[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 29, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53937-53941]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20963]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FF09E21000 FXES11110900000212]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings
for Five Species
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notification of petition findings and initiation of status
reviews.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90-
day findings on four petitions to add species to the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants and one petition to
downlist a species from endangered to threatened under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review, we find
that the petitions to list the American bumble bee (Bombus
pensylvanicus), Long Valley speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus ssp.),
and Siuslaw hairy-necked tiger beetle (Cicindela hirticollis
siuslawensis) present substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. Therefore,
with the publication of this document, we announce that we plan to
initiate status reviews of these species to determine whether the
petitioned actions are warranted. To ensure that the status reviews are
comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and
other information regarding the species and factors that may affect
their status. Based on the status reviews, we will issue 12-month
petition findings, which will address whether or not the petitioned
actions are warranted, in accordance with the Act. We further find that
the petition to list the Tucson shovel-nosed snake (Chionactis annulata
klauberi) and the petition to downlist the Florida torreya (Torreya
taxifolia) do not present substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted.
Therefore, we are not initiating a status review of those two species.
DATES: These findings were made on September 29, 2021. As we commence
our status reviews, we seek any new information concerning the status
of, or threats to, the American bumble bee, Long Valley speckled dace,
Siuslaw hairy-necked tiger beetle, or their habitats. Any information
we receive during the course of our status reviews will be considered.
ADDRESSES:
Supporting documents: Summaries of the basis for the petition
findings contained in this document are available on http://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (see tables
under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). In addition, this supporting
information is available by contacting the appropriate person, as
specified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Status reviews: If you have new scientific or commercial data or
other information concerning the status of, or threats to, the American
bumble bee, Long Valley speckled dace, Siuslaw hairy-necked tiger
beetle, or their habitats, please provide those data or information by
one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the appropriate docket
number (see Table 1 under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). Then, click on
the ``Search'' button. After finding the correct document, you may
submit information by clicking on ``Comment.'' If your information will
fit in the provided comment box, please use this feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with our information
review procedures. If you attach your information as a separate
document, our preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach
multiple comments (such as form letters), our preferred format is a
spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: [Insert appropriate docket number; see Table 1 under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION], U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W,
5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send information only by the methods described
above. We will post all information we receive on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species common name Contact person
------------------------------------------------------------------------
American bumble bee............................... Louise Clemency,
Field Supervisor,
Chicago Ecological
Services Field
Office, 312-489-
0777,
louise_clemency@fws.gov.
Florida torreya................................... Lourdes Mena,
Classification and
Recovery Division
Manager, Florida
Ecological Services
Field Office, 904-
731-3134,
lourdes_mena@fws.gov.
Long Valley speckled dace......................... Marc Jackson, Field
Supervisor, Reno
Fish and Wildlife
Office, 775-861-
6337,
marc_jackson@fws.gov.
Siuslaw hairy-necked tiger beetle................. Michele Zwarties,
Field Supervisor,
Oregon Fish and
Wildlife Office,
503-231-6179,
michele_zwartjes@fws.gov.
Tucson shovel-nosed snake......................... Jeff Humphrey, Field
Supervisor, Arizona
Ecological Services
Office, 602-242-
0210,
jeff_humphrey@fws.gov.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 53938]]
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf, please call
the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for adding species to, removing species
from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists or List) in 50 CFR part 17.
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on
whether a petition to add a species to the List (i.e., ``list'' a
species), remove a species from the List (i.e., ``delist'' a species),
or change a listed species' status from endangered to threatened or
from threatened to endangered (i.e., ``reclassify'' a species) presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable,
we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the
petition and publish the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
Our regulations establish that substantial scientific or commercial
information with regard to a 90-day petition finding refers to credible
scientific or commercial information in support of the petition's
claims such that a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific
review would conclude that the action proposed in the petition may be
warranted (50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(i)).
A species may be determined to be an endangered species or a
threatened species because of one or more of the five factors described
in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). The five factors
are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A);
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes (Factor B);
(c) Disease or predation (Factor C);
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D);
and
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence (Factor E).
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, affect
individuals of a species negatively. The term ``threat'' includes
actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition, or the action or condition itself. However, the mere
identification of any threat(s) may not be sufficient to compel a
finding that the information in the petition is substantial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. The information
presented in the petition must include evidence sufficient to suggest
that these threats may be affecting the species to the point that the
species may meet the definition of an endangered species or threatened
species under the Act.
If we find that a petition presents such information, our
subsequent status review will evaluate all identified threats by
considering the individual-, population-, and species-level effects and
the expected response by the species. We will evaluate individual
threats and their expected effects on the species, then analyze the
cumulative effect 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 are expected to have positive effects on the
species--such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation
efforts that may ameliorate threats. It is only after conducting this
cumulative analysis of threats and the actions that may ameliorate
them, and the expected effect on the species now and in the foreseeable
future, that we can determine whether the species meets the definition
of an endangered species or threatened species under the Act.
If we find that a petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be
warranted, the Act requires that we promptly commence a review of the
status of the species, and we will subsequently complete a status
review in accordance with our prioritization methodology for 12-month
findings (81 FR 49248; July 27, 2016).
We note that designating critical habitat is not a petitionable
action under the Act. Petitions to designate critical habitat (for
species without existing critical habitat) are reviewed under the
Administrative Procedure Act and are not addressed here (see 50 CFR
424.14(j)). To the maximum extent prudent and determinable, any
proposed critical habitat will be addressed concurrently with a
proposed rule to list a species, if applicable.
Summaries of Petition Findings
The petition findings contained in this document are listed in the
tables below, and the basis for each finding, along with supporting
information, is available on http://www.regulations.gov under the
appropriate docket number.
Table 1--Status Reviews
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
URL to docket on http://
Common name Docket No. www.regulations.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American bumble bee................... FWS-R3-ES-2021-0063 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R3-ES-2021-0063
Long Valley speckled dace............. FWS-R8-ES-2021-0065 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R8-ES-2021-0065
Siuslaw hairy-necked tiger beetle..... FWS-R1-ES-2021-0066 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R1-ES-2021-0066
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Not-Substantial Petition Findings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
URL to Docket on http://
Common name Docket No. www.regulations.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida torreya....................... FWS-R4-ES-2021-0064 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R4-ES-2021-0064
Tucson shovel-nosed snake............. FWS-R2-ES-2021-0067 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R2-ES-2021-0067
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 53939]]
Evaluation of a Petition To List American Bumble Bee
Species and Range
American bumble bee (Bombus pensylvanicus); Alabama, Arizona,
Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West
Virginia; Canada (Ontario); and Mexico.
Petition History
On February 1, 2021, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity and the Bombus Pollinators Association of Law
Students of Albany Law School, requesting that the American bumble bee
be listed as an endangered species and critical habitat be designated
for this species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself
as such and included the requisite identification information for the
petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(c). This finding addresses the
petition.
Finding
We reviewed the petition and sources cited in the petition. We
considered the factors under the Act's section 4(a)(1) and assessed the
effect that the threats identified within the factors--as may be
ameliorated or exacerbated by any existing regulatory mechanisms or
conservation efforts--may have on the species now and in the
foreseeable future. Based on our review of the petition and sources
cited in the petition regarding pathogen spillover (Factor C), we find
that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing the American bumble bee as an
endangered or threatened species may be warranted. The petitioners also
present information suggesting the following may be threats to the
American bumble bee: Habitat destruction from agricultural
intensification, livestock grazing, and pesticide use; loss of genetic
diversity; climate change; and competition from nonnative honeybees. We
will fully evaluate these potential threats during our status review,
pursuant to the Act's requirement to review the best scientific and
commercial information available when making our 12-month finding.
The basis for our finding on this petition and other information
regarding our review of the petition can be found as an appendix at
http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2021-0063 under
the Supporting Documents section.
Evaluation of a Petition To Downlist Florida Torreya
Species and Range
Florida torreya (Torreya taxifolia); northern Florida and Georgia.
Petition History
On December 12, 2019, we received a petition dated September 9,
2018, from Connie Barlow, requesting that the Florida torreya be
downlisted from endangered to threatened because the species does not
meet the definition of an ``endangered species'' under the Act. The
petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite
identification information for the petitioner, as specified at 50 CFR
424.14(c). This finding addresses the petition.
Finding
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the
petition, we find that the petition does not present substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned action
may be warranted for the Florida torreya. Based on the Service's 2010
5-year review, the species is considered extremely vulnerable due to
its limited range, low population numbers, and rarity of habitat. The
primary decline in species abundance is thought to have resulted from
fungal pathogens during the 1950s and 1960s, and/or a combination of
environmental stress and native pathogens, but studies have yet to
provide an explanation.
We found that the petition does not present credible scientific and
commercial information to support the claim that the destruction,
modification, or curtailment of the Florida torreya's habitat or range
have been ameliorated (Factor A). Additionally, the petition does not
provide substantial evidence that would lead a reasonable person to
believe that the historical range of the Florida torreya is larger than
described at the time the species was listed. We acknowledge that the
petition provides additional documentation on the effects of disease at
localities outside of the Florida torreya's native range (Factor C),
including the locations and conditions of many northern outplantings,
and provides new information regarding the species' natural history and
best propagation practices (Factor E); however, the petition does not
present substantial information indicating that the primary threats to
the species have been reduced or removed such that the species may be
warranted for downlisting to threatened status.
Because the petition does not present substantial information
indicating that downlisting the Florida torreya may be warranted, we
are not initiating a status review of this species in response to this
petition. However, we ask that the public submit to us any new
information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats
to, this species or its habitat at any time (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, above).
The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information
regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at
http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0064 under
the Supporting Documents section.
Evaluation of a Petition To List Long Valley Speckled Dace
Species and Range
Long Valley speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus ssp.); historical
range: Upper Owens River watershed, Mono County, California; current
range: Whitmore Hot Spring, Mono County, California. (Long Valley
speckled dace may be extirpated in the wild, and only found in an
artificial pond in Inyo County, California, outside of their historical
range.)
Petition History
On June 24, 2020, we received a petition, dated June 8, 2020, from
the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), requesting that the Service
take several actions regarding three speckled dace entities, including
the Long Valley speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus ssp.). Only the
request to list the Long Valley speckled dace as an endangered,
separate subspecies of speckled dace (R. osculus) was found to be a
valid petition.
The CBD clearly identified their document as a petition and
included the requisite identification information for the petitioner,
required at 50 CFR 424.14(c). This finding addresses the petition for
the Long Valley speckled dace.
Finding
We reviewed the petition, sources cited in the petition, and other
readily available information. Based on our review of the petition and
readily available information regarding geothermal energy development
(Factor A), surface water diversions (Factor A), habitat alteration
from recreational activities (Factor A), livestock grazing (Factor A),
disease (Factor C), regulatory
[[Page 53940]]
mechanisms regarding water quality and groundwater management (Factor
D), introduced species (Factor E), and climate change (Factor E), we
find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing the Long Valley speckled dace
(Rhinichthys osculus ssp.) as an endangered subspecies of speckled dace
(R. osculus) may be warranted. We will fully evaluate all potential
threats during our status review, pursuant to the Act's requirement to
review the best scientific and commercial information available when
making our 12-month finding.
The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information
regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at
http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2021-0065 under
the Supporting Documents section.
Evaluation of a Petition To List Siuslaw Hairy-Necked Tiger Beetle
Species and Range
Siuslaw hairy-necked tiger beetle (Cicindela hirticollis
siuslawensis); Coos, Curry, Douglas, and Lane County, Oregon; and Grays
Harbor and Pacific County, Washington.
To support the claim that the Siuslaw hairy-necked tiger beetle
(Cicindela hirticollis siuslawensis (Graves 1988)) is a valid
subspecies and therefore eligible for protection under the Act, the
petition described below cites to two sources: the Integrated Taxonomic
Information System (ITIS 2020, p. 1) and Pearson et al. (2015, p. 79).
ITIS considers Cicindela hirticollis siuslawensis to be a valid
subspecies. However, Pearson et al. (2015) calls the validity of the
subspecies into question and recommends further study. For this
finding, the fact that ITIS (2020) recognizes Cicindela hirticollis
siuslawensis as a valid taxon, and to our knowledge no further study
has invalidated its taxonomic status as a subspecies, leads us to
conclude that there is substantial information that the Siuslaw hairy-
necked tiger beetle may be a valid listable entity under the Act.
However, we will conduct a complete review of the best available
scientific information on taxonomy at the time of our status review,
pursuant to the Act's requirements.
Petition History
On November 12, 2020, we received a petition dated November 9,
2020, from the CBD and Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation
requesting that the Siuslaw hairy-necked tiger beetle (Cicindela
hirticollis siuslawensis) be listed as an endangered or threatened
species and critical habitat be designated for this species under the
Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the
requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50
CFR 424.14(c). This finding addresses the petition.
Finding
We reviewed the petition, sources cited in the petition, and other
readily available information. Based on our review of the petition and
readily available information regarding off-highway vehicle (OHV) use
(Factor A), breaching and dredge spoil deposition (Factor A), invasive
species (Factor A), bulldozing and sand deposition (Factor A),
regulatory mechanisms regarding OHV use and controlling recreational
use (Factor D), human disturbance (Factor E), sea level rise and
flooding (Factor E), and coastal erosion (Factor E), we find that the
petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that listing the Siuslaw hairy-necked tiger beetle as an
endangered or threatened species may be warranted. The petitioners also
presented information suggesting that habitat destruction or
fragmentation as a result of development and inbreeding depression may
be threats to the Siuslaw hairy-necked tiger beetle. We will fully
evaluate all potential threats during our status review, pursuant to
the Act's requirement to review the best available scientific
information when making our 12-month finding.
The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information
regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at
http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2021-0066 under
the Supporting Documents section.
Evaluation of a Petition To List the Tucson Shovel-Nosed Snake
Species and Range
Tucson shovel-nosed snake (Chionactis annulata klauberi).
Historical range--The range of the western shovel-nosed snake
(Chionactis occipitalis), which includes the Tucson shovel-nosed snake
subspecies, extended from southern Nevada and southern California,
across southwestern Arizona and into Mexico. The Tucson shovel-nosed
snake has been recognized as a subspecies of the western shovel-nosed
snake since 1941, but its range was not defined. Klauber (1951)
described locations of the Tucson shovel-nosed snake subspecies in
eastern Pima and Pinal Counties, Arizona, from Tucson northwest to
Picacho and then north to Florence Junction. These locations were
primarily based on morphological color patterns of the subspecies. He
also described intergradation (areas where populations of two distinct
subspecies are connected that have the characteristics of both) with
another western shovel-nosed snake subspecies in Maricopa County and
western portions of Pinal and Pima Counties from Casa Grande West to
Gila Bend, north to Aguila, and South to Ajo, Arizona.
Current range--In our 2014 species status assessment (SSA) of the
Tucson shovel-nosed snake, we determined the current range of the
Tucson shovel-nosed snake to encompass 7,783,875 acres (3,150,022
hectares) within Pima, Pinal, Maricopa, Yavapai, Yuma, and La Paz
Counties in central and western Arizona (Wood et al. 2014; Service
2014b, p. 14). Because the Tucson shovel-nosed snake exhibits many
different color patterns throughout its range, we relied on genetic
data to define the subspecies' range (Service 2014b, pp. 13-14).
The petitioner disagrees with our determination of current range in
our 2014 SSA and subsequent 12-month finding that listing the species
was not warranted (79 FR 56730; September 23, 2014). The petitioner
believes that the current range of the Tucson shovel-nosed snake
includes western Pima, Pinal, and Maricopa Counties in central Arizona,
based on a different interpretation of the taxonomic revision described
in Wood et al. (2014, entire) than our interpretation. The petitioner
limits the current range of the subspecies to include snakes that share
genetic characteristics with C. a. klauberi and also have the same
color pattern as the Tucson shovel-nosed snake. The petitioner's
definition of the current range relies on color pattern to limit the
range of the subspecies, whereas our definition relies solely on the
genetics of the subspecies.
The western shovel-nosed snake is a highly variable species with
regard to color patterns throughout its range. Although some western
shovel-nosed snakes may look like a particular subspecies, genetic
analyses commonly indicate a snake is actually a different subspecies
than its color pattern suggests. Similar to the western shovel-nosed
snake species as a whole, finding snakes that are phenotypically
diverse but genetically similar is the norm for several valleys in the
Tucson shovel-nosed snake's historical range in Arizona. Therefore, we
concluded in our 2014 SSA that the species' current range includes an
additional 4,943,728
[[Page 53941]]
acres (2,000,655 hectares) that extents westward into La Paz County,
Arizona because of their genetic similarity, which expands the range
beyond what the petitioners' identify as the current range in their
petition. Refer to our 2014 SSA, available at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2021-0067, for more
information on the genetic analysis of this subspecies.
Petition History
On October 20, 2020, we received a petition dated September 24,
2020, from the CBD requesting that the Tucson shovel-nosed snake be
listed as an endangered or threatened species and critical habitat be
designated for this species under the Act. The petition clearly
identified itself as such and included the requisite identification
information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(c). This
finding addresses the petition.
We previously received a petition from the same petitioner
requesting that the Tucson shovel-nosed snake be listed as an
endangered or threatened species and critical habitat be designated
under the Act on December 14, 2004. We subsequently completed a
substantial 90-day finding (73 FR 43905; July 29, 2008) and found
listing was warranted but precluded by higher priority actions in a 12-
month finding, when the Tucson shovel-nosed snake was added to the list
of candidate species (75 FR 16050; March 31, 2010). On September 9,
2011, the Service entered into a settlement agreement where we were
required to submit a proposed rule or not warranted 12-month finding
for the Tucson shovel-nosed snake by September 30, 2014. Therefore, we
completed an SSA in 2014 (Service 2014b) and published a 12-month
finding (79 FR 56730; September 23, 2014) that concluded that listing
the Tucson shovel-nosed snake as an endangered or threatened species
was not warranted, and, therefore, we removed the subspecies from our
candidate list. Where the prior review resulted in a final agency
action, a petitioned action generally would not be considered to
present substantial scientific and commercial information indicating
that the action may be warranted unless the petition provides new
information not previously considered (see 50 CFR 424.14(h)(iii)),
which this petition did not.
Finding
We reviewed the petition, sources cited in the petition, and other
readily available information. Based on our review of the petition,
sources cited in the petition, and other readily available information,
we find that the petition does not provide substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that listing the Tucson shovel-nosed
snake as an endangered or threatened species may be warranted. The key
difference between the petitioners' conclusions regarding the species'
likely status and the conclusions in our 2014 finding relate to the
difference in interpretation of the current range of the species, as
described above. We stand by our previous determination that genetic
analysis is a better scientific method than color patterns for
determining which subspecies a shovel-nosed snake belongs to, and the
petition did not contain any substantial or new information that
indicated otherwise. Additionally, almost all of the information
regarding potential threats to the Tucson shovel-nosed snake provided
in and cited by the petition were previously considered in our 2014 not
warranted finding. Although the petition provides some new information
regarding specific impacts from proposed Interstate 11, our previous
finding considered the likely additional impacts of future development
in this area. Our review of the petition found that any potential
impact to the Tucson shovel-nosed snake from proposed Interstate 11 is
not likely to significantly affect Tucson shovel-nosed snake
individuals.
Because the petition does not present substantial information
indicating that listing the Tucson shovel-nosed snake may be warranted,
we are not initiating a status review of this subspecies in response to
this petition. However, we ask that the public submit to us any new
information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats
to, this subspecies or its habitat at any time (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, above).
The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information
regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at
http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2021-0067 under
the Supporting Documents section.
Conclusion
On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented in the
petitions under sections 4(b)(3)(A) and 4(b)(3)(D)(i) of the Act, we
have determined that the petitions summarized above for American bumble
bee, Long Valley speckled dace, and Siuslaw hairy-necked tiger beetle
present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that the petitioned actions may be warranted. We are, therefore,
initiating status reviews of these species to determine whether the
actions are warranted under the Act. At the conclusion of the status
reviews, we will issue findings, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B)
of the Act, as to whether the petitioned actions are not warranted,
warranted, or warranted but precluded by pending proposals to determine
whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species.
In addition, we have determined that the petitions summarized above for
the Florida torreya and Tucson shovel-nosed snake do not present
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We are, therefore, not initiating a
status review of either of these species in response to the petitions.
Authors
The primary authors of this document are staff members of the
Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Authority
The authority for these actions is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Martha Williams,
Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-20963 Filed 9-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P