Proposed Rule2025-10294
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Two Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
June 10, 2025
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce findings that two 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 cannulate cave isopod (Pseudobaicalasellus cannula) and Dry Fork Valley cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus montanus). 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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 110 (Tuesday, June 10, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 10, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24378-24381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-10294]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FXES1111090FEDR-256-FF09E21000]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Two 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 two 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 cannulate cave isopod (Pseudobaicalasellus cannula)
and Dry Fork Valley cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus montanus). 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 June 10, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Detailed descriptions of the bases for these findings are
available on the internet at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under the
following docket numbers:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Docket No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cannulate cave isopod........ FWS-R5-ES-2025-0035.
Dry Fork Valley cave beetle.. FWS-R5-ES-2025-0036.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 these findings to the appropriate person, as specified under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Norris, Field Supervisor,
West Virginia Field Office, 304-866-3858, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a4eec1cacacdc2c1d6fbe8fbeacbd6d6cdd7e4c2d3d78ac3cbd2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f1bb949f9f98979483aebdaebf9e83839882b1978682df969e87">[email protected]</span></a>.
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-of-contact in
the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)), 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 an ``endangered
species'' as a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)) and a
``threatened species'' as a 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, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) may
determine whether any species is 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
species' expected response and the effects of the threats--in light of
those actions and conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an
[[Page 24379]]
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.
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, which is
further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable
future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-
37021, January 16, 2009; ``M-Opinion,'' available online at <a href="https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf">https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf</a>).
The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service can make
reasonably reliable predictions about the threats to the species and
the species' responses to those threats. We need not identify the
foreseeable future in terms of a specific period of time. We will
describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, using the best
available data and taking into account considerations such as the
species' life-history characteristics, threat projection timeframes,
and environmental variability. In other words, the foreseeable future
is the period of time over which we can make reasonably reliable
predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means
sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the
prediction, in light of the conservation purposes of the Act.
In conducting our evaluation of the five factors provided in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether the cannulate cave
isopod and Dry Fork Valley cave beetle meet the Act's definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``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 petition, information available in our files,
and other available published and unpublished information for the
species. Our evaluation may include information from recognized
experts; Federal, State, and Tribal governments; academic institutions;
foreign governments; private entities; and other members of the public.
In accordance with the regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)(i), this
document announces the not-warranted findings on petitions to list the
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. Below, we describe the documents containing these analyses.
The species assessment forms for the cannulate cave isopod and Dry
Fork Valley cave beetle each 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 two 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under the appropriate docket number (see ADDRESSES,
above).
Cannulate Cave Isopod and Dry Fork Valley 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 the cannulate cave isopod (Pseudobaicalasellus
cannula) and Dry Fork Valley cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus montanus),
as endangered or threatened species under the Act. On September 27,
2011, we published a partial 90-day finding (76 FR 59836) that the
petition contained substantial information indicating listing may be
warranted for these two species (note: The September 27, 2011,
publication refers to the cannulate cave isopod (Pseudobaicalasellus
cannula) as Caecidotea cannula). This document constitutes our 12-month
finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to list the cannulate cave
isopod and Dry Fork Valley cave beetle under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The cannulate cave isopod is a cave-obligate crustacean that is
only known to occur in nine caves in Preston, Tucker, and Randolph
Counties, West Virginia. The cannulate cave isopod requires a karst
environment devoid of light with stable climate conditions, such as
temperature and humidity, and a cave stream. To provide adequate
habitat, the stream must be small-to medium-sized with substrate and
flat rocks that create interstitial spaces for the isopod to feed and
shelter during periods of increased stream velocity. The species also
requires nutrients derived from the surface for feeding.
The Dry Fork Valley cave beetle is an Appalachian endemic species
that represents archaic populations of ground beetles that colonized
caves during the Pleistocene epoch. It occurs in three caves in Tucker
County, West Virginia. Similar to the cannulate cave isopod, the Dry
Fork Valley cave beetle requires a karst environment devoid of light
with stable climate conditions, such as temperature and humidity, and a
cave stream. Unlike the isopod, the Dry Fork Valley cave beetle does
not inhabit the stream but instead uses riparian mudbanks and other
moist areas within limestone caves. The Dry Fork Valley cave beetle is
a carnivorous, opportunistic feeder whose diet may consist of small
earthworms, aquatic worms, and cave cricket eggs, larvae, and nymphs.
We do not know the specific needs, population sizes, or population
trends of either cave species. However, the best available information
indicates that both species need clean water and relatively stable
thermal and water flow conditions for populations to remain healthy and
capable of withstanding environmental and demographic stochasticity.
Based on general conservation biology principles, we assume that the
viability of both species at the species level would be best supported
by multiple, self-sustaining populations distributed throughout the
geographical extent of their range with sufficient diversity and time
to respond to changing environmental conditions (i.e., redundancy,
resiliency, and representation, respectively).
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the cannulate cave isopod and Dry Fork Valley cave beetle, and we
evaluated all relevant factors under the five listing factors,
including
[[Page 24380]]
any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these
threats. The primary potential threats affecting both species'
biological status include water pollution, stream flow alteration,
washout of habitats and individuals from increased flooding events, and
increasing precipitation and temperatures.
Currently, the cannulate cave isopod and Dry Fork Valley cave
beetle have naturally low redundancy because of their narrow range
within nine occupied caves and three occupied caves, respectively.
However, the best available information indicates both species occupy
their entire known historical ranges, and there is not a high risk of
catastrophic events occurring. We assume current representation has not
changed from historical representation, as the known historical ranges
remain occupied and none of the processes that drive evolution (i.e.,
gene flow, natural selection, mutations, and genetic drift) are known
to be currently impacted. While species with naturally low redundancy
and representation theoretically have a higher risk of extinction, the
potential for catastrophic events occurring, such as a contaminant
spill, is not high.
We assessed the potential effects of water contamination and stream
flow alteration, along with minor threats of lesser concern, on the
needs of both species and the species themselves. There may be some
negative impacts to the occupied caves of both species based on the
available information on surface and groundwater conditions. However,
the caves themselves have experienced little change, as a majority of
the caves are inaccessible. In addition, while recent survey data for
these species are lacking, the best scientific and commercial data
available do not indicate a decline in either species, and we have low
to very low causal certainty (degree of confidence in the belief that a
specific cause-and-effect relationship exists) in all threats to the
species. Causal certainty is based on evidence, where low causal
certainty describes a theoretical link with limited evidence that a
threat is leading to a population decline or decreased resiliency. Very
low causal certainty describes a plausible link with no evidence that a
threat is leading to population decline or decreased resiliency. Thus,
after assessing the best available information, we conclude that the
cannulate cave isopod and Dry Fork Valley cave beetle are not in danger
of extinction throughout all of their respective ranges. Therefore, we
proceed with determining whether the cannulate cave isopod and Dry Fork
Valley cave beetle are likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all of their ranges.
In our future scenarios, water pollution, stream flow alteration,
landscape condition, oil and gas development, and urban development are
not expected to change significantly from the current condition. The
threats to the species that may change in the future are air
temperature, water temperature, and flooding frequency. While there is
uncertainty in how either species will respond to potential changes in
temperatures and increased flooding, the best available scientific
information does not provide evidence of negative effects on the
species. Similar to current conditions, we have low to very low causal
certainty that these threats may affect the species. Overall, we
conclude that the magnitude of most of the threats to the species will
remain similar to current conditions. Thus, after assessing the best
available information, we conclude that the cannulate cave isopod and
Dry Fork Valley cave beetle are not likely to become endangered within
the foreseeable future throughout all of their ranges.
We also evaluated whether the cannulate cave isopod or Dry Fork
Valley cave beetle are endangered or threatened in a significant
portion of their ranges. We did not find any portions of the cannulate
cave isopod or Dry Fork Valley cave beetle 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.
The cannulate cave isopod occurs in nine caves in six analysis
units, and the Dry Fork Valley cave beetle occurs in three caves in one
analysis unit. The magnitude of each threat we assessed currently and
in the future, and the subsequent risks to the species, is similar
across all analysis units. Our evaluation identified two threats that
may have different levels of impact for the two species in different
portions of their range: (1) oil and gas development; and (2) flooding
(i.e., washout) risk. For the isopod, three caves are located close to
oil and gas activities. For the beetle, two caves are located close to
oil and gas activities. We have low certainty that oil and gas
development will cause the species' populations to decline. However,
the continued occurrence of these species at sites where oil and gas
activity is present indicates some tolerance of these activities. No
quantitative date exists on population size or population trends for
either species, also making future population projections difficult.
Additionally, two oil wells near the Dry Fork Valley cave beetle caves
are both currently abandoned and have a lower likelihood of impacting
the species. Thus, we concluded from the best available data that the
risk from oil and gas activities does not rise to a level that creates
a large difference in the overall risk to either species in the caves
potentially impacted by oil and gas activities compared to caves that
are not impacted.
All caves where the Dry Fork Valley cave beetle has been found are
situated within a watershed that falls under a mapped Federal Emergency
Management Agency flood hazard zone. Additionally, five caves inhabited
by the cannulate cave isopod are currently at risk of experiencing
extreme flood events. Projections indicate that the frequency of severe
precipitation is expected to increase, potentially increasing the
frequency of catastrophic flooding in West Virginia. However, the
impact of these flooding events on the subsurface conditions that
affect the survival of both the cannulate cave isopod and the Dry Fork
Valley cave beetle remains unknown, and the best available information
does not indicate any evidence of washouts in any of the habitats where
the species occur or any response of this species to this threat.
Therefore, we found no portion of the cannulate cave isopod's or Dry
Fork Valley cave beetle's range where the biological condition of the
species differs from its condition elsewhere in its range such that the
status of the species in that portion differs from its status in any
other portion of the species' range.
Thus, after assessing the best available information, we concluded
that the cannulate cave isopod and Dry Fork Valley cave beetle 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
either species as an endangered species or threatened species under the
Act is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for these
findings can be found in the cannulate cave isopod and Dry Fork Valley
cave beetle species assessment form and other supporting documents on
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2025-0035 and
FWS-R5-ES-2025-0036 (see ADDRESSES, above).
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22,
2016, memorandum
[[Page 24381]]
updating and clarifying the role of peer review in listing actions
under the Act, we solicited independent scientific reviews of the
information contained in the cannulate cave isopod and Dry Fork Valley
cave beetle SSA report. We sent the SSA report to four independent peer
reviewers and received two responses. Results of this structured peer
review process can be found at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> 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 these findings.
New Information
We request that you submit any new information concerning the
taxonomy of, biology of, ecology of, status of, or stressors to the
cannulate cave isopod or Dry Fork Valley 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> in the
appropriate docket (see ADDRESSES, above) and upon request from the
appropriate person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above).
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.).
Signing Authority
Paul Souza, Regional Director, Region 8, Exercising the Delegated
Authority of the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
approved this action on May 27, 2025, for publication. On May 30, 2025,
Paul Souza 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.
Jillian Eanett,
Acting 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. 2025-10294 Filed 6-9-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on June 10, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.