does 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). 

Alexander Archipelago Wolf 

Previous Federal Actions 

On July 15, 2020, we received a 

petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity, Alaska Rainforest Defenders, 

and Defenders of Wildlife, requesting 

that the Alexander Archipelago wolf 

subspecies in Southeast Alaska be listed 

as a threatened species or an 

endangered species and critical habitat 

be designated for this species under the 

Act. The petitioners requested that we 

recognize Alexander Archipelago 

wolves in Southeast Alaska as a distinct 

population segment (DPS), and evaluate 

this DPS for listing as threatened or 

endangered. The petitioners also 

requested that we evaluate the 

Alexander Archipelago wolf subspecies 

for listing where Southeast Alaska 

constitutes a significant portion of the 

range. On July 27, 2021, we published 

a 90-day finding (86 FR 40186) that the 

petition contained substantial 

information indicating that listing may 

be warranted for the species. This 

document constitutes our 12-month 

finding on the July 15, 2020, petition to 

list the Alexander Archipelago wolf 

under the Act. 

We evaluated the Southeast Alaska 

population of AA wolf under our 1996 

DPS policy (61 FR 4722) and found that 

it met both the discreteness and 

significance criteria. The population is 

discrete based on the international 

governmental boundary between the 

United States (Alaska) and Canada 

(British Columbia) within which 

significant differences in control of 

exploitation, management of habitat, 

and regulatory mechanisms exist. The 

population meets the significance 

criteria because the loss of the 

Alexander Archipelago wolves in 

Southeast Alaska would result in a 

significant gap in the range of the taxon 

because an extensive area would be 

without Alexander Archipelago wolves 

if the Southeast Alaska population were 

lost. For a more detailed discussion of 

our DPS analysis, please see the species 

assessment form. 

Given the best available information 

related to the DPS Policy’s discreteness 

and significance criteria, we determined 

that the Southeast Alaska segment of the 

Alexander Archipelago wolf population 

meets the DPS Policy criteria for both 

the discreteness criteria and the 

significance criteria. Thus, in addition 

to our listing evaluation and finding on 

the Alexander Archipelago wolf rangewide, we also evaluated the Southeast 

Alaska DPS, as requested by the 

petition. 

Summary of Finding for the Alexander 

Archipelago Wolf 

The Alexander Archipelago wolf is a 

subspecies of gray wolf that occurs 

along the coastal mainland and islands 

of Southeast Alaska and British 

Columbia. Based on the best available 

information, the current distribution of 

the species is similar to its historical 

distribution. 

There are gaps in our understanding 

of the life history of the Alexander 

Archipelago wolf; thus, when 

appropriate, we have applied 

information from gray wolves and other 

gray wolf subspecies. Alexander 

Archipelago wolves breed between 22 to 

34 months of age, and litters range from 

1 to 8 pups. Denning typically occurs 

from mid-April through early July; 

throughout the rest of the year 

Alexander Archipelago wolves are 

traveling, hunting, or dispersing. 

Alexander Archipelago wolves are 

capable of dispersing long distances, 

both on land and water, although there 

are many examples of these wolves 

avoiding water crossings. Pack sizes 

typically range between 2 and 12 

wolves, although much larger groups 

have been observed. Alexander 

Archipelago wolves are opportunistic 

predators that eat a variety of prey 

species, yet, like gray wolves, ungulates 

compose most of their diet. Across the 

range of the species, Sitka black-tailed 

deer (Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis) 

and moose (Alces americanus) make up 

75 percent of the wolf’s diet. Alexander 

Archipelago wolves are habitat 

generalists, typically utilizing whatever 

habitat their preferred prey use and 

avoiding areas of intense human 

activity. Old-growth forests, which 

Alexander Archipelago wolves select 

for, make up a majority of home range 

areas, and areas near freshwater are also 

selected by wolves during denning. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the Alexander 

Archipelago wolf, and we evaluated all 

relevant factors under the five listing 

factors, including any regulatory 

mechanisms and conservation measures 

addressing these threats. The primary 

threats affecting the Alexander 

Archipelago wolf’s biological status 

include timber harvest and associated 

road development, harvest of wolves, 

and genetic inbreeding. Although 

disease and climate change may not be 

currently impacting the species, the best 

available information indicates that 

these factors could have impacts on the 

species’ viability in the future. 

After evaluating threats to the species 

and assessing the cumulative effect of 

the threats under the section 4(a)(1) 

factors, we assessed the current status of 

the Alexander Archipelago wolf to 

determine if it meets the definition of an 

endangered species or threatened 

species. Our assessment of Alexander 

Archipelago wolf current viability 

included the primary threats of timber 

harvest and associated road 

development, harvest of wolves, and 

genetic inbreeding. To evaluate overall 

current population resiliency of the 

Alexander Archipelago wolf, we ranked 

each population into a current condition 

category (i.e., high, moderately-high, 

moderate, moderately-low, low, or 

functionally extirpated) based on 

estimates of population growth, and the 

species’ needs which include dietary 

diversity, area of old-growth forest 

available, and remoteness (i.e., space 

from human activity; Table 3 of the SSA 

Report). Despite past and ongoing 

threats, Alexander Archipelago wolf 

currently occupies five analysis units 

that span its historical range, three of 

which exhibit high resiliency (Northern 

and Southern Coastal British Columbia 

and Northern Southeast Alaska), one 

with moderately high resiliency 

(Southern Southeast Alaska), and one 

with moderately low resiliency (Prince 

of Wales Island Complex). Currently, 

Alexander Archipelago wolves appear 

to have high adaptive capacity, and we 

expect most populations to be able to 

adapt to near-term changes in their 

physical and biological environments. 

The exception to this is the Prince of 

Wales Island Complex analysis unit. 

Within the Prince of Wales Island 

Complex analysis unit, high levels of 

inbreeding have been documented, and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules 57391 

ungulate prey is limited compared to 

the rest of the range. These 

characteristics limit the adaptive 

capacity of wolves within this analysis 

unit. Nonetheless, based on the best 

available information, the Prince of 

Wales Island Complex analysis unit 

demonstrates stable population trends. 

Overall, the Alexander Archipelago wolf 

is widely distributed across its current 

and historical range indicating that it 

has high redundancy (ability to 

withstand catastrophic events) and 

overall high representation (adaptive 

capacity), contributing to its overall 

viability. Thus, after assessing the best 

available information, we conclude that 

the Alexander Archipelago wolf is not 

in danger of extinction throughout all of 

its range. 

To assess future viability of the 

Alexander Archipelago wolf, we 

considered the foreseeable future out 

approximately 30 years (to 2050) and 

projected the influence of three future 

scenarios that included disease and 

climate change and the other primary 

threats included in the assessment of 

current viability. The Alexander 

Archipelago wolf is projected to retain 

high to moderate levels of resiliency 

within four of the five analysis units, 

and no significant loss in distribution is 

predicted across its range. The 

exception is the Prince of Wales Island 

Complex analysis unit, which is 

projected to decline in resiliency under 

most scenarios, and under one scenario, 

projections indicate possible 

extirpation. However, the Prince of 

Wales Island Complex analysis unit 

represents a relatively small area 

(approximately 4.5 percent; Service 

2023, p. 110) compared to the overall 

geographic range of the species, and a 

relatively small proportion of the 

rangewide population estimate (17 

percent; Service 2023, pp. 90–91). Thus, 

after assessing the best available 

information, we conclude that the 

Alexander Archipelago wolf is not 

likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all of its 

range. 

We evaluated the range of the 

Alexander Archipelago wolf to 

determine if the species is in danger of 

extinction now or likely to become so in 

the foreseeable future in any portion of 

its range. The Prince of Wales Island 

Complex analysis unit has moderately 

low resiliency now and ranges from 

moderate resiliency to functionally 

extirpated into the future. We found that 

this analysis unit may have a different 

status compared to the rest of the range. 

Within the Prince of Wales Island 

Complex analysis unit, high levels of 

old-growth timber harvest, road 

development, and inbreeding have been 

documented, and wolf harvest rates 

(reported and unreported) may also 

exceed sustainable levels in some years 

(Service 2023, p. 62). Additionally, 

ungulate prey is limited to just one 

species, the Sitka black-tailed deer, 

limiting adaptive capacity for wolves in 

this analysis unit. Although other 

analysis units may also face one or two 

threats from timber harvest, road 

development, inbreeding, wolf harvest, 

or prey availability, the Prince of Wales 

Island Complex is the only analysis unit 

that experiences all of these threats. 

However, we did not find that the 

Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis 

unit represents a significant portion of 

the range for the Alexander Archipelago 

wolf. The Prince of Wales Island 

Complex analysis unit represents 

approximately 4.5 percent of the overall 

geographic range of the species (Service 

2023, p. 110). Additionally, the Prince 

of Wales Island Complex analysis unit 

does not have high-quality habitat 

relative to the rest of the range. 

Contiguous patches of old-growth forest 

(at least 75 square kilometers) have been 

identified as the preferred habitat for 

this species and are considered highquality habitat. The Prince of Wales 

Island Complex analysis unit contains 

10.9 percent of the total preferred oldgrowth habitat that is available to the 

species rangewide (Service 2023, p. 

110). Lastly, the habitat within the 

Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis 

unit is not considered unique for any 

specific life-history functions (e.g., 

availability of denning habitat or 

ungulate prey); the species’ preferred 

denning habitat is found in all other 

analysis units, and ungulate prey 

diversity is greater in the other analysis 

units. Thus, we do not consider the 

Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis 

unit to represent a large geographic area 

relative to the range of the species as a 

whole, to have higher quality habitat 

relative to the remaining portions of the 

range, or to represent uniquely valuable 

habitat for the species. We do not find 

that the Prince of Wales Island Complex 

analysis unit is significant. Therefore, 

the Prince of Wales Island Complex 

analysis unit does not represent a 

significant portion of its range, and we 

find that the Alexander Archipelago 

wolf is not in danger of extinction now 

or likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future in any significant portion of its 

range. 

After assessing the best available 

information, we conclude that the 

Alexander Archipelago wolf is not in 

danger of extinction or likely to become 

in danger of extinction throughout all of 

its range or in any significant portion of 

its range. Therefore, we find that listing 

the Alexander Archipelago wolf as an 

endangered species or threatened 

species under the Act is not warranted. 

Summary of Finding for the Southeast 

Alaska Alexander Archipelago Wolf 

DPS 

The Southeast Alaska Alexander 

Archipelago wolf DPS occurs along the 

coastal mainland and islands of 

Southeast Alaska. Based on the best 

available information, the current 

distribution of the species is similar to 

its historical distribution. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the Southeast 

Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf 

DPS, and we evaluated all relevant 

factors under the five listing factors, 

including any regulatory mechanisms 

and conservation measures addressing 

these threats. The primary threats 

affecting the Southeast Alaska 

Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS’s 

biological status include timber harvest 

and associated road development, 

harvest of wolves, and genetic 

inbreeding. Although disease and 

climate change may not be currently 

impacting the species, the best available 

information indicates that these factors 

could have impacts on the species’ 

viability in the future. 

Our assessment of the current 

viability of the Southeast Alaska 

Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS 

included the primary threats of timber 

harvest and associated road 

development, harvest of wolves, and 

genetic inbreeding. Currently, one 

analysis unit exhibits high resiliency 

(Northern Southeast), one analysis unit 

exhibits moderately high resiliency 

(Southern Southeast), and one analysis 

unit exhibits moderately low resiliency 

(Prince of Wales Island Complex). 

Alexander Archipelago wolves in the 

Northern Southeast Alaska analysis unit 

and the Southern Southeast Alaska 

analysis unit appear to have high 

adaptive capacity, and we expect 

wolves in these analysis units to be able 

to adapt to near-term changes in their 

physical and biological environments. 

Even though the Southern Southeast 

Alaska analysis unit exhibits signs of 

recent and historical inbreeding, there is 

no evidence of a reduction in fitness 

related to inbreeding. Additionally, the 

Southern Southeast Alaska analysis unit 

has a greater potential for connectivity 

and therefore, gene flow, with other 

analysis units on the mainland, and it 

has a greater diversity of ungulate prey. 

Within the Prince of Wales Island 

Complex analysis unit, high levels of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
57392 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

inbreeding have been documented and 

ungulate prey is limited compared to 

the rest of the range of the DPS. These 

characteristics limit the current adaptive 

capacity of wolves within the Prince of 

Wales Island Complex analysis unit. 

However, even with this additional 

stress, the population estimates for 

Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis 

unit indicate it is currently stable. 

Within the Southeast Alaska Alexander 

Archipelago wolf DPS, the species is 

distributed across its current and 

historical range, indicating that it has 

high redundancy (ability to withstand 

catastrophic events) and high 

representation (adaptive capacity), 

contributing to its overall viability. 

Thus, after assessing the best available 

information, we conclude that the 

Southeast Alaska Alexander 

Archipelago wolf DPS is not in danger 

of extinction throughout its range. 

To assess future viability of the 

Southeast Alaska Alexander 

Archipelago wolf DPS, we considered 

the foreseeable future out approximately 

30 years (to 2050) and projected the 

influence of three future scenarios that 

included disease and climate change, 

and the other primary threats included 

in the assessment of current viability. 

The Southeast Alaska Alexander 

Archipelago wolf DPS is projected to 

have high to moderate resiliency within 

the Northern Southeast Alaska analysis 

unit, moderately high resiliency in the 

Southern Southeast Alaska analysis 

unit, and moderate resiliency to a 

functionally extirpated status within the 

Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis 

unit. However, the Prince of Wales 

Island Complex analysis unit represents 

a relatively small percentage of the total 

geographic area of the Southeast Alaska 

Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS 

(approximately 13.2 percent) and 

approximately 30 percent of the overall 

Southeast Alexander Archipelago wolf 

DPS population. Thus, after assessing 

the best available information, we 

conclude that the Southeast Alaska 

Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS is not 

likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all of its 

range. 

We then evaluated the range of the 

Southeast Alaska Alexander 

Archipelago wolf DPS to determine if 

the species is in danger of extinction 

now or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future in any significant 

portion of its range. We looked at the 

entire range of the Southeast Alaska 

Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS and 

found that the Prince of Wales Island 

Complex analysis unit has moderately 

low resiliency now and ranges from 

moderately resilient to functionally 

extirpated into the future. We found that 

the Prince of Wales Island Complex may 

have a different status compared to the 

rest of the DPS range. Within the Prince 

of Wales Island Complex analysis unit, 

high levels of old-growth timber harvest, 

road development, and inbreeding have 

been documented, and wolf harvest 

rates (reported and unreported) may 

exceed sustainable levels in some years 

(Service 2023, p. 62). Additionally, 

ungulate prey is limited to just one 

species, Sitka black-tailed deer, limiting 

adaptive capacity for wolves in this 

analysis unit. Although the other 

analysis units may also face one or two 

threats from either timber harvest, road 

development, inbreeding, wolf harvest, 

or prey availability, the Prince of Wales 

Island Complex is the only analysis unit 

that experiences all of these threats. 

However, we did not find the Prince of 

Wales Island Complex analysis unit to 

represent a significant portion of the 

range of the Southeast Alaska Alexander 

Archipelago wolf. The Prince of Wales 

Island Complex analysis unit represents 

a relatively small portion of the 

geographic area of the Southeast Alaska 

Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS 

(approximately 13.2 percent). 

Additionally, the Prince of Wales Island 

Complex analysis unit does not have 

high-quality habitat relative to the rest 

of the range. Contiguous patches of oldgrowth forest have been identified as the 

preferred habitat for this species and are 

considered high-quality habitat. The 

Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis 

unit contains approximately 22.8 

percent of high-quality habitat 

compared to the rest of the DPS range 

(Service 2023, p. 110). Lastly, the 

habitat on the Prince of Wales Island 

Complex analysis unit is not considered 

unique for any specific life-history 

functions (e.g., denning habitat or prey 

diversity); denning habitat is found in 

the other analysis units within the DPS, 

and the other two analysis units have 

greater ungulate prey diversity 

compared to the Prince of Wales Island 

Complex. Thus, we do not consider the 

Prince of Wales Island Complex analysis 

unit to represent a large geographic area 

relative to the range of the DPS, to have 

higher quality habitat relative to the rest 

of the DPS, or to represent uniquely 

valuable habitat for the DPS. Therefore, 

the Prince of Wales Island Complex 

analysis unit does not represent a 

significant portion of the Southeast 

Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS 

range, and the Southeast Alaska 

Alexander Archipelago wolf DPS is not 

in danger of extinction now or likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future in 

any significant portion of its range. 

After assessing the best available 

information, we concluded that the 

Southeast Alaska Alexander 

Archipelago wolf DPS is not in danger 

of extinction or likely to become in 

danger of extinction throughout all of its 

range or in any significant portion of its 

range. Therefore, we find that listing the 

Southeast Alaska Alexander 

Archipelago wolf DPS 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 Alexander 

Archipelago wolf species assessment 

form and other supporting documents at 

https://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2023–0109. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our July 1, 1994, 

peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 

1994) and the Service’s August 22, 2016, 

Director’s Memo on the Peer Review 

Process we solicited independent 

scientific reviews of the information 

contained in the Alexander Archipelago 

wolf SSA report. The Service sent the 

SSA report to 10 independent peer 

reviewers and received 4 responses. 

Results of this structured peer review 

process can be found at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R7–ES–2023–0109 and https://

www.fws.gov/library/categories/peerreview-plans. We incorporated the 

results of these reviews, as appropriate, 

into the SSA report, which is the 

foundation for this finding. 

Chihuahua Catfish 

Previous Federal Actions 

On June 25, 2007, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service) received a 

petition dated June 18, 2007, from 

Forest Guardians (now WildEarth 

Guardians) requesting that the Service 

list 475 species, including the 

Chihuahua catfish, as threatened or 

endangered species and designate 

critical habitat under the Act. All 475 

species occur within the Southwest 

Region and were ranked as G1 or G1G2 

species by NatureServe at the time. In a 

July 11, 2007, letter to the petitioner, the 

Service acknowledged receipt of the 

petition and stated that the petition was 

under review by staff in the Southwest 

Regional Office. On December 16, 2009, 

the Service published a partial 90-day 

finding on the petition, including the 

Chihuahua catfish and 191 other 

species, stating that the petition 

presented substantial scientific 

information indicating that listing may 

be warranted for 67 of the 192 species 

(74 FR 66866). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules 57393 

Summary of Finding 

In assessing the best available 

scientific information for the status of a 

species, the Service generally relies on 

information published in peer-reviewed 

journals and other reports. Particularly 

related to taxonomic determinations, we 

defer to the scientific literature and to 

professional authorities for taxonomical 

assignments. However, when that 

information is in question, the Service 

conducts its own analysis, and we 

exercise our best scientific judgment. 

For a taxon to be listed under the Act, 

it must be a listable entity; that is, it 

must be either formally described and 

accepted as a species or subspecies or 

there must be credible scientific 

evidence that the entity should qualify 

as a valid species or subspecies. The 

Chihuahua catfish has never been 

formally described in peer-reviewed 

literature as a valid taxonomic entity. A 

draft species description from 1998 

proposed to describe the species as 

distinct but was never finalized. Recent 

morphological and genetic analyses 

found no evidence that this putative 

species exists in New Mexico and 

Texas. 

To date, no peer-reviewed 

publications have supported a distinct 

species status of the Chihuahua catfish 

or provided evidence of its existence. 

We have reviewed the best available 

information regarding the taxonomic 

status of the putative Chihuahua catfish 

and conclude that there is insufficient 

credible scientific evidence that the 

entity qualifies as a valid species or 

subspecies. Therefore, it is not 

warranted for listing because we find 

that there is not credible scientific 

evidence that the Chihuahuan catfish is 

a listable entity under Act. A detailed 

discussion of the basis for this finding 

can be found in the Chihuahua catfish 

species assessment form and other 

supporting documents at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2023–0110. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our July 1, 1994, 

peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 

1994) and the Service’s August 22, 2016, 

Director’s Memo on the Peer Review 

Process, we solicited independent 

scientific reviews of the information 

contained in our report titled ‘‘Review 

of the Chihuahua catfish (Ictalurus sp. 

1)’’. The Service sent the report to seven 

independent peer reviewers and 

received four responses. We 

incorporated the results of these 

reviews, as appropriate, into the report, 

which is the foundation for this finding. 

Results of this structured peer review 

process can be found at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2023–0110. 

Cooper’s Cave Amphipod, Minute Cave 

Amphipod, and Morrison’s Cave 

Amphipod 

Previous Federal Actions 

On April 20, 2010, we received a 

petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance, 

Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, 

Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee 

Forests Council, and West Virginia 

Highlands to list 404 aquatic, riparian, 

and wetland species, including 

Stygobromus cooperi, S. parvus, and S. 

morrisoni (referred to by the common 

names ‘‘Cooper’s cave amphipod,’’ 

‘‘minute cave amphipod,’’ and 

‘‘Morrison’s cave amphipod,’’ 

respectively, in the petition), as 

endangered or threatened species under 

the Act. On September 27, 2011, we 

published a 90-day finding in which we 

announced that the petition contained 

substantial information indicating that 

listing may be warranted for the species 

(76 FR 59836). This document 

constitutes our 12-month finding on the 

April 20, 2010, petition to list Cooper’s, 

minute, and Morrison’s cave amphipods 

under the Act. 

Summary of Finding 

Cooper’s, minute, and Morrison’s cave 

amphipods are specialized for 

subterranean karst habitat characterized 

by relatively stable physiochemical 

conditions compared to surface 

environments and have limited or 

patchily distributed food resources. 

Karst landscapes are geologic features or 

landforms characterized by distinctive 

permeable underground drainage 

systems, caves, and sinkholes that have 

been formed through the dissolving of 

soluble rock, particularly limestone 

(Simms 2005, p. 678). Due to the 

absence of light and primary producers 

in subterranean environments, these 

species are likely detritivores or 

omnivores that feed on organic matter 

(i.e., dead plant and animal material) 

originating from the surface. Morrison’s 

cave amphipod is restricted to Virginia 

and West Virginia, and Cooper’s cave 

and minute cave amphipods are 

restricted to West Virginia, with limited 

distributions. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the Cooper’s, 

minute, and Morrison’s cave 

amphipods, and we evaluated all 

relevant factors under the five listing 

factors, including any regulatory 

mechanisms and conservation measures 

addressing these threats. The primary 

threats affecting Cooper’s, minute, and 

Morrison’s cave amphipods are: (1) 

groundwater contamination by 

sediments and toxic compounds, (2) 

disruption of food supply due to 

deforestation/surface alteration, and (3) 

direct modification of habitats due to 

cave visitation and urban development 

of karst areas. Protection, management, 

and conservation measures that may 

improve the species’ viability are 

summarized below. 

After evaluating the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

on potential stressors acting 

individually or in combination, we 

found no indication that the combined 

effects are currently causing a 

population-level decline or degrading 

the habitat of the Cooper’s, minute, or 

Morrison’s cave amphipod, or that the 

combined effects are likely to do so 

within a foreseeable future of 20 years, 

based on the projected species’ response 

to future stressors. 

Despite impacts from the primary 

threats, the best data and information 

available indicate Cooper’s, minute, and 

Morrison’s cave amphipod species have 

maintained resilient populations 

throughout their respective ranges. 

Although we predict some continued 

impacts from these threats in the future, 

we anticipate each species will 

continue, in the foreseeable future (that 

is roughly 20 years), to maintain 

resilient populations throughout their 

ranges that are distributed throughout 

each of their representative units. 

After evaluating threats to the species 

under the section 4(a)(1) factors listed 

above and assessing the cumulative 

effect of the threats of these factors, we 

evaluated Cooper’s, minute, and 

Morrison’s cave amphipod viability to 

determine if these species meet the 

definition of an endangered or 

threatened species. The Cooper’s, 

minute, and Morrison’s cave amphipod 

redundancy and representation are 

limited due to their narrow ranges; 

however, this situation is likely similar 

to historical conditions. We find that the 

Cooper’s, minute, and Morrison’s cave 

amphipods have sufficient resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation in light 

of the best available potential stressor 

data and information, both currently 

and into the foreseeable future, such 

that they do not meet the definition of 

an endangered or threatened species 

throughout their range. 

We evaluated the range of the 

Cooper’s cave amphipod to determine if 

the species is in danger of extinction 

now or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future in any portion of its 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
57394 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

range. The Cooper’s cave amphipod is a 

narrow endemic that functions as a 

single, contiguous population and 

occurs within a very small area of 27 

square kilometers (km2) (10.5 square 

miles [mi2]). Thus, there is no 

biologically meaningful way to break 

this limited range into portions, and the 

threats that the species faces affect the 

species comparably throughout its 

entire range. As a result, there are no 

portions of the species’ range where the 

species has a different biological status 

from its rangewide biological status. 

Therefore, we conclude that there are no 

portions of the species’ range that 

warrant further consideration, and the 

species is not in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future in any significant portion of its 

range. 

We evaluated the range of the minute 

and Morrison’s cave amphipods to 

determine if the species are in danger of 

extinction now or likely to become so in 

the foreseeable future in any portion of 

their ranges (1,467 km2 or 566 mi2 and 

2,266 km2 or 876 mi2, respectively). The 

range of a species can theoretically be 

divided into portions in an infinite 

number of ways. We focused our 

analysis on portions of the species’ 

range that may meet the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. For minute and Morrison’s cave 

amphipods, we considered whether the 

threats or their effects on the species are 

greater in any biologically meaningful 

portion of the species’ range than in 

other portions such that the species is 

in danger of extinction now or likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future in 

that portion. We examined the following 

threats: (1) groundwater contamination, 

(2) disruption of food supply due to 

deforestation or surface alteration, and 

(3) direct modification of habitat due to 

cave visitation and urban development. 

After evaluating the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

on potential stressors acting 

individually or in combination, we 

found no indication that the combined 

effects are currently causing a 

population-level decline or degrading 

the habitat of the minute or the 

Morrison’s cave amphipods. These 

factors are not occurring at a substantial 

level in any portion for either the 

minute or Morrison’s cave amphipods to 

contribute to the risk of extinction. We 

found no biologically meaningful 

portion of the minute or Morrison’s cave 

amphipod ranges where threats are 

impacting individuals differently from 

how they are affecting the species 

elsewhere in its range, or where the 

biological condition of the species 

differs from its condition elsewhere in 

its range such that the status of the 

species in that portion differs from its 

status in any other portion of the 

species’ range. Refer to the species 

assessment form in the docket for this 

action for additional details. 

After assessing the best available 

information, we concluded that 

Cooper’s, minute, and Morrison’s cave 

amphipods are not in danger of 

extinction or likely to become in danger 

of extinction throughout all of their 

ranges or in any significant portion of 

their ranges. Therefore, we find that 

listing the Cooper’s, minute, or 

Morrison’s cave amphipods as 

endangered species or threatened 

species under the Act is not warranted. 

A detailed discussion of the basis for 

this finding can be found in the 

Cooper’s, minute, and Morrison’s cave 

amphipods species assessment form and 

other supporting documents on https:// 

www.regulations.gov under Docket Nos. 

FWS–R5–ES–2023–0120 (Cooper’s cave 

amphipod), FWS–R5–ES–2023–0121 

(minute cave amphipod), and FWS–R5– 

ES–2023–0122 (Morrison’s cave 

amphipod. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our July 1, 1994, 

peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 

1994) and the Service’s August 22, 2016, 

Director’s Memo on the Peer Review 

Process we solicited independent 

scientific reviews of the information 

contained in the Cooper’s, minute, and 

Morrison’s cave amphipod SSA report. 

The Service 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 Nos. FWS–R5–ES–2023– 

0120 (Cooper’s cave amphipod), FWS– 

R5–ES–2023–0121 (minute cave 

amphipod), and FWS–R5–ES–2023– 

0122 (Morrison’s cave amphipod). We 

incorporated the results of these 

reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA 

report, which is the foundation for this 

finding. 

Georgia Blind Salamander 

Previous Federal Actions 

On April 20, 2010, we received a 

petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance, 

Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, 

Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee 

Forests Council, and West Virginia 

Highlands to list 404 aquatic, riparian, 

and wetland species, including Eurycea 

wallacei (formerly known as, and 

identified by petitioners as, 

Haideotriton wallacei), as an 

endangered or threatened species under 

the Act. On September 27, 2011, we 

published a 90-day finding (76 FR 

59836) that the petition contained 

substantial information indicating that 

listing may be warranted for the species. 

This document constitutes our 12- 

month finding on the April 20, 2010, 

petition to list the Georgia blind 

salamander under the Act. 

Summary of Finding 

The Georgia blind salamander is a 

relatively small, pinkish-white, blind 

salamander with visible external gills. 

Eyes are entirely lacking, except for dark 

eyespots. The bodies of juveniles exhibit 

many small pigment spots uniformly 

distributed along the dorsal and lateral 

surfaces but are otherwise translucent. 

Adults are similar in appearance but 

lack body pigmentation, leaving them 

almost pure white apart from their gills. 

Lungs are also absent. Common prey 

items of the Georgia blind salamander 

mainly include crustaceans (ostracods, 

amphipods, copepods, and isopods), 

though insects and arachnids have also 

been found in salamander digestive 

tracts. Habitat of the Georgia blind 

salamander consists primarily of caves 

within the Upper Floridan Aquifer 

System, an extensively karstified aquifer 

system. Currently, locations where 

Georgia blind salamander have been 

found include Jackson County, Florida, 

as well as Dougherty and Decatur 

Counties, Georgia, in the Marianna 

Lowlands-Dougherty Plain 

physiographic region. The best available 

science indicates there is a high 

likelihood of Georgia blind salamander 

co-occurring with the Dougherty Plain 

cave crayfish (Cambarus cryptodytes), 

resulting in up to 58 extant sites. It is 

important to note that the identified 

sites are only those that are accessible 

to humans and do not necessarily 

represent the entire distribution of the 

species. Also, many sites of cooccurrence are isolated wells, indicating 

that both species are likely more widely 

distributed throughout the aquifer and 

associated springsheds than is 

evidenced by direct sightings alone. It is 

likely the species is present in the 

Dougherty Plain portion of the Upper 

FAS. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the Georgia blind 

salamander, and we evaluated all 

relevant factors under the five listing 

factors, including any regulatory 

mechanisms and conservation measures 

addressing these threats. Existing threats 

related to water quality and water 

quantity are present, though there are 

extant sites. In addition, water quantity 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules 57395 

currently does not appear to have a large 

impact on this aquifer, as drawdowns 

even in drought conditions were not 

impacting water levels in the aquifer. 

Since aquifers have relatively stable 

conditions over space and time, 

particularly compared to other 

terrestrial or even aquatic habitats, the 

species’ broad occurrence across the 4.4- 

million-acre aquifer likely ensures it has 

adequate representation and 

redundancy currently. 

After evaluating threats to the species 

and assessing the cumulative effect of 

the threats under the section 4(a)(1) 

factors, we assessed the current status of 

the Georgia blind salamander to 

determine if it meets the definition of an 

endangered species or threatened 

species. The Georgia blind salamander 

currently has moderate to high 

resilience (78 percent of sites); water 

quality and quantity are the primary 

factors influencing the species 

rangewide, although the underlying 

aquifer has exhibited relatively stable 

conditions over time, and the species is 

presumed to occur across the aquifer. 

There are extant sites where existing 

threats related to water quality and 

water quantity still occur, and 

drawdowns in drought conditions were 

not impacting water levels in the 

aquifer. Thus, the threats appear to have 

low imminence and magnitude such 

that they are not significantly affecting 

the species’ current viability. 

Accordingly, we determined that the 

Georgia blind salamander is not in 

danger of extinction throughout its 

range. 

We then considered whether the 

species is likely to become in danger of 

extinction within the foreseeable future 

throughout its range. The analysis of 

future condition to 2070, considered in 

the SSA report, encompasses the best 

available information for future 

projections of land-use change under 

two different scenarios (worst case— 

A1B and best case—B2), as well as 

pollutant discharge permits and effects 

of climate change (for example, sea level 

rise and drought). The timeframe 

considered enabled us to analyze the 

threats/stressors acting on the species 

and draw reliable predictions about the 

species’ response to these factors. Land 

use changes may impact water quality, 

and thus could influence species 

viability. 

Given the future scenarios, the 

resiliency of the Georgia blind 

salamander population is predicted to 

decline or remain approximately the 

same in the future. However, given the 

vast size (4,400,162 acres of surface 

area) and stability of habitat, as well as 

the species’ broad occurrence across the 

aquifer, and projected limited future 

threats, we determined that the scale of 

impacts projected in the future will not 

impact the species such that the species 

is likely to become in danger of 

extinction within the foreseeable future. 

Thus, after assessing the best available 

information, we determined that the 

Georgia blind salamander is not in 

danger of extinction now or likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future 

throughout all of its range. 

We next considered whether the 

species may be in danger of extinction 

or likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future in a significant portion of its 

range—that is, whether there is any 

portion of the species’ range for which 

it is true that both (1) the portion is 

significant and (2) the species is in 

danger of extinction now or likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future in 

that portion. Because the range of a 

species can theoretically be divided into 

portions in an infinite number of ways, 

we focused our analysis on portions of 

the species’ range that contribute to the 

conservation of the species in a 

biologically meaningful way. For the 

Georgia blind salamander, we 

considered whether the threats or their 

effects on the species are greater in any 

portion of the species’ range than in 

other portions such that the species is 

in danger of extinction now or likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future in 

that portion. 

Because this species occupies a 

habitat that is not easily accessible or 

sampled, with few existing records, it is 

assumed to be well distributed evenly 

across its interconnected 4.4 millionacre range. While it is considered one 

population, we identified sinkhole 

hotspots around Albany, Georgia, and 

Marianna, Florida, to be most 

vulnerable to the threats due to their 

close proximity to developed areas and 

potential lingering effects from 

Superfund sites. These portions of the 

range are also vulnerable to potential 

catastrophic chemical spills compared 

to the overall range. The fact that spills 

have occurred and the salamander 

remains in high to moderate condition 

in these areas indicates that the threats 

to water quality and quantity are not 

impacting the species such that it has a 

different status in these portions 

compared to the rest of the range. For 

these reasons, the sinkhole hotspot 

portions around Albany, GA, and 

Marianna, FL, were not determined to 

have a different status now or in the 

foreseeable future. Further, these 

portions also comprise a small portion 

of the total range, and therefore we 

conclude that these areas are not 

significant. 

After assessing the best available 

information, we concluded that Georgia 

blind salamander is not in danger of 

extinction or likely to become in danger 

of extinction throughout all of its range 

or in any significant portion of its range. 

Therefore, we find that listing the 

Georgia blind salamander as an 

endangered species or threatened 

species under the Act is not warranted. 

A detailed discussion of the basis for 

this finding can be found in the Georgia 

blind salamander species assessment 

form and other supporting documents at 

https://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2023–0117. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our July 1, 1994, 

peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 

1994) and the Service’s August 22, 2016, 

Director’s Memo on the Peer Review 

Process, we solicited independent 

scientific reviews of the information 

contained in the Georgia blind 

salamander SSA report. The Service 

sent the SSA report to eight 

independent peer reviewers and 

received three responses. Results of this 

structured peer review process can be 

found at https://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2023– 

0117. We incorporated the results of 

these reviews, as appropriate, into the 

SSA report, which is the foundation for 

this finding. 

Narrow-Foot Hygrotus Diving Beetle 

Previous Federal Actions 

On July 17, 2013, we received a 

petition from WildEarth Guardians to 

list the narrow-foot hygrotus diving 

beetle, henceforth ‘‘diving beetle,’’ as an 

endangered or threatened species under 

the Act. On January 12, 2016, we 

published a 90-day finding (81 FR 1368) 

that the petition contained substantial 

information indicating that listing may 

be warranted for the species. On April 

21, 2020, WildEarth Guardians filed suit 

(Case No. 1:20-cv-1035) to compel us to 

complete a 12-month finding. We 

subsequently agreed to submit a 12- 

month finding for the diving beetle to 

the Federal Register by August 15, 

2023. This document constitutes our 12- 

month finding on the July 17, 2013, 

petition to list the diving beetle under 

the Act. 

Summary of Finding 

Narrow-foot hygrotus diving beetles 

are small aquatic beetles found in 

central Wyoming within a specific 

geology of Cody Shale substrates or soils 

derived from Cody Shale in Fremont, 

Johnson, Natrona, and Washakie 

Counties. This beetle has likely never 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
57396 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

had a wider distribution than the 

narrow range it currently occupies. 

Diving beetles develop through egg, 

larval, pupal, and adult stages and rely 

on small, transitory, saline pools that 

form during the drying down of 

ephemeral streams in summer, with all 

life stages either occurring in or adjacent 

to these pools. Diving beetles require 

refugia and prey in pools and 

hydrologically intact areas surrounding 

pools, which support higher water 

quality and seasonally appropriate 

timing and quantities of water in pools. 

Diving beetle sites appear to function as 

a metapopulation, and as such, 

connectivity among pools is essential 

for diving beetles. Pools need to be near 

enough to each other so that, when local 

conditions in one pool become 

unsuitable, either adults can fly 

overland to another pool or individuals 

at any life stage can flow downstream to 

another pool with suitable habitat. The 

frequency across years with which pools 

are occupied by diving beetles is also 

important for diving beetles’ resiliency. 

More frequently occupied pools reliably 

provide for the needs of diving beetles, 

and while infrequently occupied pools 

do not support diving beetles in most 

years, they do support diving beetles in 

years with extreme weather conditions 

that make other sites unsuitable. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the diving beetle, 

and we evaluated all relevant factors 

under the five listing factors, including 

any regulatory mechanisms and 

conservation measures addressing these 

threats. After evaluating threats to the 

species and assessing the cumulative 

effect of the threats under the section 

4(a)(1) factors, we assessed the current 

status of the diving beetle to determine 

if it meets the definition of an 

endangered species or threatened 

species. The primary threats affecting 

the diving beetle’s biological status 

include climate change, inadequate 

water availability, flooding, 

anthropogenic disturbance, and 

insecticide spraying. 

Our assessment of current viability 

included all primary threats to the 

diving beetle. Despite past and ongoing 

stressors, the diving beetle has multiple 

populations in high and moderate 

condition. To assess future viability of 

this species, we considered the 

foreseeable future out to 2050 and 

projected the influence under three 

future scenarios of stressors that 

included climate change, inadequate 

water availability, flooding, 

anthropogenic disturbance, and 

insecticide spraying. Within the SSA, 

we evaluated the viability of diving 

beetles, including a review of ongoing 

and future threats. The best available 

information indicates that this species’ 

life-history traits are conducive to 

surviving projected climate changes and 

other increases in evaluated stressors 

now and into the foreseeable future. 

Diving beetles also have a 

metapopulation structure with 

connectivity between sites that supports 

resiliency among all sites throughout 

the entire range, and the distribution of 

the species across three different river 

basins within central Wyoming helps 

support redundancy. Therefore, we 

expect all diving beetle sites to be 

maintained into the foreseeable future. 

We then evaluated the range of the 

diving beetle to determine if the species 

is in danger of extinction now or likely 

to become so in the foreseeable future in 

any portion of its range. The range of a 

species can theoretically be divided into 

portions in an infinite number of ways. 

We focused our analysis on portions of 

the species’ range that may meet the 

definition of an endangered species or a 

threatened species. For the diving 

beetle, we considered whether the 

threats or their effects on the species are 

greater in any biologically meaningful 

portion of the species’ range than in 

other portions such that the species is 

in danger of extinction now or likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future in 

that portion. We found no portion of the 

diving beetle’s range where threats are 

impacting individuals differently from 

how they are affecting the species 

elsewhere in its range, or where the 

biological condition of the species 

differs from its condition elsewhere in 

its range such that the status of the 

species in that portion differs from its 

status in any other portion of the 

species’ range. Therefore, we find that 

the species is not in danger of extinction 

now or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future in any significant 

portion of its range; refer to the species 

assessment form in the docket for this 

action for additional details. 

After assessing the best available 

information, we concluded that the 

diving beetle is not in danger of 

extinction or likely to become in danger 

of extinction throughout all of its range 

or in any significant portion of its range. 

Therefore, we find that listing the 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 

diving beetle species assessment form 

and other supporting documents at 

https://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2023–0111. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our July 1, 1994, 

peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 

1994) and the Service’s August 22, 2016, 

Director’s Memo on the Peer Review 

Process, we solicited independent 

scientific reviews of the information 

contained in the diving beetle SSA 

report. The Service solicited review of 

the SSA report from six potential peer 

reviewers and received one review. 

Results of this structured peer review 

process can be found at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R6–ES–2023–0111. We 

incorporated the results of the review, 

as appropriate, into the SSA report, 

which is the foundation for this finding. 

Pristine 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 the pristine crayfish, as an 

endangered or threatened species under 

the Act. On September 27, 2011, we 

published a 90-day finding in the 

Federal Register (76 FR 59836) 

concluding that the petition presented 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that listing may 

be warranted. This document 

constitutes our 12-month finding on the 

April 20, 2010, petition to list pristine 

crayfish under the Act. 

Summary of Finding 

The pristine crayfish is a small, 

freshwater crayfish endemic to the 

Cumberland Plateau in Tennessee. The 

species occurs in small- to mediumsized streams and rivers in the Caney 

Fork and Sequatchie River systems in 

central Tennessee. Pristine crayfish are 

known to occur in 27 streams in 8 

subwatersheds (HUC12) in the region. 

Two distinct forms of the pristine 

crayfish are recognized based on body 

characteristics and genetics: the Caney 

Fork form and the Sequatchie form. The 

Caney Fork form of pristine crayfish 

occurs in five northern subwatersheds 

(17 streams), and the Sequatchie form 

occurs in three southern subwatersheds 

(10 streams). The pristine crayfish 

requires good water quality in first- to 

fourth-order perennial streams with cool 

water, shallow pools with slow to 

moderate flow, slab rock substrate with 

cobble, and low levels of sedimentation. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules 57397 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the pristine 

crayfish, and we evaluated all relevant 

factors under the five listing factors, 

including any regulatory mechanisms 

and conservation measures addressing 

these threats. After evaluating threats to 

the species and assessing the 

cumulative effect of the threats under 

the section 4(a)(1) factors, we assessed 

the current status of the pristine crayfish 

to determine if it meets the definition of 

an endangered species or threatened 

species. The threats affecting the 

pristine crayfish’s biological status 

include habitat destruction or 

modification, future effects of climate 

change, disease, and the effect of small, 

isolated populations. Of these threats, 

habitat destruction or modification and 

the future effects of climate change were 

identified as key drivers of the species’ 

viability. Habitat destruction or 

modification is currently the primary 

threat to pristine crayfish viability. 

Impacts to the pristine crayfish’s habitat 

rangewide are caused by sedimentation, 

decreased water quality, and the effects 

of impoundments. These impacts occur 

at the individual and population levels 

across the species’ distribution, but the 

best available information indicates that 

these localized impacts have not 

affected pristine crayfish at the species 

level. Climate change has the potential 

to impact the species through increased 

magnitude and frequency of drought 

and increased temperature, and this 

threat is ongoing and projected to 

increase in the future. Although drought 

and increased temperatures may result 

in a decrease or lack of recruitment in 

some portions of its range during some 

years, there have been no documented 

species-level declines as a result of 

consecutive years of drought. The 

threats of disease and small population 

size may exacerbate the effects of the 

primary threats but are not expected to 

affect population resiliency, 

representation, and redundancy alone. 

The best available information 

indicates that the range of the pristine 

crayfish has not contracted since 

described in 1965 and, in fact, its range 

was recently expanded into an 

additional river system. The species is 

naturally patchily distributed within its 

range and is known to occur in 27 

streams across 8 HUC12 analysis units 

(AUs). Seven of the eight AUs exhibit 

moderate current resiliency. Although 

we identified habitat destruction or 

modification and climate change as the 

key drivers of species’ viability, the 

species’ current condition does not 

indicate species-level impacts from 

these or other cumulative factors that 

have led to reductions in AU resiliency. 

The species’ representation and 

redundancy are moderate, and the 

species occurs in multiple analysis units 

with sufficient resiliency across its 

historical and current range. Overall, no 

current threat is acting at an extent or 

severity such that the pristine crayfish 

is at risk of extinction throughout all of 

its range. Thus, after assessing the best 

available information, we conclude that 

the pristine crayfish is not in danger of 

extinction throughout all of its range. 

Therefore, we proceed with 

determining whether the pristine 

crayfish is likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all of its 

range. To evaluate the future viability of 

the pristine crayfish, we considered the 

relevant threats currently acting on the 

species, those threats expected to act on 

the species in the foreseeable future, 

and the species’ response to those 

threats. The primary threats to the 

pristine crayfish in the future are habitat 

destruction or modification and climate 

change. The three plausible future 

scenarios we examined included 

projections of urbanization, land use 

change (evergreen forest cover), 

impoundments, the effects of climate 

change, and the cumulative effect of 

these threats. Our analysis of the 

species’ condition under future 

scenarios at two time steps (2036 and 

2051) encompasses the best available 

information for future projections of 

modeled parameters under a range of 

plausible threat levels. We selected 

these time steps based on the pristine 

crayfish’s lifespan of approximately 4 

years and the reliability of the data and 

models used in the future threat 

projections and analyses. Therefore, we 

determined 30 years to be the 

foreseeable future for which we can 

reasonably predict the threats to the 

pristine crayfish and the species’ 

response to those threats. 

In this timeframe, there are minor 

projected increases in some threats that 

may affect the availability of suitable 

habitat across the species’ range. 

Urbanization is projected to increase an 

average of 6 to 11 percent over current 

levels and evergreen forest cover 

(representing land use change) is 

projected to decrease by 1 percent in the 

same timeframes. The pristine crayfish 

is distributed across eight AUs (HUC12 

subwatersheds) and is expected to 

remain extant in all future scenarios 

across the AUs. Our future condition 

analysis projected declines in resiliency 

in six or seven of the AUs in all 

scenarios except the increased impact 

scenario in 2051, when all eight AUs are 

projected to decline in resiliency. Based 

on our analysis, the projected effects of 

climate change and impoundments may 

have a greater effect on species’ 

resiliency compared to current impacts, 

but the magnitude and imminence of 

the threats and the species’ responses 

are more uncertain. 

We expect that the species’ 

representation and redundancy will 

decline slightly but will largely be 

maintained in moderate condition in the 

future with all AUs remaining on the 

landscape in all scenarios. We projected 

future redundancy as moderate with no 

AUs projected to be extirpated, and the 

distribution of the species across the 

range is projected to remain at the 

current level. Likewise, representation 

is expected to remain moderate as both 

forms of the pristine crayfish are present 

on the landscape, although some 

parameters used to assess representation 

are projected to decline as resiliency 

declines. Impacts from current and 

ongoing threats will reduce population 

resiliency and affect the species’ 

representation and redundancy in the 

foreseeable future but are not projected 

to lead to the species’ decline such that 

the pristine crayfish is likely to become 

in danger of extinction in the modeled 

scenarios. The best available 

information does not indicate that the 

pristine crayfish’s viability will decline 

so much that the species is likely to 

become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout its 

range. 

We then evaluated the range of the 

pristine crayfish to determine if the 

species is in danger of extinction now 

or likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future in any significant portion of its 

range. Although threats are similar 

throughout the range of the species, the 

species’ response is more pronounced in 

the Piney Creek AU. Due to lower 

current resiliency, threats are having a 

greater impact in the Piney Creek AU 

than elsewhere in the range. The Piney 

Creek AU exhibits low current 

resiliency driven primarily by a low 

extent of occupancy (few sites known 

within the stream) and lack of 

information regarding reproduction in 

the species. Given the species’ condition 

within the Piney Creek AU, we have 

identified the unit as an area that may 

be in danger of extinction due to the low 

extent of occupancy and low 

reproduction/recruitment. 

We then proceeded to the significance 

question, asking whether this portion of 

the range is significant. Although the 

Piney Creek AU contributes to the 

overall species-level representation and 

redundancy, it does not contain any 

high-quality or high-value habitat or any 

habitat or resources unique to that area 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
57398 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

and necessary to the pristine crayfish’s 

life history. In addition, only 1 of the 27 

known streams with species occurrence 

is located in the Piney Creek AU. So this 

area does not contribute substantively to 

the species’ viability. This portion does 

not make up a large geographic area of 

the range or contain a high proportion 

of the species’ habitat or populations. 

Accordingly, we do not find this portion 

to be a significant portion of its range. 

Therefore, we find the pristine crayfish 

is not currently in danger of extinction 

in a significant portion of its range. 

We next considered whether the 

pristine crayfish may be likely to 

become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future in a significant 

portion of its range. As discussed above, 

we determined 30 years to be the 

foreseeable future for which we can 

reasonably predict the threats to the 

pristine crayfish and the species’ 

response to those threats. 

Habitat destruction or modification 

and climate change are the primary 

factors currently acting on or expected 

to act on the species in the future at a 

rangewide scale. The species currently 

exhibits moderate resiliency in seven of 

eight AUs and moderate species’ level 

representation and redundancy. 

Although threats are projected to impact 

the species similarly across the range, 

the species’ response is more 

pronounced in some AUs due to lower 

resiliency where threats are having a 

greater impact than elsewhere in the 

range. One AU (Caney Fork River–Clifty 

Creek) is projected to remain in 

moderate resiliency in all but the 

increased impact scenario in 2051. The 

remaining seven AUs are projected to 

exhibit low or very low resiliency under 

scenarios 2 and 3 in 2036 and 2051. We 

considered whether the seven AUs that 

are projected to exhibit low or very low 

resiliency in future scenarios may be a 

portion of the range that could become 

in danger of extinction within the 

foreseeable future. Although the future 

condition analyses projects overall 

declines in AU resiliency, stream 

catchments with species’ occurrences 

are projected to remain in good 

condition within each AU. Within the 

high-condition catchments, we expect 

that habitat conditions will support 

sufficient pristine crayfish abundance 

and reproduction. Although projections 

indicate low or very low future 

resiliency in seven AUs, the remaining 

stream catchments in high condition 

indicate that the pristine crayfish in 

these AUs will remain on the landscape 

with sufficient viability. In addition, 

although some declines in 

representation and redundancy are 

projected in the future, we expect that 

the pristine crayfish will have sufficient 

adaptive capacity and ability to 

withstand catastrophic change in the 

foreseeable future. Accordingly, we 

determined that the pristine crayfish is 

not likely to become an endangered 

species within a significant portion of 

its range. 

We found no portion of the pristine 

crayfish’s range where the biological 

condition of the species differs from its 

condition elsewhere in its range such 

that the status of the species in that 

portion warrants listing under the Act. 

Therefore, we find that the species is 

not in danger of extinction now or likely 

to become so in the foreseeable future in 

any significant portion of its range. 

After assessing the best available 

information, we concluded that the 

pristine crayfish is not in danger of 

extinction or likely to become in danger 

of extinction throughout all of its range 

or in any significant portion of its range. 

Therefore, we find that listing the 

pristine 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 pristine crayfish 

species assessment form and other 

supporting documents at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2023–0115. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our July 1, 1994, 

peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 

1994) and the Service’s August 22, 2016, 

Director’s Memo on the Peer Review 

Process, we solicited independent 

scientific reviews of the information 

contained in the pristine crayfish SSA 

report. The Service 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–2023– 

0115. We incorporated the results of 

these reviews, as appropriate, into the 

SSA report, which is the foundation for 

this finding. 

Tennessee Heelsplitter 

Previous Federal Actions 

On April 20, 2010, we received a 

petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance, 

Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, 

Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee 

Forests Council, and West Virginia 

Highlands to list 404 aquatic, riparian, 

and wetland species, including 

Tennessee heelsplitter (Lasmigona 

holstonia), as endangered or threatened 

species under the Act. On September 

27, 2011, we published a 90-day finding 

(76 FR 59836) that the petition 

contained substantial information 

indicating that listing may be warranted 

for the species. This document 

constitutes our 12-month finding on the 

April 20, 2010, petition to list the 

Tennessee heelsplitter under the Act. 

Summary of Finding 

The Tennessee heelsplitter is a small 

freshwater mussel usually less than 50 

millimeters (2 inches) long. The species 

is a freshwater mussel native to the 

New, Cumberland, and Tennessee River 

basins in Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia, 

Alabama, and historically North 

Carolina. The Tennessee heelsplitter 

predominantly inhabits spring-fed 

creeks and small headwater streams 

with stable substrates and good water 

quality. The species needs water with 

low to moderate flow, appropriate 

temperatures for life-history functions, 

and presence of fish hosts for successful 

reproduction. 

Resources influencing the successful 

completion of each life stage for 

Tennessee heelsplitter individuals 

include abundant host fish, stable 

substrate, proximity to breeding 

individuals, small or headwater streams, 

water with neutral pH and little to no 

contaminants, spring-fed streams with 

low to moderate water flow, and a water 

temperature range that allows for lifehistory functions (Service 2016a, p. 12). 

Successful completion of each life stage 

affects the ability of populations to 

withstand stochastic events (resiliency) 

and the species’ ability to withstand 

catastrophic events (redundancy) as 

well as adapt to changing environmental 

conditions by way of genetic exchange 

or respond to environmental diversity 

between occupied streams 

(representation). 

The population- and species-level 

resource needs of the Tennessee 

heelsplitter include sufficient juvenile 

and breeding adult abundances with 

broad distributions, suitable and 

abundant host fish, and habitat 

connectivity. Resiliency of Tennessee 

heelsplitter populations (which we 

defined as occupied stream reaches 

within analysis units (AUs)), as well as 

representation and redundancy of the 

species, are influenced by access to 

necessary resources. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the Tennessee 

heelsplitter, and we evaluated all 

relevant factors under the five listing 

factors, including any regulatory 

mechanisms and conservation measures 

addressing these threats. The threats 

affecting the Tennessee heelsplitter’s 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules 57399 

biological status include siltation and 

sedimentation, pollution and toxic 

spills, drought and floods, aquatic 

nuisance species, and impoundments. 

These threats appear to have mostly 

localized extent and moderate impact. 

The current risk of extinction is low. 

Further, the Tennessee heelsplitter’s 

current distribution has not 

substantially changed from its known 

historical distribution. Sixty percent of 

AUs are categorized as ‘‘high’’ or ‘‘most’’ 

habitat suitability and these AUs are 

distributed throughout each river basin. 

Redundancy is high, as our analysis 

indicates that suitable habitat exists 

throughout the range of the Tennessee 

heelsplitter. Representation is 

maintained across the range of historical 

and current occurrence in the 

Cumberland, New, and Tennessee River 

basins. Additionally, available 

information indicates the species’ 

adaptive capacity will ensure survival 

despite predicted climate impacts, 

particularly because of the strong 

association with spring-fed streams that 

can act as cold-water and drought 

refugia in the face of climate change. 

Therefore, after assessing the best 

available information, we conclude that 

the Tennessee heelsplitter is not in 

danger of extinction throughout all of its 

range. 

Based on projected habitat suitability 

for the two future scenarios, future 

resiliency for the Tennessee heelsplitter 

is expected to decrease slightly, but 

overall there will be 77 percent to 91 

percent of suitable habitat available to 

the species, depending on the modeled 

scenario. Multiple AUs maintain 

resiliency, or levels of suitable habitat, 

in future-condition projections across 

the range and are likely to help buffer 

changes in environmental conditions 

through 2040 and 2060. Further, the 

concentration of AUs with high 

resiliency in the southwestern Virginia 

and northeastern Tennessee strongholds 

are projected to remain intact. 

Connectivity of these high resiliency 

AUs within the upper Tennessee 

representation unit (RU) bolster the 

likelihood of persistence into the future. 

In the future, stochastic events 

associated with threats to the species 

will likely affect population resilience 

in parts of the range, and these are more 

likely to occur or be observed in 

developed areas. However, our future 

condition projections indicate 

Tennessee heelsplitter resiliency is 

sufficient to withstand disturbance and 

environmental stochasticity, due to 

prevalent suitable habitat and lifehistory traits that reduce risk currently 

and into the future. The Tennessee 

heelsplitter has several life-history traits 

that allow it to adapt to changing 

conditions, such as the capability to 

transform on a wide variety of common 

host fish species, occurring in varying 

stream sizes, as well as tolerance of silty 

and sandy substrates and depositional 

areas with low flows. Spring-fed streams 

where the Tennessee heelsplitter is most 

frequently located are ubiquitous 

throughout the species’ range and have 

year-round groundwater contributions 

with continuous flow and 

comparatively stable temperature 

regimes. These characteristics are 

expected to bolster Tennessee 

heelsplitter resilience in most AUs 

throughout the range into the future and 

withstand projected climate effects. 

After assessing the best available 

information, we conclude that the 

Tennessee heelsplitter is not likely to 

become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all of 

its range. 

We also evaluated the range of the 

Tennessee heelsplitter to determine if 

the species is in danger of extinction 

now or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future in any significant 

portion of its range. We identified the 

three RUs—Cumberland, New, and 

Tennessee drainages—for evaluation. As 

described above, the threats are present 

across all AUs within the range, but 

some are localized in effect, though 

most threats have a low to moderate 

level of impact on the species. The New 

and Cumberland RUs currently have 

large percentages (100 percent and 75 

percent, respectively) of suitable habitat, 

thus these areas have high estimated 

current resiliency. Our future conditions 

analysis indicates that none of the AUs 

in the New RU, and only one of the AUs 

in the Cumberland RU, is projected to 

no longer have suitable habitat to 

support the species. As such, the 

amount and distribution of suitable 

habitat in high resiliency AUs are 

projected to be maintained 40 years in 

the future in both the New and 

Cumberland RUs, and we determined 

that the Tennessee heelsplitter is not in 

danger of extinction now or likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future in 

the New or Cumberland RU. 

The Tennessee RU comprises 132 

AUs with varying levels of suitable 

habitat; 57 percent of the AUs have a 

current condition level of high or most 

resilience, and 43 percent are in a 

condition of moderate resilience. Our 

future conditions analysis indicates that 

4 to 14 percent of the AUs in the 

Tennessee RU could lose habitat 

suitability within the next 40 years. 

Despite this potential loss of habitat 

suitability, between 86 and 96 percent 

of the AUs are projected to maintain 

suitable habitat, with widespread 

distribution throughout the Tennessee 

RU portion of the range. The Tennessee 

heelsplitter is expected to have 

sufficient resiliency in this RU for many 

decades. Thus, we found that the 

Tennessee heelsplitter is not in danger 

of extinction now or likely to become so 

in the foreseeable future in the 

Tennessee RU. 

After assessing the best available 

information, we concluded that 

Tennessee heelsplitter is not in danger 

of extinction or likely to become in 

danger of extinction throughout all of its 

range or in any significant portion of its 

range. Therefore, we find that listing the 

Tennessee heelsplitter as an endangered 

species or threatened species under the 

Act is not warranted. A detailed 

discussion of the basis for this finding 

can be found in the Tennessee 

heelsplitter species assessment form and 

other supporting documents at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2023–0116. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our July 1, 1994, 

peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 

1994) and the Service’s August 22, 2016, 

Director’s Memo on the Peer Review 

Process we solicited independent 

scientific reviews of the information 

contained in the Tennessee heelsplitter 

SSA report. The Service sent the SSA 

report to five independent peer 

reviewers and received two responses. 

Results of this structured peer review 

process can be found at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2023–0116. We 

incorporated the results of these 

reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA 

report, which is the foundation for this 

finding. 

New Information 

We request that you submit any new 

information concerning the taxonomy, 

biology, ecology, or status of, or 

stressors to, the Alexander Archipelago 

wolf, Chihuahua catfish, Cooper’s cave 

amphipod, Georgia blind salamander, 

minute cave amphipod, Morrison’s cave 

amphipod, narrow-foot hygrotus diving 

beetle, pristine crayfish, or Tennessee 

heelsplitter 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
57400 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

References Cited 

A list of the references cited in each 

petition finding is available in the 

relevant species assessment form, which 

is available on the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov in the appropriate 

docket (see ADDRESSES, above) and upon 

request from the appropriate person (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, 

above). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the Species 

Assessment Team, Ecological Services 

Program. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is section 

4 of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 

Wendi Weber, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–18260 Filed 8–22–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[RTID 0648–XC971] 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; 

Fisheries Off West Coast States; 

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 

Management Plan; Amendment 31 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of 

proposed fishery management plan 

amendment; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

has submitted Amendment 31 to the 

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 

Management Plan to the Secretary of 

Commerce for review. If approved, 

Amendment 31 would define stocks that 

are in need of conservation and 

management, consistent with the 

provisions and guidelines of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act. 

Amendment 31 would define stocks for 

14 species within the fishery 

management unit. These species were 

prioritized because they had stock 

assessments in 2021 or will have 

assessments in 2023. Amendment 31 is 

necessary for NMFS to make stock 

status determinations, which in turn 

will help prevent overfishing, rebuild 

overfished stocks, and achieve optimum 

yield. Amendment 31 is administrative 

in nature and does not change harvest 

levels or timing and location of fishing, 

nor does it revise the goals and 

objectives or the management 

frameworks of the Pacific Coast 

Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. 

DATES: Comments on Amendment 31 

must be received no later than October 

22, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2023–0066, by the following 

method: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and enter 

NOAA–NMFS–2023–0066 in the Search 

box. Click the ‘‘Comment’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

Instructions: Comments must be 

submitted by the above method to 

ensure that the comments are received, 

documented, and considered by NMFS. 

Comments sent by any other method, to 

any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period, may not be considered. All 

comments received are a part of the 

public record and NMFS will post for 

public viewing on https://

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential 

business information, or otherwise 

sensitive information submitted 

voluntarily by the sender is publicly 

accessible. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). 

Electronic Access 

This rule is accessible via the internet 

at the Office of the Federal Register 

website at https://

www.federalregister.gov. Background 

information and documents including 

an analysis for this action (Analysis), 

which addresses the statutory 

requirements of the Magnuson Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) are 

available from the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council’s website at 

https://www.pcouncil.org. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gretchen Hanshew, Fishery 

Management Specialist, at 206–526– 

6147 or gretchen.hanshew@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the groundfish fisheries in the 

exclusive economic zone (EEZ) seaward 

of Washington, Oregon, and California 

under the Pacific Coast Groundfish 

fishery management plan (PCGFMP). 

The Council prepared and NMFS 

implemented the PCGFMP under the 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 

1801 et seq. and by regulations at 50 

CFR parts 600 and 660. The MagnusonStevens Act requires that each regional 

fishery management council submit any 

fishery management plan (FMP) or plan 

amendment it prepares to NMFS for 

review and approval, disapproval, or 

partial approval by the Secretary of 

Commerce. The Magnuson-Stevens Act 

also requires that NMFS, upon receiving 

an FMP or amendment, immediately 

publish a notification that the FMP or 

amendment is available for public 

review and comment. This notice of 

availability announces that the 

proposed Amendment 31 to the FMP is 

available for public review and 

comment. NMFS will consider the 

public comments received during the 

comment period described above in 

determining whether to approve, 

partially approve, or disapprove 

Amendment 31 to the FMP. 

Background 

Amendment 31 would define stocks 

that are in need of conservation and 

management. Amendment 31 would 

define stocks for 14 species within the 

fishery management unit (FMU; the 

jurisdiction of the FMP from 3–200 

nautical miles offshore between the U.S. 

border with Canada and the U.S. border 

with Mexico, which may also be 

referred to as ‘‘coastwide’’). 

At its June 20–27, 2023 meeting in 

Vancouver, Washington, the Council 

recommended stock definitions for 14 

species of Pacific Coast groundfish after 

NMFS was unable to make stock status 

determinations in 2021. NMFS was 

unable to make stock status 

determinations because the ‘‘stocks’’ for 

which the Council was expecting status 

determinations did not exist in the FMP. 

Currently, the FMP has a list of 80+ 

species to which it pertains, and does 

not describe whether each species is a 

single stock within the fishery 

management unit or if it is multiple 

(e.g., regional) stocks. 

NMFS requested that the Council 

undertake Amendment 31 to define 

stocks at its March 8–14, 2022 meeting 

in San Jose, California. NMFS advised 

the Council that it should define the 

stocks for which stock status 

determinations were changing in 2021 

and 2023, and to add those definitions 

to the FMP. In particular, NMFS was 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1