[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 233 (Thursday, December 3, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78029-78038]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26139]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Eleven 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 eleven species are not warranted for listing as
endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act). After a thorough review of the best available
scientific and commercial information, we find that it is not warranted
at this time to list the Doll's daisy, Puget Oregonian, Rocky Mountain
monkeyflower, southern white-tailed ptarmigan, tidewater amphipod,
tufted puffin, Hamlin Valley pyrg, longitudinal gland pyrg, sub-globose
snake pyrg, the Johnson Springs Wetland Complex population of relict
dace, or Clear Lake hitch. 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 December 3, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Detailed descriptions of the bases for these findings are
available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov under the
following docket numbers:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Docket No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doll's daisy........................... FWS-R5-ES-2020-0066.
Puget Oregonian........................ FWS-R1-ES-2020-0067.
[[Page 78030]]
Rocky Mountain monkeyflower............ FWS-R6-ES-2012-0052.
Southern white-tailed ptarmigan........ FWS-R6-ES-2012-0023.
Tidewater amphipod..................... FWS-R5-ES-2020-0068.
Tufted puffin.......................... FWS-R7-ES-2020-0072.
Hamlin Valley pyrg..................... FWS-R6-ES-2020-0069.
Longitudinal gland pyrg................ FWS-R6-ES-2020-0070.
Sub-globose snake pyrg................. FWS-R6-ES-2020-0071.
Relict dace............................ FWS-R8-ES-2020-0113.
Clear Lake hitch....................... FWS-R8-ES-2020-0112.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doll's daisy........................... Eric Schrading, Field
Supervisor, New Jersey Field
Office, (609) 382-5272.
Puget Oregonian........................ Brad Thompson, State
Supervisor, Washington Fish
and Wildlife Office, (360) 753-
9440.
Rocky Mountain monkeyflower............ Ann Timberman, Acting Field
Supervisor, Colorado
Ecological Services Field
Office, (970) 628-7181.
Southern white-tailed ptarmigan........ Ann Timberman, Acting Field
Supervisor, Colorado
Ecological Services Field
Office, (970) 628-7181.
Tidewater amphipod..................... Julie A. Slacum, Division
Chief, Strategic Resource
Conservation, Chesapeake Bay
Field Office, (410) 573-4595.
Tufted puffin.......................... Stewart Cogswell, Field
Supervisor, Anchorage Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Office,
(907) 271-2787.
Hamlin Valley pyrg, longitudinal gland Laura Romin, Deputy Field
pyrg, and sub-globose snake pyrg. Supervisor, Utah Ecological
Services Field Office, (801)
975-3330, ext. 142.
Relict dace............................ Mark Jackson, Field Supervisor,
Reno Fish and Wildlife Office,
(775) 861-6300.
Clear Lake hitch....................... Kim Turner, Acting Field
Supervisor, Sacramento Fish
and Wildlife Office, (916) 414-
6700.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please
call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we
are required to make a finding whether or not a petitioned action is
warranted within 12 months after receiving any petition for which we
have determined contains substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted
(``12-month finding''). We must make a finding that the petitioned
action is: (1) Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) warranted but
precluded. We must publish a notice of these 12-month findings in the
Federal Register.
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations at part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing
species from, or reclassifying species on the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists). The Act defines ``species'' as
any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct
population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which
interbreeds when mature. The Act defines ``endangered species'' as any
species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)), and ``threatened species'' as
any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range
(16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may
be determined to be an endangered species or a threatened species
because of any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself. However, the mere
identification of any threat(s) does not necessarily mean that the
species meets the statutory definition of an ``endangered species'' or
a ``threatened species.'' In determining whether a
[[Page 78031]]
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 the Doll's daisy
(Boltonia montana), Puget Oregonian (Cryptomastix devia), Rocky
Mountain monkeyflower (Mimulus gemmiparus), southern white-tailed
ptarmigan (Lagopus leucura altipetens), tidewater amphipod (Stygobromus
indentatus), tufted puffin (Fratercula cirrhata), Hamlin Valley pyrg
(Pyrgulopsis hamlinensis), longitudinal gland pyrg (Pyrgulopsis
anguina), sub-globose snake pyrg (Pyrgulopsis saxatilis), and Clear
Lake hitch (Lavinia exilicauda chi) meet the definition of ``endangered
species'' or ``threatened species,'' we considered and thoroughly
evaluated the best scientific and commercial information available
regarding the past, present, and future stressors and threats. We
reviewed the petitions, information available in our files, and other
available published and unpublished information. Our evaluation may
include information from recognized experts; Federal, State, and tribal
governments; academic institutions; foreign governments; private
entities; and other members of the public.
The species assessment forms for the Doll's daisy, Puget Oregonian,
Rocky Mountain monkeyflower, southern white-tailed ptarmigan, tidewater
amphipod, tufted puffin, Hamlin Valley pyrg, longitudinal gland pyrg,
sub-globose snake pyrg, the Johnson Springs Wetland Complex population
of relict dace, and Clear Lake hitch contain more detailed biological
information, a thorough analysis of the listing factors, and an
explanation of why we determined that these species do not meet the
definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. This
supporting information can be found on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (see ADDRESSES,
above). The following are informational summaries for the findings in
this document.
Doll's Daisy
Previous Federal Actions
On April 20, 2010, we 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 to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland
species, including Boltonia montana (referred to by the common names
``Doll's-daisy'' and ``doll's daisy'' in the petition; referred to
hereafter as Doll's daisy), as endangered or threatened species under
the Act. On September 27, 2011, we published in the Federal Register
(76 FR 59836) a 90-day finding in which we announced 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 Doll's daisy under the Act.
Summary of Finding
Doll's daisy is a perennial plant in the Asteraceae family that is
known from Augusta County, Virginia; Sussex and Warren Counties, New
Jersey; and Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, the latter regarded as a
historical occurrence. The species occurs in certain isolated sinkhole
ponds that have widely fluctuating water levels, and its life history
is adapted to these variable habitat conditions. The species currently
occurs in 21 population sites in New Jersey (5 are on land owned or
managed by the State, 6 are on private property owned or managed by a
conservation organization, and the remaining 10 populations are
privately owned) and 22 population sites in Virginia (7 are on U.S.
Forest Service land, and the remaining 15 are on private property).
Soil, water, sunlight, pollinator services, and a suitable annual
temperature regime are interrelated resource needs required by Dolly's
daisy individuals and populations. At the metapopulation scale, the
species likely requires some degree of habitat connectivity to maintain
viability; however, there is significant uncertainty regarding the
degree of connectivity that may be necessary between population sites.
We assume there is no natural connectivity between the two extant
metapopulations in New Jersey and Virginia.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Doll's daisy, 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 Doll's daisy's biological status include habitat
modification (as a result of development, agriculture, off-road vehicle
use, altered surface hydrology, and groundwater withdrawals) and
climate change. There are conservation measures in place that benefit
the species. Our species status assessment report for the Doll's daisy
evaluates three plausible future scenarios for the species. In our
future condition analysis, scenarios 1 and 3 predict between 3 and 11
populations would have lower resiliencies than the current condition,
with the potential under one scenario that changes may result in the
extirpation of several low resiliency populations, perhaps causing a
loss of redundancy. Under scenario 2, we predict feasible conservation
efforts
[[Page 78032]]
would improve the condition of 22 populations. Under all scenarios, the
species would maintain multiple moderate or high resiliency populations
in the New Jersey and Virginia metapopulations; therefore, the species'
representation is not predicted to change from the current condition
(although we note that the historical extirpation of the Pennsylvania
metapopulation may have reduced the species' representation).
Despite impacts from the primary stressors, Doll's daisy has
maintained resilient populations throughout its range. Although we
predict some continued impacts from these stressors in the future, we
anticipate the species will continue to maintain resilient populations
throughout the foreseeable future. Therefore, we find that listing the
Doll's daisy 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 Doll's daisy species assessment and other
supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Puget Oregonian
Previous Federal Actions
On March 17, 2008, we received a petition (dated March 13, 2008)
from CBD, Conservation Northwest, the Environmental Protection
Information Center, the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, and Oregon
Wild to list 32 species and subspecies of snails and slugs (mollusks),
including Puget Oregonian (Cryptomastix devia), in the Pacific
Northwest as endangered or threatened species under the Act. On October
5, 2011, we published in the Federal Register (76 FR 61826) a 90-day
finding that the petition presented substantial information indicating
that listing the Puget Oregonian under the Act may be warranted. This
document constitutes our 12-month finding on the March 13, 2008,
petition to list the Puget Oregonian under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The Puget Oregonian is a snail that inhabits moist, conifer-forest
habitats that include some level of deciduous tree community
composition. The species is most commonly located in stands with
bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) that occur along stream and river
terraces or other habitats with a flat or gentle slope. Within that
landscape, the species' habitat niche is near or under bigleaf maple
crowns and in, or under, hardwood logs and other woody material, leaf
litter, moist talus, and the lowest fronds of western swordfern
(Polystichum munitum). The Puget Oregonian is found in the Cascade
Range and Puget Trough in Washington, and south into the foothills of
the Coast Range and Willamette Valley, in Oregon; the species is
recognized as extirpated from British Columbia, Canada.
Most occurrence records for this species come from the Cispus River
in Washington on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, resulting from
surveys conducted under the Northwest Forest Plan in areas where U.S.
Forest Service projects were being considered. As a result, much of the
potential suitable habitat for the Puget Oregonian remains unsurveyed.
The primary stressors affecting the Puget Oregonian include the
effects of past, current, and future habitat loss, modification, and
fragmentation from forest management, land conversion to agriculture
and development, big leaf maple dieback disease, and wildfire. However,
the species has been found in areas that had been previously impacted
by some of these stressors (forest practices, bigleaf maple dieback
disease and wildfire). The best available data provide no information
on whether there is a declining or increasing population trend and
limited information on whether the range of the species has contracted
or expanded in the last century. Ten of the 15 habitat units assessed
appear to have high resilience, containing multiple contemporary
validated records of this species as well as a high percentage of
suitable habitat within the unit and in the immediate and surrounding
area. Although the species does not appear to be particularly abundant
across its range, and much uncertainty regarding presence of the
species in suitable but unsurveyed portions of the range, the snail's
distribution across a large area (redundancy), with ten highly
resilient populations in four different sub-basins (representation),
indicates the species is likely to withstand catastrophic events in one
or more sub-basin.
The resources that the Puget Oregonian needs are likely to diminish
in quantity and quality over time with future increases in
environmental stressors including the effects of climate change, human
population growth in the Pacific Northwest, forest management, and
bigleaf maple dieback disease. If suitable habitat diminishes as
expected, we would anticipate a corresponding decline in the
resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the species. However, the
Puget Oregonian's current distribution in at least 15 sites across at
least four different sub-basins will support its ability to maintain
resiliency into the mid-21st century. Furthermore, the species' ability
to take refuge in small areas (microhabitat) could add to the future
resiliency of populations.
We know that features of the species' habitat may change in the
future, and we can project the scope and magnitude of some of those
environmental changes. However, our incomplete understanding of how the
species may respond to changes in its environment over time creates a
wide range of possibilities for the future condition of the 15 analytic
units we assessed. The best available information does not indicate
that the future magnitude and scope of potential environmental
stressors would be at a level that would cause the species to be in
danger of extinction in the foreseeable future.
Therefore, we find that listing the Puget Oregonian 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 Puget Oregonian species status assessment and other
supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Rocky Mountain Monkeyflower
Previous Federal Actions
On October 4, 2011, we received a petition from WildEarth Guardians
requesting, in part, that we list the Rocky Mountain monkeyflower as an
endangered or threatened species under the Act. On August 29, 2012, we
published in the Federal Register (77 FR 52293) a 90-day finding that
the petition presented substantial information indicating that listing
the Rocky Mountain monkeyflower under the Act may be warranted. This
document constitutes our 12-month finding on the September 30, 2011,
petition to list the Rocky Mountain monkeyflower under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The Rocky Mountain monkeyflower, also known as the budding
monkeyflower, is a small, narrow endemic plant found in north-central
Colorado. Uniquely, this plant exhibits an asexual reproduction
strategy not seen within the Mimulus genus or in any other Holarctic
species; the plant produces propagules which contain ``bulbils,'' which
have all of the components needed to develop into a new plant,
including a shoot axis and rudimentary leaves and roots. The Rocky
Mountain monkeyflower occupies approximately 60 acres (24.28 hectares)
on State or Federal lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service, the
National Park Service, and Colorado
[[Page 78033]]
Parks and Wildlife in Boulder, Clear Creek, Grand, Jefferson, and
Larimer Counties in Colorado. Currently, we know of 24 occurrences of
the Rocky Mountain monkeyflower that constitute 19 populations;
surveyors have observed over 14 million ramets (ramets are individuals
that result from asexual reproduction and thus may be genetically
identical).
The Rocky Mountain monkeyflower inhabits montane to subalpine
habitats at elevations of 2,400 to 3,400 meters (7,874 to 11,154 feet)
and is found under overhangs of south-facing cliffs or boulders. Little
information exists about the ecological factors that affect growth and
establishment of the Rocky Mountain monkeyflower in the wild. The
survival of propagules is strongly influenced by moisture, temperature,
and substrate type. A number of patterns are apparent in the few
available studies on habitat parameters; all of the previous studies
and species descriptions suggest that periods of very moist or
saturated soil are important, but it appears that too much water can be
problematic for this species. The optimal hydrological conditions are
sites that are periodically saturated or, at most, consistently moist
with no long periods of standing water. Similarly, successful sites
have very shallow soil, typically fewer than two centimeters deep.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Rocky Mountain monkeyflower, and we evaluated all relevant
stressors under the five listing factors, including any regulatory
mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these stressors. We
identified climate change as the primary stressor affecting the Rocky
Mountain monkeyflower's biological status. Currently, the Rocky
Mountain monkeyflower has multiple, resilient populations distributed
across its range, encompassing various ecological conditions and some
genetic variation. While the Rocky Mountain monkeyflower is a narrow
endemic plant with low population sizes and a limited range, this
limitation does not seem to be currently compromising the species'
resiliency, redundancy, and representation, given the relatively large
numbers of ramets in multiple populations, the low risk of inbreeding
depression due to the plant's asexual reproduction, good or moderate
hydrological conditions in most populations, and relatively high levels
of genetic diversity for an asexual species. The species is only known
to occur on Federal and State public lands, which minimizes many
threats such that there are no stressors currently providing species-
level impacts. In the future, while we may lose some small Rocky
Mountain monkeyflower populations, we project that each analysis unit
will likely remain occupied. Moreover, in all projected future
scenarios, the three populations containing over 90 percent of
monkeyflower ramets will be in good or moderate condition. Furthermore,
the plant's asexual reproduction strategy confers, and likely would
continue to confer, additional resiliency because this less energy-
intensive method of reproduction allows the species to reproduce in
relatively harsh conditions. Thus, based on our analysis, we anticipate
that the Rocky Mountain monkeyflower will continue to have multiple,
resilient populations distributed across its narrow range, providing
for limited but sufficient redundancy and representation necessary to
withstand catastrophic events and adapt to environmental change into
the future.
Therefore, we find that listing the Rocky Mountain monkeyflower 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 Rocky Mountain monkeyflower species assessment and other
supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Southern White-Tailed Ptarmigan
Previous Federal Actions
On August 24, 2010, we received a petition from CBD requesting that
we list either the U.S. population or the Rocky Mountain population of
the white-tailed ptarmigan as threatened or endangered distinct
population segments (DPSs) and that we designate critical habitat.
Following our correspondence with the petitioner regarding the accepted
taxonomy of the white-tailed ptarmigan and our DPS policy, the
petitioner revised the petition on September 1, 2011. The revised
petition requested that we list the southern white-tailed ptarmigan (L.
l. altipetens) and the Mt. Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan (L. l.
rainierensis) as threatened subspecies. On June 5, 2012, we published
in the Federal Register (77 FR 33143) a 90-day finding that the
petition presented substantial information that listing may be
warranted for the southern white-tailed ptarmigan and the Mt. Rainier
white-tailed ptarmigan. This document constitutes the 12-month finding
on the September 1, 2011, petition to list the southern white-tailed
ptarmigan under the Act. We will address our finding for the Mt.
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan in a future determination.
Summary of Finding
The southern white-tailed ptarmigan is a small bird that lives in
high-elevation, alpine ecosystems in Colorado, northern New Mexico, and
historically in the Snowy Range of southern Wyoming. Alpine ecosystems
are characterized by high winds, cold temperatures, short growing
seasons, low atmospheric oxygen concentrations, and intense solar
radiation. The southern white-tailed ptarmigan is one of five
subspecies of white-tailed ptarmigan in the Phasianidae family,
subfamily Tetraoninae, which includes the grouse, or ground-feeding
game birds. So named for its perpetually white tail feathers, the
southern white-tailed ptarmigan changes its plumage seasonally to match
the coloration and patterns of its alpine habitats, from white in
winter to brown in the summer, effectively camouflaging the birds
against snow and alpine rocks and vegetation. In addition to cryptic
coloration, the southern white-tailed ptarmigan displays other
adaptations to the temperature, precipitation, wind, and snow cover
extremes of its alpine habitats. For example, heavily feathered feet
support the southern white-tailed ptarmigan like snowshoes as they walk
across the snow, and the subspecies feeds almost exclusively on willow
buds during the winter when other food sources are scarce.
Nearly all suitable habitat for the southern-white tailed ptarmigan
occurs on lands managed by Federal land management agencies, with over
85 percent managed by the U.S. Forest Service, over 5 percent managed
by the National Park Service, and 4.5 percent managed by the Bureau of
Land Management. Approximately 6 percent of suitable habitat is located
on privately owned land. The distribution of southern white-tailed
ptarmigan is largely unchanged from historical levels in Colorado and
New Mexico, but a lack of recent observations indicates that the
subspecies is presumed extirpated from the Snowy Range in southern
Wyoming.
We determined that individual southern white-tailed ptarmigan have
specific habitat needs to breed, feed, and shelter, including suitable
winter snow conditions, available late-lying snowfields, summer
precipitation and monsoonal moisture, brood-rearing habitat, and
willows. We also determined that populations of southern white-tailed
ptarmigan need external recruitment of immigrants, breeding dispersal,
adult female survival, and
[[Page 78034]]
population growth in order to be resilient. Demographic connectivity
between populations is critical for resiliency, as it allows for
genetic exchange, dispersal, and external recruitment. The subspecies
needs a sufficient number and distribution of resilient populations to
withstand the annual variation in its environment, catastrophes, and
novel biological and physical changes in its environment.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the southern white-tailed ptarmigan, and we evaluated all relevant
factors under the five listing factors, including any regulatory
mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these stressors.
Potential stressors to the southern white-tailed ptarmigan include
predation, mining and related poisoning due to toxic concentrations of
trace metals, hunting, recreation, livestock and native ungulate
grazing, and the effects of global climate change. Through our
analysis, we found that only climate change may affect southern white-
tailed ptarmigan populations due to increases in minimum and maximum
temperatures; changes in snow quantity, quality, extent, and duration;
shifts in plant phenology; advancement of treeline, and expansion of
willow into alpine areas; and changes in the amount and timing of
seasonal precipitation. Although the other stressors may affect
individuals or local areas, they do not affect resiliency, redundancy,
or representation, alone or cumulatively, currently or into the future
for the southern white-tailed ptarmigan.
Currently, 14 out of 19 analytical units (a scale of analysis
similar to populations) have high resiliency, 3 have medium resiliency,
1 in New Mexico has very low resiliency, and the Snowy Range analytical
unit in Wyoming is presumed extirpated. Other than local declines in
New Mexico and the presumed extirpation in the Snowy Range, the
southern white-tailed ptarmigan currently occupies nearly all of its
historical range, and the subspecies has sufficient resiliency,
redundancy, and representation to withstand stochastic and catastrophic
events and to adapt to environmental changes. Therefore, given the
current levels of resiliency distributed across Colorado, the lack of
significant stressors, and the life-history characteristics of the
subspecies that make it uniquely adapted to the environmental extremes
of its alpine habitats, we conclude that the current risk of extinction
is low. In the future, we project reductions in resiliency, due to
changes in climate, with a minor reduction in redundancy and
representation if the analytical unit in New Mexico declines from very
low resiliency to an extirpated condition. However, at least 17
resilient analytical units are projected to remain distributed across
Colorado in the future, so the subspecies maintains enough resiliency,
redundancy, and representation to withstand stochastic and catastrophic
events and to adapt to changing conditions. Therefore, we consider the
future risk of extinction to also be low.
We find that listing the southern white-tailed ptarmigan as an
endangered subspecies or a threatened subspecies under the Act is not
warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be
found in the southern white-tailed ptarmigan species assessment and
other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Tidewater Amphipod
Previous Federal Actions
We identified the tidewater amphipod as a Category 2 candidate
species for listing in a May 22, 1984, notice of review (49 FR 21664).
Category 2 candidate species were taxa for which the Service had
information indicating that proposing to list the species as endangered
or threatened was possibly appropriate, but for which conclusive data
on biological vulnerability and threats were not at that time available
to support proposed rules. The tidewater amphipod remained designated
as a Category 2 candidate species in subsequent candidate notices of
review (54 FR 554, January 6, 1989; 56 FR 58804, November 21, 1991; 59
FR 58982, November 15, 1994). In the February 28, 1996, notice (61 FR
7596), we discontinued the designation of Category 2 species as
candidates, which removed the tidewater amphipod from our candidate
list.
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 to list 404
aquatic, riparian, and wetland species, including the tidewater
amphipod, as endangered or threatened species under the Act. On
September 27, 2011, we published in the Federal Register (76 FR 59836)
a 90-day finding in which we announced 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 the tidewater amphipod under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The tidewater amphipod is a small, subterranean, shallow
groundwater crustacean. Compared to similar amphipods, the tidewater
amphipod is relatively large, with males reaching lengths of 9.7
millimeters (mm) (0.38 inches (in)) and females 8.2 mm (0.32 in). The
species' entire known current distribution occurs within five counties
in Maryland and seven counties in Virginia spanning a distance of 180
miles (289 kilometers) of the Coastal Plain physiographic region.
Contemporary collections of tidewater amphipods have typically been
made during the winter and spring months when individuals can be found
in seepage springs, tile drains, and shallow wells.
Specific diet, water quality and quantity tolerances, and
behavioral and reproductive traits of tidewater amphipod are unknown.
However, based on the general principles of conservation biology,
information about other groundwater amphipod species, and local
information from the areas where tidewater amphipods have been
observed, we infer that individuals need shallow water habitats with
sufficient space to breed and shelter; sufficient water quality for
breeding and sheltering; forest cover, which provides a buffer for
water quality and quantity, and provides food; and a clay or confining
layer or pore space to help support feeding and sheltering when water
quantities are low.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the tidewater amphipod, and we evaluated all relevant factors under
the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressors
affecting the tidewater amphipod's biological status include reduced
groundwater quality and quantity, and we identified development (i.e.,
impervious surfaces) as a primary source of changes to both. In
response to degraded water quality, we conclude there could be
decreased fitness and declines in the tidewater amphipod's resiliency
caused by changes in biodiversity within its habitats. In response to
the greater threat of reduced water quantity, there is evidence that
the tidewater amphipod can burrow deeper underground for periods of
time and reemerge when sufficient water levels return. While
representation is assumed to have decreased when compared to historical
conditions, it appears the species has
[[Page 78035]]
sustained multiple populations across much of its historical range and
through multiple stochastic events such as drought. Considering the
future scenarios, the majority of populations do not appear to be at
high risk of development, and the impact to the species caused by
impervious surfaces is not projected to increase substantially. Thus,
the primary threats appear to have low imminence and magnitude such
that they are not providing species-level impacts to the tidewater
amphipod. We evaluated numerous other factors (e.g., climate change,
effects of small population size, collection, predation, disease,
recreation, forest management, and other conservation efforts) and
determined that they had little to no measurable impact on the species.
The species status assessment report describes many uncertainties in
the species' occurrence, populations, and response to threats, but,
considering the available data, the risk of extinction is low.
Therefore, we find that listing the tidewater amphipod 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 tidewater amphipod species assessment and other supporting
documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Tufted Puffin
Previous Federal Actions
On February 14, 2014, we received a petition from the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) to list the contiguous U.S. DPS of
tufted puffin as an endangered or threatened species under the Act.
Alternatively, the NRDC stated that we should list the tufted puffin
species (i.e., the entire population(s) across its known range) and
apply this alternative if we found the contiguous U.S. population of
the species did not meet our DPS policy. On September 18, 2015, we
published in the Federal Register (80 FR 56423) a 90-day finding in
which we announced that the petition contained substantial information
indicating listing may be warranted for the contiguous U.S. DPS of
tufted puffin in the States of Washington, Oregon, and California. The
90-day finding neglected to make a determination specific to the NRDC's
alternative listing request. This document constitutes our 12-month
finding on the February 14, 2014, petition to list the tufted puffin
(addressing both petitioned entities) under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The tufted puffin is a widely distributed pelagic seabird found in
the North Pacific Ocean. The tufted puffin is a burrow-nester that
commonly nests colonially on offshore islands. Tufted puffins nest
along the coasts of California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska in the
United States, and in Canada (British Columbia), Russia, and Japan. The
majority of tufted puffins (82 percent) nest in North America,
primarily Alaska; Russia has the second largest concentration of
nesting tufted puffins (18 percent). Colony size is variable, ranging
from just a few birds to large colonies of greater than 100,000 tufted
puffins.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the tufted puffin, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the
five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these stressors. We determined that
the most significant threats impacting the tufted puffin and its
habitat are changing climate conditions, oil spills, fisheries bycatch,
mammalian and avian predators, nonnative plants and animals, and human
disturbance. The most significant of these threats to potentially
impact the resource needs of tufted puffins are climate change and oil
spills. Currently, the best available information for tufted puffins
indicates adequate redundancy and representation across the species'
range, including robust populations across the majority of its range.
The species continues to occur throughout its historical range. While
the tufted puffin's range will likely continue to contract in the south
due to climate change, models predict the species will continue to
remain widely distributed throughout most of its historical range. The
tufted puffin is expected to maintain resilient colonies throughout a
large proportion of its range, including likely continued
representation across most of its range.
Therefore, we find that listing the contiguous U.S. DPS of tufted
puffin or the tufted puffin species as endangered or threatened is not
warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be
found in the tufted puffin species assessment and other supporting
documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Hamlin Valley Pyrg, Longitudinal Gland Pyrg, Sub-Globose Snake Pyrg
Previous Federal Actions
On July 30, 2007, we received a petition (dated July 24, 2007) from
Forest Guardians (now WildEarth Guardians) requesting that the Service:
(1) Consider all full species in our Mountain Prairie Region ranked as
G1 or G1G2 by the organization NatureServe, except those that are
currently listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing; and
(2) list each species as either endangered or threatened. This petition
included the Hamlin Valley pyrg, longitudinal gland pyrg, and sub-
globose snake pyrg. On February 27, 2009, we received another petition
dated February 17, 2009, from the CBD, Tierra Curry, Noah Greenwald,
Dr. James Deacon, Don Duff, and the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation
Society, requesting that we list 42 species of Great Basin springsnails
in Nevada, Utah, and California, including the Hamlin Valley pyrg,
longitudinal gland pyrg, and sub-globose snake pyrg, as endangered or
threatened, and designating critical habitat under the Act. On August
18, 2009, we published in the Federal Register (74 FR 41649) a 90-day
finding in which we announced that the petitions contained substantial
information indicating listing these three species may be warranted.
This document constitutes the 12-month finding on the July 30, 2007,
and February 17, 2009, petitions to list the Hamlin Valley pyrg,
longitudinal gland pyrg, and sub-globose snake pyrg under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The three springsnail species are in the genus Pyrgulopsis of the
Hydrobiidae family. In general, the three species are morphologically
similar with hardened shells and soft anatomy, and they are
differentiated based on subtle morphological characteristics. The
Hamlin Valley pyrg occurs only in the White Rock Cabin Springs province
in Hamlin Valley, straddling the Utah and Nevada State line. The Utah
portion of the spring province is all on private land, while the Nevada
portion is entirely within the White Rock Range Wilderness Area managed
by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The longitudinal gland pyrg
occurs on private land at three springs or spring provinces (Big
Springs province, Stateline Springs province, and Clay Spring) in the
Snake Valley area of White Pine County, Nevada, and Millard County,
Utah. The sub-globose snake pyrg occurs only in Utah at Gandy Warm
Springs in Snake Valley, contained entirely within the Gandy Mountain
Caves Area of Critical Environmental Concern managed by the BLM.
All three springsnails are very small in size, only a few
millimeters in length
[[Page 78036]]
and width, and have limited ability or tendency to move. These species
are herbivores or detritivores that primarily graze on the periphyton
(freshwater organisms attached or clinging to plants) of exposed
surfaces of aquatic plants and substrates in the small springs they
inhabit. We determined the following spring conditions are most
critical in influencing the physical and biological needs of
springsnails: Sufficient water quality, adequate substrate and
vegetation, free-flowing water, and adequate spring discharge. When
each of these physical and biological needs is present and functioning
within a spring, stable populations of springsnails are expected.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the springsnails, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the
five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these stressors. Historically and
through the present, the three springsnail species and their habitats
were impacted to varying degrees by predation and competition,
vegetation and soil disturbance, water pollution, spring modification,
and groundwater pumping. However, we determined the most important
stressors likely to impact future conditions of the three species
include groundwater pumping and withdrawals, altered precipitation and
temperature, and, in the case of the sub-globose snake pyrg, nonnative
fish competition.
The Hamlin Valley pyrg occurs in one population with 10 of 11
occupied springbrooks in high overall resiliency condition and one
springbrook in moderate condition; resiliency is high in all but one
springbrook due to high abundance despite some environmental stressors.
Redundancy and representation are limited due to the species' narrow
range and its single population; however, this is likely similar to
historical conditions. Therefore, we conclude that the current risk of
extinction is low. In the future, we project the Hamlin Valley pyrg
population to have high resiliency due to predicted high abundance and
protection of the water source from pumping due to wilderness
designation of groundwater areas upslope of the spring province.
Redundancy and representation are projected to continue to be limited
due to the species' narrow range and only one population, but this is
likely similar to historical conditions for this narrow endemic
species. In the future, we expect the species' habitat to continue to
provide for the needs of sufficient water quality, adequate substrate
and vegetation, free-flowing water, and adequate spring discharge.
Additionally, we consider the future risk of catastrophic or stochastic
events affecting this species or its habitat to be low.
The longitudinal gland pyrg currently occurs in three locations
with 13 occupied springbrooks in high overall resiliency condition, 5
springbrooks in moderate condition, and only 1 springbrook in low
condition. Resiliency is high in most springbrooks due to high
abundance despite some environmental stressors. Competition and
predation, spring modification, and vegetation and soil disturbance
from grazing and roads are the only historical and current stressors.
Because most populations exhibit high resilience despite the co-
occurrence of stressors, we concluded that the stressors have a low to
moderate effect on the longitudinal gland pyrg. Current abundance,
range, and effects of stressors make it unlikely there would be a loss
in redundancy or representation, and we expect the redundancy and
representation to be adequate. Therefore, we conclude that the current
risk of extinction is low. In the future, we project that the
longitudinal gland pyrg will continue to have populations with high
resiliency due to predicted high abundance despite the future effects
of environmental stressors and because groundwater pumping is unlikely
to occur in the foreseeable future. Redundancy and representation are
projected to continue to be adequate in the future with three occupied
spring systems with multiple occupied springbrooks. In the future, we
expect the species' habitat to continue to provide for the needs of
sufficient water quality, adequate substrate and vegetation, free-
flowing water, and adequate spring discharge. Additionally, we consider
the future risk of catastrophic or stochastic events affecting this
species or its habitat to be low.
The sub-globose snake pyrg currently occurs in one spring system
with multiple springbrooks in the upper reaches of the spring system in
moderate resiliency condition. The spring system is a warm water system
with temperatures greater than 25 degrees Celsius (77 degrees
Fahrenheit). The population appears to be resilient to environmental
stressors; however, numbers of snails are down overall due to the
recent invasion of armored catfish into the lower reaches of the
system, which is the only current threat to the species. The upper
reaches of the system still have high numbers of snails and a low
probability of armored catfish invasion. The BLM, Utah Division of
Wildlife Resources, and the Service entered into the Conservation
Agreement and Strategy for the Sub-globose Snake Pyrg (Agreement) in
2020. We evaluated the certainty that the conservation measures in the
Agreement will be implemented and effective in our Policy for the
Evaluation of Conservation Efforts (PECE) analysis. Using the criteria
specified in PECE (68 FR 15100, March 28. 2003), we have determined
that all of the PECE criteria have been satisfied. We find that the
2020 CAS has a high level of certainty for future implementation and
certainty of the effectiveness. Nonnative fish removal efforts under
the strategy have already begun to reduce armored catfish numbers in
Gandy Warm Springs. Current redundancy and representation are limited
due to the narrow range of the species and its single population, but
this is likely similar to historical conditions. Therefore, we conclude
that the current risk of extinction is low. Our assessment of the
future status of this species takes into consideration the Agreement,
which includes the continuation of conservation actions to eliminate
nonnative fish from Gandy Warm Springs and prevent future invasion,
thereby addressing this threat to the species. Future resiliency is
expected to increase due to the removal of nonnative fish in accordance
with the Agreement, the fact that groundwater pumping is unlikely, and
the species' past ability to sustain itself despite other environmental
stressors. Redundancy and representation are projected to continue to
be limited in the future due to the species' narrow range and its
single population, but this is likely similar to historical conditions.
In the future, we expect the species' habitat to continue to provide
for the needs of sufficient water quality, adequate substrate and
vegetation, free-flowing water, and adequate spring discharge.
Additionally, we consider the future risk of catastrophic or stochastic
events affecting the sub-globose snake pyrg or its habitat to be low.
Therefore, we find that listing the Hamlin Valley pyrg,
longitudinal gland pyrg, and sub-globose snake pyrg as 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
Hamlin Valley pyrg, longitudinal gland pyrg, and sub-globose snake pyrg
species assessment and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES,
above).
[[Page 78037]]
Johnson Springs Wetland Complex Population of Relict Dace
Previous Federal Actions
On June 27, 2014, we received a petition from Forest Service
Employees for Environmental Ethics, requesting that the Johnson Springs
Wetland Complex Population (JSWC) population of relict dace be listed
as an endangered DPS under the Act. On April 10, 2015, we published a
90-day finding (80 FR 19259) that the petition presented substantial
information indicating that listing the JSWC population of relict dace
may be warranted and that we were initiating a status review. This
document constitutes our 12-month finding on the June 27, 2014 petition
to list the JSWC population of relict dace under the Act.
Summary of Finding
The relict dace is a small fish in the Cyprinidae family that was
first described in 1972 (Hubbs and Miller 1972, pp. 101-102). It is
found in spring systems in five isolated valleys in the northeastern
corner of Nevada; these valleys are estimated to have been separated
for hundreds of thousands of years. Four of these valleys contain
native populations, including the JSWC, and one includes only
introduced populations.
Waterbodies occupied by the species include springs, spring pools,
and spring outflows; wetlands; natural and human-modified channels;
ditches; ephemeral reservoirs; and creeks. The relict dace feeds on
aquatic invertebrates, including mayfly and damselfly nymphs; they
consume relatively little plant material (Carmichael 1983, p. 88).
Little is known about relict dace breeding or behavior; however, the
species is considered secretive (NDOW 2007, p. 4).
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding whether the JSWC population of relict
dace qualifies as a DPS. Based on our thorough review, we find that the
JSWC population of relict dace meets our criteria for discreteness
under our February 7, 1996 DPS policy (61 FR 4722); however, it does
not meet the criteria for significance based on the four criteria
outlined in the DPS policy. The JSWC population of relict dace does not
occur in a unique or unusual setting for relict dace, does not show
evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would result in a
significant gap in the range of relict dace, and does not represent the
only surviving native occurrence of relict dace. While genetic
discontinuity demonstrates the JSWC population segment is markedly
separate from other relict dace populations, we find no evidence that
these measures of genetic divergence result in marked differences in
the JSWC population segment's genetic characteristics. Therefore, the
JSWC relict dace population is not a listable entity under the Act.
Because the JSWC population of relict dace is not a listable entity, we
did not perform a status assessment under the five factors as required
under section 4(a) of the Act. This finding constitutes our completion
of our review of the petitioned action.
A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in
the JSWC population of relict dace species assessment and other
supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Clear Lake Hitch
Previous Federal Actions
We received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity on
September 25, 2012 (CBD 2012, entire), to list the Clear Lake hitch as
threatened or endangered under the Act. The Service issued a 90-day
finding on April 10, 2015 (80 FR 19259), stating the petition presented
substantial information that listing the Clear Lake hitch may be
warranted and that we were initiating a status review. This document
constitutes the 12-month finding on the September 25, 2012, petition to
list the Clear Lake hitch.
Summary of Finding
The Clear Lake hitch (hitch) (Lavinia exilicauda chi) is a large
cyprinid (freshwater minnow) that is endemic to the Clear Lake
watershed in Lake County, California. Historically, the Clear Lake
hitch occurred in several lakes and ponds found throughout the Clear
Lake watershed, including: Clear Lake, Thurston Lake, Upper Blue Lake,
Lower Blue Lake, and Lampson Pond. During the spring, Clear Lake hitch
were also found in the numerous tributaries to these larger water
bodies, including: Kelsey, Scott, Middle, Adobe, Seigler Canyon,
Manning, Cole, Morrison, and Schindler Creeks. All of the waterbodies,
listed above, with the exception of Thurston Lake, were hydrologically
connected to each other in the past, and it appears that Thurston Lake
and its tributary, Thurston Creek, have always been isolated from the
other waterways. Local opinion is that hitch were introduced into
Thurston Lake by a local resident less than 50 years ago. The Clear
Lake hitch is restricted to the Clear Lake watershed in Lake County,
California, in the central Coast Range Mountains. Currently, the hitch
is thought to be extirpated from the Blue Lakes, but still occurs in
Clear and Thurston Lakes throughout the year. In the spring,
reproductive adults migrate into tributary streams to spawn and then
migrate back to the lakes after spawning. It is unclear whether Lampson
Pond still exists; therefore, the status of the Clear Lake hitch in
Lampson Pond is unknown.
For most of the year, Clear Lake hitch are only found within their
lacustrine (lake) environment. However, between February and May, a
portion of the overall reproductive population begins to migrate into
the surrounding tributaries to spawn. Spawning activities include one
to five males pursuing a gravid female to fertilize her freshly
extruded eggs, which are deposited on fine to medium sized gravel
within the tributary stream. Fertilized eggs develop and hatch within 7
to 10 days, fry are free-swimming after another 7 to 10 days, and young
migrate to the lake at about a month old before the streams dry up.
Juvenile hitch are found within the nearshore habitat of the lake where
they depend on submerged aquatic vegetation for cover and prey.
Juvenile hitch move from the nearshore portion of the lake into open
water in early-to late-fall. There is evidence that Clear Lake hitch do
not require tributary streams with gravel to spawn, but can also spawn
successfully in different portions of the lake (i.e., along the shore,
the mouths of tributaries, and Rodman Slough) that lack a gravel
substrate.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Clear Lake hitch, 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 Clear Lake hitch's biological status include habitat
degradation, predation and competition, drought and climate change.
Based on our examination of the best available scientific information,
we have determined that habitat degradation, predation and competition,
drought and climate change are not likely to adversely affect the
overall viability of the Clear Lake hitch in a biologically meaningful
way to such an extent that the species is in danger of extinction or
likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range for the following reasons: (1) The
Clear Lake hitch has a long life span, (2) the Clear Lake hitch are
highly fecund, and (3) the Clear Lake hitch has shown the ability to
use different spawning strategies, which
[[Page 78038]]
demonstrates its behavioral flexibility to variable environmental
conditions. Additionally, regulatory mechanisms such as the California
Endangered Species Act (CESA) and local ordinances are currently acting
to ameliorate the severity of some existing threats, such as the take
of individuals, degradation of tributary streams, and loss of wetland
habitat surrounding Clear Lake. Furthermore, the SSA presented three
plausible future scenarios, which included various states of potential
future conditions for the species. Our analysis of these scenarios
indicates that the Clear Lake hitch will maintain its current
resiliency, representation, or redundancy, or undergo only a slight
decrease in condition into the foreseeable future. Even under a
projection of a slight decrease in future condition, the Clear Lake
hitch was not projected to be in danger of extinction in the next 50
years.
Therefore, we find that listing the Clear Lake hitch 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 Clear Lake hitch species assessment form 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
Doll's daisy, Puget Oregonian, Rocky Mountain monkeyflower, southern
white-tailed ptarmigan, tidewater amphipod, tufted puffin, Hamlin
Valley pyrg, longitudinal gland pyrg, sub-globose snake pyrg, the
Johnson Springs Wetland Complex population of relict dace, or Clear
Lake hitch to the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, whenever it becomes available. New information
will help us monitor these species and make appropriate decisions about
their conservation and status. We encourage local agencies and
stakeholders to continue cooperative monitoring and conservation
efforts.
References Cited
A list of the references cited in this petition finding is
available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov in the
appropriate docket provided above in ADDRESSES and upon request from
the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Species Assessment Team, Ecological Services Program.
Authority
The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Aurelia Skipwith,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-26139 Filed 12-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P