Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 88035 

* * * * * 

Martha Williams, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–27741 Filed 12–19–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR245] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Ten Species Not Warranted 

for Listing as Endangered or 

Threatened Species 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notification of findings. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce 

findings that 10 species are not 

warranted for listing as endangered or 

threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). After a thorough review 

of the best available scientific and 

commercial information, we find that it 

is not warranted at this time to list 

Hupp’s Hill cave beetle 

(Pseudanophthalmus parvicollis), 

Hubbard’s cave beetle 

(Pseudanophthalmus hubbardi), 

overlooked cave beetle 

(Pseudanophthalmus praetermissus), 

Shenandoah cave beetle 

(Pseudanophthalmus limicola), Little 

Kennedy cave beetle 

(Pseudanophthalmus cordicollis), 

Holsinger’s cave beetle 

(Pseudanophthalmus holsingeri), 

Hubricht’s cave beetle 

(Pseudanophthalmus hubrichti), silken 

cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus 

sericus), Pinalen ̃ o talussnail (Sonorella 

grahamensis), and San Xavier talussnail 

(Sonorella eremita). However, we ask 

the public to submit to us at any time 

any new information relevant to the 

status of any of the species mentioned 

above or their habitats. 

DATES: The findings in this document 

were made on December 20, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: Detailed descriptions of the 

bases for these findings are available on 

the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov under the 

following docket numbers: 

Species Docket No. 

Holsinger’s cave beetle ............................................................................ FWS–R5–ES–2023–0233 

Hubbard’s cave beetle .............................................................................. FWS–R5–ES–2023–0235 

Hubricht’s cave beetle .............................................................................. FWS–R5–ES–2023–0236 

Hupp’s Hill cave beetle ............................................................................. FWS–R5–ES–2023–0237 

Little Kennedy cave beetle ....................................................................... FWS–R5–ES–2023–0238 

Overlooked cave beetle ............................................................................ FWS–R5–ES–2023–0239 

Pinalen ̃o talussnail .................................................................................... FWS–R2–ES–2023–0240 

San Xavier talussnail ................................................................................ FWS–R2–ES–2023–0241 

Shenandoah cave beetle .......................................................................... FWS–R5–ES–2023–0242 

Silken cave beetle .................................................................................... FWS–R5–ES–2023–0243 

Those descriptions are also available 

by contacting the appropriate person as 

specified under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any 

new information, materials, comments, 

or questions concerning this finding to 

the appropriate person, as specified 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Species Contact Information 

Hupp’s Hill cave beetle, Hubbard’s cave beetle, overlooked cave beetle, Shenandoah cave beetle, Little Kennedy cave beetle, Holsinger’s 

cave beetle, Hubricht’s cave beetle, and silken cave beetle.

Cindy Schulz, Field Office Supervisor, Virginia Ecological Services 

Field Office, 804–654–1842, cindy_schulz@fws.gov. 

Pinalen ̃o talussnail and San Xavier talussnail ......................................... Heather Whitlaw, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office Supervisor, 

806–773–5932, heather_whitlaw@fws.gov. 

Individuals in the United States who 

are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or 

have a speech disability may dial 711 

(TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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

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

make a finding on whether or not a 

petitioned action is warranted within 12 

months after receiving any petition that 

we have determined contains 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted 

(‘‘12-month finding’’). We must make a 

finding that the petitioned action is: (1) 

Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) 

warranted, but precluded by other 

listing activity. We must publish a 

notification of these 12-month findings 

in the Federal Register. 

Summary of Information Pertaining to 

the Five Factors 

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

and the implementing regulations at 

part 424 of title 50 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) 

set forth procedures for adding species 

to, removing species from, or 

reclassifying species on the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants (Lists). The Act defines 

‘‘species’’ as including any subspecies 

of fish or wildlife or plants, and any 

distinct population segment of any 

species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 

which interbreeds when mature. The 

Act defines ‘‘endangered species’’ as 

any species that is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

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

and ‘‘threatened species’’ as any species 

that is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

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

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

be determined to be an endangered 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
88036 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

species or a threatened species because 

of any of the following five factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. 

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

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. However, the mere 

identification of any threat(s) does not 

necessarily mean that the species meets 

the statutory definition of an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ In determining whether a 

species meets either definition, we must 

evaluate all identified threats by 

considering the expected response by 

the species, and the effects of the 

threats—in light of those actions and 

conditions that will ameliorate the 

threats—on an individual, population, 

and species level. We evaluate each 

threat and its expected effects on the 

species, then analyze the cumulative 

effect of all of the threats on the species 

as a whole. We also consider the 

cumulative effect of the threats in light 

of those actions and conditions that will 

have positive effects on the species, 

such as any existing regulatory 

mechanisms or conservation efforts. The 

Secretary of the Interior determines 

whether the species meets the Act’s 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species’’ only after 

conducting this cumulative analysis and 

describing the expected effect on the 

species now and in the foreseeable 

future. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

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

‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far 

into the future as the Service can 

reasonably determine that both the 

future threats and the species’ responses 

to those threats are likely. In other 

words, the foreseeable future is the 

period of time in which we can make 

reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not 

mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to 

provide a reasonable degree of 

confidence in the prediction. Thus, a 

prediction is reliable if it is reasonable 

to depend on it when making decisions. 

It is not always possible or necessary 

to define foreseeable future as a 

particular number of years. Analysis of 

the foreseeable future uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and should consider the timeframes 

applicable to the relevant threats and to 

the species’ likely responses to those 

threats in view of its life-history 

characteristics. Data that are typically 

relevant to assessing the species’ 

biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan, 

reproductive rates or productivity, 

certain behaviors, and other 

demographic factors. 

In conducting our evaluation of the 

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

the Act to determine whether the 

Holsinger’s cave beetle, Hubbard’s cave 

beetle, Hubricht’s cave beetle, Hupp’s 

Hill cave beetle, Little Kennedy cave 

beetle, overlooked cave beetle, Pinalen ̃ o 

talussnail, San Xavier talussnail, 

Shenandoah cave beetle, or silken cave 

beetle meet the Act’s definition of 

‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened 

species,’’ we considered and thoroughly 

evaluated the best scientific and 

commercial information available 

regarding the past, present, and future 

stressors and threats. We reviewed the 

petitions for the Hubbard’s cave beetle, 

Hubricht’s cave beetle, Little Kennedy 

cave beetle, overlooked cave beetle, 

Pinalen ̃o talussnail, San Xavier 

talussnail, Shenandoah cave beetle, and 

silken cave beetle (see the discussion 

below for information on Holsinger’s 

and Hupp’s Hill cave beetles). For all of 

these species, including the species for 

which we completed discretionary 

status reviews (Holsinger’s and Hupp’s 

Hill beetles), we reviewed information 

available in our files, and other 

available published and unpublished 

information. Our evaluation may 

include information from recognized 

experts; Federal, State, and Tribal 

governments; academic institutions; 

foreign governments; private entities; 

and other members of the public. 

In accordance with the regulations at 

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

announces the not-warranted findings 

on petitions to list eight species and the 

discretionary status reviews of two 

species. We have also elected to include 

brief summaries of the analyses on 

which these findings are based. We 

provide the full analyses, including the 

reasons and data on which the findings 

are based, in the decisional file for each 

of the actions included in this 

document. The following is a 

description of the documents containing 

these analyses: 

The species assessment forms for the 

Holsinger’s cave beetle, Hubbard’s cave 

beetle, Hubricht’s cave beetle, Hupp’s 

Hill cave beetle, Little Kennedy cave 

beetle, overlooked cave beetle, Pinalen ̃ o 

talussnail, San Xavier talussnail, 

Shenandoah cave beetle, and silken 

cave beetle contain more detailed 

biological information, a thorough 

analysis of the listing factors, a list of 

literature cited, and an explanation of 

why we determined that these species 

do not meet the Act’s definition of an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ To inform our status reviews, 

we completed species status assessment 

(SSA) reports for these 10 species. Each 

SSA report contains a thorough review 

of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, 

current status, and projected future 

status for each species. This supporting 

information can be found on the 

internet at https://www.regulations.gov 

under the appropriate docket number 

(see ADDRESSES, above). Our analyses for 

these decisions applied our current 

regulations, portions of which were last 

revised in 2019. Given that we proposed 

further revisions to these regulations on 

June 22, 2023 (88 FR 40764), we have 

also analyzed whether the decisions 

would be different if we were to apply 

those proposed revisions. We concluded 

that the decisions would have been the 

same if we had applied the proposed 

2023 regulations. The analyses under 

both the regulations currently in effect 

and the regulations after incorporating 

the June 22, 2023, proposed revisions 

are included in our decision file for 

each action. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 88037 

Holsinger’s Cave Beetle, Hubbard’s Cave 

Beetle, Hubricht’s Cave Beetle, Hupp’s 

Hill Cave Beetle, Little Kennedy Cave 

Beetle, Overlooked Cave Beetle, 

Shenandoah Cave Beetle, and Silken 

Cave Beetle 

Previous Federal Actions 

On April 20, 2010, we received a 

petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance, 

Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, 

Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee 

Forests Council, and West Virginia 

Highlands to list 404 aquatic, riparian, 

and wetland species, including 15 cave 

beetle species: Pseudanophthalmus 

hubbardi, Pseudanophthalmus 

praetermissus, Pseudanophthalmus 

limicola, Pseudanophthalmus 

cordicollis, Pseudanophthalmus 

hubrichti, Pseudanophthalmus sericus, 

Pseudanophthalmus avernus, 

Pseudanophthalmus intersectus, 

Pseudanophthalmus hirsutus, 

Pseudanophthalmus virginicus, 

Pseudanophthalmus egberti, 

Pseudanophthalmus pontis, 

Pseudanophthalmus sanctipauli, 

Pseudanophthalmus potomaca, and 

Pseudanophthalmus thomasi (referred 

to by the common names ‘‘Hubbard’s 

cave beetle,’’ ‘‘overlooked cave beetle,’’ 

‘‘Shenandoah cave beetle,’’ ‘‘Little 

Kennedy cave beetle,’’ ‘‘Hubricht’s cave 

beetle,’’ ‘‘silken cave beetle,’’ ‘‘Avernus 

cave beetle,’’ ‘‘crossroads cave beetle,’’ 

‘‘Cumberland Gap cave beetle,’’ 

‘‘Maiden Spring cave beetle,’’ ‘‘New 

River Valley cave beetle,’’ ‘‘Natural 

Bridge cave beetle,’’ ‘‘Saint Paul cave 

beetle,’’ ‘‘South Branch Valley cave 

beetle,’’ and ‘‘Thomas’ cave beetle,’’ 

respectively, in the petition), as 

endangered or threatened species under 

the Act. On September 27, 2011, we 

published in the Federal Register (76 

FR 59836) a 90-day finding that the 

petition provided substantial 

information indicating 374 of those 

species may warrant listing, including 

the 15 species listed above. 

In a letter dated September 12, 2022, 

the petitioners withdrew their petition 

for nine of the Virginia cave beetle 

species, citing new information 

indicating the species no longer merit 

consideration for listing. These nine 

species are the Avernus cave beetle, 

crossroads cave beetle, Cumberland Gap 

cave beetle, Maiden Spring cave beetle, 

New River Valley cave beetle, Natural 

Bridge cave beetle, Saint Paul cave 

beetle, South Branch Valley cave beetle, 

and Thomas’ cave beetle. 

This document constitutes our 12- 

month finding on the April 20, 2010, 

petition to list Hubbard’s, overlooked, 

Shenandoah, Little Kennedy, 

Hubricht’s, and silken cave beetles 

under the Act. We also decided, as 

discretionary actions, to assess two 

additional Virginia cave beetle species 

(Pseudanophthalmus holsingeri 

(Holsinger’s cave beetle) and 

Pseudanophthalmus parvicollis (Hupp’s 

Hill cave beetle)) identified by the 

Service and partners as species of 

concern. 

Summary of Finding 

The eight focal cave beetle species are 

found in Virginia throughout the 

Appalachian Valley and Ridge (AVR) 

geologically unique limestone 

formations. Uplift, erosion, and 

dissolution of the faulted and folded 

strata of the AVR have produced 

isolated belts of karst topography with 

numerous caves, where carbonate 

bedrock is exposed in the valleys and 

flanks of ridges capped with non-cave 

forming rocks. 

Cave beetles are eyeless, wingless 

beetles generally reddish/brown in 

color. The eight cave beetle species are 

insects in the Carabidae Family (Carabid 

beetles) under the Order Coleoptera. 

More specifically, they fall under the 

subfamily Trechinae, which includes 

numerous genera, including 

Pseudanophthalmus. Genus 

Pseudanophthalmus beetles (within 

which the eight species fall) are 

typically 3–9 millimeters in size 

(Service 2023, p. 2–4). 

The eight cave beetle species are 

troglobites, meaning they are obligate 

cave dwellers and complete all phases 

of their life cycle within caves (Service 

2023, p. v). Caves are a natural opening 

in solid rock with areas of complete 

darkness and are larger than a few 

millimeters (mm) in diameter (Culver 

and Pipan 2019, pp. 4–5). Caves 

typically form in karst landscapes that 

are defined as areas in which 

dissolution by weak acids is the primary 

agent shaping the landscape, as opposed 

to erosion, volcanoes, and earthquakes 

(Culver and Pipan 2019, pp. 4–5). Most 

solution caves form in carbonate 

(limestone or dolostone) bedrock. 

Pseudanophthalmus cave beetles 

typically inhabit riparian mudbanks and 

other moist areas within limestone 

caves (Lewis 2001a, p. 5). Notable 

habitat features where 

Pseudanophthalmus cave beetles have 

been collected in Virginia include mud 

cracks, fine silt, woody debris, cobbles, 

and rocks. It is difficult to interpret 

these microhabitat features in terms of 

individual needs because we know so 

little about the life history of these 

species. It is common for other carabid 

beetles to prefer areas where they may 

seek shelter (hence the mudcracks, 

rocks, cobbles, and woody debris), and 

it is likely, again based on other carabid 

beetles, that females lay eggs in moist 

silty areas. The combination of moisture 

and organic material also likely presents 

the right circumstances for their prey 

items to be available. The individual 

needs that seem clear are that karst 

environments with water or moisture 

are necessary for beetles to be present; 

they have not been observed outside of 

caves or in completely dry caves. 

Cave beetles are generally predatory 

and carnivorous, most likely feeding on 

mites, springtails, and opportunistic 

items, including beetle eggs and larvae. 

The primary food source of 

Pseudanophthalmus is enchytraeid and 

tubificid worms found associated with 

cave mudbanks (Lewis 2001a, b, and c, 

p. 4; Lewis 2002, p. 5). While it is not 

clear exactly what each species eats, 

experts are confident that they forage at 

a higher trophic level than some other 

cave invertebrates; they have not been 

observed associated with mammal scat 

like some other troglobites that feed on 

the associated bacterial and fungal 

growth (Service 2023, p. 2–5). 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the Hupp’s Hill, 

Hubbard’s, overlooked, Shenandoah, 

Little Kennedy, Holsinger’s, Hubricht’s, 

and silken cave beetles, and we 

evaluated all relevant factors under the 

five listing factors, including any 

regulatory mechanisms and 

conservation measures addressing these 

threats. The primary threats affecting 

the eight cave beetles’ biological status 

include quarrying, commercial 

operations inside caves, and 

urbanization/development. These 

activities may alter the physical 

structure of caves and change the water 

table or hydrology of cave systems; we 

made the conservative assumption that 

compromised water quality and 

quantity may impact cave beetle species 

(Service 2023, p. 4–6). We also 

considered potential threats of 

agriculture and timbering (Service 2023, 

pp. 4–2—4–3). 

Despite potential impacts from the 

primary threats, the best scientific and 

commercial data available indicate that 

the Little Kennedy, Shenandoah, and 

Hubricht’s cave beetle species have 

maintained resilient populations 

throughout their respective ranges. This 

projection also applies to the single siteendemic species (Hupp’s Hill, 

Hubbard’s, Holsinger’s, overlooked, and 

silken cave beetles), because, similar to 

Little Kennedy, Shenandoah, and 

Hubricht’s cave beetles, the best 

available information indicates that 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
88038 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

these species are projected to maintain 

resilient populations even under the 

projected future threats. 

The eight cave beetles’ redundancy 

and representation are limited due to 

their narrow ranges; however, this may 

be similar to historical conditions for 

most of the eight species. We assume 

that Hupp’s Hill cave beetle is 

extirpated from one location (Battlefield 

Crystal Caverns); however, the best 

available information indicates no 

population- or species-level threats are 

acting on the species at Ogden’s 

location. 

Cave beetles are cryptic species that 

can be hard to locate within their 

habitats. Most caves likely undergo 

seasonal fluctuations in moisture that 

may influence the distribution of cave 

fauna within the system. The nature of 

caves and karst systems is such that 

there is presumed to be a large portion 

of area that is accessible to cave beetles 

(but not to humans), including cracks 

and crevices that may extend long 

distances and connect to unknown 

caves. We find that the eight cave beetle 

species have sufficient resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation in light 

of the best available potential stressor 

data and information. Thus, after 

assessing the best available information, 

we conclude that the eight cave beetle 

species (i.e., Hupp’s Hill, Hubbard’s, 

overlooked, Shenandoah, Little 

Kennedy, Holsinger’s, Hubricht’s, and 

silken cave beetles) are not in danger of 

extinction throughout all of their ranges. 

Next, we proceed with determining 

whether the eight cave beetle species are 

likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all of their 

ranges. Our evaluation is based upon 

analysis of threats and regional land-use 

projections for a foreseeable future 

extending out to 2070. The best 

available information does not indicate 

the threats will impact the species such 

that any of them meet the Act’s 

definition of a threatened species. We 

expect no changes in redundancy or 

representation for any of the eight 

species as a result of future threats. 

After assessing the best available 

information, we conclude that the eight 

cave beetle species (i.e., Hupp’s Hill, 

Hubbard’s, overlooked, Shenandoah, 

Little Kennedy, Holsinger’s, Hubricht’s, 

and silken cave beetles) are not likely to 

become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all of their 

ranges. 

We also evaluated whether the 

Hupp’s Hill, Hubbard’s, overlooked, 

Shenandoah, Little Kennedy, 

Holsinger’s, Hubricht’s, and silken cave 

beetles are endangered or threatened in 

a significant portion of their ranges. We 

did not find any portions of the Hupp’s 

Hill, Hubbard’s, overlooked, 

Shenandoah, Little Kennedy, 

Holsinger’s, Hubricht’s, and silken cave 

beetles ranges for which both (1) the 

portion is significant; and (2) the species 

is in danger of extinction in that 

portion, either now or within the 

foreseeable future. Thus, after assessing 

the best available information, we 

conclude that the Hupp’s Hill, 

Hubbard’s, overlooked, Shenandoah, 

Little Kennedy, Holsinger’s, Hubricht’s, 

and silken cave beetles are not in danger 

of extinction in a significant portion of 

their ranges now, or within the 

foreseeable future. 

After assessing the best available 

information, we conclude that Hupp’s 

Hill, Hubbard’s, overlooked, 

Shenandoah, Little Kennedy, 

Holsinger’s, Hubricht’s, and silken cave 

beetles are not in danger of extinction 

now or likely to become in danger of 

extinction within the foreseeable future 

throughout all of their ranges or in any 

significant portion of their ranges. 

Therefore, we find that listing the eight 

cave beetle species as endangered 

species or threatened species under the 

Act is not warranted. For each beetle 

species, a detailed discussion of the 

basis for this finding can be found in the 

species assessment form and other 

supporting documents, which are 

available on https://

www.regulations.gov under the 

appropriate docket number (see 

ADDRESSES, above). 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our July 1, 1994, 

peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 

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

Director’s Memo on the Peer Review 

Process, we solicited independent 

scientific reviews of the information 

contained in the SSA report for the eight 

cave beetle species. The Service sent the 

SSA report to six independent peer 

reviewers and received one response. 

Results of this structured peer review 

process can be found at https://

www.regulations.gov under the 

appropriate docket number (see 

ADDRESSES, above). We incorporated the 

results of these reviews, as appropriate, 

into the SSA report, which is the 

foundation for this finding. 

Pinalen ̃ o Talussnail and San Xavier 

Talussnail 

Previous Federal Actions 

On June 25, 2007, the Service 

received a petition from Forest 

Guardians (i.e., WildEarth Guardians) 

requesting that we list 475 species, 

including the Pinalen ̃o talussnail and 

the San Xavier talussnail, as endangered 

or threatened species and designate 

critical habitat under the Act. All 475 

species occur within the Southwestern 

Region and were ranked as G1 or G1G2 

species by NatureServe at the time. In a 

July 11, 2007, letter to the petitioner, the 

Service acknowledged receipt of the 

petition and stated that the petition was 

under review by staff in the Southwest 

Regional Office. On December 16, 2009, 

the Service published a partial 90-day 

finding for 192 of the species (74 FR 

66866); that finding stated that the 

petition presented substantial scientific 

information indicating that listing may 

be warranted for 67 of the 192 species, 

including the Pinalen ̃ o talussnail and 

the San Xavier talussnail. 

Summary of Finding 

The Pinalen ̃ o talussnail and San 

Xavier talussnail are land snails 

endemic to southeastern Arizona that 

reside on rocky hillsides, rocky washes, 

and talus slopes. The Pinalen ̃o 

talussnail occurs in the Pinalen ̃ o 

Mountains on the Coronado National 

Forest within an estimated 25 square 

miles (64.7 square kilometers) of 

potentially suitable habitat. The San 

Xavier talussnail is restricted to the 

northwestern slope of White Hill in the 

Sonoran Desert with an approximate 

range of 1.08 acres (0.44 hectares) on 

private land. 

Both species require interstitial spaces 

in the talus for estivation (dormancy); 

dense vegetation and canopy cover; 

available food sources of fungus, lichen, 

decaying plant matter, and young green 

shoots; and adequate moisture. An 

adequate level of moisture is needed for 

the talussnails’ active periods when 

they carry out their necessary lifehistory processes, as well as to support 

suitable habitat. An adequate level of 

moisture occurs when weather 

conditions fall within appropriate 

ranges of temperature, precipitation, 

relative humidity, and evaporation 

deficit. Individuals spend most of their 

time in estivation to avoid drying out or 

freezing during unfavorable conditions. 

The primary environmental influences 

are climate change and drought for both 

species, as well as wildfire and erosion 

for the Pinalen ̃ o talussnail. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the Pinalen ̃o 

talussnail and San Xavier talussnail, 

and we evaluated all relevant factors 

under the five listing factors, including 

any regulatory mechanisms and 

conservation measures addressing these 

threats. The primary threats affecting 

the Pinalen ̃ o talussnail’s status include 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 88039 

drought and impacts from climate 

change, erosion, and wildfire. 

Population resiliency is dependent on a 

variety of climate conditions that 

influence talussnail active period, 

habitat quality, and habitat quantity. 

Our assessment used weather 

parameters to evaluate the talussnails’ 

resiliency (e.g., high, moderate, or low 

condition) based on the requirements of 

active periods (i.e., mean daily 

maximum temperature, mean annual 

precipitation, mean daily maximum 

relative humidity), habitat quality (i.e., 

mean annual evaporation deficit), and 

habitat quantity (i.e., mean annual 

temperature change). Our results 

indicate that the weather parameters 

assessed are currently fully supportive 

of talussnail life history requirements; 

therefore, the overall current condition 

of Pinalen ̃o talussnail population 

resiliency is assessed as ‘‘high 

condition.’’ The species’ life history 

indicates that the species is adapted to 

variable environmental conditions by 

spending most of its time in estivation 

to avoid desiccation or freezing during 

unfavorable conditions. Surveys effort 

indicated that land snail abundance 

estimates were unchanged due to a 

recent fire, and fuel reduction activities 

are ongoing. Thus, after assessing the 

best available information, we conclude 

that the Pinalen ̃ o talussnail is not in 

danger of extinction throughout all of its 

range. 

Climate change impacts to mean 

maximum relative humidity and mean 

temperature change for the Pinalen ̃o 

talussnail are expected in 50-year future 

scenarios. However, the changes are 

expected to be very small and are not 

expected to decrease the viability of the 

species such that the species is in 

danger of extinction within the 

foreseeable future. The species’ life 

history allows it to rebound after fires 

and other historical catastrophic events 

like mega droughts. Additionally, all 

historical habitat for the species remains 

intact, and there is no loss of range to 

date. Although there is some potential 

for climate effects in the 50-year 

timeframe, these effects are not 

substantial enough to substantially 

decrease habitat conditions for the 

species and result in the species being 

in danger of extinction. After assessing 

the best available information, we 

conclude that the Pinalen ̃ o talussnail is 

not likely to become endangered within 

the foreseeable future throughout all of 

its range. 

The primary threats affecting San 

Xavier talussnail’s biological status 

include drought and impacts from 

climate change. The San Xavier 

talussnail’s current population 

resiliency is on the border between 

moderate and high condition. Habitat is 

intact, is connected, and does not have 

any development or land-use changes 

nearby that would alter the habitat 

conditions at these sites, thereby 

contributing to the conservation of 

habitat quality into the future. The 

species’ life history indicates that the 

species is adapted to variable 

environmental conditions by spending 

most of its time in estivation to avoid 

desiccation or freezing during 

unfavorable conditions. The most likely 

catastrophic event for the San Xavier 

talussnail would be the loss of 

interstitial spaces in occupied talus 

habitats, but this is unlikely due to 

conservation commitments in the ‘‘2018 

Strategic Conservation Plan for the San 

Xavier Talussnail in Pima, Arizona.’’ 

Thus, after assessing the best available 

information, we conclude that the San 

Xavier talussnail is not in danger of 

extinction throughout all of its range. 

Climate change impacts to mean 

maximum temperature and mean 

temperature change for the San Xavier 

talussnail are expected in 50-year future 

scenarios. However, the changes are 

expected to be very small and are not 

expected to decrease the viability of the 

species such that the species is in 

danger of extinction within the 

foreseeable future. The species’ life 

history allows it to rebound after fires 

and other historical catastrophic events 

like mega droughts. Additionally, all 

historical habitat for the species remains 

intact, and there is no loss of range to 

date. Although there is some potential 

for climate effects in the 50-year 

timeframe, these effects are not 

substantial enough to substantially 

decrease habitat conditions for the 

species and result in the species being 

in danger of extinction. After assessing 

the best available information, we 

conclude that the San Xavier talussnail 

is not likely to become endangered 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all of its range. 

We also evaluated whether the 

Pinalen ̃o talussnail and the San Xavier 

talussnail are endangered or threatened 

in a significant portion of their range. 

We did not find any portions of the 

Pinalen ̃o talussnail and the San Xavier 

talussnail ranges for which both (1) the 

portion is significant; and (2) the species 

is in danger of extinction in that 

portion, either now or within the 

foreseeable future. Thus, after assessing 

the best available information, we 

conclude that the Pinalen ̃ o talussnail 

and the San Xavier talussnail are not in 

danger of extinction in a significant 

portion of their ranges now, or within 

the foreseeable future. 

After assessing the best available 

information, we conclude that the 

Pinalen ̃ o talussnail and the San Xavier 

talussnail are not in danger of extinction 

now or likely to become in danger of 

extinction within the foreseeable future 

throughout all of their ranges or in any 

significant portion of their ranges. 

Therefore, we find that listing the 

Pinalen ̃ o talussnail and the San Xavier 

talussnail as endangered species or 

threatened species under the Act is not 

warranted. A detailed discussion of the 

basis for this finding can be found in the 

Pinalen ̃ o talussnail and the San Xavier 

talussnail species assessment form and 

other supporting documents on https:// 

www.regulations.gov under the 

appropriate docket number (see 

ADDRESSES, above). 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our July 1, 1994, 

peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 

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

Director’s Memo on the Peer Review 

Process, we solicited independent 

scientific reviews of the information 

contained in the Pinalen ̃o talussnail and 

the San Xavier talussnail SSA report. 

The Service sent the SSA report to eight 

independent peer reviewers and 

received six responses. Results of this 

structured peer review process can be 

found at https://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket Nos. FWS–R2–ES–2023– 

0241 and FWS–R2–ES–2023–0242. We 

incorporated the results of these 

reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA 

report, which is the foundation for this 

finding. 

New Information 

We request that you submit any new 

information concerning the taxonomy 

of, biology of, ecology of, status of, or 

stressors to the Holsinger’s cave beetle, 

Hubbard’s cave beetle, Hubricht’s cave 

beetle, Hupp’s Hill cave beetle, Little 

Kennedy cave beetle, overlooked cave 

beetle, Pinalen ̃o talussnail, San Xavier 

talussnail, Shenandoah cave beetle, or 

silken cave beetle to the appropriate 

person, as specified under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT, whenever it 

becomes available. New information 

will help us monitor these species and 

make appropriate decisions about their 

conservation and status. We encourage 

local agencies and stakeholders to 

continue cooperative monitoring and 

conservation efforts. 

References 

A complete list of the references used 

in these petition findings is available in 

the relevant species assessment form, 

which is available on the internet at 

https://www.regulations.gov in the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
88040 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

appropriate docket (see ADDRESSES, 

above) and upon request from the 

appropriate person (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT, above). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the Species 

Assessment Team, Ecological Services 

Program. 

Signing Authority 

Martha Williams, Director of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this 

action on December 7, 2023, for 

publication. On December 7, 2023, 

Martha Williams authorized the 

undersigned to sign the document 

electronically and submit it to the Office 

of the Federal Register for publication as 

an official document of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is section 

4 of the Endangered Species Act of 

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

seq.). 

Madonna Baucum, 

Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of 

Policy, Economics, Risk Management, and 

Analytics of the Joint Administrative 

Operations, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–27966 Filed 12–19–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1