Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 14227 

requirements for all appropriate 

inquiries if such parties comply with 

the procedures provided in the ASTM 

E1527–21, ‘‘Standard Practice for 

Environmental Site Assessments: Phase 

I Environmental Site Assessment 

Process.’’ EPA determined that it is 

reasonable to promulgate this 

clarification as a direct final rule that is 

effective immediately, rather than delay 

promulgation of the clarification until 

after receipt and consideration of public 

comments. EPA made this 

determination based upon the Agency’s 

finding that the ASTM E1527–21 

standard is compliant with the All 

Appropriate Inquiries Rule, and the 

Agency sees no reason to delay allowing 

for its use in conducting all appropriate 

inquiries. 

The Agency notes that this action will 

not require any party to use the ASTM 

E1527–21 standard. Any party 

conducting all appropriate inquiries to 

comply with CERCLA’s bona fide 

prospective purchaser, contiguous 

property owner, and innocent 

landowner liability protections may 

continue to follow the provisions of the 

All Appropriate Inquiries Rule at 40 

CFR part 312, or continue to use either 

the ASTM E1527–13 standard or use the 

ASTM E2247–16 standard. 

This proposed action merely will 

allow for the use of the ASTM E1527– 

21 ‘‘Standard Practice for 

Environmental Site Assessments: Phase 

I Environmental Site Assessment 

Process’’ for those parties purchasing 

potentially contaminated properties 

who want to use the ASTM E1527–21 

standard in lieu of the following specific 

requirements of the All Appropriate 

Inquiries Rule. 

The Agency notes that there are no 

legally significant differences between 

the regulatory requirements and the 

ASTM E1527 standards. To facilitate an 

understanding of the slight differences 

between the All Appropriate Inquiries 

Rule, the ASTM E1527–13 ‘‘Phase I 

Environmental Site Assessment 

Standard,’’ and the revised ASTM 

E1527–21 ‘‘Standard Practice for 

Environmental Site Assessments: Phase 

I Environmental Site Assessment 

Process,’’ as well as the applicability of 

the E1527–21 standard for certain types 

of properties, EPA developed, and 

placed in the docket for this proposed 

action, the document ‘‘Comparison of 

All Appropriate Inquiries Regulation, 

the ASTM E1527–13 Phase I 

Environmental Site Assessment Process, 

and ASTM E1527–21 Phase I 

Environmental Site Assessment 

Process.’’ The document provides a 

comparison of the two ASTM E1527 

standards. 

EPA’s proposed action includes no 

changes to the All Appropriate Inquiries 

Rule other than to add an additional 

reference to the new ASTM E1527–21 

standard. EPA is not seeking comments 

on the standards and practices included 

in the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule 

published at 40 CFR part 312. Also, EPA 

is not seeking comments on the ASTM 

E1527–21 standard. EPA’s only action 

with this proposed rule is recognition of 

the ASTM E1527–21 standard as 

compliant with the All Appropriate 

Inquiries Rule and, therefore, it is only 

this action on which the Agency is 

seeking comment. 

EPA is proposing this action because 

the Agency wants to provide additional 

flexibility for brownfields grant 

recipients or other entities that may 

benefit from the use of the ASTM 

E1527–21 standard. We believe that this 

proposed action will allow for the use 

of a tailored standard that was 

developed by a recognized standards 

developing organization, reviewed by 

EPA, and determined to be equivalent to 

the Agency’s All Appropriate Inquiries 

Rule. This action does not disallow the 

use of the previously recognized 

standards (ASTM E1527–13 or ASTM 

E2247–16), and it will not alter the 

requirements of the previously 

promulgated All Appropriate Inquiries 

Rule. In addition, this proposal 

potentially will increase flexibility for 

some parties who may make use of the 

new standard, without placing any 

additional burden on those parties who 

prefer to use either the ASTM E1527–13 

standard or the ASTM E2247–16 or to 

follow the requirements of the All 

Appropriate Inquiries Rule when 

conducting all appropriate inquiries. 

By proposing this action, EPA is 

fulfilling the intent and requirements of 

the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA), Public Law 

104–113. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

For a complete discussion of all of the 

administrative requirements applicable 

to this action, see the discussion in the 

‘‘Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews’’ section to the preamble for the 

direct final rule that is published in the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section in this 

issue of the Federal Register. 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and Executive 

Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 

2011), this proposed action is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and is 

therefore not subject to OMB review. 

This action merely amends the All 

Appropriate Inquiries Rule to reference 

ASTM International’s E1527–21 

‘‘Standard Practice for Environmental 

Site Assessments: Phase I 

Environmental Site Assessment 

Process’’ and allow for its use to satisfy 

the requirements for conducting all 

appropriate inquiries under CERCLA. 

This action does not impose any 

requirements on any entity, including 

small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

601 et seq.), after considering the 

economic impacts of this action on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 312 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Hazardous substances. 

Barry N. Breen, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Land and Emergency Management. 

[FR Doc. 2022–05260 Filed 3–11–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Three Species Not 

Warranted for Listing as Endangered 

or Threatened Species 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notification of findings. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce 

findings that three species are not 

warranted for listing as endangered or 

threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). After a thorough review 

of the best available scientific and 

commercial information, we find that it 

is not warranted at this time to list 

Blanco blind salamander (Eurycea 

robusta), Georgia bully (Sideroxylon 

thornei), and Rio Grande cooter 

(Pseudemys gorzugi). 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 March 14, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Detailed descriptions of the 

bases for these findings are available on 

the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov under the 

following docket numbers: 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
14228 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Species Docket No. 

Blanco blind salamander ................................................................................................................................................ FWS–R2–ES–2021–0128 

Georgia bully ................................................................................................................................................................... FWS–R4–ES–2021–0129 

Rio Grande cooter .......................................................................................................................................................... FWS–R2–ES–2021–0132 

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 

Blanco blind salamander and Rio Grande cooter .................................... Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, adam_zerrenner@fws.gov, 512–490–0057 x248. 

Georgia bully ............................................................................................ Peter Maholland, Deputy Field Supervisor, Georgia Ecological Services 

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

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 whether or not a 

petitioned action is warranted within 12 

months after receiving any petition for 

which we have determined contains 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted 

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

finding that the petitioned action is: (1) 

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

warranted, but precluded by other 

listing activity. We must publish a 

notification of these 12-month findings 

in the Federal Register. 

Summary of Information Pertaining to 

the Five Factors 

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

and the implementing regulations at 

part 424 of title 50 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) 

set forth procedures for adding species 

to, removing species from, or 

reclassifying species on the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants (Lists). The Act defines 

‘‘species’’ as including any subspecies 

of fish or wildlife or plants, and any 

distinct population segment of any 

species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 

which interbreeds when mature (16 

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

‘‘endangered species’’ as any species 

that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

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

‘‘threatened species’’ as any species that 

is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

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

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

be determined to be an endangered 

species or a threatened species because 

of any of the following five factors: 

(A) The present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 

range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. 

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

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. However, the mere 

identification of any threat(s) does not 

necessarily mean that the species meets 

the statutory definition of an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ In determining whether a 

species meets either definition, we must 

evaluate all identified threats by 

considering the expected response by 

the species, and the effects of the 

threats—in light of those actions and 

conditions that will ameliorate the 

threats—on an individual, population, 

and species level. We evaluate each 

threat and its expected effects on the 

species, then analyze the cumulative 

effect of all of the threats on the species 

as a whole. We also consider the 

cumulative effect of the threats in light 

of those actions and conditions that will 

have positive effects on the species, 

such as any existing regulatory 

mechanisms or conservation efforts. The 

Secretary determines whether the 

species meets the Act’s definition of an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species’’ only after conducting this 

cumulative analysis and describing the 

expected effect on the species now and 

in the foreseeable future. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

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

‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far 

into the future as the Service can 

reasonably determine that both the 

future threats and the species’ responses 

to those threats are likely. In other 

words, the foreseeable future is the 

period of time in which we can make 

reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not 

mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to 

provide a reasonable degree of 

confidence in the prediction. Thus, a 

prediction is reliable if it is reasonable 

to depend on it when making decisions. 

It is not always possible or necessary 

to define foreseeable future as a 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 14229 

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 Georgia 

bully and Rio Grande cooter 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 Blanco 

blind salamander, we determined that it 

either: (1) Does not meet the definition 

of a ‘‘species’’ under the Act, and, as a 

result, we conclude that it is not a 

listable entity; or (2) is extinct. We 

reviewed the petitions, information 

available in our files, and other 

available published and unpublished 

information for all of these species. Our 

evaluation may include information 

from recognized experts; Federal, State, 

and Tribal governments; academic 

institutions; foreign governments; 

private entities; and other members of 

the public. 

The species assessment forms for 

these species 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.’’ A thorough review of the 

taxonomy, life history, and ecology of 

the Georgia bully and Rio Grande cooter 

is presented in each species’ species 

status assessment (SSA) report. The 

species assessment form and the review 

report for the Blanco blind salamander 

contain more detailed taxonomic 

information, a list of literature cited, 

and an explanation of why we 

determined that the Blanco blind 

salamander either does not meet the 

Act’s definition of a ‘‘species’’ or is 

extinct. This supporting information can 

be found on the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov under the 

appropriate docket number (see 

ADDRESSES, above). The following are 

informational summaries for the 

findings in this document. 

Georgia Bully 

Previous Federal Actions 

On April 20, 2010, the Service 

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 Georgia bully 

(Sideroxylon thornei), as endangered or 

threatened species under the Act. On 

September 27, 2011, we published in 

the Federal Register (76 FR 59836) a 

partial 90-day finding that the petition 

presented substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing may be warranted for 374 of the 

species, including Georgia bully. The 

finding stated that the petition 

presented substantial information 

indicating that listing Georgia bully may 

be warranted due to disease or 

predation. This document constitutes 

the 12-month finding on the April 20, 

2010, petition to list Georgia bully 

under the Act. 

Summary of Finding 

A member of the Sapotaceae family, 

Georgia bully is a shrub or small tree 

that grows up to 6 meters (20 feet) in 

height, and is sometimes multi-stemmed 

but not extensively clonal. Georgia bully 

is known to occur in Alabama, Georgia, 

and Florida. The species has been found 

in at least 29 counties and five 

watersheds (Altamaha, Apalachicola, 

Choctawhatchee-Escambia, Mobile BayTombigbee, and Ogeechee) in 3 

southeastern States: Alabama, Georgia, 

and Florida. The stronghold of the 

distribution is in the Apalachicola 

watershed in Georgia. 

Georgia bully is restricted to riparian 

forests and forested wetlands (i.e., 

swamps, bottomland forests, and 

depressional wetlands), where the 

species occurs most often in habitats 

developed over limestone (i.e., 

calcareous substrates), particularly in 

Georgia. Georgia bully requires shaded 

to partly shaded habitat conditions 

within a mostly intact forest overstory. 

The species requires wet soils and 

periodic inundation from flooding to 

provide a competitive advantage to 

Georgia bully since many other plant 

species do not tolerate flooding 

disturbance (e.g., decrease in oxygen, 

carbon dioxide, and light). Georgia bully 

reproduces sexually through pollination 

and fruit set, and asexually through 

vegetative means (e.g., shoots, 

fragments, or clones). 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to Georgia bully, and 

we evaluated all relevant factors under 

the five listing factors, including any 

regulatory mechanisms and 

conservation measures addressing these 

stressors. The primary threats affecting 

Georgia bully’s biological status include 

habitat destruction and modification 

(including urbanization and land use 

change), and impacts to hydrology from 

climate change. We examined a number 

of other factors, including inherent 

factors (small population size), 

nonnative and invasive species, disease 

(insect damage), and predation (deer 

herbivory), and found that these factors 

may exacerbate the effects of the 

primary factors, but do not rise to such 

a level that affected the species as a 

whole. 

Causes of habitat destruction and 

modification are urbanization and 

conversion to agricultural and 

silvicultural uses, including forest 

structure alteration due to timber 

harvest. Georgia bully is expected to be 

influenced by changes to the hydrologic 

regime, including periods of drought 

and flooding. Extended periods of 

drought may allow other species that 

outcompete Georgia bully to become 

established. Increased flooding events 

may reduce the ability for Georgia bully 

seedlings to become established if 

habitat is saturated during the 

germination period. 

Despite impacts from the primary 

stressors, the species has maintained the 

majority of its historical occurrences 

throughout its range. Georgia bully 

currently has 16 moderately or highly 

resilient populations across its range in 

45 populations in 3 States. Each of the 

five watersheds where Georgia bully 

occurs contains at least two moderate or 

highly resilient populations. Moderate 

and highly resilient Georgia bully 

populations are able to recover from 

stochastic events and are characterized 

by larger populations with recruitment 

and/or reproduction in habitats with 

intact mature overstory, wide riparian 

vegetated buffers, and minimal 

hydrological alteration. Existing 

protections for the species are in place 

with approximately 46 percent of 

populations on protected lands, 

including the two largest populations. 

Threats continue to impact Georgia 

bully and its habitat, and effects from 

these impacts may result in a decrease 

in habitat quality and quantity across 

the species’ range; however, ongoing 

conservation actions offer some 

protection to the species. 

Our future scenarios assessment 

included four elements of change (e.g., 

urbanization, land use, climateVerDate Sep<11>2014 16:46 Mar 11, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM 14MRP1

jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
14230 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

influenced hydrology, and site-specific 

habitat factors) to assess the viability of 

Georgia bully at 30- and 60-year time 

steps. Upon examining the current 

trends and future forecast scenarios, we 

expect that the primary threats (habitat 

destruction and modification due to 

urbanization and land use change, and 

hydrology impacts associated with 

climate change) will continue to impact 

Georgia bully. Impacts to Georgia bully’s 

population resiliency generally increase 

over time and with increased threats, 

including the threat of climate change 

effects. The species’ representation has 

not declined between historical and 

most recent surveys, and the species’ 

representation is expected to decline 

slightly under each future scenario. As 

moderate or highly resilient populations 

will persist across all watersheds, a 

broad level of representation is likely to 

be maintained over time. However, the 

adaptive capacity of the species will be 

reduced in the future as the projected 

population extirpations reduce the 

number of viable populations on the 

landscape, thus reducing the species 

potential ability to adjust to changing 

conditions. Georgia bully has retained 

redundancy based on multiple moderate 

and highly resilient populations being 

spread across its historical range in five 

watersheds; however, into the future, 

we expect the species’ redundancy to 

decline as population resiliency is 

reduced, thereby impairing the species’ 

ability to withstand and recover from 

catastrophic events such as storms and 

droughts. Although we predict some 

continued impacts from stressors in the 

future, we anticipate the species will be 

represented by moderate and highly 

resilient populations into the 

foreseeable future throughout its range, 

supported by the occurrence of 21 of the 

45 known populations on protected 

lands and the species’ ability to 

reproduce vegetatively (e.g., shoots, 

fragments, or clonal) and through 

pollination and fruit set giving 

populations additional opportunities to 

maintain and expand. Given projections 

for quality and quantity of habitat and 

the number of healthy (moderate to high 

resiliency) populations, we conclude 

that the species is likely to maintain the 

ability to withstand stochasticity, 

catastrophic events, and novel changes 

in its environment for the foreseeable 

future. Based on these conditions, 

Georgia bully’s current risk of extinction 

is very low. Furthermore, we did not 

find any evidence of a concentration of 

threats at any biologically meaningful 

scale in any portion of the species’ 

range. 

Therefore, we find that listing Georgia 

bully 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 bully species assessment and 

other supporting documents (see 

ADDRESSES, above). 

Rio Grande Cooter 

Previous Federal Actions 

On July 11, 2012, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service) received a 

petition to list 53 amphibians and 

reptiles, including the Rio Grande 

cooter (Pseudemys gorzugi), as 

endangered or threatened under the Act 

and to designate critical habitat. On July 

1, 2015, we published a 90-day finding 

that the petition presented substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that listing may be warranted 

for 21 species, including the Rio Grande 

cooter (80 FR 37568). The finding stated 

that the petition presented substantial 

information indicating that listing the 

Rio Grande cooter may be warranted 

due to the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; and regulatory mechanisms 

inadequate to address these threats. This 

document constitutes the 12-month 

finding on the July 11, 2012, petition to 

list the Rio Grande cooter under the Act. 

Summary of Finding 

The Rio Grande cooter is a mediumto-large freshwater turtle (100–370 

millimeters (3.9–14.6 inches)) that lives 

in the spring pools, streams, and rivers 

found within portions of the Rio 

Grande/Rı ́o Bravo watershed of the 

United States and Mexico. The species’ 

range includes the Pecos River basin of 

New Mexico and Texas; the Devils River 

basin of Texas; the Rio Grande basin of 

Texas (below the Big Bend region) and 

Coahuila, Nuevo Leo ́n, and Tamaulipas, 

Mexico; the Rı ́o Salado basin of 

Coahuila, Nuevo Leo ́n, and Tamaulipas, 

Mexico; and the Rı ́o San Juan basin of 

Coahuila, Nuevo Leo ́n, and Tamaulipas, 

Mexico. Within these five major river 

basins, Rio Grande cooter habitat 

includes the freshwater systems and the 

riparian habitat adjacent to them. The 

current distribution of the species is 

similar to its historical distribution. 

As a mostly aquatic species, adequate 

water quality and water quantity are 

central to the Rio Grande cooter’s ability 

to forage, survive, and reproduce. Water 

must be of adequate depth to provide 

protection from predation and within 

temperature ranges that allow for 

thermoregulation. Further, 

contaminants and other harmful 

constituents in water must be absent or 

below thresholds that would cause 

acute or chronic toxicity to Rio Grande 

cooter or the resources upon which they 

rely for survival, growth and 

reproduction. The Rio Grande cooter 

also requires water flows that allow for 

individual movements for breeding, 

nesting, and retreating from areas of 

unsuitable habitat. Additionally, the Rio 

Grande cooter requires upland nesting 

habitat with loose soils near water 

where eggs will be adequately 

thermoregulated and safe from 

inundation, predation, and other 

disturbances during incubation. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the Rio Grande 

cooter, and we evaluated all relevant 

factors under the five listing factors, 

including any regulatory mechanisms 

and conservation measures addressing 

these stressors. The primary stressors 

affecting the Rio Grande cooter’s 

biological status include hydrological 

alteration, pollution, climate change 

(increasing demands on the surface and 

ground water resources that provide or 

support habitat for the species due to 

effects on climate and weather 

associated with rising temperatures), 

and direct mortality. Rio Grande cooter 

has limited abundance information 

available across its range, with a few 

exceptions. Therefore, we assessed 

species viability based on presence-only 

data and the condition of the species’ 

habitat. 

Despite existing within an altered 

system in the Rio Grande watershed and 

the associated impacts from the primary 

stressors, the Rio Grande cooter 

currently has multiple resilient 

population analysis units (10 of 16 units 

characterized as Low or Moderate Risk) 

distributed throughout its known 

historical range. Because Rio Grande 

cooter has maintained multiple resilient 

population analysis units across a 

diversity of habitat types and within all 

five river basins in which it historically 

occurred—except for the Devils River 

basin, which contains a single unit 

categorized as low risk—the species has 

retained redundancy and representation 

at the species level. Based on these 

conditions, the current risk of extinction 

for the Rio Grande cooter is low. 

Although we project some continued 

impacts from the identified stressors 

into the foreseeable future under two 

future scenarios, our analysis indicates 

that the Rio Grande cooter will maintain 

multiple, resilient population analysis 

units distributed throughout its 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 14231 

historical range within each of the five 

major river basins. Overall, the Rio 

Grande cooter is projected to either 

maintain current levels of resiliency, 

representation, and redundancy or have 

a slight decrease in resiliency (nine of 

16 population analysis units being 

categorized as Low or Moderate Risk) 

while maintaining current levels of 

redundancy and representation into the 

foreseeable future. Thus, the best 

available information does not indicate 

that the magnitude and scope of 

individual stressors would cause the 

species to be in danger of extinction in 

the foreseeable future. Furthermore, we 

did not find any evidence of a 

concentration of threats at any 

biologically meaningful scale in any 

portion of the species’ range. 

Therefore, we find that listing the Rio 

Grande cooter 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 Rio Grande cooter’s species 

assessment and other supporting 

documents (see ADDRESSES, above). 

Blanco Blind Salamander 

Previous Federal Actions 

On June 25, 2007, the Service 

received a petition from Forest 

Guardians (now WildEarth Guardians) 

requesting that the Service list 475 

species in the Southwest Region as 

endangered or threatened under the Act 

with critical habitat. The Blanco blind 

salamander (Eurycea robusta) was 

included among the list of petitioned 

species. On December 16, 2009, we 

published in the Federal Register (74 

FR 66866) a partial 90-day finding that 

the petition presented substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that listing may be warranted 

for 67 of the species, including the 

Blanco blind salamander. The finding 

stated that the petition presented 

substantial information indicating that 

listing the Blanco blind salamander may 

be warranted due to the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

resulting from water pollutants and 

water withdrawal. This document 

constitutes the 12-month finding on the 

June 25, 2007, petition to list the Blanco 

blind salamander under the Act. 

Summary of Finding 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the Blanco blind 

salamander and evaluated the petition’s 

claims that the species warrants listing 

under the Act. We determined the type 

specimen on which the species’ 

description was based either represents 

a historical occurrence of the federally 

endangered Texas blind salamander 

(Typhlomolge rathbuni) or it represents 

a unique species that is no longer 

extant. 

To be considered an endangered or 

threatened species under the Act, a 

species’ taxonomy must be valid. In our 

evaluation of the species’ status, we 

found evidence that the Blanco blind 

salamander does not exist as a current 

taxonomic entity. Several morphological 

characters of the Blanco blind 

salamander overlap or are identical to 

the Texas blind salamander; the Blanco 

blind salamander specimen’s size may 

have been influenced by chemical 

fixation and preservation, and may not 

reflect the original size of the living 

individual; and hydrogeological 

connectivity would likely facilitate 

movement between the Blanco River 

site and locations the Texas blind 

salamander inhabits. Given this, we find 

that the Blanco blind salamander type 

specimen is likely a Texas blind 

salamander individual. If it is a Texas 

blind salamander, then the Blanco blind 

salamander is not a valid taxonomic 

entity and, therefore, is not a listable 

entity under the Act. 

While the best available science does 

indicate that the specimen collected in 

1951 is a Texas blind salamander, due 

to the inability to conduct conclusive 

genetic testing, we considered the status 

of the Blanco blind salamander out of an 

abundance of caution. 

Based on the best available 

information, if the Blanco blind 

salamander was in fact a valid entity, 

we conclude that it is now extinct. 

When evaluating the possibility of 

extinction, we attempted to minimize 

the possibility of either (1) prematurely 

determining that the species is extinct 

where individuals exist but remain 

undetected, or (2) assuming the species 

is extant when extinction has already 

occurred. Our determinations of 

whether the best available information 

indicates that a species is extinct 

include an analysis of the following 

criteria: Detectability of the species, 

adequacy of survey efforts, and time 

since last detection. All three criteria 

require taking into account applicable 

aspects of a species’ life history. Other 

lines of evidence may also support the 

determination and be included in our 

analysis. In conducting our analysis of 

whether the Blanco blind salamander is 

extinct, we considered and thoroughly 

evaluated the best scientific and 

commercial data available. We reviewed 

the information available in our files, 

and other available published and 

unpublished information. These 

evaluations include information from 

recognized experts, Federal and State 

governments, academic institutions, and 

private entities. 

The Edwards Aquifer, in the area of 

southeastern Hays County, Texas, has 

been and continues to be intensively 

sampled for its diverse and unique 

groundwater fauna. Beginning in the 

late 19th century, caves, springs, and 

wells in the area have yielded many 

new species, including the Texas blind 

salamander and a contingent of endemic 

groundwater invertebrates. 

Like species with similar 

characteristics, the Blanco blind 

salamander is likely to have a low 

detectability. However, despite being 

mostly subterranean, stygobitic (i.e., 

living exclusively in groundwater, such 

as aquifers or caves) Eurycea 

salamanders are often surveyed at 

springs and caves. Surveys were 

conducted in 2006 to re-detect the 

Blanco blind salamander at the Blanco 

River site and several groundwater wells 

north of that site in Hays and Travis 

Counties, Texas. Additionally, 

researchers excavated three surface 

fissures in the dry bed of the Blanco 

River, but none of the excavations 

extended to subterranean voids, and no 

salamanders were observed. 

Groundwater wells were surveyed north 

of the Blanco River 8 to 25 kilometers 

(5 to 15 miles) away from the locality of 

the Blanco specimen and did not yield 

stygobitic Eurycea salamanders, 

although they did extend into 

subterranean habitats. Recent survey 

efforts of wells and springs in Hays 

County in 2020 and 2021 have also not 

resulted in discovery of Blanco blind 

salamanders or other stygobitic Eurycea 

salamanders to date. Conversely, Texas 

blind salamanders are regularly 

observed and collected during surveys 

of caves, spring openings, and 

groundwater wells by permitted 

researchers from several localities in the 

City of San Marcos, Texas. 

Since 1951, no stygobitic Eurycea 

salamanders have been collected from 

the Blanco River or areas to the north of 

the river in Hays County. Despite its low 

detectability, given the combination of 

surveys at the original locality and 

repeated surveys from surface and 

subterranean habitats nearby, we 

conclude that these efforts were 

adequate to detect the Blanco blind 

salamander should individuals exist. If 

the Blanco blind salamander was a valid 

taxon, we have no evidence that the 

species has remained extant for the past 

70 years; thus, we conclude it is extinct. 

In conclusion, based on the best 

available information, we have 

determined that the Blanco blind 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
14232 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

salamander is not a valid taxonomic 

entity and, accordingly, does not meet 

the statutory definition of a listable 

entity under the Act. Additionally, even 

if our conclusion is incorrect and the 

Blanco blind salamander was a valid 

taxonomic entity, it has not been 

collected in over 70 years despite survey 

efforts; thus, we have no evidence it has 

remained extant. Because the Blanco 

blind salamander either does not meet 

the definition of a listable entity or is 

extinct, it does not warrant listing under 

the Act. A detailed discussion of the 

basis for this finding can be found in the 

Blanco blind salamander species 

assessment form and other supporting 

documents (see ADDRESSES, above). 

New Information 

We request that you submit any new 

information concerning the taxonomy 

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

stressors to Blanco blind salamander, 

Georgia bully, or Rio Grande cooter to 

the appropriate person, as specified 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT, whenever it becomes 

available. New information will help us 

monitor these species and make 

appropriate decisions about their 

conservation and status. We encourage 

local agencies and stakeholders to 

continue cooperative monitoring and 

conservation efforts. 

References Cited 

A list of the references cited in this 

petition finding is available in the 

relevant species assessment form, which 

is available on the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov in the appropriate 

docket (see ADDRESSES, above) and upon 

request from the appropriate person (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, 

above). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the Species 

Assessment Team, Ecological Services 

Program. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is section 

4 of the Endangered Species Act of 

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

seq.). 

Martha Williams, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–05331 Filed 3–11–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 92 

[Docket No. FWS–R7–MB–2021–0172; 

FXMB12610700000–201–FF07M01000] 

RIN 1018 BF65 

Migratory Bird Subsistence Harvest in 

Alaska; Harvest Regulations for 

Migratory Birds in Alaska During the 

2022 Season 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS), 

are proposing changes to the migratory 

bird subsistence harvest regulations in 

Alaska. These regulations allow for the 

continuation of customary and 

traditional subsistence uses of migratory 

birds in Alaska and prescribe regional 

information on when and where the 

harvesting of birds may occur. These 

regulations were developed under a comanagement process involving the 

Service, the Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game, and Alaska Native 

representatives. The proposed changes 

would update the regulations to 

incorporate revisions requested by these 

partners. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

April 13, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments to 

Docket No. FWS–R7–MB–2021–0172. 

• U.S. Mail: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R7–MB–2021– 

0172, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

MS: JAO/3W, 5275 Leesburg Place, Falls 

Church, VA 22041 3803. 

We will post all comments on https:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Comment Procedures section, 

below, for more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

J. Taylor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

1011 E Tudor Road, Mail Stop 201, 

Anchorage, AK 99503; (907) 903 7210. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comment Procedures 

To ensure that any action resulting 

from this proposed rule will be as 

accurate and as effective as possible, we 

request that you send relevant 

information for our consideration. The 

comments that will be most useful and 

likely to influence our decisions are 

those that you support by quantitative 

information or studies and those that 

include citations to, and analyses of, the 

applicable laws and regulations. Please 

make your comments as specific as 

possible and explain the basis for them. 

In addition, please include sufficient 

information with your comments to 

allow us to authenticate any scientific or 

commercial data you include. 

You must submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed above in 

ADDRESSES. We will not accept 

comments sent by email or fax or to an 

address not listed in ADDRESSES. If you 

submit a comment via https://

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

comment—including any personal 

identifying information, such as your 

address, telephone number, or email 

address—will be posted on the website. 

When you submit a comment, the 

system receives it immediately. 

However, the comment will not be 

publicly viewable until we post it, 

which might not occur until several 

days after submission. 

If you mail a hardcopy comment 

directly to us that includes personal 

information, you may request at the top 

of your document that we withhold this 

information from public review. 

However, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. All comments and 

materials we receive will be available 

for public inspection via https://

www.regulations.gov. Search for FWS– 

R7–MB–2021–0172, which is the docket 

number for this rulemaking. 

Background 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 

(MBTA, 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.) was 

enacted to conserve certain species of 

migratory birds and gives the Secretary 

of the Interior the authority to regulate 

the harvest of these birds. The law 

further authorizes the Secretary to issue 

regulations to ensure that the 

indigenous inhabitants of the State of 

Alaska may take migratory birds and 

collect their eggs for nutritional and 

other essential needs during seasons 

established by the Secretary so as to 

provide for the preservation and 

maintenance of stocks of migratory birds 

(16 U.S.C. 712(1)). 

The take of migratory birds for 

subsistence uses in Alaska occurs 

during the spring and summer, during 

which timeframe when the annual fall/ 

winter harvest of migratory birds is not 

allowed. Regulations governing the 

subsistence harvest of migratory birds in 

Alaska are located in title 50 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) in part 92. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1