Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Two Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species
| Published date | 29 September 2021 |
| Citation | 86 FR 53933 |
| Record Number | 2021-20923 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Fish And Wildlife Service |
53933
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 29, 2021 / Proposed Rules
paragraphs (1) and (2), and at the end of
the newly redesignated paragraph (1)
removing the semicolon and adding ‘‘;
and’’ in its place, and
■c. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(ii).
The revisions read as follows:
252.225–7012 Preference for Certain
Domestic Commodities.
* * * * *
Preference for Certain Domestic
Commodities (DATE)
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Does not exceed the threshold at
225.7002–2(a);
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021–20939 Filed 9–28–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Two Species Not
Warranted for Listing as Endangered
or Threatened Species
AGENCY
: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION
: Notification of findings.
SUMMARY
: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce
findings that two species are not
warranted for listing as endangered or
threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). After a thorough review
of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we find that it
is not warranted at this time to list Black
Creek crayfish (Procambarus pictus) or
hairy-peduncled beakrush
(Rhynchospora crinipes). 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 29, 2021.
ADDRESSES
: Detailed descriptions of the
bases for these findings are available on
the internet at http://
www.regulations.gov under the
following docket numbers:
Species Docket No.
Black Creek crayfish ......................................................................................................................................................... FWS–R4–ES–2021–0045
Hairy-peduncled beakrush ................................................................................................................................................ FWS–R4–ES–2021–0046
Supporting information used to
prepare this finding is available by
contacting the appropriate person as
specified under
FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT
. Please submit any
new information, materials, comments,
or questions concerning this finding to
the appropriate person, as specified
under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT
.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
:
Species Contact information
Black Creek crayfish .................... Lourdes Mena, Chief of Listing and Recovery, Jacksonville Fish and Wildlife Office, 904–731–3134, lourdes_
mena@fws.gov.
Hairy-peduncled beakrush ........... Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor, Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office, 601–321–1122, stephen_
ricks@fws.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), please call the
Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
:
Background
Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we are required to
make a finding whether or not a
petitioned action is warranted within 12
months after receiving any petition for
which we have determined contains
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted
(‘‘12-month finding’’). We must make a
finding that the petitioned action is: (1)
Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3)
warranted but precluded. We must
publish a notification of these 12-month
findings in the Federal Register.
Summary of Information Pertaining to
the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and the implementing regulations at
part 424 of title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424)
set forth procedures for adding species
to, removing species from, or
reclassifying species on the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants (Lists). The Act defines
‘‘species’’ as any subspecies of fish or
wildlife or plants, and any distinct
population segment of any species of
vertebrate fish or wildlife which
interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C.
1532(16)). The Act defines ‘‘endangered
species’’ as any species that is in danger
of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range (16
U.S.C. 1532(6)), and ‘‘threatened
species’’ as any species that is likely to
become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range (16
U.S.C. 1532(20)). Under section 4(a)(1)
of the Act, a species may be determined
to be an endangered species or a
threatened species because of any of the
following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
These factors represent broad
categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an
effect on a species’ continued existence.
In evaluating these actions and
conditions, we look for those that may
have a negative effect on individuals of
the species, as well as other actions or
conditions that may ameliorate any
negative effects or may have positive
effects.
We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in
general to actions or conditions that are
known to or are reasonably likely to
negatively affect individuals of a
species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes
actions or conditions that have a direct
impact on individuals (direct impacts),
as well as those that affect individuals
through alteration of their habitat or
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Sep 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29SEP1.SGM 29SEP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
53934
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 29, 2021 / Proposed Rules
required resources (stressors). The term
‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either
together or separately—the source of the
action or condition or the action or
condition itself. However, the mere
identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets
the statutory definition of an
‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened
species.’’ In determining whether a
species meets either definition, we must
evaluate all identified threats by
considering the expected response by
the species, and the effects of the
threats—in light of those actions and
conditions that will ameliorate the
threats—on an individual, population,
and species level. We evaluate each
threat and its expected effects on the
species, then analyze the cumulative
effect of all of the threats on the species
as a whole. We also consider the
cumulative effect of the threats in light
of those actions and conditions that will
have positive effects on the species,
such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The
Secretary determines whether the
species meets the definition of an
‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened
species’’ only after conducting this
cumulative analysis and describing the
expected effect on the species now and
in the foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term
‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in
the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened
species.’’ Our implementing regulations
at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a
framework for evaluating the foreseeable
future on a case-by-case basis. The term
‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far
into the future as the Service can
reasonably determine that both the
future threats and the species’ responses
to those threats are likely. In other
words, the foreseeable future is the
period of time in which we can make
reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not
mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to
provide a reasonable degree of
confidence in the prediction. Thus, a
prediction is reliable if it is reasonable
to depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary
to define foreseeable future as a
particular number of years. Analysis of
the foreseeable future uses the best
scientific and commercial data available
and should consider the timeframes
applicable to the relevant threats and to
the species’ likely responses to those
threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically
relevant to assessing the species’
biological response include species-
specific factors such as lifespan,
reproductive rates or productivity,
certain behaviors, and other
demographic factors.
In conducting our evaluation of the
five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of
the Act to determine whether Black
Creek crayfish or hairy-peduncled
beakrush meet the definition of
‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened
species,’’ we considered and thoroughly
evaluated the best scientific and
commercial information available
regarding the past, present, and future
stressors and threats. We reviewed the
petitions, information available in our
files, and other available published and
unpublished information. Our
evaluation may include information
from recognized experts; Federal, State,
and Tribal governments; academic
institutions; foreign governments;
private entities; and other members of
the public.
The species assessment forms for
these species contain more detailed
biological information, a thorough
analysis of the listing factors, a list of
literature cited, and an explanation of
why we determined that the species
does not meet the Act’s definition of an
endangered species or a threatened
species. A thorough review of the
taxonomy, life history, and ecology of
the Black Creek crayfish and the hairy-
peduncled beakrush is presented in the
species’ Species Status Assessment
reports. This supporting information
can be found on the internet at http://
www.regulations.gov under the
appropriate docket number (see
ADDRESSES
, above). The following are
informational summaries for the
findings in this document.
Black Creek Crayfish
Previous Federal Actions
On April 20, 2010, the Service
received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity (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
the Black Creek crayfish (Procambarus
pictus), from the southeastern United
States as endangered or threatened
species under the Act (CDB 2010,
entire). On September 27, 2011, we
published a 90-day finding (76 FR
59836) for 374 of the 404 petitioned
species, including the Black Creek
crayfish, stating the petition presented
substantial information that listing the
Black Creek crayfish may be warranted,
due to the threats of present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the species’ habitat or
range and inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms. The finding
solicited information on, and initiated
status reviews for, the 374 species,
including the Black Creek crayfish.
On February 27, 2020, CBD filed a
complaint alleging, among other things,
that the Service failed to make
statutorily required 12-month findings
for 241 species, including the Black
Creek crayfish. The Service moved to
dismiss most of the actions, including
the 12-month finding claim for the
Black Creek crayfish, on May 4, 2020.
The motion is fully briefed, and the
court has not ruled on it as of July 12,
2021. However, we are effectively
mooting the claim by publishing this
notification, which fulfils our statutory
duty to make a 12-month finding for the
Black Creek crayfish.
Summary of Finding
The Black Creek crayfish is endemic
to four northeastern Florida counties
(Clay, Duval, Putnam, and St. Johns) in
the Lower St. Johns River Basin. This
small to medium-sized crayfish has dark
claws and a dark carapace with a white
or yellowish mid-dorsal stripe, white
spots or streaks on its sides, and a rust-
colored abdomen. The Black Creek
crayfish lives about 16 months and
reproduces once during its life cycle.
The Black Creek crayfish occurs in
flowing, sand-bottomed, tannic-stained
streams that contain cool, unpolluted
water, and maintain a constant flow of
highly oxygenated water (5 to 8 parts
per million). Within these streams,
Black Creek crayfish require aquatic
vegetation and debris for shelter with
alternating shaded and open canopy
cover where they eat aquatic plants,
dead plant and animal material, and
detritus.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the Black Creek
crayfish, and we evaluated all relevant
factors under the five listing factors,
including any regulatory mechanisms
and conservation measures addressing
these threats. The potential threats
affecting the Black Creek crayfish are
due to land conversion impacts and
from climate change. The threat of land
conversion impacts includes water
quality and water quantity degradation
from urbanization mining, logging, and
agriculture, and the threat of climate
change primarily is from sea level rise
(SLR), and combined effects. These
threats can impact the Black Creek
crayfish by degrading or inundating its
habitat. The effects from these impacts
may result in a decrease in habitat
quality and quantity across the species’
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Sep 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29SEP1.SGM 29SEP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
53935
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 29, 2021 / Proposed Rules
range during some years. However,
significant ongoing conservation actions
are protecting the species.
Currently, 47% of Black Creek
crayfish habitat is protected, including
Camp Blanding Joint Training Center
(Camp Blanding) conservation
agreements. The range of the Black
Creek crayfish largely overlaps public
lands managed by the Florida Army
National Guard, Camp Blanding, and
the Florida Forest Service, specifically 2
state forests: Jennings and Etoniah
Creek. These lands are wildlife
management areas wherein wildlife is
managed by the Florida Wildlife
Conservation Commission and the
Florida Forest Service. Additional
conservation lands with occurrence
records for Black Creek crayfish include
parcels owned by the St. John’s River
Water Management District (District)
and mitigation banks. Management of
the upland habitat adjacent to Black
Creek crayfish habitat is provided by
Camp Blanding and the Florida Forest
Service, while the District has
regulatory authority regarding water
quality.
Upon examining the current trends
and future forecast scenarios, we expect
that the primary threats—water quality
and water quantity degradation due to
land conversion, and SLR from climate
change—may impact the Black Creek
crayfish. But a substantial portion (47
percent) of the habitat is protected
(Camp Blanding conservation
agreements, Florida Forest Service, and
the District), alleviating many of the
primary threats to the crayfish. Habitat
protection and conservation measures,
including measures to manage and
protect water quality and water quantity
degradation, maintain adequate water
conditions and flows that will keep a
sufficient number of populations viable
to ensure overall species viability into
the foreseeable future (30–50 years). In
addition, protection of special
management zones (SMZs) may reduce
its contribution to nonpoint source
water pollution. SMZs are meant to
provide shade for temperature
regulation, a natural vegetation strip,
intact ground cover, large and small
woody debris, leaf litter, and a variety
of tree species and age classes, most of
these benefitting Black Creek crayfish.
Also, monitoring of SLR by Camp
Blanding and the District in protected
habitat areas will help inform the
Service on the status of the SLR threat.
All 19 extant Black Creek crayfish
populations are expected to maintain
resiliency, redundancy, and
representation under examined future
scenarios out to 2050 and 10 out to 2070
with conservation measures. We
examined the interactions of the white
tubercled crayfish (Procambarus
spiculifer), and while uncertainty still
exists, the possibility remains that white
tubercled crayfish may have the
potential to decrease occupancy and
abundance of Black Creek crayfish;
however, the best available information
indicates that it is likely that the two
species co-exist at sites where Black
Creek crayfish occur (Service 2020,
p.37, 39, Fig. 4–6)). We expect that
existing regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures are adequate and
would continue to help ameliorate or
reduce impacts of threats to the species
and protect the Black Creek crayfish and
its habitat which would also help the
Black Creek crayfish continue to
maintain an adequate level of resiliency,
representation, and redundancy now
and into the foreseeable future (30 to 50
years). For Black Creek crayfish, we
considered whether the threats are
geographically concentrated in any
portion of the species’ range at a
biologically meaningful scale. We
examined the following threats: Land
use conversion impacts and climate
change, including cumulative effects.
Based on the species’ response to
threats, current resiliency, and
predicted future resiliency throughout
its range, we found no concentration of
threats in any portion of the Black Creek
crayfish’s range at a biologically
meaningful scale. We found that the
identified threats act uniformly
throughout the range, because it occurs
in four northeastern Florida counties
(Clay, Duval, Putnam, and St. Johns) in
the Lower St. Johns River Basin that are
geographically close to each other.
Thus, there are no portions of the
species’ range where the species has a
different status from its range-wide
status.
After evaluating the best available
scientific and commercial information
on potential threats acting individually
or in combination, we found that all 19
extant Black Creek crayfish populations
are expected to maintain resiliency,
redundancy, and representation, under
examined future scenarios out to 2050,
and 10 out to 2070 with conservation
measures, in all or a significant portion
of the species’ range.
Our review of the best available
scientific and commercial information
regarding the past, present, and future
threats to the species indicates that the
Black Creek crayfish is not in danger of
extinction nor likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, and that the Black
Creek crayfish does not meet the
definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species under the Act.
Therefore, we find that listing the Black
Creek crayfish as an endangered or
threatened species under the Act is not
warranted at this time. A detailed
discussion of the basis for this finding
can be found in the Black Creek crayfish
species assessment form and other
supporting documents (see
ADDRESSES
,
above).
Hairy-Peduncled Beakrush
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
hairy-peduncled beakrush
(Rhynchospora crinipes), from the
southeastern United States as
endangered or threatened species under
the Act (CDB 2010, entire). On
September 27, 2011, we published a 90-
day finding (76 FR 59836) for 374 of the
404 petitioned species, including hairy-
peduncled beakrush, stating that the
petition presented substantial
information indicating that listing hairy-
peduncled beakrush may be warranted,
due to the threats of present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the species’ habitat or
range and inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms. The finding
solicited information on, and initiated
status reviews for, the 374 species,
including hairy-peduncled beakrush.
Hairy-peduncled beakrush is on the
Service’s National Workplan for a 12-
month finding in Fiscal Year 2021.
On February 27, 2020, CBD filed a
complaint alleging, among other things,
that the Service failed to make
statutorily required 12-month findings
for 241 species, including the hairy-
peduncled beakrush. The Service
moved to dismiss most of the actions,
including the 12-month finding claim
for the hairy-peduncled beakrush, on
May 4, 2020. The motion is fully
briefed, and the court has not ruled on
it as of July 12, 2021. However, we are
effectively mooting the claim by
publishing this notification, which
fulfils our statutory duty to make a 12-
month finding for the hairy-peduncled
beakrush.
Summary of Finding
A member of the sedge family
(Cyperaceae), hairy-peduncled beakrush
is a perennial grass-like herb that occurs
solitary or as clumps to dense mats of
plants typically 2–3
1
⁄
4
feet (60–100
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Sep 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29SEP1.SGM 29SEP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
53936
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 29, 2021 / Proposed Rules
centimeters) tall. Hairy-peduncled
beakrush has a broad geographic range
within the southeastern United States,
spanning nearly 700 miles (over 1,100
kilometers) from southwestern
Mississippi to central North Carolina.
The species has been found in at least
28 counties in 5 southeastern States:
Mississippi (5 counties), Alabama (6
counties), Florida (5 counties), Georgia
(10 counties) and North Carolina (2
counties).
Hairy-peduncled beakrush typically
occurs on banks and bars along
blackwater streams and associated
spring runs that are prone to flooding
and periodic scouring. Within these
systems, plants are often found in peaty
silt on streamside shelves or sandy-clay
stream bars, but have also occasionally
been found rooting on stumps and tree
bases as well as in the streambed. The
species is an obligate wetland species,
meaning that they are almost always
found in standing water or soils that are
seasonally saturated. Hairy-peduncled
beakrush plants typically occur in full
sun to partly shady conditions under
open to filtered canopies, often along
north-south oriented streams. The
species’ deep, extensive root system
provides a strong attachment to the
substrate and allows it to withstand
strong flood events, which may also
provide a competitive advantage over
other species with weaker root systems
that are more readily washed away
during flood events. Likewise, hairy-
peduncled beakrush’s ability to root at
its nodes allows it to withstand being
partially buried by sediment deposited
during flooding events and facilitates
clonal spread. Together, these
adaptations to flooding and
sedimentation suggest that hairy-
peduncled beakrush is not only tolerant
of disturbance, but may be disturbance-
dependent, with periodic disturbances
(such as scouring floods) being required
to remove competing vegetation from
occupied and unoccupied habitat,
thereby allowing the species to thrive
and spread locally and disperse more
widely.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to hairy-peduncled
beakrush, and we evaluated all relevant
factors under the five listing factors,
including any regulatory mechanisms
and conservation measures addressing
these stressors. The primary stressors
affecting the hairy-peduncled beakrush
include sedimentation from
development and urbanization,
incompatible logging practices, military
and recreational activities, sand and
gravel mining, and an altered hydrologic
regime resulting from climate change
and development and urbanization.
Sedimentation currently represents a
localized threat to hairy-peduncled
beakrush. Activities that produce
excessive sedimentation may smother
plants or otherwise degrade habitats;
however, hairy-peduncled beakrush is
able to tolerate at least some sediment
deposition, as partially buried plants
have been observed rooting at their
buried nodes. This adaptation limits the
threat to hairy-peduncled beakrush from
all but the most extreme sedimentation
events. Flooding has been suggested as
a threat to hairy-peduncled beakrush;
however, natural flooding is unlikely a
major threat to hairy-peduncled
beakrush rangewide in light of its
association with systems that are subject
to periodic flooding and various other
natural disturbances that may contribute
to extreme flooding (e.g., hurricanes,
tropical storms), which suggests that the
species is adapted to tolerate such
periodic disturbances.
Sedimentation and hydrologic regime
changes are influenced by development
and urbanization, incompatible logging
practices, sand and gravel mining,
activities on military installations, and
right-of-way maintenance; however,
most of these threats are considered
historical, or occur on a very limited
number of sites, or are actively managed
and monitored by Federal and State
agencies through adequate regulatory
protections. In the assessment of hairy-
peduncled beakrush current condition,
30 populations (of a total of 39
populations) exhibit moderate to high
resiliency, as evidenced by population
size, multiple subpopulations, current
status and resilience through time, and
little evidence of threats. Although
changes in the hydrologic regime may
occur as a result of climate change, the
species is resilient to fluctuating water
levels and relies on periodic high flow
events to some extent for dispersal of
propagules and removal of competing
vegetation (i.e., hairy-peduncled
beakrush is a disturbance-dependent
species).
Our future scenarios assessed the
viability of hairy-peduncled beakrush
over a 40-year time period in response
to urbanization and hydrological
changes. In Scenario 1, current land
protection and management are
projected to remain unchanged,
urbanization continues at the current
pace, and changes to the hydrological
regime are those predicted under a
moderate emissions scenario,
representative concentration pathway
4.5 (RCP 4.5). Under this scenario, 37 of
39 populations are predicted to remain
at their current levels of resiliency,
while 2 populations are expected to
exhibit decreased resiliency by 2060. In
Scenario 2, current land protection and
management are projected to remain
unchanged, urbanization increases
relative to Scenario 1, and changes to
the hydrological regime are those
predicted under a higher atmospheric
emission scenario (RCP 8.5). Under this
scenario, four populations are expected
to exhibit decreased resiliency and one
population is expected to exhibit
increased resiliency, while 34 are
predicted to remain at their current
levels of resiliency. We expect the
species’ representation and redundancy
to remain high under both future
scenarios.
For hairy-peduncled beakrush, we
considered whether the threats are
geographically concentrated in any
portion of the species’ range at a
biologically meaningful scale. We
examined the following threats:
Sedimentation and hydrologic regime
change, including cumulative effects.
Based on the species’ adaptation to
stressors, current resiliency, and
predicted future resiliency throughout
its range, we found no concentration of
threats in any portion of hairy-
peduncled beakrush’s range at a
biologically meaningful scale. Thus,
there are no portions of the species’
range where the species has a different
status from its range-wide status.
After evaluating the best available
scientific and commercial information
on potential stressors acting
individually or in combination, we
found no indication that the combined
effects are causing a population-level
decline, or that the combined effects are
likely to do so in the next 10 to 40 years,
in all or a significant portion of the
species’ range.
Therefore, we find that listing hairy-
peduncled beakrush as an endangered
species or threatened species under the
Act is not warranted. A detailed
discussion of the basis for this finding
can be found in the hairy-peduncled
beakrush species assessment and other
supporting documents (see
ADDRESSES
,
above).
New Information
We request that you submit any new
information concerning the taxonomy
of, biology of, ecology of, status of, or
stressors to the Black Creek crayfish or
hairy-peduncled beakrush 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Sep 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29SEP1.SGM 29SEP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
53937
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 29, 2021 / Proposed Rules
stakeholders to continue cooperative
monitoring and conservation efforts.
References Cited
A list of the references cited in these
petition findings is available on the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov
in the species assessment form or in the
appropriate docket provided above in
ADDRESSES
, or upon request from the
appropriate person, as specified under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
.
Authors
The primary authors of this document
are the staff members of the Species
Assessment Team, Ecological Services
Program.
Authority
The authority for this action is section
4 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).
Martha Williams,
Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the
Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021–20923 Filed 9–28–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
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, lou-
ise_
Florida torreya ........................................... Lourdes Mena, Classification and Recovery Division Manager, Florida Ecological Services Field Of-
fice, 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_hum-
phrey@fws.gov.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Sep 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29SEP1.SGM 29SEP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
