Home/Federal/Federal Register/2026-18123

Rule2026-18123

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Nine 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

September 4, 2026

Issuing agencies

Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service

Abstract

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce findings that nine species are not warranted for listing as endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA or Act). After a thorough review of the best scientific and commercial data available, we find that it is not warranted at this time to list the Big Bar hesperian (Vespericola pressleyi), Chesapeake logperch (Percina bimaculate), Kirtland's snake (Clonophis kirtlandii), orangefin madtom (Noturus gilberti), Shasta chaparral (Trilobopsis roperi), Shasta hesperian (Vespericola shasta), Shasta sideband (Monadenia troglodytes troglodytes), tall western penstemon (Penstemon hesperius), and Wintu sideband (Monadenia troglodytes wintu). 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 91 Issue 171 (Friday, September 4, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 171 (Friday, September 4, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56783-56797]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-18123]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FXES1111090FEDR-267-FF09E21000]

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Nine Species Not
Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notification of findings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce
findings that nine species are not warranted for listing as endangered
or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (ESA or Act). After a thorough review of the best scientific
and commercial data available, we find that it is not warranted at this
time to list the Big Bar hesperian (Vespericola pressleyi), Chesapeake
logperch (Percina bimaculate), Kirtland's snake (Clonophis kirtlandii),
orangefin madtom (Noturus gilberti), Shasta

[[Page 56784]]

chaparral (Trilobopsis roperi), Shasta hesperian (Vespericola shasta),
Shasta sideband (Monadenia troglodytes troglodytes), tall western
penstemon (Penstemon hesperius), and Wintu sideband (Monadenia
troglodytes wintu). 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 September 4, 2026.

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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Bar hesperian, Shasta FWS-R8-ES-2026-2810.
chaparral, Shasta hesperian,
Shasta sideband, and Wintu
sideband.
Chesapeake logperch.............. FWS-R5-ES-2026-2806.
Kirtland's snake................. FWS-R3-ES-2026-2811.
Orangefin madtom................. FWS-R5-ES-2026-2807.
Tall western penstemon........... FWS-R1-ES-2026-2808.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Contact information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Bar hesperian, Shasta chaparral, Ryan Fogerty, Acting Field
Shasta hesperian, Shasta sideband, and Supervisor, Yreka Field
Wintu sideband. Office, 530-340-7900,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#88faf1e9e6d7eee7efedfafcf1c8eefffba6efe7fe">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Chesapeake logperch.................... Jodie Mamuscia, Field
Supervisor, Pennsylvania
Ecological Services Field
Office, 814-298-4523,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#53393c373a360c3e323e2620303a32133524207d343c25">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Kirtland's snake....................... Erin Knoll, Field Supervisor,
Ohio Ecological Services Field
Office, 380-215-0987,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7b1e0912152410151417173b1d0c08551c140d">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Orangefin madtom....................... Troy Andersen, Field
Supervisor, Virginia
Ecological Services Field
Office, 804-728-0695,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dda9afb2a482bcb3b9b8afaeb8b39dbbaaaef3bab2ab">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Tall western penstemon................. Kessina Lee, Oregon State
Supervisor, Oregon Fish and
Wildlife Office, 503-231-6179,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a7ccc2d4d4cec9c6f8cbc2c2e7c1d0d489c0c8d1">[email&#160;protected]</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 our 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),

[[Page 56785]]

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
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
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 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 scientific and commercial data available 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.
Both definitions of endangered species and threatened species
include not only the phrase ``throughout all,'' but also the phrase
``or a significant portion of its range.'' Beginning in 2001, a number
of judicial opinions addressed our interpretation of the phrase ``or a
significant portion of its range'' (the SPR phrase) in the statutory
definitions of ``endangered species'' and ``threatened species.'' In
Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2001)
regarding the flat-tailed horned lizard, the court held that the
interpretation of the SPR phrase that we had applied in analyzing the
status of the flat-tailed horned lizard was unacceptable because it
would allow for a species to warrant listing throughout a significant
portion of a species' range only when the species ``is in danger of
extinction everywhere'' (id. at 1141). The court held that the SPR
phrase must be given independent meaning from the ``throughout all''
phrase to avoid making the SPR phrase in the statute superfluous.
In an attempt to address the judicial opinions calling into
question our approach to evaluating whether a species was endangered or
threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, the Services
published a ``Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase `Significant
Portion of Its Range' in the Endangered Species Act's Definition of
``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (hereafter ``2014 SPR
Policy;'' 79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014). The notice of the draft policy
provides more detail about litigation before 2014 regarding the phrase
(76 FR 76987, Dec. 9, 2011). The 2014 SPR Policy included four
elements:
(1) Consequence--that the consequence of determining that a species
warrants listing based on its status in a significant portion of its
range is to list the species throughout all of its range;
(2) Significance--a definition of the term ``significant'';
(3) Range--that the species' ``range'' is the current range of the
species; and
(4) Distinct population segment (DPS)--that, if a [vertebrate]
species is endangered or threatened in an SPR, and the population in
that SPR is a DPS, the Service will list just the DPS.
Subsequently, two district courts vacated the definition of
``significant'' contained in the 2014 SPR Policy (Ctr. for Biological
Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) (``CBD v.
Jewell'') and Desert Survivors v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 321 F.
Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (``Desert Survivors'')). The
courts found that the definition in the 2014 SPR Policy set too high a
threshold and rendered the SPR language in the statute superfluous,
failing to give it independent meaning from the ``throughout all''
phrase. In 2020, another court (Ctr. for Biological Diversity v.
Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020) (``Everson'')) also vacated
the specific aspect of the 2014 SPR Policy under which, ``if the
Services determine that a species is threatened throughout all of its
range, the Services will not analyze whether the species is endangered
in a significant portion of its range'' (id. at 98). This was an
extension of the definition of ``significant,'' which required a
stepwise process in which we only considered whether a species may be
endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range
when the species was not endangered or threatened throughout all of its
range. In an extension of the earlier rulings from CBD v. Jewell and
Desert Survivors, the court found that this aspect of the definition of
the 2014 SPR Policy was not only inconsistent with the statute because
it ``rendered the `endangered in a significant portion of its range'
basis for listing superfluous,'' but was also ``inconsistent with ESA
principles'' and ``not a logical outgrowth from the draft policy.''
Under this ruling, if we find a species is not in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range, we must evaluate whether the species is in
danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range,
even in cases where we have determined that the species is likely to
become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future
(threatened) throughout all of its range. The remaining three elements
of the 2014 SPR Policy remain intact.
For each species below, we address why they are not in danger of
extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges. For some
species, we discuss throughout all of the range first (endangered then
threatened classification) and then discuss significant portion of the
range. For other species we explain why not in danger of extinction
(throughout all or a significant portion of its range) and then why not
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (throughout
all or a significant portion of its range).
When assessing whether a species is endangered or threatened
throughout a significant portion of its range, we address two questions
because we must determine whether there is any portion of the species'
range for which both (1)

[[Page 56786]]

the portion is ``significant'' and (2) the species is in danger of
extinction or likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout that portion. We may address either
question first. Regardless of which question we address first, if we
reach a negative answer with respect to the first question that we
address, we do not need to evaluate the other question for that portion
of the species' range.
In conducting our evaluation of the five factors provided in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether the Big Bar hesperian,
Chesapeake logperch, Kirtland's snake, orangefin madtom, Shasta
chaparral, Shasta hesperian, Shasta sideband, tall western penstemon,
and Wintu sideband meet the Act's definition of an ``endangered
species'' or a ``threatened species,'' we considered and thoroughly
evaluated the best scientific and commercial data available regarding
the past, present, and future threats. We reviewed the petitions,
information available in our files, and other available published and
unpublished information for these species. Our evaluation may include
information from recognized experts; Federal, State, and Tribal
governments; academic institutions; foreign governments; private
entities; and other members of the public.
In accordance with the regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)(i), this
document announces the not-warranted findings on petitions to list the
nine species. We have also elected to include brief summaries of the
analyses on which these findings are based. We provide the full
analyses, including the reasons and data on which the findings are
based, in the decisional files for the Big Bar hesperian, Chesapeake
logperch, Kirtland's snake, orangefin madtom, Shasta chaparral, Shasta
hesperian, Shasta sideband, tall western penstemon, and Wintu sideband.
Below, we describe the documents containing these analyses.
The species assessment forms for the Big Bar hesperian, Chesapeake
logperch, Kirtland's snake, orangefin madtom, Shasta chaparral, Shasta
hesperian, Shasta sideband, tall western penstemon, and Wintu sideband
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 review, we completed a species status assessment
(SSA) report for the Big Bar hesperian, Chesapeake logperch, Kirtland's
snake, orangefin madtom, Shasta chaparral, Shasta hesperian, Shasta
sideband, tall western penstemon, and Wintu sideband. The SSA reports
contain a thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology,
current status, and projected future status for these 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).

Big Bar Hesperian, Shasta Chaparral, Shasta Hesperian, Shasta Sideband,
and Wintu Sideband

Previous Federal Actions

On March 13, 2008, we received a petition to list 29 species and
subspecies of mollusks in the Pacific Northwest as threatened or
endangered species under the Act. The petitioners included the Center
for Biological Diversity (CBD), Conservation Northwest, the
Environmental Protection Information Center, the Klamath-Siskiyou
Wildlands Center, and Oregon Wild. We issued a 90-day finding on
October 5, 2011, (76 FR 61826), stating that the petition presented
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
listing 26 of the mollusk species or subspecies may be warranted. This
document constitutes our 12-month finding on the March 13, 2008,
petition to list the Big Bar hesperian, Shasta chaparral, Shasta
hesperian, Shasta sideband, and Wintu sideband (five terrestrial
mollusks).

Summary of Finding

The five terrestrial mollusks are small land-dwelling narrowly
endemic snails typically much less than 1.1 inches (30 millimeters) in
diameter and are found in Shasta, Siskiyou, Trinity, and Humboldt
Counties, California. The landscape in which they occur is part of the
Klamath Mountains/Southern Cascades ecoregion, which is ecologically,
topographically, and geographically diverse. This diversity provides
localized variability in vegetation (type and cover) and climate
(temperature and moisture). The general habitat needs of the five
terrestrial mollusks include use and selection of habitat that
conserves moisture and avoids desiccation and provides for temperature
regulation, availability of vegetation/fungi/detritus for foraging,
calcium availability for shell development, and refuge or sheltering
habitat to avoid hot, dry, or cold conditions. This includes humid
habitats associated with limestone outcrops or caves, rocky outcrops,
talus slopes, or boulder piles with interstitial spaces, areas that
contain leaf litter and woody debris such as downed limbs or logs, or
areas that have a shrub or forest overstory to provide shade. The Big
Bar hesperian and Shasta hesperian are closely associated with riparian
areas and are found within a short distance of the edge of streams,
springs, and seeps in montane hardwood-conifer forests where soils are
permanently moist. The Shasta chaparral is also associated with these
wetted habitats but also occurs in the nonwetted habitats as described
above.
Populations of terrestrial snails within the region are thought to
be relicts of the late Pleistocene epoch when the local climate
conditions were much cooler and more mesic than current conditions and
the five terrestrial mollusks have gone through many cycles of
isolation followed by connectivity over millennia or longer periods of
time. Despite the warmer and dryer climatic conditions where they are
now found, the five terrestrial mollusks have adopted behaviors to
maintain moisture or to seek out cooler moist habitat to carry out
their life history requirements. This includes being active during
cooler more moist periods of the day and year such as at night or
during the fall and spring and seeking shelter, hibernating, or
estivating during the day, winter, or summer.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data
available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the Big
Bar hesperian, Shasta chaparral, Shasta hesperian, Shasta sideband, and
Wintu sideband, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five
listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation
measures addressing the threats facing the five terrestrial mollusks.
In our analysis, we identified the following threats facing the five
terrestrial mollusks: the effects of increasing temperatures and
prolonged drought; the effects of fire; the impacts associated with
small population size and limited gene flow; limestone and gold mining;
grazing; timber harvest; road construction; urbanization; recreation
activities and recreation facility development; off-road vehicle
activity; nonnative species; pesticide use; chemical spills;
unauthorized marijuana cultivation; fire retardant use; over
collection; and the potential raising of Shasta Dam and resulting
inundation of habitat. We identified the primary threats affecting the
biological status of the five terrestrial mollusks as (1) the effects
of prolonged drought conditions and increasing temperatures, and (2)
the effects of severe wildfire events that are associated with habitat
loss or

[[Page 56787]]

destruction. Although the remaining threats (either individually or
cumulatively) may impact individuals at the local level, the best
scientific and commercial data available did not indicate that these
threats are having or will have population level impacts due to their
limited rangewide prevalence or level of impact on the five terrestrial
mollusks.
To determine whether the Big Bar hesperian, Shasta chaparral,
Shasta hesperian, Shasta sideband, and Wintu sideband are in danger of
extinction throughout all of their ranges, we reviewed the threats to
each of the five terrestrial mollusks, their responses to those threats
(including any cumulative effect of the threats), and any amelioration
of the threats associated with regulatory or conservation measures.
Several factors assist in limiting the impact of the two primary
threats impacting the five terrestrial mollusks. This includes the
ecological, topographical, and geological diversity of the landscape
which provides a mosaic of environmental conditions and resulting burn
patterns (severity and intensity) across the five terrestrial mollusks'
ranges; and the life history and behavioral adaptations of the five
terrestrial mollusks to avoid activity during periods most associated
and influenced by the two primary threats.
Currently, each of the five terrestrial mollusks occupies areas
roughly the size of their respective historical ranges and our analysis
identified that all populations are in either high or moderate
condition (based on habitat condition and occurrence distribution). In
addition, the five terrestrial mollusks likely have a wide breadth of
environmental diversity within and among their populations and so can
be characterized as having representation across a breadth of
subwatersheds. Based on topographical and geographical conditions of
the landscape, habitat used, and behavioral adaptations and life
history and behavioral strategies that assist them in maintaining
moisture (aestivation, activity periods, habitat use), the five
terrestrial mollusks are currently able to limit the negative impacts
from the effects of drought and increasing temperatures and severe
wildfire events. As a result, we found that in the near term, all five
terrestrial mollusks can withstand stochastic disturbances, maintain
their ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions, and have
sufficient number and distributions of populations to withstand
catastrophic events. Therefore, we conclude that the Big Bar hesperian,
Shasta chaparral, Shasta hesperian, Shasta sideband, and Wintu sideband
are not in danger of extinction throughout all of their respective
ranges.
Therefore, we proceeded with determining whether the five
terrestrial mollusks are likely to become in danger of extinction
within the foreseeable future throughout all of their ranges. For our
analysis of future conditions, we chose to examine the future
conditions out to approximately mid-century (2040-2069) as well as end-
of-century (2070-2099) because those timeframes encompass the best
scientific and commercial data available for future projections of the
two primary threats acting on the species and for drawing reliable
conclusions about the response of the five terrestrial mollusks to
these threats. Despite a potential future decrease in resiliency due to
drought and severe wildfire, we expect these future impacts will likely
be limited to the loss of individuals or some smaller populations, and
the overall viability of these species is not likely to be affected. As
previously discussed, the behavioral flexibility and biological
adaptations of these five species will likely continue to protect them
from the effects of future threats, as their life history strategies
support their ability to adapt to varying environmental conditions. In
addition, the mollusks' use of sheltered habitats (deep within caves
and interstitial spaces within rocky areas) and the fragmented
topography of the Klamath Mountains and Southern Cascades ecoregions
will likely continue to protect the species from widespread loss from
catastrophic wildfire. Therefore, we have concluded that the future
condition of the five terrestrial mollusks is not likely to change
significantly.
Having determined that the five terrestrial mollusks are not in
danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable
future throughout all of their ranges, we now consider whether they may
be in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the
foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of their ranges.
We evaluated the range of the five terrestrial mollusks to
determine if any of the species are in danger of extinction or likely
to become so within the foreseeable future in any portion of their
range. We divided the range of each of the five terrestrial mollusks in
two ways: (1) analysis units (AUs) and (2) representation units
(Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)-12 watersheds). AUs were based on
NatureServe's 1-kilometer buffers for general animal and plant
dispersal to assess resiliency of each species and HUC-12 watersheds
were used to assess representation of each species. We also looked for
any other possible clustering of AUs to ensure we were not missing a
geographical area where the species may have a different regulatory
status that warrants further investigation.
Therefore, for the five terrestrial mollusks, we considered whether
any of the threats or their effects on the species are greater in any
biologically meaningful portion of the five terrestrial mollusks'
ranges than in other portions such that any of the five species is in
danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable
future in any identified portion. We evaluated the same threats as
discussed above. As discussed in our rangewide analysis above, threats
are not disproportionately affecting any of the five terrestrial
mollusks in any portion of their respective ranges. While there may be
impacts to individual snails associated with the threats, the impact of
the threats are distributed equally across each of the terrestrial
mollusks respective ranges and are not disproportionately affecting the
five terrestrial mollusks in any AU. For all five terrestrial mollusks,
all AUs have moderate to high resiliency in the near term and similar
risk of catastrophic events such as wildfire. In our review of the
current condition of the five terrestrial mollusks, we identified that
the primary threats are lessened by the five terrestrial mollusks'
habitat use (rock outcroppings, talus slopes, boulder piles, caves,
wetted areas), the ecological setting of the Klamath Mountains and
Southern Cascade ecoregions provide areas that are variably impacted by
the effects of drought or severe wildfire, and the five terrestrial
mollusks' behavioral responses to the threats (i.e., avoiding activity
during dry hot conditions, seeking shelter in areas that maintain
cooler temperatures and moisture, and aestivating during such periods).
Therefore, we found no portion of the five terrestrial mollusks' ranges
where the biological condition of the species or subspecies differs
from its condition elsewhere in its range such that the status of the
species or subspecies in that portion differs from its status in any
other portion of the species' or subspecies' range within the near term
or within the foreseeable future.
As a result, we concluded that the Big Bar hesperian, Shasta
chaparral, Shasta hesperian, Shasta sideband, and Wintu sideband are
not in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the
foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range. This
does not conflict with the decision in Everson because we have
determined that there is no portion of the range

[[Page 56788]]

where the species may be in danger of extinction (i.e., the species
cannot be in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of
its range). Based on the best scientific and commercial data available,
we determine that the Big Bar hesperian, Shasta chaparral, Shasta
hesperian, Shasta sideband, and Wintu sideband do not meet the
definition of endangered species or threatened species in accordance
with sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we find that
listing the Big Bar hesperian, Shasta chaparral, Shasta hesperian,
Shasta sideband, and Wintu sideband is not warranted at this time. A
detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the
five terrestrial mollusks species assessment form and other supporting
documents on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-
2026-2810 (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 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 five terrestrial mollusks
SSA report. We sent the SSA report to five independent peer reviewers
and received three responses. Results of this structured peer review
process can be found at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No.
FWS-R8-ES-2026-2810. We incorporated the results of these reviews, as
appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this
finding.

Chesapeake Logperch

Previous Federal Actions

On April 20, 2010, the Service received a petition from CBD,
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 Chesapeake logperch, as endangered or threatened
species under the Act. On September 27, 2011, the Service published a
90-day finding in the Federal Register (76 FR 59836) announcing that
the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that listing may be warranted. This document constitutes our
12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to list the Chesapeake
logperch under the Act.

Summary of Finding

The Chesapeake logperch is a small, benthic freshwater fish endemic
to the lower Susquehanna River basin watersheds and its tributaries in
Pennsylvania and Maryland. They primarily occur in large river habitat
and connected tributaries where the river width is over 14 meters (45.9
feet). Chesapeake logperch require cobble, large rocks, and boulder
substrate with low levels of silt, fine sediment, and substrate
embeddedness. The substrate provides cover and protection for juveniles
and adults, spawning habitat for egg development, and habitat for
Chesapeake logperch forage species. Similar to other darter species,
the Chesapeake logperch requires clean flowing water with a variety of
substrate types and feeds primarily on macroinvertebrates. To forage,
Chesapeake logperch adults move substrate materials and flip rocks to
find their prey. Spawning is believed to occur in April through June.
Sufficient population size and connectivity are needed for maintaining
genetic diversity and to support reproduction and recruitment within
populations.
At the population and species level, the Chesapeake logperch
requires the same key elements (adequate water quantity and quality,
and adequate habitat for shelter, spawning, and feeding) as
individuals, at a scale sufficient to support population health and
reproduction as well as sustainable population size and connectivity
between populations. In general, larger and more closely connected
populations are expected to have increased opportunities for
reproduction to maintain genetic diversity. Ultimately, Chesapeake
logperch viability depends on the number of healthy populations,
distribution of healthy populations, and connectivity between
populations to allow the species to withstand catastrophic events
(i.e., redundancy and resiliency) and suitable genetic and
environmental diversity to allow the species to adapt to changing
environmental conditions (i.e., representation).
To determine whether the Chesapeake logperch is in danger of
extinction throughout all of it range, we have carefully assessed the
best scientific and commercial data available regarding the past,
present, and future threats to the Chesapeake logperch, and we
evaluated all relevant factors under the five listing factors,
including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures
addressing these threats. The primary threats affecting the Chesapeake
logperch's biological status include poor water quality (nutrient
loading, sedimentation and siltation, other pollutants) and barriers to
dispersal. We also examined other potential threats to Chesapeake
logperch including impacts of invasive fish species due to competition
and predation and the effects of increased temperatures and changes in
precipitation patterns which have the potential to alter the habitat of
the Chesapeake logperch. Also, conservation actions such as water
quality improvement, barrier removal, and invasive species control
projects are likely beneficial to the species. Efforts to improve water
quality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed through stream restoration and
riparian buffer plantings likely have indirect benefits for the
species. A number of completed stream restoration projects likely
benefit the Chesapeake logperch specifically and reduce water quality
threats.
The Chesapeake logperch occurs in a variety of habitats within the
lower Susquehanna River basin watersheds and its tributaries in
Pennsylvania and Maryland. To assess resiliency of the Chesapeake
logperch, the range was divided into 18 currently occupied analytical
units (17 HUC-12s plus the Susquehanna Flats--Chesapeake Bay AU) and
these units were treated as separate populations based on occurrence
records, expert input, and the species' known distribution within the
Susquehanna River basin. The Susquehanna Flats--Chesapeake Bay AU,
located at the mouth of the Susquehanna River, in Chesapeake Bay, is
not attributed to a HUC-12, so three HUC-12s that surround the area
where these fish are found were used as a proxy to assess land use
including Swan Creek--Frontal Chesapeake Bay, Rock Run--Susquehanna
River, and Mill Creek--Furnace Bay.
We conducted qualitative assessments of the current condition
(resiliency analysis) of each population through evaluations of
variables encompassing the species' demographics. We also assessed the
level of habitat impairment in each AU (impairment analysis). The level
of impairment provides an understanding of the quality of Chesapeake
logperch habitat in each AU. The level of impairment did not affect
resiliency scores for the AUs but provided contextual information and
assisted in the analysis of future conditions.
We determined the resiliency scores for 15 of the 18 AUs, as these
AUs could be assessed using the demographic data available. We
conducted the impairment analysis on all AUs except for the Elk Neck--
Frontal Chesapeake Bay (17 of 18 AUs), as water impairment data were

[[Page 56789]]

unavailable for this AU. The resiliency scores of three AUs were
considered ``unknown,'' as we did not have sufficient demographic
information available to inform the resiliency assessment; However,
habitat variables for the impairment analysis were evaluated for two of
these three ``unknown'' units (North East River--Frontal Chesapeake
Bay, and Susquehanna Flats--Chesapeake Bay).
Currently, 73 percent of the species' range (11 of 15 AUs) is
categorized as highly or moderately resilient, based on demographic
information (abundance, distribution, population trend). Additionally,
most of the species' range had some to no impairment (76 percent or 13
of 17 AUs) based on habitat factors (land cover, water impairment,
dams). This level of high to moderate resiliency across most of the
Chesapeake logperch's range contributes to its ability to withstand
stochastic events. Despite threats acting on Chesapeake logperch, there
are many moderately to highly resilient units spread throughout the
species' range, thus contributing to the species' ability to withstand
catastrophic events such as strong storms and extensive droughts (high
redundancy). While a potential catastrophic event could impact several
AUs at once, a catastrophic event is unlikely to impact the species
throughout its entire range.
The representation (adaptive capacity) analysis of Chesapeake
logperch indicates that the species' capacity to adapt to change is
moderately high based on gene flow throughout most of its range and
several life history characteristics (e.g., high fecundity, flexible
feeding habits, habitat generalist). Despite some loss of genetic
diversity over time from a few extirpated sites across its range, and
other life history characteristics that suggest lower adaptive capacity
(e.g., low recruitment, small occurrence extent), and reduced ability
to disperse or move out of harm's way when conditions in current
locations become temporarily or permanently unsuitable (shift in space)
due to dams in some locations, the Chesapeake logperch life history
characteristics and gene flow throughout its range indicate that its
current representation is moderately high, and thus, sufficient to
support species viability. Thus, after assessing the best scientific
and commercial data available, we conclude that the Chesapeake logperch
is not in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
Therefore, we proceeded with determining whether the Chesapeake
logperch is likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. For the Chesapeake
logperch, we considered future condition at three timesteps to capture
both a nearer-term assessment of future condition and longer-term
assessment of the future. These timesteps include: (1) 2040, 2075, and
2100 to simulate future condition at three timesteps, (2) 2040 and
2075, roughly 15 and 50 years into the future, and (3) 2100, the end of
this century. These years also align with the available datasets for
land cover and climate scenarios. For each timestep we considered
changes in resiliency under two future climate scenarios, a lower
impacts scenario representing a lower trajectory for climate effects,
and a higher impacts scenario, representing a higher trajectory for
climate effects (a total of six scenarios). We used the FOREcasting
SCEnarios of Land-Use Change (FORE-SCE) B2 (lower impacts) and A2
(higher impacts) land use scenarios to calculate the percent change in
current non-developed and non-agricultural lands to be lost in each AU
under each scenario at each timestep.
The best scientific and commercial data available indicate that the
Chesapeake logperch will maintain similar levels of resiliency,
redundancy, and representation into the future. Almost all AUs (93.3
percent or 14 out of 15) are expected to maintain the same level of
resiliency in the future that they have currently in the lower impacts
scenario throughout all timesteps. For the higher impacts scenario, 13
out of 15 AUs (86.7 percent) are expected to maintain the same level of
resiliency in the future. Thus, redundancy and representation may
slightly decline. There is no anticipated change in the risk of
catastrophic events in the future. Similar to the impacts in current
condition, future catastrophic events may impact one or more AUs but
are not likely to impact the species throughout its range. Overall, we
do not expect any extreme changes in resiliency across all AUs,
therefore redundancy is likely to remain similar to current levels.
Although some redundancy and representation for the Chesapeake
logperch is expected to decrease under the higher impact scenario at
the later timesteps, the species would continue to occur in multiple
moderately to highly resilient AUs across its range within the
foreseeable future. Thus, based on the best scientific and commercial
data available, we determine that the Chesapeake logperch is not likely
to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range.
Having determined that the Chesapeake logperch is not in danger of
extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range, we now consider whether it may be in
danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable
future throughout a significant portion of its range. In undertaking
this analysis for the Chesapeake logperch we began by identifying
portions of the range where the biological status of the species may be
different from its biological status elsewhere in its range. For this
purpose, we considered information pertaining to the geographic
distribution of (a) individuals of the species, (b) the threats that
the species faces, and (c) the resiliency condition of populations.
For many species, we can divide its range in an infinite number of
ways. To assess current resiliency of the Chesapeake logperch, we
divided the range into 18 AUs primarily based on HUC-12s, along with
one AU for the open water population (the Susquehanna Flats--Chesapeake
Bay AU). Individuals of the species are likely to interact with each
other more frequently within river systems than across river systems.
In summary, HUC-12s are the units that provide the appropriate scale to
assess extinction risk and potential differences in regulatory status
across the Chesapeake logperch's range.
We examined the primary threats facing the Chesapeake logperch as
discussed above including any cumulative effects from these threats. We
first considered whether the Chesapeake logperch may be in danger of
extinction throughout a significant portion of its range. We identified
and evaluated a portion of the range consisting of four AUs in the
southern part of the species range where the Chesapeake logperch has a
higher extinction risk than the rest of the range and may be in danger
of extinction. They include Basin Run-Octoraro Creek, North East Creek,
Mill Creek-Furnace Bay, and Swan Creek-Frontal Chesapeake Bay. These
four AUs currently have low resiliency due to high water impairment,
instream barriers, low population abundance and distribution, or low
availability of stream habitat. In summary, we find that the Chesapeake
logperch is not in danger of extinction in the remaining AUs, but it
may be in danger of extinction throughout a portion of the range--the
southern portion.
For this portion of the range where the Chesapeake logperch may be
in danger of extinction, we first addressed whether it is
``significant.'' For the

[[Page 56790]]

purposes of this analysis when considering whether a portion is
``significant,'' we considered its conservation value for the species.
The southern portion represents only a small geographical proportion of
the range, containing a small percentage of populations (4 of 18 AUs)
of the species. In addition, habitat is similar across the range of the
Chesapeake logperch and the southern portion does not provide any
unique ecological settings or habitat types for the species. Therefore,
this is not a significant portion of the range of the Chesapeake
logperch.
As a result of our finding that this portion of the range is not
``significant,'' we do not need to determine whether the Chesapeake
logperch is in danger of extinction throughout this portion of the
range. Therefore, no portion of the species' range provides a basis for
determining that the species is in danger of extinction throughout a
significant portion of its range. This does not conflict with the
courts' holdings in Desert Survivors and CBD v. Jewell, because, in
reaching this conclusion, we did not apply the aspects of the 2014 SPR
Policy, including the definition of ``significant,'' that those court
decisions held to be invalid. Thus, after assessing the best scientific
and commercial data available, we conclude that the Chesapeake logperch
is not in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its
range. Therefore, we proceed with determining whether the Chesapeake
logperch is likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range.
For the threatened species determination, we examined the same
threats as discussed above: degraded water quality (i.e.,
nutrification, sedimentation/siltation, pollutants), barriers to
dispersal (dams), changes in temperature and precipitation, and
invasive species predation and competition, including cumulative
effects. We identified and evaluated a portion of the range where the
Chesapeake logperch has a higher extinction risk than the rest of the
range and may be threatened that includes five AUs in the southern part
of the species range. They include Basin Run--Octoraro Creek, North
East Creek, Mill Creek--Furnace Bay, Swan Creek--Frontal Chesapeake
Bay, and Lower Deer Creek.
In each AU within this portion of the range, the projected
resiliency is low due to water quality impairment, instream barriers,
low population abundance and distribution, or low availability of
stream habitat. The resiliency of four of the AUs remains low (similar
to current condition) and one additional AU (Lower Deer Creek) is
expected to decrease from moderate to low for all timesteps. This is
due to a projected increase in land use change and potential impacts
from warming and changing rainfall patterns, such as water temperatures
that may exceed Chesapeake logperch tolerance.
For this portion of the range where the species may become in
danger of extinction within the foreseeable future, we first addressed
whether it is ``significant.'' The southern portion represents only a
small geographical proportion of the range, containing a small
percentage of populations (5 of 18 AUs) of the species. In addition,
habitat is similar across the range of the Chesapeake logperch and this
portion of the range does not provide any unique ecological settings or
habitat types for the species.
As a result of our finding that this portion of the range is not
``significant,'' we do not need to determine whether the Chesapeake
logperch is likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout this portion of the range. Therefore, no
portion of the species' range provides a basis for determining that the
species is likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range. This
does not conflict with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors and CBD
v. Jewell, because, in reaching this conclusion, we did not apply the
aspects of the 2014 SPR Policy, including the definition of
``significant,'' that those court decisions held to be invalid. Thus,
after assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we
conclude that the Chesapeake logperch is not likely to become in danger
of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout a significant
portion of its range.
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we
determine that the Chesapeake logperch 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
Chesapeake logperch is not warranted at this time. A detailed
discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Chesapeake
logperch 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-2026-2806 (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 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 Chesapeake logperch SSA
report. We sent the SSA report to seven independent peer reviewers and
received six responses. Results of this structured peer review process
can be found at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-
2026-2806. We incorporated the results of these reviews, as
appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this
finding.

Kirtland's Snake

Previous Federal Actions

On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from CBD, 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 Kirtland's
snake as an endangered or a threatened species under Act. On September
27, 2011, we found that the petition presented substantial scientific
or commercial information indicating that the listing of 374 species,
including the Kirtland's snake, may be warranted (76 FR 59836). We
completed a SSA report in 2017 to compile the best scientific and
commercial data available regarding the species' biology and factors
that influence the species' viability. On October 5, 2017, we published
a 12-month finding determining that listing the Kirtland's snake was
not warranted (82 FR 46618).
On June 8, 2022, CBD and the Hoosier Environmental Council
submitted a complaint challenging this decision. The complaint focused
on our analysis of the five listing factors, climate change impacts,
and significant portion of the range. On July 1, 2024, we signed a
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs wherein we agreed to re-
evaluate the status of the Kirtland's snake under the Act and send a
new 12-month finding to the Federal Register on or before June 30,
2026, which was later extended to September 28, 2026. We then developed
the 2026 SSA report, which serves as the biological underpinning of our
decision on whether the Kirtland's snake warrants protection under the
Act. This document constitutes our new 12-month finding fulfilling the
July 1, 2024, settlement agreement to re-evaluate Kirtland's snake
under the Act.

[[Page 56791]]

Summary of Finding

The Kirtland's snake is a small, slender, non-venomous, and
secretive snake historically found sporadically distributed across
areas of Illinois, Missouri, Indiana, Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Extant sites occur in every State
except Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The Kirtland's snake is fossorial
(i.e., living primarily underground) and is always found in close
proximity to a permanent or seasonal water source, including wetlands,
streams, reservoirs, lakes, or ponds. Across its range, the Kirtland's
snake uses diverse and varied moist habitats primarily prairie habitats
or wet grasslands, but it also occurs in urban and suburban areas with
temporary or permanent water sources.
Five elements are essential for Kirtland's snake survival: moist
soils, burrows, cover, hibernation areas, and prey. The Kirtland's
snake spends most of its time underground in moist soil and is often
found in or near crayfish burrows. When the Kirtland's snake is above
ground, it is almost always found under natural or artificial cover
objects instead of basking or moving through open areas. The Kirtland's
snake preys primarily on worms, slugs, and crayfish. Individuals
exhibit within- and between-year site fidelity (i.e., returning to the
same location) and have relatively small home ranges (approximately 650
square meters) (0.16 acres). Generally, population viability requires
healthy demography and sufficient habitat. Kirtland's snake viability
depends on there being a sufficient number and distribution of healthy
populations to ensure that the species can withstand annual variation
in its environment (i.e., resiliency), catastrophes (i.e., redundancy),
and novel biological and physical changes in its environment (i.e.,
representation).
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data
available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the
Kirtland's snake, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five
listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation
measures addressing these threats. The primary threats affecting the
Kirtland's snake's biological status include habitat loss and
modification, and temperature, precipitation, and soil moisture
alterations.
Habitat loss and modification have occurred across the range of the
Kirtland's snake and remain an ongoing threat in parts of the range as
grasslands, forests, and wetlands are converted to agriculture,
residential, or other uses. Ground disturbance may cause injury or
mortality of individuals and snakes can be permanently displaced when
suitable habitat is no longer available. In addition, habitat
fragmentation has been suggested as a potential threat leading to
population isolation. However, the Kirtland's snake can occur in high
numbers in fragmented, small patches of habitat, so long as certain key
features (e.g., moist soils) are present. While Kirtland's snakes have
been documented in some smaller urban and suburban sites for decades,
these sites are more vulnerable to future development and other threats
compared to protected sites because habitat quality is poorer and
protected sites are generally not at risk of development. Across the
species' range, 30 percent of extant Kirtland's snake sites are owned
or managed by conservation organizations or agencies which provide some
protection from these threats.
Temperature, precipitation and soil moisture alterations are
stressors for the Kirtland's snake. Average temperatures are expected
to increase in the Midwest into the future. Moist soil (a key habitat
requirement) is expected to significantly decline in the August to
October time period (the warmest and driest portion of the Kirtland's
snake active period, and also the period when females give birth to
young, and when young could be vulnerable to desiccation) into the
future. This drying trend is expected to be accompanied by increased
variability in precipitation, more frequent wet-dry transitions, and
more extreme flooding and drought events. The best scientific and
commercial data indicate Kirtland's snakes can likely survive
underground in crayfish burrows during typical seasonal flood events
and during occasional more severe floods, but with potential negative
impacts to body condition and reproductive capacity that year. Floods
that are long-term or very severe may cause mortality of individuals
and could impact whole populations. In the Midwest, droughts that
result in vegetation losses and water shortages are typically rare and
usually cover only a small portion of the region, although records of
the Kirtland's snake have been confirmed throughout many counties that
experienced periods of drought since 2000. The Kirtland's snake's
ability to aestivate (enter a state of dormancy with reduced activity
and metabolic rate) and the fact that they spend most of their time
underground in moist soil using crayfish and other animal burrows
suggests an ability to withstand dry periods. The Kirtland's snake is
capable of colonizing restored wetland habitat when adjacent to
existing populations of Kirtland's snakes, demonstrating their ability
to move short distances into suitable habitat. Additionally, the
fossorial behavior of the Kirtland's snake may allow it to withstand
some changes in temperature and precipitation by remaining in
underground burrows that retain moisture and modulate temperature.
We used the presence of suitable habitat (habitat which meets the
species' needs) with vegetative cover and water resources as a way to
measure resiliency. Kirtland's snake redundancy was assessed using the
number and distribution of extant and possibly extant sites across the
range. We assessed representation of the species in the form of
ecological diversity as well as the ability of the Kirtland's snake to
disperse or move out of harm's way when conditions in current locations
become temporarily or permanently unsuitable from a ``shift in space.''
To determine whether the Kirtland's snake is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, we
reviewed the threats, the responses to those threats (including any
cumulative effect of the threats), and any amelioration of the threats
associated with regulatory or conservation measures. We began by
determining the scale that is biologically appropriate for a
classification determination for the snake.
For assessing viability of the Kirtland's snake, we divided the
range into sites and counties. The best scientific and commercial data
available does not indicate how to combine sites into biologically-
based units (populations). It is possible that snakes can move within
and among sites and across county lines; therefore, we considered
whether county-level units could be combined into a biologically based
unit. Ultimately, we found that there are three counties across
northern Tennessee and southern Kentucky (TN/KY) that are separated
enough that snakes are unlikely to interact with the rest of the range.
Therefore, we conducted our analysis considering two units of
Kirtland's snake: the TN/KY unit and the unit including counties within
the rest of the range.
The best scientific and commercial data available indicate that the
Kirtland's snake is not in danger of extinction in either unit (the TN/
KY unit and the unit including counties within the rest of the range).
There are highly resilient sites spread across the range in both units.
Specifically, in the TN/KY unit, 100 percent of sites have high
condition of suitable vegetative

[[Page 56792]]

cover and water resources and thus have high resiliency. In the unit
including counties within the rest of the range, 49 percent of counties
had more than half of evaluated sites in high condition of suitable
vegetative cover and water resources and thus high resiliency. The
species' range is relatively large, covering seven States across the
Midwest with varying temperature and precipitation conditions, and the
overall current range still encompasses the majority of the historical
range. There has been a slight reduction from the known historical
range to the current range in the unit including the counties within
the rest of the range in some of the easternmost areas. The TN/KY unit
has expanded from previously known historical levels into a new county
since 2017 but is adjacent to the counties that already had known
records in that area. Therefore, the ecological diversity that occurs
across the species range remains comparable to historical conditions in
each of the two units. The species also has the adaptive capacity to
withstand unsuitable climate conditions by seeking refuge in
underground burrows that retain moisture and modulate temperature. The
best scientific and commercial data indicate that this capacity has not
changed from the snakes' historical capabilities.
In summary, we find that the Kirtland's snake is not in danger of
extinction in any areas across its range (i.e., in neither unit). Thus,
there is no portion of the range where the Kirtland's snake may be in
danger of extinction. Because there is no portion of the range in which
the Kirtland's snake is endangered, it also logically cannot be in
danger of extinction throughout all of its range. Thus, after assessing
the best scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that the
Kirtland's snake is not in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. This does not conflict with the
decision in Everson because we have determined that there is no portion
of the range where the species may be in danger of extinction (i.e.,
the species cannot be in danger of extinction throughout a significant
portion of its range). Therefore, we proceed with determining whether
Kirtland's snake is likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
We evaluated whether the Kirtland's snake has a similar risk of
extinction within the foreseeable future in all areas across its range
by assessing its extinction risk within the same biologically-based
units as we did for the endangered species classification (the TN/KY
unit and the unit including counties within the rest of the range). For
the future condition of the species, we evaluated changes in land cover
(as a proxy to measure changes in suitable habitat) and soil storage,
which quantifies water stored in the soil column, into the future under
two plausible scenarios. We considered future condition at two
timesteps, mid-century (2041-2070) and late-century (2071-2100), to
capture both a nearer-term and longer-term assessment of the future
condition. These years also align with the available datasets for land
cover and climate scenarios. For each time step we considered changes
in resiliency under two future climate scenarios using a combination of
Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) Representative Concentration
Pathways (RCPs) scenarios. We selected SSP2-RCP4.5 for the lower bounds
scenario and SSP5-RCP8.5 as the upper bounds scenario
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2021, p. 54). To
evaluate changes in soil water storage over time, we used data from the
Climate Model Intercomparison Program Phase 6 Localized Constructed
Analogs, version 2 monthly water balance model (Alder 2023, entire).
All sites in the TN/KY unit are projected to be in high resiliency
regarding the land cover analysis. Although there is a projected
minimal decline in the number of high resiliency sites into the future
in the unit including counties within the rest of the range, counties
with a higher proportion of high resiliency sites are projected to
remain widely distributed across the unit. Therefore, future resiliency
of the snake is projected to remain comparable to current levels in
both units. While the areas in the TN/KY unit are projected to have a
change in soil storage into the future, the surrounding states in the
unit including counties within the rest of the range are also projected
to experience some level of change in soil storage. However, counties
with a higher proportion of high resiliency sites are projected to
remain distributed across all seven states in both units, and thus the
species' ability to withstand catastrophic events, such as prolonged
drought, is expected to remain approximately the same as current
condition. Additionally, the ecological diversity that occurs across
the species range and the species' ability to withstand unsuitable
climate conditions by seeking refuge in underground burrows that retain
moisture and modulate temperature remains comparable to historical
conditions in each of the two units.
In summary, we find that the Kirtland's snake is not likely to
become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future in any
areas across its range (i.e., in either unit). Thus, there is no
portion of the range where the Kirtland's snake is likely to become in
danger of extinction within the foreseeable future. Because there is no
portion of the range in which the Kirtland's snake is threatened, it is
necessarily not likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. Thus, based on the best
scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the
Kirtland's snake is not likely to become in danger of extinction within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we
determine that the Kirtland's snake 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
Kirtland's snake is not warranted at this time. A detailed discussion
of the basis for this finding can be found in the Kirtland's snake
species assessment form and other supporting documents on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2026-2811 (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 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 Kirtland's snake 2026 SSA
report. We sent the 2026 SSA report to three independent peer reviewers
and received three responses. Results of this structured peer review
process can be found at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No.
FWS-R3-ES-2026-2811. We incorporated the results of these reviews, as
appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this
finding.

Orangefin Madtom

Previous Federal Actions

On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from CBD, Alabama Rivers
Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network,
Tennessee Forests Council, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Tierra
Curry, and Noah Greenwald to list 404

[[Page 56793]]

aquatic, riparian, and wetland species, including orangefin madtom, as
an endangered or threatened species and to designate critical habitat
concurrent with listing under the Act. On September 27, 2011, we
published a 90-day finding (76 FR 59836) that the petition contained
substantial information indicating listing may be warranted for the
species. This document constitutes our 12-month finding on the April
20, 2010, petition to list orangefin madtom under the Act.

Summary of Finding

The orangefin madtom is a small, slender-bodied fish in the catfish
family, Ictaluridae. Originally observed in the upper Roanoke River,
Virginia (generally considered the geographic core for the species),
the orangefin madtom has since been documented in the Dan River, Pigg
River, Mayo River, Smith River and James River systems in Virginia and
North Carolina. The upper Roanoke, Pigg, Dan, Mayo, and Smith River
systems represent the species' historical range. Orangefin madtoms were
discovered in 1951 in the upper James River system and are likely the
result of an introduction (likely from a bait bucket) from individuals
collected from the upper Roanoke River, which is supported by
population genetic analyses.
Orangefin madtoms are primarily found in fast-flowing sections of
small to large creeks, streams, and rivers with cobble substrate that
are free of sand and silt. Orangefin madtoms utilize the interstitial
spaces between cobble substrate for shelter and spawning. They feed on
small aquatic insects, including flies, mayflies, hydropsychid
caddisflies, and midges. Orangefin madtom viability depends on there
being a sufficient number and distribution of healthy populations to
ensure that the species can withstand annual variation in its
environment (i.e., resiliency), catastrophes (i.e., redundancy), and
novel biological and physical changes in its environment (i.e.,
representation).
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data
available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the
orangefin madtom, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five
listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation
measures addressing these threats. The primary threats affecting the
orangefin madtom's biological status include water pollution,
sedimentation, dams, and extreme flooding and drought events.
To determine whether the orangefin madtom is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, we
reviewed the threats, the responses to those threats (including any
cumulative effect of the threats), and any amelioration of the threats
associated with regulatory or conservation measures. We began by
determining the scale that is biologically appropriate for a
classification determination for the orangefin madtom. For assessing
resiliency of the orangefin madtom, we divided the range into 6 river
systems which were further divided into smaller HUC-10 AUs, resulting
in 17 AUs within the 6 broader river systems. We determined the scale
that is biologically appropriate for a classification determination is
the six river systems because these basins are areas with similar
ecological settings, and differing genetics. Individuals of the species
are likely to interact with each other more frequently within river
systems than across river systems. In addition, at this largest unit
scale (i.e., river system), we can assess whether there are multiple
resilient populations in a geographic distribution that can help guard
against losses from catastrophic events or provide sources of adaptive
capacity. In summary, river systems are the units that provide the
appropriate scale to assess extinction risk and potential differences
in regulatory status across the orangefin madtom's range.
We then evaluated whether the orangefin madtom has a similar near-
term risk of extinction in all areas across its range by assessing its
extinction risk within each river system. We determined that the
orangefin madtom's near-term extinction risk varies across its range
such that its regulatory status may be different in a portion of the
range.
We found the orangefin madtom is not in danger of extinction in the
Upper Roanoke, James, Pigg, and Dan River systems. All but one AU are
highly to moderately resilient with stable population trends. Orangefin
madtoms in AUs with high or moderate resiliency are characterized by
being abundant to somewhat abundant with increasing or stable
population trends. Moderate to high resiliency indicates that the
species has the ability to withstand stochastic events and the threats
we identified. In assessing redundancy within each of these systems,
while there is a risk for catastrophic events (e.g., chemical spills
and extreme flooding or drought events), we found it unlikely an entire
river system would be affected at one time. Further, redundancy has
increased with the expansion in the James River system.
Lastly, representation is likely similar to historical levels given
the similar range. Orangefin madtoms exhibit traits that contribute
both positively and negatively to adaptive capacity. Positive traits
include the species' ability to move and spread out within suitable
habitat and to disperse away from altered habitats. Therefore, the
threats acting in the near-term on the species in the Upper Roanoke,
James, Pigg, and Dan River systems are not of a magnitude to increase
the risk of extinction to the point where the species is in danger of
extinction in any of those river systems and these AUs are not included
in the portion being evaluated for the endangered classification. The
Smith and Mayo River systems, however, contain smaller populations with
isolated distributions and decreasing population trends which are more
vulnerable to the threats we identified. Therefore, we found orangefin
madtom may be in danger of extinction in a portion of the range--the
Smith and Mayo River systems.
For this portion of the range where the orangefin madtom may be in
danger of extinction, we first addressed whether it is ``significant.''
For the purposes of this analysis when considering whether a portion is
``significant,'' we considered its conservation value for the species.
To quantify the amount of occupied stream habitat within each river
system, we measured the linear distance between the farthest upstream
and downstream orangefin madtom records (using all known records). The
Smith and Mayo River system portion represents only a small proportion
of occupied stream habitat (12 percent) for the orangefin madtom. Also,
while the Smith and Mayo River system portion contains two of the six
river systems, the portion does not possess any high value or unique
habitat because the habitat features are similar to the features found
in the other river systems in the range.
As a result of our finding that this portion of the range is not
``significant,'' we do not need to determine whether the orangefin
madtom is in danger of extinction throughout this portion of the range.
Therefore, no portion of the species' range provides a basis for
determining that the species is in danger of extinction throughout a
significant portion of its range. This does not conflict with the
courts' holdings in Desert Survivors and CBD v. Jewell, because, in
reaching this conclusion, we did not apply the aspects of the 2014 SPR
Policy, including the definition of ``significant,'' that those court
decisions held to be invalid. Because the orangefin madtom is not in
danger of

[[Page 56794]]

extinction in part of the range (Upper Roanoke, James, Pigg, and Dan
River systems), the species also logically cannot be in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range.
Thus, after assessing the best scientific and commercial data
available, we conclude that the orangefin madtom is not in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Therefore, we proceed with determining whether the orangefin madtom is
likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
We predicted future resiliency based on the projected percent
forest and wetland loss under two climate scenarios (i.e., ``lower
impact'' and ``higher impact'' scenarios) at two timesteps: years 2040
and 2075. We used the FORE-SCE B2 (lower impacts) and A2 (higher
impacts) land use scenarios to calculate the percent change in forest
and wetland cover within each AU as a proxy for changes in water
quality. While the FORE-SCE model projects land use changes under two
future climate scenarios, it does not account for other potential
impacts (e.g., changes in timing and intensity of precipitation,
warming temperatures, etc.). Therefore, we relied on RCPs to
qualitatively analyze and discuss potential impacts not accounted for
in the FORE-SCE model. RCP4.5 is a lower impacts scenario that would
relate most closely with our B2 scenario in FORE-SCE, and RCP8.5 is a
higher impacts scenario that would relate most closely with our A2
scenario in FORE-SCE.
Similar to current condition, in assessing redundancy in the
future, we considered the potential effects of chemical spills and
extreme flooding or drought events. We evaluated whether the orangefin
madtom has a similar risk of extinction within the foreseeable future
in all areas across its range by assessing its extinction risk within
each river system. Similar to our evaluation of current condition, we
determined the river system is the biologically appropriate scale to
evaluate future condition. Our review indicated that the orangefin
madtom's extinction risk varies across its range such that its
regulatory status may be different in a portion of the range.
We found the orangefin madtom is not likely to become in danger of
extinction within the foreseeable future in the Upper Roanoke and James
River systems. All but one AU within these river systems is projected
to have high or moderate resiliency under all future scenarios. The
moderate to high resiliency of AUs within each river system indicates
that the species has the ability to withstand stochastic events and the
threats we identified. While there is a risk for catastrophic drought,
flooding, or large pollution events to occur, it is unlikely that these
events would impact the entire species' range (or river system) at the
same time. Overall, while water pollution, sedimentation, dams, and
flooding/drought are predicted to affect the orangefin madtom, given
the projected number of highly to moderately resilient populations with
stable population trends within the Upper Roanoke and James River
systems, the threats are not of a magnitude to increase the risk of
extinction to the point where the species is likely to become in danger
of extinction within the foreseeable future; therefore, they are not
included in the portion being evaluated for the threatened
classification. Because there is a part of the range in which the
orangefin madtom is not threatened, it is necessarily not likely to
become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout
all of its range.
The Pigg, Smith, Mayo, and Dan River systems, however, are
projected to have smaller populations with isolated distributions and
decreasing population trends under the 2070 higher impact scenario.
Therefore, we found orangefin madtom may be likely to become in danger
of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout a portion of the
range (i.e., the Pigg, Smith, Mayo, and Dan River systems).
For the Pigg, Smith, Mayo, and Dan River portion of the range, we
first addressed whether it is ``significant.'' For the purposes of this
analysis when considering whether a portion is ``significant,'' we
considered its conservation value for the species. The Pigg, Smith,
Mayo, and Dan River systems portion represents only a small proportion
of occupied stream habitat (35 percent) for the orangefin madtom. Also,
the portion does not possess high value or unique habitat because the
habitat features are similar to the features found in the other river
systems in the range.
As a result of our finding that this portion of the range is not
``significant,'' we do not need to determine whether the orangefin
madtom is likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout this portion of the range. Therefore, no
portion of the species' range provides a basis for determining that the
species is likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range. This
does not conflict with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors and CBD
v. Jewell, because, in reaching this conclusion, we did not apply the
aspects of the 2014 SPR Policy, including the definition of
``significant,'' that those court decisions held to be invalid. Because
the orangefin madtom is not likely to become in danger of extinction
within the foreseeable future in part of the range (Upper Roanoke and
James River systems), the species also logically cannot be likely to
become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout
all of its range. Thus, after assessing the best scientific and
commercial data available, we conclude that the orangefin madtom is not
likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we
determine that the orangefin madtom 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
orangefin madtom is not warranted at this time. A detailed discussion
of the basis for this finding can be found in the orangefin madtom
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-2026-2807 (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 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 orangefin madtom SSA
report. We sent the SSA report to four independent peer reviewers and
received four responses. Results of this structured peer review process
can be found at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-
2026-2807. We incorporated the results of these reviews, as
appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this
finding.

Tall Western Penstemon

Previous Federal Actions

On December 4, 2020, we were petitioned to list the tall western
penstemon as an endangered species under the Act by CBD and Native
Plant Society of Oregon. On October 19, 2022, we published a 90-day
finding in the Federal Register that the petition

[[Page 56795]]

presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that multiple species, including the tall western penstemon, may be
warranted for listing under the Act (87 FR 63468). This document
constitutes our 12-month finding on the December 4, 2020, petition to
list tall western penstemon under the Act.

Summary of Finding

Tall western penstemon is a long-lived tall herbaceous perennial
forb in the Plataginaceae (formerly Scrophulariaceae) family with
purplish-blue tubular flowers. It is endemic to the northern Willamette
Valley and southern Puget Trough region of Oregon and Washington. It is
a narrow endemic species that occurs in small, isolated populations
ranging in size from roughly 100 to 6,000 flowering stems. The species
is found primarily in wet prairie but also in other seasonally wet
habitats, including openings in forested Oregon white oak (Quercus
garryana) and Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) wetlands, and open
riparian forests. Tall western penstemon was presumed extinct but
rediscovered in 2008 on the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge
(NWR) in Oregon (Christy and Maffitt 2018, p. 8). The plants are
seasonally dormant in the winter when their habitat is typically
flooded. The basal leaves emerge in the spring as early as March or
April, with stem elongation from April to May. In late May, flowering
begins and continues through August, along with capsule (seed pod)
development. In August to September, capsules mature and split to allow
seed dispersal, with some capsules remaining intact with seeds on stems
until the following growing season. Individual plants can have from 1
to 100 or more flowering stems, each with 10 to 80 flowers per stem.
Individual plants appear to be relatively long-lived and have the
capacity to flower and produce seeds every year. Demographic data for
this species are not available; however, individual plants have been
observed for multiple years in a row, and other penstemon species are
known to survive for greater than 13 years with an average of 9-10
years. Tall western penstemon reproduces both sexually and asexually.
Asexual, vegetative reproduction occurs via layering, where lateral
stems root at the nodes forming dense mats of genetically identical
plants. Sexual reproduction occurs when flowers are successfully
pollinated, forming capsule fruits and seeds that then disperse and
germinate.
There are currently 21 populations of tall western penstemon,
including 5 extant populations (historical populations that continue to
exist today) and 16 reintroduced populations. Nine of the reintroduced
populations are newly established sites planted in 2025, some of which
are already documented to be flowering. In addition, three plant
nurseries maintain tall western penstemon plants and store native seed
in storage for future population restoration and reintroduction
efforts, one of which (Metro Native Plant Center) also established a
seed amplification bed in 2025. Two additional introduced sites in
southern Benton County, Oregon, each support only 3-4 individual
plants. Due to their small size and isolation from all other tall
western penstemon populations, these sites are not considered viable
populations. All recognized populations of tall western penstemon occur
on protected lands or areas managed for wet prairie habitat, conditions
that support the tall western penstemon.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data
available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the tall
western penstemon, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five
listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation
measures addressing these threats. The primary threats affecting the
tall western penstemon's biological status include invasive plant
species, woody vegetation encroachment, habitat destruction and
fragmentation, small population sizes, and the alteration of seasonal
wetland dynamics. We also examined other potential threats including
disease and herbivory, but there are no documented instances of
herbivory, disease, seed predation, or pathogens affecting this
species.
Currently, there are several conservation measures that are
ameliorating the threats to the tall western penstemon. All populations
of tall western penstemon occur on lands protected and/or managed by
the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), the Tualatin
River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), or properties owned and managed
by the regional government for the Oregon portion of the Portland
metropolitan area (Metro). WDNR, Tualatin River NWR, and Metro each
implement a range of habitat management actions via established
resource management plans that support tall western penstemon habitat
and target threats to the species such as herbicide treatments for
invasive species and mowing to curb woody vegetation encroachment. Tall
western penstemon population augmentations and reintroductions have
occurred in the past and are planned for the future, enhancing the
species' redundancy across its range. In 2025, nine new sites and a
seed amplification bed were planted within the species' historical
range, with approximately half confirmed to be flowering in the same
year. Since the species' rediscovery in 2008, focused efforts in
propagation and seed collection have supported these restoration
initiatives. Two aforementioned nurseries, Metro Native Plant Center
and Corvallis Plant Material Center, both maintain plant material and
seed stock, and Metro Native Plant Center is also engaged in ongoing
population augmentation and reintroductions.
At this time, the best scientific and commercial data available
indicate that the threats influencing the tall western penstemon have
not significantly affected its viability. We evaluated the resiliency,
redundancy, and representation of the tall western penstemon using
three demographic, three habitat, and one conservation metric. Results
of our current condition analysis showed one population in high
condition, five populations in moderate condition, three populations in
low condition, and three populations in unknown condition due to
limited data. The broad distribution of populations with high or
moderate resiliency across the range provides redundancy and protection
against catastrophic events that may impact the species' viability, as
well as help the species cope with stochastic changes in its
environment. While the tall western penstemon has a lower adaptive
capacity due to its limited ability to disperse and its low genetic
diversity, the species' clonal growth form and long-lived perennial
life history confer moderate adaptive capacity allowing the species to
adjust to ecological challenges.
In assessing whether the tall western penstemon is in danger of
extinction now or likely to become in danger of extinction in the
foreseeable future in any significant portion of the species' range, we
identified two portions of the range for further assessment: One that
contained all of the Oregon populations (the Oregon unit) and one that
contained the Washington population (the Washington unit).
We first assessed the Oregon unit. All populations in the Oregon
unit exist on protected and managed land; therefore, there is little to
no threat of development or land conversion. There are three known seed
banks that maintain a genetic bank of seeds and bareroot plants, one of
which currently contributes to population augmentation and
reintroductions. Past and ongoing successful establishment of new
populations of tall western penstemon

[[Page 56796]]

in Oregon boosts the species' redundancy in the Oregon unit and lowers
the risk of a single catastrophic event would impact all Oregon
populations of tall western penstemon. The likelihood for additional
future reintroductions and population augmentations would further boost
redundancy and also help offset low gene flow resulting from isolation
among populations by increasing connectivity across the landscape. The
species is not at risk of overutilization and is not negatively
impacted by any diseases. Although the threat of woody vegetation
encroachment and invasive plant species remains, activities including
(but not limited to) targeted herbicide use and mowing occur per the
ongoing management plans in place at sites containing tall western
penstemon. In addition, population augmentations and reintroductions
alleviate these risks, which increases population resiliency and thus
improves overall viability of the species. Overall, we found the tall
western penstemon is not in danger of extinction in the near term in
the Oregon unit; therefore, it is not included in the portion being
evaluated for the endangered classification.
However, we found that the Washington unit may be in danger of
extinction as it contains only one small, genetically isolated
population with low resiliency that occupies a small habitat area. For
the Washington unit, we first addressed whether it is ``significant.''
The Washington unit comprises only six percent of the species range and
does not occur in a unique habitat type. It contains one population
encompassing a small, occupied habitat area. For these reasons, we do
not consider the Washington unit to be significant, and thus, we do not
need to determine whether the species is in danger of extinction
throughout this portion of the range.
Thus, we proceed with determining whether the species is likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout a
significant portion of its range (i.e., threatened). Our analysis of
four future scenarios, two through 2040 and two from 2040-2069,
encompass the best scientific and commercial data available for
probable future projections of the impact of threats to the tall
western penstemon and the species' resiliency. Scenario 1 considers
tall western penstemon viability through 2040 as threats are reduced
with the continuation of ongoing conservation efforts by land managers
in existing resource management plans, and scenario 2 considers species
viability if current primary threats (competition with invasive plants
and woody vegetation encroachment) increase through 2040 without any
species-specific conservation efforts. In both scenarios, all
populations had sufficient resiliency with populations of moderate
resiliency distributed across the range, though some may have lower
resiliency in scenario 2. While the alteration of seasonal wetland
dynamics was introduced in scenarios 3 and 4, only one population was
projected to be extirpated, which reduces the species' redundancy and
genetic diversity conferred by that population. However, populations of
moderate resiliency are still projected to occur across the landscape
in these scenarios, suggesting the species will maintain representation
throughout its range despite the influence of threats.
While altered wetland dynamics, invasive species, and woody
vegetation encroachment are affecting the tall western penstemon, all
populations are on protected lands managed for conservation of habitat.
Targeted actions currently being implemented to improve species'
habitat and mitigate threats to the species include invasive plant
control by herbicides and manual methods, removal of woody vegetation,
prescribed fire, mowing and population augmentations and
reintroductions using nursery-grown and seed-amplified native plant
material. In the Oregon unit, sufficiently resilient populations are
present on the landscape to provide for redundancy. In addition,
ongoing conservation actions continue to help increase connectivity and
resiliency among populations in the Oregon unit. Populations in the
Oregon unit are not in danger of overutilization or disease, and the
threats that impact populations are being mitigated by conservation
measures such that they do not rise to the magnitude necessary to put
the species at risk of extinction within the foreseeable future.
However, the Washington unit contains a much smaller single population
that is genetically and geographically isolated, and therefore more
vulnerable to future catastrophic events. In summary, we find that the
tall western penstemon is not likely to become in danger of extinction
within the foreseeable future in the Oregon unit, but it may be in
danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout a portion
of the range--the Washington unit.
As discussed above, the Washington unit portion of the range is not
a significant portion of the range, as the Washington unit comprises
only 6 percent of the species range, contains a single population
encompassing a small occupied habitat area and does not occur in a
unique habitat type. As a result of our finding that this portion of
the range is not ``significant,'' we do not need to determine whether
the tall western penstemon is likely to become in danger of extinction
within the foreseeable future throughout this portion of the range.
In summary, we evaluated whether the tall western penstemon is
endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range.
We did not find any portion of the tall western penstemon's range for
which both (1) the portion is ``significant''; and (2) the species is
in danger of extinction in that portion, either now or likely to become
so within the foreseeable future. Thus, after assessing the best
available scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that
the tall western penstemon is not in danger of extinction throughout a
significant portion of its range, or likely to become so within the
foreseeable future.
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we
determine that the tall western penstemon 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
tall western penstemon is not warranted at this time. A detailed
discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the tall
western penstemon species assessment form and other supporting
documents on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-
2026-2808 (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 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 tall western penstemon SSA
report. We sent the SSA report to six 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 Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-
2026-2808. We incorporated the results of these reviews, as
appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this
finding.

New Information

We request that you submit any new information concerning the
taxonomy of, biology of, ecology of, status of, or stressors to the Big
Bar hesperian, Chesapeake logperch, Kirtland's snake,

[[Page 56797]]

orangefin madtom, Shasta chaparral, Shasta hesperian, Shasta sideband,
tall western penstemon, or Wintu sideband 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.).

Brian Nesvik,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2026-18123 Filed 9-3-26; 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>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on September 4, 2026.

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.