[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 142 (Thursday, July 23, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44478-44483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14454]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 201]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Four 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 four 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 Upper Missouri River DPS of Arctic grayling, Elk River
crayfish, rattlesnake-master borer moth, and northern Virginia well
amphipod. However, we ask the public to submit to us at any time any
new information relevant to the status of any of the species mentioned
above or their habitats.
DATES: The findings in this document were made on July 23, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Detailed descriptions of the bases for these findings are
available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov under the
following docket numbers:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Docket No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arctic grayling..................... FWS-R6-ES-2020-0024.
Elk River crayfish.................. FWS-R5-ES-2020-0025.
Northern Virginia well amphipod..... FWS-R5-ES-2020-0026.
Rattlesnake-master borer moth....... FWS-R3-ES-2020-0027.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supporting information used to prepare this finding is available
for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arctic grayling................... Jodi Bush, Project Leader, Montana
Field Office, 406-449-5225 x205,
Jodi_Bush@fws.gov.
Elk River crayfish and northern Martin Miller, Threatened and
Virginia well amphipod. Endangered Species Chief, North
Atlantic-Appalachian Regional
Office, 413-253-8615,
Martin_Miller@fws.gov.
Rattlesnake-master borer moth..... Kraig McPeek, Field Supervisor,
Illinois-Iowa Field Office, 309-757-
5800, kraig_mcpeek@fws.gov.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please
call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
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. We must publish a notice 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
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
[[Page 44479]]
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 definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species'' only after
conducting this cumulative analysis and describing the expected effect
on the species now and in the foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as the
Service can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the
species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the
foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable
predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means
sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the
prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to
depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and
other demographic factors.
In considering whether a species may meet the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the five
factors, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the
stressor to determine whether the species responds to the stressor in a
way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to
a stressor, but no response, or only a positive response, that stressor
does not cause a species to meet the definition of an endangered
species or a threatened species. If there is exposure and the species
responds negatively, we determine whether that stressor drives or
contributes to the risk of extinction of the species such that the
species warrants listing as an endangered or threatened species. The
mere identification of stressors that could affect a species negatively
is not sufficient to compel a finding that listing is or remains
warranted. For a species to be listed or remain listed, we require
evidence that these stressors are operative threats to the species and
its habitat, either singly or in combination, to the point that the
species meets the definition of an endangered or a threatened species
under the Act.
In conducting our evaluation of the five factors provided in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether the Upper Missouri
River DPS of Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus), Elk River crayfish
(Cambarus elkensis), rattlesnake-master borer moth (Papaipema eryngii),
and northern Virginia well amphipod (Stygobromus phreaticus) meet the
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, 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.
The species assessment forms for the Upper Missouri River DPS of
Arctic grayling, Elk River crayfish, rattlesnake-master borer moth, and
northern Virginia well amphipod contain more detailed biological
information, a thorough analysis of the listing factors, and an
explanation of why we determined that these species do not meet the
definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. This
supporting information can be found on the internet at HYPERLINK
``http://www.regulations.gov'' http://www.regulations.gov under the
appropriate docket number (see ADDRESSES, above). The following are
informational summaries for the findings in this document.
Upper Missouri River DPS of Arctic Grayling
Previous Federal Actions
We have published a number of documents on Arctic grayling since
1982, and have been involved in litigation over previous findings. We
describe the most recent previous federal actions that are relevant to
this finding below.
On October 9, 1991, the Biodiversity Legal Foundation and George
Wuerthner petitioned us to list the fluvial (riverine) populations of
Arctic grayling in the Upper Missouri River basin as an endangered
species throughout the historical range in the coterminous United
States. We subsequently published several 90-day and 12-month findings
on that petition (58 FR 4975, January 19, 1993; 59 FR 37738, July 25,
1994; 72 FR 20305, April 24, 2007; 75 FR 54708, September 8,
[[Page 44480]]
2010), some of which were challenged in court.
On August 20, 2014, we published a revised 12-month finding on the
petition to list the Upper Missouri River DPS of Arctic grayling (79 FR
49384), fulfilling our commitments under the multi-district litigation
(MDL) case (Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litig., Misc.
Action No. 10-377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D. DC)). In the August
20, 2014, finding, we determined that listing the DPS was not
warranted, and we removed the DPS from the candidate list. We concluded
that habitat-related threats previously identified, including habitat
fragmentation, dewatering, thermal stress, entrainment, riparian
habitat loss, and effects from climate change, had been sufficiently
ameliorated and that 19 of 20 populations of Arctic grayling were
either stable or increasing.
On February 5, 2015, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD),
Western Watersheds Project, and two individuals filed a complaint
against the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Service
challenging our August 20, 2014, revised 12-month finding that the
Upper Missouri River DPS of Arctic grayling did not warrant listing as
a threatened species or endangered species (Center for Biological
Diversity v. Jewell, No. 2:15-cv-00004-SEH (D. Mont. 2016)). Plaintiffs
also brought a facial challenge to the Service's Final Policy on
Significant Portion of its Range (SPR Policy; 79 FR 37578, July 1,
2014), arguing that the SPR Policy was contrary to case law in defining
a species' range to only include current range and not historical
range. The district court found for the government on all claims, and
the plaintiffs appealed.
On August 17, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and
reversed in part (Center for Biological Diversity v. Zinke, No. 16-
35866, 900 F. 3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2018)). The court agreed with the
district court that we permissibly defined ``range'' as current range
in the SPR Policy. However, that court found that we erred in the
listing finding in four ways: (1) We should not have concluded that the
Big Hole River grayling population was increasing when available
biological information showed that the population was declining; (2) we
should not have relied on cold water refugia in the Big Hole River,
because we did not adequately address information showing that river
will experience low stream flows and high water temperatures; (3) we
did not adequately explain why the uncertainty presented by climate
change with regard to low stream flows and higher water temperatures
did not weigh in favor of listing the grayling; and (4) we arbitrarily
relied on the Ruby River grayling population to provide redundancy for
the grayling outside of the Big Hole River. The court upheld the
finding in all other respects, including our analysis of cold water
refugia other than in the Big Hole River, and our conclusion that small
population size did not pose a risk to genetic viability of the
grayling.
The court vacated the finding and remanded it to us to reconsider
in light of the court's opinion, and ordered that we make one of the
findings set forth in 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)(i) through (iii) for the
Upper Missouri River DPS. Further, the court required that we submit
such finding to the Office of the Federal Register no later than July
1, 2020. This constitutes our revised finding.
Summary of Finding
The Arctic grayling is a fish belonging to the family Salmonidae
(salmon, trout, charr, whitefishes), subfamily Thymallinae (graylings),
and it is represented by a single genus, Thymallus. Arctic grayling are
native to Arctic Ocean drainages of Alaska and northwestern Canada, as
far east as Hudson's Bay, and westward across northern Eurasia to the
Ural Mountains. This finding pertains to Arctic grayling in the Upper
Missouri River basin in Montana and Wyoming, which we have determined
are discrete (due to marked separation from other native populations)
and significant (they occur in a unique ecological setting, are
separated from other Arctic grayling populations by a large gap in
their range, and differ markedly in their genetic characteristics
relative to other Arctic grayling populations), and therefore qualify
as a DPS under the Act; for a more detailed discussion of our DPS
analysis, please refer to our August 20, 2014, 12-month finding (79 FR
49392-49396).
Arctic grayling occupy a variety of habitats including small
streams, large rivers, lakes, and bogs (Northcote 1995, pp. 152-153;
Scott and Crossman 1998, p. 303), and have defined thermal tolerances.
Arctic grayling of all ages feed primarily on aquatic and terrestrial
invertebrates captured on or near the water surface, but also will feed
opportunistically on fish and fish eggs (Northcote 1995, pp. 153-154;
Behnke 2002, p. 328). Arctic grayling in the Upper Missouri River basin
exhibit a spectrum of life histories. Some Arctic grayling spend their
entire lives in flowing water (often referred to as fluvial), some
primarily reside in lakes and only use flowing water for spawning
(often referred to as adfluvial), and others appear to use some
combination of both strategies.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Upper Missouri River DPS of Arctic grayling, and we evaluated
all relevant factors under the five listing factors, including any
regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these
stressors. We evaluated stressors potentially affecting the DPS's
biological status, including curtailment of range and distribution,
dams on mainstem rivers, water management in the Upper Missouri River
basin, habitat fragmentation/smaller seasonal barriers, degradation of
riparian habitat, dewatering from irrigation and increased water
temperatures, entrainment, sedimentation, overwinter conditions,
climate change, recreational angling, scientific/population monitoring,
disease, predation by and competition with nonnative trout, predation
by birds and mammals, drought, stochastic threats, genetic diversity
and small population size, and cumulative effects from climate change
interacting with other factors.
Overall, we found that the potential threats we evaluated are
having minimal impacts in most populations within the DPS. Fifteen out
of the 19 populations occur in high-elevation lakes primarily on high-
quality habitats on Federal land, are considered stable, and have
minimal to no impacts from stressors. The other four populations have a
fluvial component, and of these, the Big Hole River represents 60
percent of the total riverine miles within the DPS. Within the Big Hole
River, many years of management, including 13 years of implementation
of the Big Hole candidate conservation agreement with assurances
(CCAA), have addressed many past threats, and resulted in both
improvements in habitat conditions and increases in the number of
effective breeders as concluded from recent monitoring. All demographic
and genetic studies of Big Hole River Arctic grayling are consistent
and clearly show a historical decline (1980s-2006) in Arctic grayling
due to a multitude of habitat-related threats. Since 2006, those
threats have been strategically and systematically addressed or
minimized and as a result of improvements to habitat and other
conservation actions (increased streamflows, increased riparian habitat
health, decreased water temperatures, increased connectivity and access
to thermal refugia), the number of effective breeders in the Big
[[Page 44481]]
Hole River has increased significantly by 111 percent, on average, and
genetic diversity is high and stable.. Therefore, there is currently a
high level of resilience in most populations within the DPS.
The fact that the species still occupies 7 out of 10 historical
watersheds, and is spread across 19 populations, provides a high level
of redundancy in the case of a catastrophic event. There is also a high
level of within-system redundancy in the Big Hole River, which includes
199 river miles of both mainstem and tributary habitat for the Arctic
grayling, such that no single catastrophic event would be expected to
impact the entire Big Hole River population. Further, the other three
primarily fluvial systems provide additional redundancy, including the
Ruby River population which met the criteria for a viable population in
the Montana Fluvial Arctic Grayling Restoration Plan and objectives in
the Upper Ruby River Fluvial Arctic Grayling Reintroduction Plan. The
presence of populations from the full spectrum of life histories, as
well as the presence of moderate to high levels of genetic diversity
within many populations, provides representation.
We also considered the viability of the DPS into the foreseeable
future. Despite projected increases in temperature and frequency of
drought, 15 out of 19 populations in the DPS are currently in lake
habitats that will likely not be affected significantly by climate
change due to their high elevation, intact riparian areas, and cool
inputs of tributary water. Riparian restoration, particularly in the
Big Hole River, has been empirically shown to minimize the effects of
increasing water temperatures due to climate change. Since 2006,
multiple projects have been implemented to decrease dewatering and
thermal stress and have resulted in increased streamflows, increased
access to cold-water refugia, and marked temperature reductions. These
improvements mitigate warming water temperatures due to climate change,
and the CCAA projects have led to shorter durations of stressful water
temperatures. In the future, we do not expect habitat to decline in the
Big Hole River because of the proven track record of CCAA projects.
With respect to nonnative fish, we expect that impacts to Arctic
grayling populations will be low, as nonnatives have co-existed with
some lake populations for many decades. Given the lack of stressors
that are projected to occur in the future, as well as the projected
continued resilience of most populations within the DPS, we expect that
levels of redundancy and representation will also be maintained into
the future.
We also identified two potential portions of the range to see if
they warranted further consideration as potential significant portions
of the range; these are (1) the Madison River and (2) a group including
the four populations with a fluvial component. However, as explained in
our full revised 12-month finding (available on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2020-0024), we found
that neither of these portions is both significant and in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, and
therefore neither warrants further consideration as a significant
portion of the range.
Therefore, we find that listing the Upper Missouri River DPS of
Arctic grayling 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 our full revised 12-month finding (available on
http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2020-0024).
Elk River 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 Elk River crayfish, as 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 information indicating that listing
the Elk River crayfish may be warranted. This notice constitutes the
12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to list the Elk River
crayfish under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The palm-sized Elk River crayfish is found in the upper and middle
sections of West Virginia's Elk River main stem and/or tributaries,
including these Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 10 watersheds: Upper Elk
River, Holly River, Middle Elk River, Laurel Creek, Birch River, and
Lower Elk River in Pocahontas, Randolph, Webster, Braxton, Nicholas,
and Clay Counties. The best available data suggest that the species'
range has not changed significantly.
The Elk River crayfish has four life stages: Egg; hatchling that is
dependent upon the female; juvenile which undergoes a series of four to
five molts allowing it to grow and its shell to harden; and adult that
becomes reproductive in 2.5 to 3 years, has one reproductive event per
year once mature, and may live up to 5 years. Molting is a vulnerable
life stage for crayfish because, during molting, crayfish are soft and
unable to move effectively, making them susceptible to predation, as
well as being more sensitive to contaminants and water-quality
degradation. The species is assumed to be an opportunistic omnivore
feeding on a wide variety of items, including aquatic and terrestrial
vegetation, plant detritus, insects, snails, and small aquatic
vertebrates. Habitat elements that are important to the Elk River
crayfish include moderately sized, stable stream channels with riffles,
runs, or pools that have some current and low levels of sedimentation;
unembedded stream substrates that have larger particle sizes and
provide instream cover; and healthy riparian and instream
characteristics (e.g., adequate riparian cover to moderate temperature
and sedimentation, appropriate prey resources, and sufficient water
chemistry).
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Elk River crayfish, 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 Elk River crayfish's biological status include changes
to: (1) The species' population demographics (i.e., distribution and
abundance, and connectivity); (2) the quality of instream breeding,
feeding, and sheltering features (i.e., level of sedimentation, which
is affected by flooding and energy development activities); (3) water
quality; and (4) riparian conditions. While some currently suitable
habitat will become less suitable and two HUC 10 watersheds are
projected to become extirpated within the foreseeable future, the
species' distribution and abundance within remaining higher quality
habitat that support its needs ensures that the Elk River crayfish will
persist.
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the Elk River crayfish does not meet the
definition of an endangered species or a threatened species in
accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we find
[[Page 44482]]
that listing the Elk River crayfish is not warranted at this time. A
detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the
Elk River crayfish's species assessment and other supporting documents
(see ADDRESSES, above).
Rattlesnake-Master Borer Moth
Previous Federal Actions
On June 25, 2007, we received a petition, dated June 18, 2007, from
Forest Guardians (now WildEarth Guardians), requesting that the
rattlesnake-master borer moth be listed as either endangered or
threatened under the Act with critical habitat. On December 16, 2009,
we published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (74 FR 66866),
concluding that the petition presented substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that listing may be warranted. On
August 14, 2013, we published a 12-month finding in the Federal
Register (78 FR 49422) in which we stated that listing the rattlesnake-
master borer moth as endangered or threatened was warranted. However,
listing was precluded at that time by higher priority actions, and the
species was added to the candidate species list. The species was
assigned a listing priority number of 8, because it faced moderate to
low magnitude, imminent threats, and is a valid taxon at the species
level. From 2014 through 2019, we addressed the status of the
rattlesnake-master borer moth in our candidate notice of review, with
the determination that listing was warranted but precluded (see 79 FR
72450, December 5, 2014; 80 FR 80584, December 24, 2015; 81 FR 87246,
December 2, 2016; 84 FR 54732, October 10, 2019).
Summary of Finding
The rattlesnake-master borer moth is a small, purple-brown moth,
measuring 3.5-4.8 centimeters (1.4-1.9 inches) with small, scattered
yellow and white spots. The species is currently found in Arkansas,
Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, and Oklahoma, and is considered
extirpated from Iowa and North Carolina. At the time of the 12-month
finding in 2013, 16 extant populations of the rattlesnake-master borer
moth were known. Subsequently, the species has been documented in 55
sites or populations.
The rattlesnake-master borer moth inhabits primarily high-quality
remnant prairies and also some grassland, savanna, barrens, glades, and
open woodland habitats. The only host plant for the moth is the
rattlesnake master (Eryngium yuccifolium), on which the moth larvae
develop and eggs overwinter. The species' habitat requires periodic
disturbance to prevent woody encroachment.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the rattlesnake-master borer moth, 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 rattlesnake-master borer moth's
biological status include management actions (e.g., grazing, mowing,
prescribed fire), the natural fire regime, and habitat loss and
fragmentation. We also assessed impacts to the rattlesnake-master borer
moth from the effects of climate change. Currently, the rattlesnake-
master borer moth has multiple resilient populations across the breadth
of its environmental variation. In the future, we anticipate a maximum
of 12 small populations may be lost. However, the overall impact to the
species would be low, as the 17 highly resilient populations,
representing 89 percent of the acreage for the species, are expected to
remain, and no loss of range is predicted to occur. We anticipate the
rattlesnake-master borer moth to maintain adequate resiliency,
redundancy, and representation to withstand catastrophic events and
adapt to changing conditions.
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the rattlesnake-master borer moth does not
meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species in
accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we find
that listing the rattlesnake-master borer moth is not warranted at this
time. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found
in the rattlesnake-master borer moth species assessment and other
supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Northern Virginia Well Amphipod
Previous Federal Actions
We initiated a discretionary status review for the northern
Virginia well amphipod in fiscal year 2018. The species had previously
been petitioned in 2001, with two other invertebrates, but we found the
petition to be not substantial in 2007 (72 FR 51766; September 11,
2007). Since 2001, the species has been covered under the Department of
Defense U.S. Army's Fort Belvoir Installation's (Fort Belvoir)
integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP).
Summary of Finding
The northern Virginia well amphipod is a small (7.0 millimeter
(0.28 inch) or less) groundwater aquifer crustacean and is currently
known from a single location on Fort Belvoir in Fairfax County,
Virginia. It was historically known from two other locations in Fairfax
County. This location consists of a seep/spring within a wooded ravine
where groundwater discharges from the subterranean habitat after high
precipitation events.
Detailed hydrogeological studies suggest that the amphipod may
inhabit `macropores' (cavities and channels within the ravine wall
formed when sandy substrates erode while surrounding clay substrate
persists) and/or a deep (i.e., non-surficial) aquifer characterized by
a unique chemical signature of high conductivity, high dissolved
solids, and low organic content. The diet, water quality tolerances,
and behavioral traits of the amphipod have not been documented. We
infer, based on general principles of conservation biology, general
information about other groundwater species, and local information from
where the amphipods have been observed, that the amphipod requires
sufficient ``space'' in which to find food and to reproduce, and that
this ``space'' may equate to either the macropores of the seep/spring
areas, the sediments of the deeper aquifer, or both. Although we do not
know the specific needs of the northern Virginia well amphipod, we
infer that a species generally requires a stable or positive population
growth rate to remain healthy. We do not know the species' population
size or trend, but instead rely on the best available habitat
parameters as a surrogate for population and species health.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the northern Virginia well amphipod, 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 northern Virginia well amphipod's
biological status include changes to groundwater quality and quantity
and the extent of impervious cover in likely recharge zones, which
affects the quality and quantity of water entering aquifers. We also
evaluated the implementation of conservation actions, primarily Fort
Belvoir's INRMP, which includes the amphipod as a covered species. We
conclude that the species' subsurface needs are currently being met by
[[Page 44483]]
suitable surface habitat conditions and lack of substantial impacts to
water quality, and that those conditions will continue to persist
within the foreseeable future.
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the northern Virginia well amphipod does not
meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species in
accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we find
that listing the northern Virginia well amphipod is not warranted at
this time. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be
found in the northern Virginia well amphipod's species assessment 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 the
Upper Missouri River DPS of Arctic grayling, Elk River crayfish,
rattlesnake-master borer moth, and northern Virginia well amphipod 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 the petition finding are
available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov in the
appropriate docket provided above in ADDRESSES and upon request from
the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
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.).
Aurelia Skipwith,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-14454 Filed 7-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P